July 30, 2014, 08:25:18 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 06:54:20 PM »
About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.

How were the camera's calibrated. Did you verify that the mechanical shutter of the film camera was correct? Film cameras are notorious for the shutter speeds being off. Was it the same lens on both cameras?

How did you compare the two images? Was it two prints? Transparencies?

This conflicts with the whole idea of having ISO anyway (the "s" being for standardization). If it were different between film and digital, light meters, etc. wouldn't work properly.

+1

I've heard of people routinely using their DSLR to meter for film cameras.  I tried it once myself and it seemed to work. Of course, this is just an anecdote, and Unfocused made the important observation: the "S" in ISO is for "Standard." I.e., there's a group out there that tests this stuff in a standardized way.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 01:18:16 PM »
Here's my problem....

I am told "12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot."


By this time, I believe, the conversation was already poisoned.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 12:16:03 PM »
What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

And some have been angry at Nikon for poor AF and QA.  The D810 looks promising for Nikonians, maybe it'll be a kick for Canon.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 12:11:38 PM »
Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult.  Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context.  Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 09:26:02 AM »
Can we please desist with the snark and ad hominem

As much as I disagree with many of zzz's arguments (not his personal experiences), he's trying to be sincere and honest.  Let's not treat him like a troll.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:57:34 PM »
That's the kind of inconstant debating I'm referring to. Giving more weight to a small Canon advantage, and less weight to a larger Nikon advantage.

Could you post specific examples?  I find Neuro unreasonable in other ways, but I've never noticed that fault.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 06:09:41 PM »
Personally, I'd love to have the Nikon D810, but only if I could put my Canon glass on it!
Nikon doesn't make the high quality glass that I need, for the lenses that I use.  For example: Canon TSE 24mm mark2.

I'll take this opportunity to trot out one of my favorite photo wishes: an industry-standard SLR mount so we can freely interchange cameras and lenses across manufacturers.

Ain't gonna happen in the U.S.  Hey, EU!  We need your regulatory assistance here!   8)

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 05:29:51 PM »
I honestly can't get my head around why anyone would chuck in a full kit of either Canon or Nikon to swap to the other, the gains to be had are just not worth the hassle....  Sure if you've a camera and a kit lens, swap away, but I'd need my head seeing to if I sold up and moved wholesale to Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Samsung or other.

Both Canon and Nikon are great camera ranges, with great bodies and lenses, just a few differences that balance each other out, really, get a grip !

Chasing shiny things -- the same reason people dump solid employment for marginally more promising employment, or change spouses once the "magic" is gone (i.e. after hormones have diminished)

At least changing your kit is just money, though more than I'd want to spend.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:27:30 AM »
"That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs"

That's a myth, and I'm not sure where it started.

Can you cite sources, or is this your personal opinion?

Quote
The Mk3 to me always had this 'painterly' look at 800 and beyond. That's the best word I can think of.

Again, not objective.  Personal impressions are not authoritative.

Quote
Web tests expose both cams the same, and that's stupid. If one cam holds on to it's shadows so much better, you can expose differently in the real world.

How would one objectively determine the proper exposure for each sensor?

Quote
It's not something you can be told, it's something you have to see for yourself.

This is 100% unpersuasive to me, as are nearly all appeals to personal experience.  If it can't be demonstrated in double-blind experiments, there's no reason to be believe it's real.

Quote
After all, there is nothing that replaces using two types of tools yourself and pushing them to the limit.

Except reproducible double-blind experiments.

As an example of how "experts" can be fooled: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

These types of experiments have been replicated many times, and the summary is that you can't trust your own perceptions.  Show me objective tests, or you've shown me nothing.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:10:30 AM »
I went to the D800 and spent 12 grand switching, and I never looked back. Crop modes, clean shadows and highlights and DR were the main attractions.

Images from my D800 look like drum scans from MF/LF film, and that's the first time I'd seen a digital camera hit that goal.

I'll let Neuro defend himself, he's usually pretty good at that, but I have a few comments.

I don't think anyone disputes that the D800 sensor is better at base ISO.  That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs.  If you only need base ISO then the D800 might help you.

Your entire post is from personal experience: religious wars have been fought over personal experience, with each side being certain it was right.   As the saying goes "a pile of anecdotes do not constitute data."  Personal experiences may make you feel good about your purchase, but do not provide objective evidence.

How many photos have you missed due to poor focus?

Depending on time of day, I believe my 60D could have made those photos you linked.  (but that's just opinion, not  proven fact)

I'm glad you're happy with your Nikon kit: in the end, that's all that matters.  I doesn't prove anything objectively.

Keep making images you enjoy.


11
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:36:55 PM »
Auto ISO works on the 60D and 7D in manual mode.

Almost.  EC doesn't work for auto-ISO on my 60D.

True, But I did not say the 60D had EC. Actually, I was corroborating neuro's statement "Recent bodies, I believe including the 70D (not certain) have a functional Auto ISO in M mode".

In my my style of shooting there have been rare instances where overriding the metering system for backlighting might have been helpful - otherwise manual with auto ISO and a carefully selected metering mode gets you very close in functionality.

Didn't mean to criticize, just putting in my 2 cents.  I've been trying to use my 60D for birds; for that, Manual + AutoISO + EC would be very helpful.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:42:44 PM »
Auto ISO works on the 60D and 7D in manual mode.

Almost.  EC doesn't work for auto-ISO on my 60D.

13
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:08:57 AM »
Why jump to the conclusion that it was irrational?  Maybe he deserved it.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:46:08 PM »
You can read about the methodology of their scores here:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores


I'm sorry, could you point out where the formula is given?  I see a few hints about what's considered important, but not the actual formula for the score.  All I was able to find was this:

Quote
How is Sensor Overall Score measured?The Sensor Overall Score is an average of the Portrait Score based on color depth, the Landscape Score based on dynamic range, and the Sports Score based on low-light ISO.




It says "an average:" presumably that's a weighted average, but they don't give the weightings.

Thanks.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:18:54 PM »
as a multi-system user I have to agree with DXO guys, they are honest, much more so than DPR or any other unscientific review sites online.

The problem is that DXO's "science" is in dispute. How can you trust something that produces inconsistent and obviously incorrect results?

I agree.  Science demands transparency so the measurements can be replicated by others.  Little about their process is transparent.  It's not scientific, it's almost pseudo-scientific.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40