September 02, 2014, 05:50:52 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 ... 45
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 11:15:58 PM »
No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

No.

Quote
Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)
All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. HTP is also useful to RAW shooters who process their images with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone Priority.
When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it may cause more noise to appear in those areas.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf

No, all it does is underexpose 1 stop secretly and then shift the mid-tone point and roll off highlights differently for in-cam jps and it sets a flag to tell RAW converters to do the same. You can get the exact same thing out of underexposing 1 stop and then using an altered tone curve.
That's basically what I copied/pasted from Canon's material.  Were you saying "no" to me or to Dilbert?

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:53:46 PM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

Realize that the EVFs used in high end cinematography equipment are VASTLY superior to the kinds of EVFs currently found in ML cameras. VASTLY superior. Also vastly more expensive. Just one of the EVFs used in a RED Dragon camera costs more than most of the DSLRs we buy today.
the monitor (7 or 8 inches) on top of those cameras goes for about $10,000......
In part that's due to the limited production runs.  Of course, that's just the monitor: there's probably video processing gear as well.  All that takes CPU and electrical power.   These are just engineering issues to be worked-out, and pro-quality EVF will replace reflex at some point, though I'm becoming less confident about when.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:40:57 PM »
No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

No.

Quote
Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)
All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. HTP is also useful to RAW shooters who process their images with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone Priority.
When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it may cause more noise to appear in those areas.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf


4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:43:12 PM »
If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."
Depends on the hard evidence used to support the argument.  Personal experiences and anecdotes don't count as hard evidence.

Quote
Simply put, the Exmor sensor can deliver raw files that can be used in ways that Canon's can't.
I'm willing to believe this is true in some cases; the question is whether it's true in a way that makes me want to give up the advantages of my Canon kit.  Part of that, of course, includes the cost.  There needs to be enough of an advantage.  If you shoot studio or landscape, and your style involves the kinds of compositions that demonstrate the difference, the maybe it's worthwhile to you.  To me, so far, it's not.



5

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.


That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

Have you spent much time around enterprise information systems?  Vendor lock-in is a real problem, and isn't just a matter of taking responsibility.  When you put out an RFP (request for proposal) for a large system you may get a number of responses.  Rarely does any of them meet all your needs, but you try to discern which is growing in the direction you want.  Because of the huge time and money investment to adopt, these systems are expected to last 10 years or more, so the current set of features is not as important as the direction of growth.  Do we have a choice?  Yes, but in some ways it's like the choice of how many times to shake the dice before you throw them on the craps table.  Canon did grow in many of the ways I (and many others wanted): they improved auto-focus, expanded lens and accessory lines, etc.  There are some areas in which they have not grown as some had hoped.  However, it has not been bait-and-switch: Canon never promised specific sensor characteristics.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:01:17 AM »
Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

Have you tried an X-T1, A77II or a6000?  Modern EVF's are completely capable of keeping up with action, no problem.

I don't think any of them are as good for action. And believe me, I want to see EVFs take over because they are far better for judging exposure and white balance and they're better for MF lenses (unless you have a custom focusing screen). But I just don't think they're there yet, and I imagine at least the next generation of sports cams (7D2; 1DX mkII) will need OVFs.
I tend to agree with you. Some of the EVF's that I have seen on mirrorless cameras are getting close, but as you say, they're not there yet.... I wonder what's under development? It can't be too long before they hit the market at a reasonable cost.

I know it's not going to happen, but wouldn't the pundits be shocked if the 7D2 was the 7DM :) A mirrorless high end Canon with EF mount and an EVF! If you think the debates now get rancorous, imagine the hornets nest that would stir up....
Sounds good to me if the cost and other features were reasonable.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:58:47 AM »
Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.

How would that even had been possible to know?

After all, it is for sure at some point "even" Canon extends DR - and that is not because of "whiners" but because it is part of sensor IQ. Would be utterly absurd to think Canon itself don't know this - they optimize the way they think it is most profitable for shareholders and they haven't been wrong this far.

You're correct.  Thus far, Canon has chosen not to substantially increased low ISO DR.  Their market share has seemingly not suffered for it.  Nikon did choose to increase DR, and their market share has not increased.  What does that say about the importance of DR to the majority of buyers?

As for jrista spending $25K on his kit not knowing the direction of Canon's developments, consider that he spent half of that total amount less than a year ago, buying a 600 II.  After 4-5 years of Canon not increasing low ISO DR, it would be somewhat foolish to assume they would do the opposite the next year...and Jon isn't foolish.  In fact, since the 5DIII had been out for a long time, the assumption was easily testable in the case of that camera before committing to a purchase.

Isn't the 600 II a bird lens, rather than a landscape lens?  Considering the quality of the lens, there might be people who own all Nikon kit except the 600 II and one body for it.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:56:21 AM »
I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista   ;D

Quote
I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.

The flame war just dies out, and someone has to make new sparks.  I doubt many people are perfectly happy with their entire kit.  If I remember correctly, jrista is a computer guy, so he's probably accustomed to the rapid improvements with silicon electronic processes.  It would have been a reasonable choice years ago to select the brand with lenses and accessories you like, while assuming that the silicon part would advance quickly.  I believe he's not complaining about sensors back then, but the lack of progress.

I'm also unhappy with the lack of progress, but I haven't yet taken my skill to the point where the camera is my limitation.  And from the business side, as I've said before, Canon will upgrade their sensors when the market requires it.  This forum will not significantly affect that market.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:48:14 PM »
It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

Quote from: jakeymate

Dean, do try ETTR, you will get better results with either system.  After all, you've told us several times that your primary impetus to switch to Nikon was to produce better results for your paying customers.  Whether you do so with gear or technique or both is immaterial -- I think it's worth you while at least to give it a try.  I'll be interested to hear if you find any improvement on either sensor.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 11:17:53 AM »
I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?

Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?
Perhaps we have different definitions or understandings of ETTR.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETTR

My understanding is that ETTR is the ideal exposure, which maximizes gathered information and DR of the desirable parts of the scene.

Quote
After 2 years with a Mk1, 3 years with a Mk2, and a month with a Mk3, over two years with a D800, and a month with a D810, I know there is no exposure that the Nikon won't outshine the Mk2/3 etc on.
Perhaps there are other photographers of equal or greater skill who have different experiences.  The way to remove the personal experience variable from the equation is to do objective tests.

Quote
Canon's do not handle highlights better.
I've heard it both ways.  Testing will answer the question.

My first cut at a test would be something like this:

  • Construct a test environment.  It helps if there's a single brightest element.
  • Determine which scene element is the brightest that must remain unclipped.
  • Use LiveView to adjust the histogram to ETTR that element.  Possibly use a dodging tool to verify that you have the correct element ETTR.
  • Starting at that exposure, take a series of maybe 10 shots, increasing exposure by 1/3 or 1/2 stop each time.  (Note: this is because many on-camera histograms are derived from the JPEG-rendered image rather than the RAW data.)
  • In post-processing, choose the frame with maximum exposure that represents the scene without clipping the important bright element, and work with that one to best render shadow detail.  That's your test frame.

Then repeat the process for the other camera and compare your best images.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 10:03:49 AM »
Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:49:12 AM »

Then do as I do and stop buying new Canon cameras until they fix it.

And also stop recommending Canon cameras to others too.

Should Nikon and Sony owners stop buying new editions of those brands until they fix their auto-focus?  An out-of-focus shot is useless, regardless of IQ.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:05:55 AM »
Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.

Pointing out that constant sarcasm is tiresome is an issue, but the ridiculous sarcasm itself isn't?

Ok.

Neuro is a contradiction.  I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him.  I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites.  And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb.  He's probably a nice guy in-person.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:53:54 AM »
To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate.

<snip>

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene.

I'll grant that it hasn't met scientific standards, and I'd like to see the side-by-side you describe.  My opinion that jrista's examples were reasonable was based on two criteria: my personal experience with my 60D (I'm aware it's not Canon's best) and jrista's history of being careful about his assertions.  I.e., he's earned the benefit of my initial trust (as if he cares), though I would be pleased to see scientifically valid tests to support the assertion.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:48:53 PM »
I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body. 
There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up.  I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.

Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source.  If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45