February 28, 2015, 11:37:05 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 59
166
I understand that this is an area of your expertise, so I mean this as a proposal for discussion, not as a statement of fact.  I think there is a difference between photographing such a space as a pro and as an amateur.  I'm an amateur, and I've encountered the bright window problem.  If you're a pro, you'll try to schedule your shoot when light is favorable, or perhaps you'll bring in some of your own lighting to balance the windows and the existing fixtures and lamps.  As an amateur I don't do that: I stumble upon a scene I like and whip out my camera.  It goes without saying that I shouldn't expect the same quality a pro would get with a properly set-up shot; however, I still want the best I can get with the 2lbs of metal and glass I happen to be carrying.  If brand x sensor is better for that than brand y, then I'd like to know that so I can work it into my decision making at my next purchase.

Would you agree that the pro vs. amateur perspectives on this room are different?

I'd agree that anybody thinking either are acceptable shots is a whole world away from a paying client above real estate listings, yes.

But as an enthusiastic amateur I would say you would get vastly better images in that scenario with either camera choosing the window/exterior view, or the interior as the key point for a single shot, or take the time and trouble to make two shots, even hand held, that can be used together to make a good image that will do the job much better.

I accept that lighting, time of day etc, is often beyond even pros capacity to control, but there it is still an easy way to take the shot much better than it was done with either system.

I will also agree that there will be a rare occasion in that type of situation where you can "get away" with one Exmor exposure rather than two Canon ones, but I'd venture the two Canon ones would give you a much better image anyway!

Quote
In truth I did learn something from the files, that was that from my perspective the tonality of heavily lifted shadows is very limited, if the lifted areas only account for a small area of the scene I can see some utility to the capability, but when the areas to be lifted become a larger part of the image, even thought hey have little noise and no banding, I can't see the practical benefit for my uses, if I had I would have had an A7r here by now!

Part of that could be the Sony's lossy "raw" format.  I haven't used any of these, so I can only speculate.

167
Ah, I see you've missed one of jrista's major points.  My reading is that he agrees with you that, in all but a few cases, you can get indistinguishable results from a Canon sensor.  What he further asserts (and I'd love to see tested in some reasonable way) is that there is a significantly larger number of cases where it's easier and much less work to achieve the desired result with a sony sensor than with a Canon sensor.  That has the potential to be much more important.  If, for example, you can achieve your desired look in 5 minutes of PP on a sony sensor, and that same (or indistinguishable) look would take 30 minutes on a Canon sensor, isn't that also important?

Again, I'd like to see this tested properly, but it requires a well-designed test to account for the variability of PP skills.

Over the course of his rantings, diatribes and lectures he has made many many claims, some of which are quite outlandish. I can't be bothered to cherry pick them, but many of them are just absurd, and that is the main reason for this ridiculous overrun on the subject.

Getting back to the actual interesting bit here is a simple example of how much it really matters. I shoot a lot of interiors with window detail like the first post, severe DR scenes, I follow many pros who do similar work and when you get to the above real estate listings shooters the vast majority of the notable shooters are shooting Canon, why when the DR is always on our minds and often a pain in the butt? Lenses. It turns out that the differences in the 17TS-E and the Nikon? and the 24 TS-E MkII and the Nikon PC-E24mm make more of a difference to full time pros than the differences in post processing.

I would be the perfect candidate for the previously mentioned "huge" and "a lot of the time", but it just isn't true.

It is yet another one of those overinflated features, the small differences between makes and models that some people seem to get so passionate about. The Nikon D750 threads are tearing up the forums with their "not a D700 successor" comments over PC sockets etc.

It won't end and we each have to make our own choices, what jrista and the DRoners seem to refuse to accept is that many of us who own Canon cameras, and use them to good effect, made our choice from the standpoint of an intelligent and educated position, all systems are compromises, I choose to compromise DR/shadow lifting capabilities because it has less of an impact on my shooting than lens availability.

I understand that this is an area of your expertise, so I mean this as a proposal for discussion, not as a statement of fact.  I think there is a difference between photographing such a space as a pro and as an amateur.  I'm an amateur, and I've encountered the bright window problem.  If you're a pro, you'll try to schedule your shoot when light is favorable, or perhaps you'll bring in some of your own lighting to balance the windows and the existing fixtures and lamps.  As an amateur I don't do that: I stumble upon a scene I like and whip out my camera.  It goes without saying that I shouldn't expect the same quality a pro would get with a properly set-up shot; however, I still want the best I can get with the 2lbs of metal and glass I happen to be carrying.  If brand x sensor is better for that than brand y, then I'd like to know that so I can work it into my decision making at my next purchase.

Would you agree that the pro vs. amateur perspectives on this room are different?

168
Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.

We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.

It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?

To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.

Ah, I see you've missed one of jrista's major points.  My reading is that he agrees with you that, in all but a few cases, you can get indistinguishable results from a Canon sensor.  What he further asserts (and I'd love to see tested in some reasonable way) is that there is a significantly larger number of cases where it's easier and much less work to achieve the desired result with a sony sensor than with a Canon sensor.  That has the potential to be much more important.  If, for example, you can achieve your desired look in 5 minutes of PP on a sony sensor, and that same (or indistinguishable) look would take 30 minutes on a Canon sensor, isn't that also important?

Again, I'd like to see this tested properly, but it requires a well-designed test to account for the variability of PP skills.

169
DR/shadow recovery is better with Exmor, well done, we have all known and agreed that for, well, ever. What we disagree on is how much difference that actually makes to most people most of the time in actual shooting scenarios, and your "test" did nothing to further that.

^^ This.

It sounds like jrista proved something to himself about actually using the a7R, so there was some utility to him I hope.

Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

170
The main advantage of a different (presumably more expensive) scanner would be speed.  The LiDE models tend to be very slow.

171
It makes little sense for Canon, Nikon and Sony to develop their own increasingly complex sensors for what is a diminishing market.  If we want to see 100MP sensors with great DR and processors capable of handling the throughput or simply improved performance 22-36MP sensors and processors, it makes more economic sense for the technology to be developed collectively.

I disagree: without competition there will be no incentive to improve.

172
I'm perplexed by all the people who believe Canon can't produce a sensor to compete with Sony's.  Rather, they're just waiting for the market to demand it.  Note that I said waiting for the market to demand it: what happens on discussion boards like this will make little difference.  When it becomes necessary they will retool, re-engineer and make it work.  Until that time they'll enjoy higher profits.  Good for stockholders, but not so much for photographers.

Canon won't buy a Sony sensor unless they're forced to do so by an unexpectedly successful competitor.

173
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 09:01:21 AM »
As I said, there are plenty of things he could have responded with, without responding with a load of BS. He could have said he thinks Canon sensors are excellent and meeting the company goals for IQ or something along those lines, and I wouldn't have had a problem. No one would have had a problem with that. He shouldn't have feigned lack of knowledge about where the measurements for DR come from...he knows damn well where they come from...because they come from everywhere.

A long time ago a philosophy professor told my class that, if we're ever asked to do a self-evaluation, always give a perfect score.  What works for philosophy also works for business.   :P

He's just not going to say anything different, even if he knows different. 

174
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:37:44 AM »
Because that's exactly what it was...a bold faced lie. :P

How's that different from all other marketing?   ;D

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:22:21 AM »
I'm hoping that the "our sensors are the best" is just a case of chest beating where they don't want to be seen by outsiders to admitting that they equipment is second best. Inside, I'm pretty sure that the engineers would know the real deal but whether management listens to them or prioritises that kind of work is another thing.

Yup.

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:21:20 AM »
Well, from that question and the response to it...I can only conclude that Canon is delusional about their sensor's dynamic range. They have been beat, handily, at both low and high ISO now.
I wouldn't bet on that.  If they interviewed 5,000 7D owners / prospective owners you can believe they have a good idea of how important IQ is to customers.  This was not testimony under oath, nor a confidential therapy session -- it was a marketing interview.  If Canon has any weaknesses, and particularly if they're working on solutions to those weaknesses, Maeda san would not tip his hand.  His job is to talk up the cameras, while using generalities to assure customers and shareholders that great new stuff is on the way.

177
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 23, 2014, 07:15:16 PM »
I believe that both sides are, as the great Les Nessman once said, "rounded at the free end."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0742678/quotes

178
Can you please give me some advice on what questions my sister should ask wedding photographers when considering who she should hire?

  • Beforehand, she should decide what style she wants, e.g. portrait/glamour vs. photojournalistic
  • Decide whether it's important to have high-quality prints or a large set of JPEGs.  Some photographers do the old-school print-based business model, while others will hand you a DVD with hundreds of JPEGs, and then you print what you want.  Make sure that's clear in the contract.
  • Describe the venue and ask to see work examples in that kind of space.  Some photographers bring a mobile studio lighting setup, others work better outdoors or use hotshoe-based lighting.
  • Ask for references, preferably recent, and a year or two previous
  • Ask to see more than their portfolio: ask to see at least one full set that was delivered for a wedding similar to what she has in mind

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:54:33 AM »
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:
Which "wonder junk" are you talking about, the noise or something else?  I see several different areas, and each could have a different cause. 

Quote
My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise
It's hard to know that for certain without side-by-side testing, though I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.  It would be great to see the before/after, or better still this area of the photo at each stage of your PP so we know where the problem comes in.

180
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 01:03:42 PM »
I asked before...is this 'extra effort' necessary with every shot?  Most shots?  A few shots? 

No, the question is...is this 'extra effort' necessary for enough of his shots to be important to him.  There are some posters here whose answers to this question would not affect me.  jrista has shown that he knows what he's doing, so I'm inclined to accept his response at face value, even if my answer would be different.  For me, the answer is probably no.

Neuro, you offer lots of value to this forum, but your questions often sound like a trial attorney badgering a hostile witness.  Your questions are valid, your tone is not helpful.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 59