January 31, 2015, 08:40:37 AM

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 ... 55
166
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.

167
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.

168
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:04:39 PM »
Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

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.  I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate.  We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good.  I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

Or forest scenes, it's sooo easy with sunbeams entering forests to reach high DR scenarios and filters are useless since things are so complicated, you surely can't light the scene, and often branches are constantly swaying so multi-exposure isn't always in the mix. Or say post storms like where you have areas in shadows and others with the sun blasting out rays and the mists are swirling all over, pretty amazing, but very hard to manage without a ton of DR.

Yes, but still need to be a bit careful: first, the DR advantage is only at low ISO.  Second, many forest/sunbeam/post-storm scenes have significantly more DR than a D8x0 can handle, too.  More DR is always better, but more of anything has a cost.

Quote
Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.

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.  As you say, there may be times you don't have a chance to adjust settings; if the subject is a moving animal then AF is more important than DR.  The key is to buy the gear that most closely matches your needs and your budget.

169
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:22:44 AM »
Not the most impressive shot in the world, but anyway...

I like the shot.  Maybe a little more crop, and a little less sharpening: when I look closely at the bird it almost appears fauxtoshopped on top of the background, and I wonder if that's due to sharpening.

170
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:18:21 AM »
Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

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.  I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate.  We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good.  I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:00:17 AM »
I simply corrected some very inaccurate statements regarding the cameras in question.

jakey, I'll give you some advice I gave another guy who was very ardent about his ideas.  Most of the people on this board are intelligent, reasonable people, who are willing to have their minds changed.  This includes several on this thread whose histories I recognize.  You haven't done a good job persuading them.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that your arguments and style of presentation have not been persuasive, so maybe you should try presenting in a different way.

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different kinds of "pros" on this forum, including photographers with decades of experience, working artists, engineers, academic scientists, etc.

172
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 06:26:23 PM »
What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

This doesn't worry me a lot, in part because I don't earn a living with photography.  I suppose film photographers of yore could have fretted about what would happen if fancy darkrooms and chemicals weren't needed -- why then everyone could be a photographer!!  There are people now who specialize in post-processing: Photoshop all day long.  There's creativity there.  There's also the choice of subject, POV, etc.  Video and lightfield will take the timing and focus elements out of it.  Those who care enough to develop their aesthetic sense and skills will still rise above the masses.

173
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:14:58 PM »
Chuck, if you can't see that the middle one should be the best, that's just sad.  I say 'should be' only because it's hopelessly marred by the horrible noise and banding where you lifted the shadows.  If only you had shot it with a modern Exmor sensor instead of a Canon sensor made with antiquated technology, you could have produced a noise-free image with the perfectly flat lighting that's the hallmark of good photography.
Neuro, I'm pretty well convinced that if your childhood had been slightly different, you could have been a very accomplished troll.   8)

174
It begs the question if manufacturers in their chase for profit have stepped over their ethics to such a degree that it has become embarrassing and down right disrespectful.

The idea that manufacturers restrict features on lower-end cameras has been discussed before.  It's not just that they're hobbling their cheaper cameras to sell the more expensive ones, though that's probably part of it.  Remember that the extra data from a 4K places a burden on the rest of the electronics in the camera; if that can't keep up it will be a poor experience for the user.  Remember that every feature generates some amount of work for the manufacturer's customer support team, and that's built into the price structure of the camera.  A nice feature that works poorly will generate a lot of calls to tech support, which costs a lot of money.

I'm willing to believe it's market manipulation if there's reason to believe the "found" feature works reliably: doesn't cause damage/excessive wear on the camera, and wouldn't generate more tech support calls.

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:17:26 AM »
How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?

As many as it takes for certain people to convince us that their specific needs/desires represent a large, commercially important segment of the market, and that Canon should cater to their needs.

So far, jrista has made the only reasonable arguments in favor of the D8xx cameras, and even he admits that only some of his photography would clearly benefit from it (high DR landscape).

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:54:33 PM »
The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.

Quote
Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.

I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude."  Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...

177
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:52:16 PM »
I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.


Wow, not the best marketing pitch:

Canon: When you choose one of our DSLR's, you know we've made a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.

That's the artist's view. 

The business view is:

Canon: we'll be a viable company for years to come, and can invest in longterm technology development projects.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:31:15 PM »
Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.  As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it.  They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs.  (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:13:08 PM »
Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO.  This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

Quote
How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's.  Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more."  I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing."  That's not the point.  The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs.  That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job.  The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority.  They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation.  Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.

If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need.  This is not a question of art, it's a question of money.  Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are).  I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference. 

180
EOS Bodies / Re: F8 AUTOFOCUS
« on: August 26, 2014, 06:37:41 PM »
I'm still confused. Are you saying that my lens would autofocus at f5.6 or f6.3 but not at f8 or f11 and that I should be using manual focus at any aperture smaller than f5.6?

When a DSLR auto-focuses it does so with the aperture wide open, regardless of the aperture to be used for the photo capture.  Once focus is achieved, it stops down the aperture to the desired size and takes the picture.

Because of the physical construction of autofocus modules, it becomes hard to make them work well when "aperture wide open" is f8, so typically only high-end cameras have this extra engineering.  When you add a teleconverter to a lens you increase the focal length, and therefore increase the "wide open" aperture.  E.g. a 400 f5.6 might become an 800 f8 lens with a teleconverter.  I.e., "wide open" is now f8.  That won't work for a 20D.

We can help you better if you'll tell us what lens you're using with the 20D, and if you're using a teleconverter.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 55