October 30, 2014, 03:28:24 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] 4 5 ... 50
31
May I thank both sides in this argument for some excellent technical insights.  I have learned a lot over the last few weeks.

We are in the dark as to whether Canon is reluctant or unable to produce a D810 competitor.

 
So how quickly can Canon move to meet technical development?  May I draw your attention to this excellent post from Digital Picture in 2012.

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=5865&highlight=daniel+browning

Does it sound familiar and current in this thread?

Is that you, Mikael?

32
This thread is probably too long already, and I'm not sure if anyone has already made this point (I haven't seen it made in any other threads on this topic). I'm not denying that having extra dynamic range is nice, but think about all the beautiful pictures taken on Fuji Velvia and the fact that Velvia has only a few stops of dynamic range, far less than even the "worst" Canon available. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't times when I'd like more dynamic range or that it isn't an advantage, just pointing out that some of the most fantastic photos ever taken were done with something that had far less dynamic range than any current DSLR.

Thanks, jrista, for the photos.

A similar point has been made.  The standard reply is not to deny it, but to say that auto-focus, smart metering, high ISO IQ and high framerate have all contributed to higher "keeper rates."  Also, high pixel count allows a bit more cropping, and PP software has made the job of "developing" your capture quicker and easier.

It's entirely true that great shots have been taken with simpler gear, but that does not at all detract from the legitimate desire for even better tech to make success more likely and less work to achieve.

33
That's been my argument all along.  As I've stated so often, everyone should choose the camera system that best meets their needs.  But I just don't see the point in some people trying to convince everyone that their eye is better at beholding than everyone else's.  "Canon's sensor IQ doesn't meet my needs," is very different than, "Canon sensors deliver poor IQ."  Yet I see the latter posted far more often on these forums, in some cases by those who start out stating the former.

I see a lot of people talking past each other, which often derails what could be a cordial conversation.

34
...E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?...

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one.  Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases.  In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason.  Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?"  At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume.   ;D

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

Agreed; however, this was your personal experience.  For others it may be more or less tolerable.  My point is that the importance of DR is a matter of personal taste and tolerance for the work-arounds.  For me it's not a problem, for others it is.  In some cases (e.g. that Gold Coast guy) I'm convinced better technique would help.  Some posters here seem to have experience, technical chops and self-skepticism; for those I'm willing to accept their conclusions that more DR would help them, and don't feel a need to second-guess or demean them.

35
They are far, far closer to having a DSLR that does everything generally right than Canon.
jrista, I think you underestimate Canon: I have no doubts that they already have the basic tech needed for higher DR and lower noise.  For them it's almost certainly a business decision, both due to retooling costs (why make capital expenditures when the market doesn't demand it?) and also for the sales opportunities down the road.  E.g., if Canon comes out with a 1DX Mark II that's nearly identical to the current 1DX,  except for the improved sensor tech, you can bet Neuro will pre-order one.   8) :P

DR / low noise is not what the overall market demands now.

36
Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely.  Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect.  But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

You're partially correct: we can always point to a single feature of another product we'd like to have -- the "rising expectations" thing.  It is, however, fair to expect all the components of a top brand not to lag the competition by a long way.  E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?  (yes, that's an exaggeration).

Actually, I'm completely correct.  The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'.  If Sony brings a 60 MP sensor with 20 stops of DR (real DR, not Sony's exaggerated marketing claim) and Canon's sensors are unchanged, that argument might make sense. But I'd say that falls clearly into the category of not likely.

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one.  Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases.  In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason.  Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?"  At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume.   ;D

Quote
The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'
No, the crux of my argument is that 'lagging by a long way' and 'major liability' are in the eye of the beholder.  Canon's sensor tech is not a major liability in my eye right now, based on my type of shooting.  Others are welcome to come to a different conclusion.  If you would like to suggest better technique to improve their results, please do so.  Belittling others does not help, nor does it reflect well on you.


37
Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely.  Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect.  But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

You're partially correct: we can always point to a single feature of another product we'd like to have -- the "rising expectations" thing.  It is, however, fair to expect all the components of a top brand not to lag the competition by a long way.  E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?  (yes, that's an exaggeration)

I'm sympathetic to jrista's perspective in that it would be baffling if Canon does not make significant landscape-friendly IQ improvements in the next couple of years.  It doesn't affect me, really, because I won't choose to buy those products until they hit the refurb market.   From the market perspective, Canon is right to set the priority on AF, both for stills and video, since an OOF shot is worthless regardless of the IQ.

Please dial-back the sarcasm a bit, though -- wouldn't want it to leak over to RL.


38
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.

39
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?

40
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.

41
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.

42
The main advantage of a different (presumably more expensive) scanner would be speed.  The LiDE models tend to be very slow.

43
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.

44
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.

45
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. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50