October 22, 2014, 01:49:21 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 68
EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:01:37 PM »
Why don't you start writing reviews by your own, Neuro? Seriously. I find your comments very useful.

Off topic, but that's one heck of a portfolio you have there. Great work!

We have heard that the D800 has wonderful metering must take the shots in green square mode  ;D ;D ;D

Who needs green square mode? I heard you can run a USB cable from the 5DIII into your ear, and it will compose, frame, and meter your shots telepathically :)

Yes absolutely more DR means a greater amount of perceptible detail from the shadows (noise floor) to the highlights (clipping headroom). You won't crush your blacks (lose shadow detail and/or have perceptible sensor noise) or blow out your highlights (e.g. lose the clouds in the sky) when you have more DR. And shooting RAW with lots of DR, exposure settings aren't as critical as a result, you will retain detail even with relatively poor metering.

That's what I figured. My next question is if the DR difference should be noticeable in out-of-camera raws, or do you have to manipulate the files in post production to maximize the DR? It's a dumb question in some respects, but I believe the 7D has better DR than a 5DC according to DxOMark, yet I've noticed that with dark subjects, the 5DC will capture detail in the clouds while they'll get blown out with the 7D. The highlights seem more difficult to recover with the 7D as well despite it's superior DR. Maybe I'm just doing something wrong :)

The D800's photocells look to have very similar DR to the 5D3's, but the D800 has packed them more densely, and DR improves when reducing resolution, so the D800's advantage in MP will be felt in the noise performance of an uncropped but reduced resolution output. So if you are delivering 8MP JPEGs from RAW originals with the same per-pixel DR, the 36MP original will have better delivered performance than the 22MP one. At least that is how I understand the theory there.

I know it's an apples to oranges comparison, but does this mean that the D800's DR advantage is most obvious when its resolution is reduced to the same level as the 5DIII? I can see why you'd downsize the resolution if you're DxO to level the playing field with sensors of different resolutions, but I can't see doing this in real life. A massive part of the D800's appeal is its resolution and DR, so I can't see why you'd pay for a 36 megapixel sensor only to throw those pixels away.

I've tried to comprehend the DxOMark test standards the best I can, but apparently I'm not the smartest person out there. When I think about the practical advantages of greater DR, I envision that it would enable me to recover burned out highlights, or pull out more shadow detail, out of a  high-contrast scene.

For instance, I have no idea how many stops of DR is captured in this image. What I'd like to know is if having 14.4 stops of DR instead of 11.9 would allow me to pull more shadow detail out of the wheels, body panels, and asphalt on the shadow side of the car. I'd like to think so, since the highlights on the hood/grille compared to the wheels/asphalt seems to have maxed out the DR of the 5DC's sensor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review
« on: March 28, 2012, 02:52:27 PM »
It's hard to take a man seriously who posts snapshots taken with $5,000 worth of gear.

Example: Let's say D800 has 14 stops and 5D3 12 stops. Using mild simplification, the D800 can represent the entire 14-bit range of [0,16383] and 5D3 only the range of [4,16383]. I'd assume the D800 now gets a significantly higher score in "objective" rating for DR, since after all, it has those two extra stops. But those extra stops are represented by values 0, 1, 2 and 3. Hardly a significant advantage, I'd say. Nor is it reason to moan that Canon have done nothing in 3,5 years since the 5D2 also had 12 stops.

For those who aren't as technically inclined in things electronic, what does this mean in plain English :)?

I understand that the DR is 14 stops. My point is that the bottom stops are not usable in any practical situation since the quantization destroys any detail at that level. You can dither so that the average quantization error over the whole frame is zero, but still the local pixels have little to do with the actual frame you were trying to capture.

Same question as above. The reason I ask is that I see all these people crying or rejoicing that the D800 crushes the 5DII and III by 2.5 stops of DR. Perhaps I don't have discriminating eyes, but I'm having an awfully hard time distinguishing any substantial advantage of the Nikon's DR in high contrast sample images. I'd think that 2-3 stops of DR would be very obvious to the naked eye, even if it's untrained. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 5DmkIII vs Nikon D800
« on: March 27, 2012, 09:13:23 PM »
I doubt I will change to Nikon... too much invested in Canon equipment - however I also doubt I will buy the 5DmkIII. I am quite happy with the mkII right now and not seeing enough of an improvement to warrant moving up yet. Just thinking about what I would do for my next camera and why the Nikon is cheaper then the Canon....

IMHO, the D800 vs. the 5DIII debate is easy. Do you like the actual IQ of the D800 better than the 5DIII, or are you merely impressed by its stats? If you like the IQ of the D800 better, and need the extra resolution, switch systems. If you prefer the look of the 5DIII's files, and 22 megapixels are sufficient for your needs, stick with Canon. I had both bodies on pre-order, but as the sample images from both bodies started trickling out, I grew less impressed with the D800. So, I cancelled my D800 order and my 5DIII will be here tomorrow :)

Furthermore, is there a rule that says you must upgrade bodies whenever a new one comes out :)? If I had a 5DII, and didn't need an vastly improved AF system and faster burst rate, I don't know that it would be worth it up upgrade to the 5DIII. I went through the same dilemma with then 5DII came out, and ultimately decided to stick with my 5DC until Canon addressed what I felt were its most glaring weakness: AF and FPS.

IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with older gear. If anything, older gear amplifies your mistakes, opposed to hiding them, and forces you to improve your technique and become a better photographer. I have several pro buddies of mine that have been using their 1DsII's since 2005, and are still producing phenomenal images with them. The grips on them are worn smooth at this point, the but bodies are still alive and kickin'. It's not like a camera suddenly stops producing great images just because something newer and better has been released. With that in mind, perhaps the 5DIV will have enough of an improved feature set :)

Superb shot! I can only imagine how much better it would have been with a D800 ;D Just in case you're not familiar with my peculiar sense of e-humor, that was a facetious remark :)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Mirror Lock up use and reccomendations
« on: March 27, 2012, 04:36:42 PM »
With the 70-300L on my 5DC, I can get away with exposures that are several seconds long on a tripod without mirror lock in the 70-200mm range. At 200mm-plus focal lengths, even with shutter speeds as "quick" as 1/15, mirror lock is a must to achieve maximum sharpness. It also depends on how quickly you rattle off frame after frame. At 200mm-plus focal lengths without mirror lock, you can still sometimes, but now always, get sharp images if you wait a couple of seconds between each exposure. Results also depend on wind conditions.

That said, IMHO using mirror lock is the last part of the equation. Locking up the mirror is far more effective if you don't have a sturdy tripod, or aren't using a cable release.

EOS Bodies / Re: Women will hate D800 *full size image*
« on: March 27, 2012, 04:30:24 PM »
I enjoy the troll posts because I can replace D800 with 5DmkII and D700 with 5DmkIII and find the priests of low light swapped places with the megapixel crusaders. It is fun to watch, and yup, goes for all the canon guys that are now the priests of the low light religion! Watch if canon makes a 30+MP camera and how suddenly, 22MP is too little and OMG how did we manage with that  8).

I find this humorous as well. The D800 is a fabulous camera, but it's just not the camera for me. It doesn't change the fact that it's the current King of 35mm resolution and DR.

Personally, I was always envious of the D700's balance of speed, high ISO performance,  and AF. Consequently, since the specs of the 5DIII are more of what I expected from the D800 (high resolution at the expense of speed), and the specs of the D800 are of what I expected from the 5DIII (less resolution and more FPS), I'm not complaining :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Women will hate D800 *full size image*
« on: March 27, 2012, 04:24:29 PM »
I have 130 lady goats - would you like to come to a speed dating session :D  ;) ;) ;)

My family portrait :D

I must admit that is a rather tempting offer :o

EOS Bodies / Re: Women will hate D800 *full size image*
« on: March 26, 2012, 11:25:35 PM »
Look at her lower lips area at 100%  :o  :'( This camera is not meant for taking portraits of women.  :-X


I suppose I'm the only one who finds women with facial hair rather sexy :D Distracting facial hair aside, this is one of the better sample image, IQ wise, from the D800 I've seen thus far.

EOS Bodies / Re: Those not getting sharp images from the 5D III...
« on: March 26, 2012, 09:55:07 PM »
Hot damn, that's tack sharp. Maybe there's hope I'll get a good copy :)

Like V8's observations, i find the D800 to be too flat looking... Nikon users are going to have to either add contrast to the scene in post or in camera... and if they do it in post, i'm sure they'll quickly notice all that lovely noise creep into their images, even low iso. 

I thought I was just crazy, but it seems that are at least two of us that share this sentiment :) Ultimately, the D800's flat looking images, and the need to bump up the contrast in post, would bug me a heck of a lot more than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DxOMark-reported DR. I find the tonality lacking as well. The 5DIII's files just remind me more of the "look" I'm accustomed to during the old days of shooting color slides. That might be a dumb reason to some considering the Nikon's advantages on paper, but for me how an image looks in print (and on screen) is all that matters.

That said, from a technical standpoint, I'm curious why this is the case with the D800's files. What difference in sensor or processing technology between the two accounts for what the two of us perceive as flat looking images out of the Nikon?

While the IQ wasn't earth-shatteringly improved over the 5d2, I have noticed more leniency in low iso... you can raise or lower exposure in post and not get the noise that you would before.  For those who do a lot of photoshop work, that can be very key.

Have you received you 5DIII yet? If you have, I wanted to ask if you've experience the soft images in DPP that others have noticed.

EOS Bodies / Re: How to Edit 5D MK III Raw files in Lightroom(Windows)
« on: March 26, 2012, 05:54:37 PM »
I am concerned as the preview in DPP is significantly sharper than the same file viewed in bridge or opened in ACR 6.7 I really hope Adobe sort this out ACR seems to soften the image detail just is gone that is clearly visable in DPP preview then there is the actual processing in DPP smearing images.

Does this also happen in CS5? I've opened up a few 5DIII CR2s in CS5 using ACR 6.7, and the IQ looks as expected. Then again, these aren't my images since my 5DIII isn't here yet, and I don't have any 5DII file to compare them to, either, so I really don't know what I'm talking about :)

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 68