July 29, 2014, 11:13:28 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 - roguewave

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 05:24:00 PM »
Crop sensor performance of Canon is a bit beyond Nikon and the 70d's 20mp has't advanced much vs. 18mp, I guess that makes many people bash it in *relative* terms - but in *absolute* terms it's really fine, I've been using the 60d for 2.5 years an 150k shots and the only real "no go" area is shooting motion indoors.

Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.

Marsu42, that's exactly what I mean. Aside from some obvious specific situations, does FF has clear IQ advantage in most cases, or is it just a marginal improvement at pixel level, exaggerated in perception by people trying to justify their purchase :-). According to everybody so far, there is a significant real improvement, but I am yet to see sample shots.

I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.

The 17-40 has not seen much use after I got the 17-55, but I use the 24-105 on crop quite often, instead of swapping the 17-55 and 70-200 all the time.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 05:01:37 PM »
The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use.  You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide.   Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize.  Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.

I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles.  I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D.  After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D.  Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!

Frankly, if you only shoot birds in very bright daylight with a very high quality telephoto lens (perhaps any of the "big whites"), a 70D very likely makes more sense.  The autofocus is no doubt as good or better than the 6D's in bright light, and you get a ton more reach.  In the dark, the 6D's center point works where all others in the world do not...and even seems to work better on an f/4 lens in these conditions than an f/2 lens, like my 135L.

For most other stills photography situations, the 6D will excel over the 70D.  Perhaps the 70D's image quality is better than the older 7D's, but keep in mind the 7D has generally better AF performance than both the 70D and the 6D...or at least that's what I gather.  But the 7D has luminance noise that looks like a gravel driveway overlaying the image starting at about ISO 400.  I'll grant you that it isn't as obvious until just above there, but that's not saying much.  At ISO 1000 the 7D basically equals the S/N ratio of a Powershot G15 at its own ISO of about half that.  That doesn't speak well for the 7D.

Also, one of the main advantages such a high quality image from the 6D is important, is the ability to crop into an image...even one that is shot at high ISO.  You can't do that with as much success with the 70D.  At the time of shooting, you don't always know or realize, exactly the framing you want...or that a slight or moderate crop winds up looking better when you look at it later on the computer.

For video, the 70D might be better, depending on the situation.

So, if your work is mostly going to be displayed at web sizes, AND YOU HAPPEN TO NEVER EVER CROP INTO AN IMAGE...then you have a lot of affordable choices at your disposal.  If you need the flexibility of a Ferrari at Hyundai prices where image quality is concerned, go for the 6D.

Thank you for your points!

Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D. If somebody could show a few shots where 6D blows crop out of the water (same conditions and not high ISO), that would make my choice much easier. Everybody claims that to be the case, but a picture is worth a thousand words :-).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 03:54:21 PM »
It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

The difference is enormous. I think the closest crop camera is the 40D, which seemed to have a very nice balance of pixels/DR. But as far as the 7D, 60D, 70D,  there's no comparison. No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.

The 40D was a great camera, although I'd ocasionally see blue channel noise even at ISO 400. I know 7D has the same problem, but other than that, you mean it's worse than the 40D in terms of IQ despite being a later and higher-end model?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 03:40:45 PM »
Imho the only correct answer won't make you happy: it depends on the scene.

Some crop shots are indistinguishable from ff or respond very well do noise reduction (not that there are great new algorithms like DxO's PRIME around), and for me some crop macro shots look even superior to ff because the crop "crisp" look goes along with the subject's texture.

Then again, if shooting gradients crop quickly falls apart after some postprocessing because downsizing cannot restore a smooth color transition, or with skin tones and skin texture every bit of nr smudging given an instant plastic look even at low magnification.

If you are not sure about 6d or 70d, my advise definitely would be 70d because it's the better all-around camera, the 6d specializes and excels in some areas but is crippled in others. Just be sure you know what "low light" means (try to meter the LV with your current gear) because even in cloudy daylight crop shooting can become a constant struggle to decide between lower iso or higher shutter speed, resulting in less keepers - the higher iso capability of ff relieves you of that tradeoff and you can concentrate more on the actual shot.

What's your current gear btw? If on a budget it might make sense to go with a 60d and get a better lens, or if you're looking for good iq Canon crop isn't a good choice at all and you should have a look at Nikon...

Your answer makes a lot of sense - in fact, those are my thoughts exactly. I agree that it depends on the scene, and that 70d is a better all around camera, whereas 6D is crippled in some ways. For me, its better low light and shallower DOF capabilities are not enough to offset the 70D's price, better AF, frame rate, cheaper lenses, etc. Now, if the IQ is substantially better as most posters claim, that would be an important factor. Else, if it's a slight difference that most people won't notice without pixel peeping, then I can live with that.

I can afford either of them, but since I don't make money out of my hobby, I don't want to spend more than I need to. I also want to make sure I am happy with my choice for a few years ahead, because I don't like to resell gear. Speaking of gear, I have too many lenses to make a switch to Nikon, both crop and FF: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 85 f1.4, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and a few more :-). Depending on which camera I get, I may sell the crop lenses and get Sigma 35 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8, or both.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 02:15:30 PM »
but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?

Ah, now I though that would be a given - for downsizing to the usual sizes crop is really fine, otherwise they wouldn't sell tons of them, would they?

That's why I was so reluctant to make the ff jump as you can get a stellar lens for €1500, but the sensor iq is just one part, it's the combination with shallower dof and different lens performance that matters as all my lenses are ef and perform better on ff.

Well, there is a difference between being just "fine" and being "almost as great as FF" :-).

I assume most 6D buyers don't make large prints on a regular basis. If the difference with crop is only apparent under magnification, it might make more sense to go with the 70D, which is cheaper and better in almost every other way - unless you really need low light capabilities and / or shallow DOF.

If, on the other hand, a viewer could immediately tell a FF shot from a crop sensor shot of the same scene under normal viewing and shot using comparably good lenses, then yeah, the jump to 6D is totally worth it.

That's exactly what I am trying to find out :-).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 01:35:49 PM »
It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

Example, please :-).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 01:34:54 PM »
Well, what exactly do you want to see and what lens do you want the samples made with?

1) If you will try to compare 'camera JPEGs' the huge difference will be the DIGIC brains that do RAW -> JPEG conversion (with lens correction, ALO, etc.). (In case of XTi to 6D comparison, 6D is the Einstein and XTi is the caveman :) )

2) If you will try to compare 'camera RAWs' you will be at mercy of RAW conversion software camera presets (and number of bits in RAW data -- 6D has more than XTi).

PS: In my experience it's the FOV that makes the main difference. I used to shoot with XTi and 10-22 + 24-105 lens pair for years, and I always considered '24-105' as normal-to-tele lens (and I did not use it very often). The 6D changes the picture, now all my EF lenses make very (and I do mean 'VERY!') different pictures...

I agree with you. So yeah, I didn't consider JPEG. I also didn't mean FOV, because that's an obvious difference.

Other than that, I didn't have anything specific in mind. Because several reviewers mentioned that IQ is a BIG upgrade from crop, I just wanted to see an example, whatever shots they choose (other than high ISO) and see for myself how big the difference is.

I remember a landscape scene comparison on POTN between 7D and 5DII. While FF looked slightly better with color and detail / contrast, at web resolution it was not a huge difference by any means.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 01:08:48 PM »
Marsu42, if you later feel like digging out your comparison photos, I'd like to see the difference. I can imagine that 6D has better IQ than just about as many pixels crammed onto 2.5 times smaller area, but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 12:27:05 PM »
Marsu42, thank you! I think that's a very good comparison - it definitely matches my experience with crop sensors :-).

The reason I asked for side-by-site shots is that a few posters mentioned a significant jump in IQ going from crop to FF. I'd imagine a good lens would produce quite similar results on both at lower ISO (aside from FOV difference), but I could be wrong. Or perhaps the posters also meant IQ after post-processing, as you mentioned.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D- An amateur's review
« on: December 05, 2013, 11:10:37 AM »
It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2013, 10:40:37 AM »
Pixels do not matter. The modern sensors with Bayer design have around 50% QE; the 7D has about 40%, see sensorgen. There is about 1 stop left; in practice, 1/2 or so. Lowering the read noise would improve the shadows a bit more but Canon is not worse there at high ISO than any other manufacturer (at high ISO).

The QE is computed on the green channel, I believe. Non-Bayer design would improve that even further but right now, the technology for that does not exist even though there are some good ideas. The foveon sensor is actually worse at high ISO and has poor color fidelity.

Thanks for the explanation! If that's the case though, what kind of "Very good ISO performance" is expected according to this rumour?

Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2013, 09:54:08 AM »
Given that the 7D has about 40% QE, a 2 stop improvement of the (photon) noise would mean 160% QE, enough to earn Canon a Nobel prize, and shake the foundations of physics.

Pardon my ignorance in physics... are you saying that 7D's sensor is only about 1 stop short of the theoretical limit so in practice it's impossible to improve the low-light sensitivity of APS-C sized sensors any further than t 1/3 - 1/2 stop? Or are there other factors involved? Of course, I mean sensors with the same resolution, not a 3MP sensor with huge pixels :-).

Of course Canon can improve.  That's not the point.  Every company can improve on some things, including Canon.  I don't praise everything Canon all the time, so you must have mistaken me for someone else.  I don't care for the EOS M's autofocus.  I wish that Canon offered mirrorless cameras similar to the A7, X100S, X-Pro1 and EM-1.  I wish the 5D3 had AF points that light up properly.  I wish the latest firmware update didn't introduce a problem with flash.  I wish they made a better 50/1.4 & 50/1.8.  If I thought long and hard, I might find a few other things to criticize.  None of them is a big deal for me.

My statements are only controversial in the sense that they go counter to the complaints of a few anonymous people on the internet who seem to make very problematic photos (banding, shadow noise, limited DR, etc.) and blame them on Canon's technology.  Ardent critics of Canon's sensors are typically anonymous people whose credibility can't be assessed.  Such critics promote the idea that their technical problems would be solved if only Canon did something like some competitor, and yet such critics don't seem to have the sense to solve their problems by buying the products of that competitor.

My statements reflect my personal satisfaction with the current state of Canon's technology.  And they are supported by many other photographers choosing Canon despite Canon not ranking highest on some chart on a testing site.  Canon may not be "class leading" on some technical parameter, but there are plenty of excellent, talented, knowledgeable, non-anonymous, even "class leading" photographers who choose Canon over competitors.

We are starting to converge in our opinions :-). I agree that every company has strengths and weaknesses and I agree with your Canon wish-list.

We still differ in that you refuse to acknowledge that Canon sensors need improvement. If you just argue against the extreme opinions of a few Canon haters, I have no objection. However, you seem to indicate that Canon sensors are great the way they are. It may not be important to you, but other people wish for better IQ in the 70D, for example. While dual pixel AF is a great feature, the IQ apparently has not really improved compared to the old sensor from years ago. Landscape photographers may wish for more resolution and DR on their FF cameras. These expectations are not unreasonable, if the competition was able to deliver on them.

These points are more or less general consensus rather than just complaints of a few anonymous people. True, distinguished photographers don't waste their time critisizing Canon sensors, but neither do they sing accolades - because they are too busy shooting :-). That does not mean that they are perfectly happy with these sensors and do not wish for improvements. As long as the sensor is not so bad as to be a dealbreaker, people would continue choosing Canon products for other reasons. Some great photographers may use the 50/1.4 - and yet you yourself admit that it could be better. Similarly, the fact that great photographers use Canon sensors does not mean that the sensor problem does not exist. More so, the sensor that particularly needs IQ improvement is the APS-C sized one, which is less frequently used by the pros.

I believe that the problematic photos you mentioned are simply used to emphasize and demonstrate the problem, just like a brick wall photo is used to evaluate distortion and does not represent the photographer's actual art.

I also agree with you that Canon can't and needn't top every chart on every testing site. On the other hand, when after years of stagnation, their APS-C sensor is outperformed by almost every other company's sensor and even by the smaller MFT sensors, I find that frustrating.

The topic of "payment to shill" isn't really funny, so I didn't take it as a joke.  When it comes up, it appears to be a baseless attempt to undermine my statements and attack my character.  As I'm not anonymous, I respond to that as I did.

I'll qualify my initial statement that DR, resolution and color are "amazing" with Canon gear by saying they are amazing to me.  I don't claim they are "class leading" or whatever.  But they are amazing to me because I know where we've been with DR, resolution and color in the past, and the technology has come a long way since then, to the point that it is amazing to me and meets my needs amazingly well.  Based on that, I am "biased" toward Canon ... to the point that I willingly buy and use their gear (as many other people here do).

I expect the A7/A7r to be amazing too, but not because of DR, resolution or color — none of which I have complaints about with my current gear.  Instead, the amazing part is the dramatic reduction in full-frame camera size & weight.

Most of us on this forum give credit to Canon where it is deserved, both explicitly and implicitly by buying their products. This is not bias, because most people at the same time acknowledge areas where Canon could improve.

Bias is when somebody has a history of controversial statements, praising everything Canon all the time, even where they currently fall short of the competition. It should not come as a surprise to you when people start questioning your motives, even if the joke itself was not funny or appropriate, for which I apologized. Btw., I was not the one who said it first.

Anyway, I think this discussion is not contributing to the thread, so I suggest we stop it at this point :-).

I don't worry a bit about Canon's sensor tech.  It's amazing, especially as to resolution, dynamic range and color resolution.  No problems with it at all.  I'm also very pleased with the improvements from one generation to the next.

Wow, how much does Canon pay you to shill for them?? How is 2.5 stops worse DR, 50% less MP and modestly less color resolution, truly amazing, world beating?? How is not having improved DR or MP for more than half a decade very pleasing sensor improvements from generation to generation (OK at high ISO maybe, but not at low ISO).

Canon pays me zero.  I pay them.  Is everything about scoring highest on a few select parameters on a gear test site?  What about the rest of the system, from the option to switch to a smaller raw file size to certain unique lenses to ergonomic factors to color when photographing humans (not test charts)?

How is it that some people find a car to be excellent for their needs when it doesn't have the biggest engine, fastest acceleration, heaviest towing capacity, shortest braking, highest headroom, etc.?  How can anyone be happy with a car that isn't the absolute best in the world in every parameter we choose to measure?

I also find your logic confusing, to say the least - unless you are not entirely honest about who pays who between you and Canon :-).

First you rave about Canon's "car" having an amazing "engine". As soon as people show that the engine lacks compared to the competition, you sidestep the point and talk about the warranty service. Or that the engine does not matter, only the whole car does. I don't necessarily disagree, but the original argument was about the engine :-).

Wow, you're going to keep running with this baseless insult about payment?!  This is a serious problem with online forums — anonymous people don't feel bound by norms of civility; instead they feel at liberty to make up lies about others. 

Canon's "engine" works just fine.  I stand by that.  For proof, just look at the work of some rather good photographers and videographers who use Canon.  Don't make me make a list of them ... because it would be very long.  One doesn't judge a camera system by the unseen work (or constant complaints) of anonymous people on the Internet.

Well, I thought a smiling face was enough to indicate that I was joking along the lines of LetTheRightLensIn's words. If it wasn't, I apologize - I was joking and I didn't mean to insult you.

However, that does not mean that I agree with you. If you had initially said that Canon's engine "works just fine", that's one thing. Instead, you had made claims that it's "amazing", in areas like DR, resolution, which clearly aren't its strenghts.

I agree that many distinguished photographers have great success with Canon... but that does not prove that the sensor is amazing. As you said yourself, photographers judge the complete system. I am sure they chose Canon for other reasons and not because their sensor's DR and resolution are so great.

So, while I have no reason to draw conclusions about payment, your claims and your reluctance to admit the obvious as far as the "engine", do make you look biased toward Canon.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4