October 20, 2014, 07:31:30 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 - MichaelHodges

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 25
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:47:44 AM »
Yes. The whiskers are eaten away by noise and the fur is lacking detail. Also, the face looks washed out/blown which is hard to fix in jpeg.

17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:24:11 AM »
If you find yourself shooting ISO 3200 and 6400 consistently, it's FF time.

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 09:52:55 AM »
I don't shoot in jpeg.

Well, then you should be able to do even better then, right?

No. To get the kind of detail I want, you cannot shoot crop RAW at these ISO's.

The 5D III, 1Dx, and 6D will.


 

19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 09:50:16 AM »
I don't shoot in jpeg.

The squirrel's fur also looks like a water color painting, and the delicate whiskers are eaten by noise/noise removal.

20
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:04:36 AM »
I don't know how you get away with only shooting 800ISO with wildlife, keeping the shutter speed at 1/1000 on an overcast day requires 1250+ in my experience. If you are in a darker environment like a forrest or under cover 3200+ is where you need to be.

I would never use ISO 3200 for wildlife on a crop camera.  You might be able to get away with it for indoor sports, but it's not going to cut it for antler and fur detail in RAW. The shots I've taken at 3200 are strictly for memories (wild bobcats, grizzly bears).

ISO 800 is about the limit of my friends usage on crop as well. I do dip into ISO 1600 from time to time, but these need major work to restore fur and antler detail.

If you are routinely using ISO 3200 on a crop camera for wildlife, you need to consider moving to FF ASAP, because that's shooting a weakness.

 

21
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:19:03 AM »
It all depends on the purpose.  For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine. 

I'd debate that, even.  ;)   


Quote
However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

True, it's all about taste and individual perception. But poor, mushy detail and watercolor images don't change because of a user's perception. They just are.



Quote
From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.

Which makes the 6D about 2 1/2 stops better.  goes to show just how superior the 6D sensor is.  I think that's an unacceptable outcome given the five years of 7DII development.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:16:00 AM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable?  I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

I capture wildlife images, and I don't go past ISO 800 on the 7D or 70D i I can help it. Fur and feather detail becomes too mushy.

I'd consider the 7D borderline unusable at ISO 800, and know many wildlife photogs who simply gave up on the camera because of the noise at RAW ISO 800.

23
As I wildlife photographer I don't see too much use for a 7D2 in less than perfect light

That's the problem with describing the newer crop cameras as "wildlife" cameras.  The newer, high MP Canon crop sensors only work well in the best of light.

Reach doesn't matter much if fur and feather detail is obliterated by noise. I think we're at the point now that unless you shoot tiny birds, FF is the way to go for all applications.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:39:07 PM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:02:43 AM »
You can open the raw files in the free program rawTherapee .
:http://rawtherapee.com/

I downloaded 3200 ISO files of the 7D-2, & 70D; processed, & exported to PS-CS6 as TIFS, got 100% crops from 3 places in the image. (even without profiles, it's a fair comparison}
Note: I had to convert to High Quality jpeg to upload to this site, but the results are consistent.

I think it's fair to say that the 7D-2, 70D results are near identical.

Leigh



Uh-oh.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:02:05 PM »
Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course

Actually they provide the only base-line comparison for image quality.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II or 6D
« on: September 15, 2014, 08:05:42 PM »
For shooting pets, outdoor, wildlife, people, landscape.

If you shoot indoor and nature light, then 6D is your camera. 7D II is more for outdoor sports and wildlife shooters.


I'd recommend the FF for larger wildlife, too.  The lack of noise in fur and feather creates much more pleasing images.

28
Animal Kingdom / Re: Bears in the Wild
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:33:41 PM »

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II or 6D
« on: September 15, 2014, 04:39:01 PM »
For shooting pets, outdoor, wildlife, people, landscape.

I'd recommend the 6D for any use, over any crop camera. 

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II or 6D
« on: September 15, 2014, 04:38:07 PM »

And is there really a HUGE difference from full frame to crop?



Yes.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 25