August 27, 2014, 09:06:11 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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 120
1
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII :D

Shooting at base ISO and being able to process a file without having to watch awful blotches or noise would be nice


A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ?

Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)

2
Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 26, 2014, 07:48:10 AM »
The images of mine that are shown on the Building Panoramics site are all, without exception, a maximum of two exposures. I never have trouble with shadow detail and I never have trouble with noise.

There just isn't the EV range in a normal scene that people think; in fact when dealing with incident light, that is the light falling on the subject, the EV range is never going to be more than six to eight stops, and this is within the dynamic range of transparency film, never mind the latest digital sensors.

This all changes when you include the light source itself, and this is where the fighting starts. I don't know what the EV value of the sun's surface on a clear day, but I can tell you it is way, way beyond the D810's sensor !

In my pictures I want to show the sun as I see it, ie I can't see detail in it, or even look directly at it unless it is just before sun set or sun rise, and then I might expose to show detail. I would not consider my pictures to be 'photoshop'd'  much at all really, only in so much as to correctly expose for the latitude in the incident lit scene and for the light source - the sky. If you are shooting with the sun or light source behind you then one exposure easily copes with the dynamic range because that range is so within the DR capability of the sensor.

When dealing with scenes of high contrast it's important to start with a raw image that is as flat as possible, that is do not apply jpeg settings to the raw conversion where you might produce a 16 bit TIF file that already has too much contrast, and you then start having to alter the RGB.

The best advice I could give to someone who is wanting to learn about exposure is buy an incident light meter. People can then find out for themselves how the EV range can be positioned on the sensor, and the compromises that then have to be made when you include the light source itself in your exposure. It will also show what the histogram should look like for "correct" exposure, and then how much of a movement you are making in maximising exposure over the range of the sensor. Just remember that the ISO on your camera isn't always what it says it is, so for instance if you have a 5DII set at 100 ISO this is really 73, so I set the meter to ISO 64. 100 ISO on a 5DIII is 80, so I set the meter to 80. Otherwise you'll be thinking 'this meter that that git Sporgon recommended is underexposing' !

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 06:13:29 PM »
Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better).

This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame.
The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.

The second picture is, IMO too flat, but is how people who talk of 'blocked shadows' seem to want theirs.
The third is as about the contrast I would normally go for with a little punch.
The fourth is a 200% crop of the wall in shadow.

When I can shoot straight into the sun with last generation tech I am basically quite happy, but normally I would bracket and blend like the samples you have shown.

Despite being APS I would expect the up coming 7DII to be able to do better than this, so that is going to keep 99.9% of users happy.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:41:39 PM »
Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either.  and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?  ;)

Look at all that wholesome DR  ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:46:37 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical.  take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?

Move to a 180ym process....... :-X

and out side of a few "engineering" consultants that don't work at canon; how would we know that would improve it by what?

would a 180nm sensor all of a sudden make you feel like you could take better photos?  would the assurance that the sensor used 90nm lithography all of a sudden open your eyes up to the nature of light around us, and explore details like no one has done before?

not to mention canon could develop down to 5nm lithography - today.  if there was a fundamental need.  they have the technology.

This time I was being ironic  ;)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:35:51 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical.  take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?

Move to a 180ym process....... :-X

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:24:29 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:03:49 PM »
It does seem to happen a lot.  Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released?  Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore.  If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.

+1. Here in the UK ( or should I say England & Wales  ;) ) the 5DII used prices held up very well when the 6D was first released, but now they are dropping considerably. I would assume this is because 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' , and people are finding the eating pretty good.

Strange how this happens with Canon gear. I think it's because they are relatively conservative in new releases, but those new releases turn out to be solid, well sorted. Remember the introduction of the 70-300L ? People howled that it was no better than the non L - because it's paper specification was similar  ::). Remember the 24-70 f4 IS ? The 6D ?

The only people who are complaining about the performance of the Canon sensors are those that are obsessing over the fabrication process. It's still 500um or whatever so there cannot have been any improvement......

Annoys the hell out of me.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:55:09 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:05:33 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Don't think so; not the first one anyway. The give away in the first one is the really bad lateral chromatic aberrations caused by some severe overexposure during one of the stages of the pictures completion.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:10:33 AM »
@jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do  ;)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:48:49 AM »
I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

You're now showing your inexperience in post processing Jon. You're assuming that these guys would be using HDR software if they were indeed HDR. In fact your whole argument for them being single exposure shots is based on the inclusion of EXIF, instead of using your eyes.

Keep posting images like these as proof of the D800s superior DR. You gave me a good laugh this morning.  ;D

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 05:04:21 PM »
It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing.

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether.

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

15
Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 24, 2014, 04:46:10 PM »

Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal".  Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression.  Let me explain.

Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5.  A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view.  However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background.  Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression.  These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel.  This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras.  Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".

The same this is going on with an APC sized sensor compared to FF.  The equivalent field of view for a 50 mm lens on a full frame sensor is about 35 mm on an APC sensor.  The apparent distance between background and foreground for given a field of view is greater in an APC sensor than in a full frame sensor.  Hence, the images do not look as good and lack the 3D feel.

Your instructor should know this stuff.  Maybe he/she should read Ansel Adam's excellent book "The Camera".  In fact, all of us should read the entire Adam's series: "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  There is still much to learn from the old masters even in the digital age.

Don Barar

Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.

Dgbarar seems to have deleted his post. As has been stated the perspective remains the same because you are at the same distance, but the 210 mm lens does give more magnification which is then accommodated on a much larger format, so the end result is that you have a larger image. The same thing happens when you shoot a panoramic; you have to use a longer lens to get the same framing because you are creating pieces of a larger format. The difference is subtle but if you put two images side by side, one shot as a panoramic and the other as a panoramic cropped single frame, the difference is there.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 120