November 28, 2014, 12:48:01 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 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 137
106
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: An introduction and a dilemma
« on: October 04, 2014, 02:57:11 AM »
So, if you were me what would you do if $2800 (and possibly a little more, as I have more things to sell and birthday coming up) fell into your lap?

If I had nearly 3 grand and a ton of free time I'd throw that 7D and a couple of those lenses in a bag, buy a ticket to somewhere in  southeast Asia or south america and see how long I could hang out before running out of money. I bet that would help get some photographic creativity going. Experiences and opportunities are far better than any gear you can buy. It might be worthwhile to think of other things you could spend that money on that would be good for your photography besides a new camera body or lens. Good luck, man, and take care of yourself.

Good point. I wouldn't pay out for a 5DIII if money is tight. The 6D is a fine camera and the AF has never let me down.........it would also be a much better match for your current lenses. Sell the EF-s and add a 50 f1.4, then youre good for anything.

107
Here is a link to a guy who uses Sony, including the a7 and the a7s (Yosemite Sunrise). These look to be single exposure pictures and many are really lovely, but you can see the EV range limitations with one exposure even here.

https://500px.com/burkardphoto

@ orangutan: jrista has backpeddled when stating "in many cases there is no difference" and he has done this since trying the a7r for himself. Prior to this he was saying Canon had fundamental issues with image quality, and it is statements like that which create the arguments.

The a7s, the D810s, they are all capable of fantastic quality - just like Canon.

108
I could take a picture of my ass with the A7 and there'd be "X" amount of dynamic range.

I could take a picture of a smiling baby with my 60D...not as much.

Which would you rather BEHOLD?

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DAMN DATA!

If you are Miss Minolta I think you should post some examples.

109
I wasn't able to find any kind of landscapes on the first day that had high dynamic range (traffic held me up earlier in the day, when I finally got deep enough into the mountains, the sun had set before I found a scene.)

Hmmm......

My goal was to provide data.

There's a slight contradiction here; no one was asking for a pictorial masterpiece, simply a genuine but EV challenging landscape shot into, or across the sun.

Be that as it may, can you blame him for wanting to find something beautiful to shoot with short-term rented gear?

Not at all, and he was heading that way by the sound of it. But once it became clear that I was being beaten by time ( which happens to me sooo often !), in this case, and given his goal to provide data, I'd have pulled up and just got a sunlit landscape shot of something. And as you have read above, I think he probably did.

110
I wasn't able to find any kind of landscapes on the first day that had high dynamic range (traffic held me up earlier in the day, when I finally got deep enough into the mountains, the sun had set before I found a scene.)

Hmmm......

My goal was to provide data.

There's a slight contradiction here; no one was asking for a pictorial masterpiece, simply a genuine but EV challenging landscape shot into, or across the sun. Any bright or sunlit landscape will do.

Fortunately mnm stepped into the breach with some real examples, and one of them is very pleasing to boot.

I reckon you found, not surprisingly, that you were unable to emulate the wonderful pictures that you linked to on 500px in a single exposure because those images were, of course, multiple exposures, even if only two.

111
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 01:21:24 PM »
To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard.  Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post?  Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

If you only see benefit in better IQ at ISO 400 and below on occasions when you need to push 5 stops then I feel sorry for you.

Using the front page of flickr, I click "explore". The distribution of ISO across the first 32 images is:
   8 No ISO
  11 100
   1 1250
   3 200
   5 400
   1 4000
   2 500
   1 80
(I stopped at 32 because the tab bar in chrome was looking a bit full.)

Feel free to write an essay or add more witty comments about how it makes more economic sense to improve camera performance at ISO ratings that 1/16th of the population uses than it does at an ISO setting that 1/3 of the population uses. Or just continue flaming away in ignorance.

The attached image is evidence of just how bad the banding is. And this is at ISO 100, where IQ is meant to be at its best. How far did I push the image? 1.9 stops. Note again that the histogram indicates that there is a continued presence of detail all the way up to the highlights (some of which are blown and elsewhere in the image), meaning that there is not really any room for ETTR. Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera then that banding and noise in the shadow area that has been lifted simply wouldn't be there.

The histogram is from the exposure push. You have pushed virtually zero data and got FPN as a result. It doesn't matter if it a half stop push or five. I think that nearly everyone accepts that if you want to push zero data you will get less noise from the Exmor. That ship has sailed. Forget it, nobody is interested in this now but the likes of yourself. This whole debate has distilled out to the base nitty gritty: forget overall dynamic range, you have to push zero data to see the result you want.

You can keep posting images like this but all you are doing is waving a white flag as far as your argument is concerned.


112
I see what you tried to do with this thread jrista, and while it does show that the A7R's sensor is superior to the 5D3's at the settings you used, unfortunately the fanboys have gone on the defensive and resorted to borderline bullying.

He has deliberately drastically under exposed to try to prove his theory.

The images are NOT underexposed if the goal is to preserve the view outside the windows.  In fact, some of the pixels from the windows are blown out in the raw data.

Now, if you don't mind all-white windows, then the images are underexposed.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Exmor isn't better in this rather niche circumstance, if you are happy with the, let's face it, unacceptable result to most.

I asked the OP to shoot some realistic landscapes in challenging light. He failed to do so, claiming the weather was too poor, yet in his rock comparison picture both the image and the histogram suggest there was some bright light - unless of course both these cameras have a dynamic range of about four EV.

However mnm has kindly made available some A7r raws which were shot in a realistic but challenging landscape EV situation. I'm currently working on those with interest.

113
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:32:51 AM »
To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard.  Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post?  Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ when pushing five stops

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

115
[

Well at least you have posted something the OP should have done, some landscape shots into the sun with the A7.

The first picture is really quite beautiful.

Were you being serious about saying the images would be garbage if shot on a Canon ? Not sure if you were being sacrastic or not.

In the first picture it looks as if the sun has virtually gone, obviously not in the frame so not a huge EV range in this pic. My only comments would be that the horizon is just a little off ( down on the left ) and the luminosity - light intensity of the sky does not match the luminosity in the rest of the picture, so to me it just looks a little unnatural, but that is just a personal point of view.

In the second picture the camera has been unable to record the sun disc which is no surprise. Perhaps you have a tiny bit more around the sun that's not blown than I would expect, but you'd have to put the two pictures together to notice it. You have a masking shadow or correction radius left on the hills, but to be honest I don't think you would see much of a difference between Canon and Exmor in these situations until you began pushing shadows more, which is not what most people want to do.

Regarding using B&B or HDR it is difficult to give a definitive response without seeing the raw files. I suspect the luminosity of the valley and hills in the second shot could be improved significantly if you'd worked from a B&B file.

Thanks for your comments.

I probably worded it a bit wrong, I am not  sure the picture would be garbage if shot on my 5DIII or 1DX but from my experience I would not be able to dig out the foreground so with the exact same treatment they would be garbage if shot as a single exposure.

You are right about the first picture the sun is just gone, however the dynamic range is still high, there are some slight overexposure in the red channel on the clouds on the left and the foreground is almost black before pushing.

I am a bit unsure what you mean by recording sun disc, do you like to see the sun as a circle with no burn going into the clouds? If so then no it is not possible with this exposure, it has melted into a nearby cloud. Maybe a bit faster shutter could have helped in that respect.

If there is an interest for it I can see if I can put out the arw files.

I'd be interested to look at the two raw files if that was possible.

116
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:21:19 PM »
Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?

To demonstrate how Exmor is better than Canon.

117
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading - What To Expect
« on: October 02, 2014, 03:36:08 PM »
After a magnificent 2.5 years spent with my amazing EOS 500D, I will be upgrading to the 7Dii when it launches.

I've taken a few decent to good pics with the 500D but my growth as a photographer meant that I needed something a little bit more advanced for what I would like to shoot, namely birds in flight and wildlife in general and the 7Dii definitely has what I'm looking for.

ITR. 65 points. Advanced AF modes. 10fps. Intelligent viewfinder. Up, down, left, right. Tracking sensitivity. Lens group designations... Uhm, wow! All of a sudden, upgrading seems rather daunting.

I just got done reading a post on Facebook where somebody upgraded from a 650D to a 7D about 3 months ago but is finding his pics from his 650D sharper. The lenses were calibrated against both bodies yet the results stay the same.

Can an upgrade of this nature be too much for some photographers?

Regarding an upgrade of this magnitude, what would you folks see as being the three most difficult to grasp features?

The 7D has quite a strong AA filter than requires subtle sharpening to give optimum results, un-sharp mask 100% at about 0.3 does the job. The 650D was a much later incarnation of the 18mp sensor and didn't require a great deal of sharpening.

I think the 7DII sensor will be much better sorted, year for year, than the 7D was.

Trust me, you are going to love the 7DII after the 500D.

118
I think the subject is interesting, I am trying to get better at landscape photography, I am however unsure what methods yield the best results-

I been out the last days and chanced on couple of sunsets, both from rather boring places though. Tried to take some single exposures on my a7r and process them and they are both near the limit of what the a7r can do so needless to say it would just be garbage if taken with a Canon camera.

My question is, would they be better if taken as multiple exposures (with any camera) and mixed or HDR or any other form of processing? And if so what would the benefits be?

Well at least you have posted something the OP should have done, some landscape shots into the sun with the A7.

The first picture is really quite beautiful.

Were you being serious about saying the images would be garbage if shot on a Canon ? Not sure if you were being sacrastic or not.

In the first picture it looks as if the sun has virtually gone, obviously not in the frame so not a huge EV range in this pic. My only comments would be that the horizon is just a little off ( down on the left ) and the luminosity - light intensity of the sky does not match the luminosity in the rest of the picture, so to me it just looks a little unnatural, but that is just a personal point of view.

In the second picture the camera has been unable to record the sun disc which is no surprise. Perhaps you have a tiny bit more around the sun that's not blown than I would expect, but you'd have to put the two pictures together to notice it. You have a masking shadow or correction radius left on the hills, but to be honest I don't think you would see much of a difference between Canon and Exmor in these situations until you began pushing shadows more, which is not what most people want to do.

Regarding using B&B or HDR it is difficult to give a definitive response without seeing the raw files. I suspect the luminosity of the valley and hills in the second shot could be improved significantly if you'd worked from a B&B file.

119
I'd like to ask about input and inspiration about a problem that wildlife photogs are bound to face:

The heap of digital data grows and the *absolute* "good enough" threshold for most purposes seem to be reached - so it's getting harder to excel just by using the latest gear. On the other hand, the *relative* iq progresses, so your 18mp shots from now will be obsoleted by the 36mp shots from tomorrow if they basically look much alike.

How do you handle this problem, what's your idea of being different?

Even more expensive gear (200-400L...)? Even more remote shooting locations? Novel postprocessing styles? Or as an amateur, is it you simply don't care if your shot of a white-bellied heron looks exactly like every other as long as you know it's *your* shot with *you* being there?

Thanks for any inspiration, and if there are some good replies I'll share my approach :-)

I think your question applies to photography in general now, not just wildlife. But the cream still rises to the top. Look at Edward Lang's (eml58) wildlife pictures. Simply stunning. Some of them are so well lit you'd think they had been shot on a set. You obviously must have the tools to be physically able to do the job, but as many have stated: we've never had it so good in photography.

120
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 09:09:45 AM »
So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Come on Dildert, man up ! You've admitted it was your use of that particular head with that camera, lens combo. The head was not faulty, ergo you as the operator were faulty.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 137