December 19, 2014, 03:26:00 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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 139
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:42:12 AM »
No, the 5D3 sample is correct. The sensor in the 5D3 is almost the same as the 5D2 - complete with banding and noise. Canon did nothing to improve the IQ of the sensor between these two cameras.

so, according to dxo, both sony and nikon are both good at IQ when comparing to canon.  why don't you take any of them, i do not mind even if you are using D4s which has better focus.

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?
For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

Considering that they're what I consider to be throw aways ...
So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.

The yosemite pic (sunset) is blurred due to the camera moving. It's useless for anything other than a web forum.
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.

One hundred and eighty !!

Or for anyone that has never played darts;

Bullseye !

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:50:43 PM »
I know Sarangiman would probably disagree.


They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality

Does that mean there's won't be a wedding any time soon ?

Fundamental. Do you know what that means ? How can you say that in the face of all the superb quality imagery produced on Canon sensors they have a fundamental problem with image quality ?

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:18:51 PM »
WTF? What market response are you talking about?

The market response according to the law of accipiterQ: I sayeth therefor it be true.

Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:17:10 PM »
A great place for walks

Or was it that he found, as I have been saying all the time, the Sony can't record the actual light source as well as what it's illuminating either in one exposure ?

Dude, get a grip.  Go read the Internet.  It's Exmor!!  There's nothing it can't do.  Need to stand in a cave under overcast skies at night and capture the sun while pushing shadows to reveal crater detail on the dark side of the moon?  Get an Exmor!!


Well there is at least one 5DIII that appears to have an Exmor sensor installed in it; at least when fitted with a 17 TS-E  ;)

Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: October 01, 2014, 07:45:13 AM »
The up load to CR seems to be killing the contrast. I think this is what has happened to Tex pictures. I've modified mine accordingly.

The Forum converts the images to PNG, but they suffer.  I try to link mine directly from SmugMug so no uploading happens.
I took some shots of our local Inland Grange trail riders again last Saturday.  I've done it every Fall since 2010.  I shoot the images when the riders are heading out at 10 AM, take them home and do a little cropping and adjustment of lighting, then print them on 4 X 6 photo paper, and have them back for the Grange when the riders return at about 12:30.  The grange sells them for $5 each which goes into their operations.  We live out in the country where the grange system is still going strong, community members all pull together to support each other.  Rather than bog the thread down with a lot of images, you can see them here:

Thanks for that info; I had no idea that the site converted to png.

Enjoyed the pictures in your link, I haven't seen so many pleasure riders in the States all riding Western ! Those saddles cost a fortune over here in England.

I've added another shot, this time in png. Not as dramatic but I like the lighting.

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:12:09 AM »
17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIII

The tonal quality in the foreground is exceptional ! How many exposures was this ?

I'm still puzzled why the OP didn't take some 'landscape' shots as a direct comparison between the two cameras,,and this has been something of a disappointment to me. I know he stated that the weather was very poor but the shots of the rocks, judging by the image and histogram, looks like there was a fair amount of bright light about when they were taken. Why didn't he just point the camera at a sky/land/trees scene and shoot ? Or was it that he found, as I have been saying all the time, the Sony can't record the actual light source as well as what it's illuminating either in one exposure ?

Anyway the samples so far have put me off getting a Sony A7s. I've been half talking myself into one of these due to the 12 mp sensor and large pixels. Canon will never produce another 12 mp FF camera because it is just too niche a product for them. It's probably too niche for Sony too, it's just that unlike Canon they don't realize that yet. As all the serious work I do is stitched, 12 mp is just ample in one frame and I have been kidding myself that others might actually see a difference in the tonal ranges of the final print, but really it's just an excuse to purchase something new.

And in the UK the D810 is being offered at a £300 ($450) discounted sale price for a 'limited period of time'. What's that all about so soon after launch ? Someone is supposed to be dropping one of these in for me to try any time now, and I still have a few Nikkor lenses left, so I'll post some 'normal' high contrast landscapes when I've used it.

For me it would be focus. In the days of manual focus the ones I didn't quite get right, with AF lack of AFMA resulting in off focus at fast apertures.

For virtually everything else there has always been a work around.

I've updated the original post with a set of example images from this weekend. One of the few sets that actually were not blurred by camera shake on the A7r. I don't know if I'll get another chance to use the A7r in any kind of DR-limited moved in, it's been raining a lot, so there simply isn't any high contrast. I could do more interior shots...but we all know how that would probably go down.

Looking at your new samples there is considerably more highlight ( direct sunlight) on the rocks on the right of the picture in the Sony file - I mean significantly more, anyone will see it. Either the light was changing as you changed cameras or once again the Canon file is under exposed relative to the Sony.

I'll be interested to see the raw files.

Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:59:31 PM »
The up load to CR seems to be killing the contrast. I think this is what has happened to Tex pictures. I've modified mine accordingly.


In my experience the Dig!c 4 cameras do have more FPN that both the earlier and later versions but it is buried so deep that it is just irrelevant 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people.

Yes, it is irrelevant to most people simply because not everyone underexposes their photos massively needing to push their photos by 5 stops to make them "usable".

I don't know anyone who goes around and purposely tries to underexpose by 5 stops so that they have to lift shadows and make a mess. It's about scenes that have a lot of DR so that when you expose properly some important parts of the scene end up in the lower parts of the signal.

But surely the argument here is will a massive push on the Exmor be equal in quality to a correctly bracketed image in this extreme case ? If not then it doesn't replace the Canon tech for many.

Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:52:15 PM »
Last Saturday I travelled down to Southwell to try and get a pano of the wonderful, ancient Minster church, but despite a fine morning and forecast the day was a washout so I called in at the British Reigning championships to see some Western riding.

All I had was my pano gear, and the only lens that was remotely suitable was the go-everywhere 24-105. Despite being indoors and dark I still managed to get some shots that I was pleased with. 5DII on AF servo, central expansion. Had to track as the riders were not stopping in the same place each time, so couldn't zone focus.

The sliding stops are quite spectacular when done well. Not quite sue how this would help cowboys round up cattle, but anyway it was fun to watch.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:27:45 PM »
I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.

This is an issue. It's an issue that people who don't think it's an issue are just going to accept. Some of us want more DR in Canon cameras. We have VERY good reasons for wanting CANON to do it, rather than someone else (and having used the A7r myself now for a few days, absolutely LOVING the IQ, I want Canon to do it even more now.) Having to worry about being insulted or starting the same old never-ending DEBATE every time I want to say something about DR is really shitty. I'm a Canon fan, just like everyone else here. I shouldn't have to worry that five specific members here are going to get excessively irate over the mere mention of a camera feature.

However, as long as no one puts any effort into trying to change their reaction to this particular topic, this particular really is never going to change. I made an active choice to reevaluate my stance, my reactions, to this topic about a month ago, when we had a nasty spat between a long-time member and a new member who just decided to go at each others throats. It's possible to change...even if you don't change your opinion, it's possible to change your reactions.

No one likes the DR debate, but it's not necessarily because they don't care about DR. It's because they don't like how the discussion turns into a hatefest. (I know this for a fact, as since posting my thread sharing RAWs from the 5D III and A7r, I've received a lot of thank you PMs, most of which mentioned that specifically...that they like to know the facts about DR, but don't like how the discussions on these forums go when DR is brought up.) The tone of the conversation here has to change. The insults need to stop. This IS an issue that some people care about. It doesn't matter if they are the majority or not, for some people it matters. For a lot of those people, they have specific reasons for staying with Canon, which only emphasizes their reasons why they want Canon to improve DR, and their frustrations in reaction to how Canon has not improved DR for so many years. Those people, including myself, have the right to discuss the topic without having our throats ripped out. You don't like that? can always ignore the discussion...or just ignore the members, then you'll never see their posts again.

Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement.

If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say I believe that...... or I have found that....... It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed. Also don't post absurd statements such as "Canons are only any good for producing landscapes up to 10x8".

I'm pleased that you have taken the initiative and rented a Sony. Good for you, that's putting your money where your mouth is. But when talking about keeping things civil bear in mind that it is the highly inflammatory nature of your statements that have led to things getting rough.

(As I've typed this the site has flagged up two more posts. I see PBD has made a very similar post, but as I've typed this Ill still post as is.)

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:21:55 PM »
Interesting review and as usual the image quality from Dustin's 6D is impeccable.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 139