October 23, 2014, 09:36:37 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 132
166
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Features seen in the past and absent today
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:25:22 AM »
I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.

I refer strictly to:

1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500

I would think its to do with it being APS, smaller, lighter shutter, less distance to travel etc. Not on modern pro APS now due to cost / usage considerations I would think.
The 1D was an APS-H body with an electronic shutter.

Quick bit of research; also used CCD rather than CMOS which allowed the use of an electronic shutter. So as CMOS replaced CDD those features were lost.

167
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Features seen in the past and absent today
« on: September 01, 2014, 03:41:39 AM »
I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.

I refer strictly to:

1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500

I would think its to do with it being APS, smaller, lighter shutter, less distance to travel etc. Not on modern pro APS now due to cost / usage considerations I would think.

168
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:49:16 PM »
I don't think anyone would say no to more DR.  As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.

In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

So tell me Jon, how do I get away using Canon gear ? Nearly all my pictures are shot either across or into the sun.

The only bit of kit I really need is a body and a 24-70 standard zoom. I could easily switch to Nikon in the blink of an eye, but there is no need, because there is not enough advantage to make it worthwhile.

12 stops is one hell of a range, and a two stop dodge or burn is a hell of a difference in exposure. When you move outside 12 stops Neuro is right, you need much more to make a significant difference to optimum processing techniques.


169
EOS Bodies / Re: Differences in color of lcd screens
« on: August 31, 2014, 11:47:10 AM »

At least Sporgon concluded his facts were a little off, with no sarcasm and no insults.


Well not quite; I just noticed this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53860282

Actually when someone showed me a D810 they said it didn't have the auto brightness LCD so I'm more than a little embarrassed over my faux pas.

170
EOS Bodies / Re: Differences in color of lcd screens
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:24:28 AM »
Maybe the Auto Brightness LCD will make its way back to Nikon when they figure out how to make it work properly

I didn't realize Nikon lacked that feature, it certainly comes in handy on both my 1D X and my iPhone. 

I've never had a problem with the color accuracy of my Canon bodies.  Not that the LCD needs perfect accuracy for review, which is impossible to achieve anyway due to changing viewing conditions, as Lawliet points out.

Still, if my camera displayed images with an ugly green tint, I'd be pretty annoyed.  I guess that yet another defect Nikon fixed by releasing a new camera.

Actually that may be my bad information; the D810 may have an auto brightness screen

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Differences in color of lcd screens
« on: August 31, 2014, 07:24:07 AM »
The camera LCD cannot be calibrated, per se.

The screens on the D810 and D4s can be calibrated, but I've never seen that feature on any other camera as yet but it may be on Sony's, I don't know as I don't have one?

I suspect now it's on the Nikons, it will make it's way to Canons next releases.

Maybe the Auto Brightness LCD will make its way back to Nikon when they figure out how to make it work properly

172
Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:49:30 AM »
harvest finally in after a very wet summer in the Vale of York
24-105L @ 35mm, f11 1/2 second exposure. Shot at ISO 50 to get some wind turbine blurr, forgot about losing 1 stop DR, but did I miss it  ::)

173
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 05:32:35 PM »
I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.

The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my  Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
He then said that he was a Nikon shooter and was thinking of switching to Canon. I assumed he must be a sports photographer because from what I have read on this forum it seems that that is where Canons strengths are. But when I asked, he said that he was in fact a professional wedding photographer.
I mentioned the glowing reviews of the new 810 with the shadow detail and skin colors etc. and asked him of his reason for considering the jump to Canon.
His reply...  "Canon shooters just seem happier".

 ;D  ;D

Don't tell dilbert  ;)

174
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:35:11 PM »
OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.

Sporgon, I'm a little confused by what you are trying to show here. If you are saying that you can crop a full frame sensor image to the same effective focal length of an uncropped APS-C camera and not lose any significant detail, I don't think most people disagree with that.

When you have to do extensive cropping, sooner or later, the full frame image taken from the same spot with a sensor of equal megapixels is going to deteriorate, simply because the final image has less resolution.

I think this is the point of contention.

Yeah, sure if you don't have to crop severely, the "reach" advantage of a crop sensor may not be significant. But, if you must do some significant cropping of the image, the greater pixel density of the APS-C sensor will hold up longer.

Your experiment is a little unfair, because you are using a 12 mp APS-C sensor. A more fair comparison would be to take a 70 D and a 6 D, which are fairly close in the number of megapixels. Shoot the same scene with both from the same spot. Crop the 6D image to match the framing of the 70 D and then keep cropping away until one image deteriorates to the point where it becomes unusable.

Logic would suggest that the 6D image will fall apart sooner, because you are starting with less resolution. But, it would be interesting to see if that is really the case.

Of course, it if turns out the the fall apart equally, despite the difference in resolution, then all those people clamoring for a high-resolution Canon full frame camera would have to rethink their demands.

Frankly, I'm okay with either result. I would just suggest a more fair comparison.

I am one of those people who thought " I want a little more reach - I'll use my (daughter's) APS camera. As you can see there is no difference in this scenario, even when (unfairly) I up sampled the 8.5 mp of the 5D.

What puzzles me is that I could see the difference between an 8 mp camera and a 12 mp of the same format.

I'll borrow a 7D off a pal and see what happens with 18 mp.

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 01:50:39 PM »
OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.

Your methodology is horribly flawed.  You need to test using the real world techniques that anyone who cares about image quality understands and uses for all of their shooting. 

  • Put the camera* on a massive tripod.
  • Weigh the tripod down with a load of bricks or cement.
  • Manually focus with 10x live view.
  • Engage mirror lockup.
  • Shoot 8-10 shots of the same scene so you can pick the sharpest.
* Camera must be a D810 for best results.

Follow those steps, and the differences will be obvious.

</sarcasm>

I got one right, so 20%. Is that a 'U' - unclassified  ;D

The centre taken from 85/1.8 @ f4 , hand held but at 1/1250 so I'm guessing pretty high res - according to DxO.

The thing is I expected to see some extra res from the extra pixels on target, particularly because when moving from an 8 mp APS camera to 12 mp APS  I'm pretty certain I could see the difference.

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:58:54 AM »

Quote
but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.
Where you have now eliminated half the resolution, so there should be essentially no difference.

OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference. Both on Digic 4 but I agree the 5DII will have the more advanced sensor etc. Also 12 mp is not the same as an 18 mp 7D, but even so this surprises me.

177
I tried up sampling the smaller file, which I don't think is really appropriate unless you're going to be enlarging beyond 100%. Even so I would still conclude that the 12 mp crop offers nothing over the 21.7 cropped to APS-c ( 8.5 mp). Perhaps this fits in with AlanF's formula.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:05:01 AM »
Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down.  Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

As I said I don't really see this as an accurate comparison unless you are going to enlarge beyond 100%, but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Down sampling from a higher resolution - more pixels on target  - should give more definition just as 10 mp sRAW in the 5DII results in more definition than the 5D 12.7 mp RAW.

I agree that a 12 mp 1100D is not an 18 mp 7D, but even so I would have expected to see some difference.

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:03:05 AM »
Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down.  Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

But with more original pixels on target I would expect the higher res one to be better defined even when reduced. I'll try up sampling the lower res one, but still not go further than 100% enlargement as this seems to inevitably disadvantage the lower one to me.

180
This really has me baffled.
85mm f1.8 @ f4, 1/1250. ISO 100
Shot on 5DII and 1100D. The crop camera down sampled to match 5D as that camera works out at about 8.5 mp when cropped and the 1100D is a 12 mp aps camera. Hand held, but had to resort to live view focusing as I couldn't believe the results.

100% crops from each camera.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 132