October 31, 2014, 02:46:32 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 133
181
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.

182
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

183
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

184
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  ::)

185
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  ;)

186
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.

187
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.

188
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.

189
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.

190
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.

191
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.

192
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.

193
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:34:43 AM »
I have to say that this has really surprised me. Here's another example this time using a much better lens at optimal aperture, hand held. I have to own up and say I cheated because I ended up using live view to focus as I couldn't belief the results. 5DII cropped to APS so about 8.5 mp and a 12 mp 1100D. Just for fun I removed the data to see who can tell which is the crop camera. It should be obvious.

I'm now going to go and read up on the appropriate thread to try and understand what's going on.......

194
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:06:35 AM »
I've been following this debate on the FF cropped vs extra 'reach' of the denser pixel'd APS, and couldn't quite believe that the APS wouldn't be better, so I shot two quick hand held shots with AF out of the window on a 5DII and a 1100D, so after cropping it is about 8mp from the FF and 12 from the crop. Downsampled the crop to the same size and here are the results at 100%

I'm quite surprised. Going to do it again with a better lens to see if this can bring out the benefit of those extra pixels.


195
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 04:50:07 AM »
This thread has made my brain swell with dumb minutiae.

jakeymate, please, don't wait to get banned from the site.  Just leave and don't come back.  You are a troll, plain and simple. Sorry to be honest here, but that sums it up.  You enjoy stirring the pot with stupid stuff just for the attention, and with only ~15 posts to your current avatar, you add nothing but frustration.

Obviously you favor Nikon, a great system.  Canon, also is a great system.  Go to Nikonrumors.com and enjoy their company, and don't look back.

If you choose to stay, I promise that if I see your name, I won't read anything you write, as it offends me.

Regards.

sek

Get banned for what exactly?

I simply can't believe that you'd read my posts, which talk about the good, bad and indifferent elements of Nikon and Canon as trolling.

I think you need to learn the difference between informed opinion, facts, and trolling.

Because yours is the stupidest post I've read in some time.

If that's how you feel, then be my guest, ignore me.

I'll not lose any sleep over it.

Jakey, since our last conversations here on CR I've dug out my old Pentax 67 system, blown the dust off it and have been shooting Portra 160. Honestly mate, your repeated posts arguing the minutiae between the Canon and Nikon sensors is trivial compared with a high quality scan of a well exposed 6x7 negative. The facts are you are still confined to the piddley little 2.4 x 3.6 image. If you want to see real tonal graduation, real improvement in DR, go get a 6x7 medium format system and shot some decent format sized film. You won't be arguing about the difference between Nikon and Canon digital FF anymore.

Looking at the stuff you shoot it could give your work a real 'here's something different' look to the common-or-garden digital images we're all used to seeing now.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 133