December 21, 2014, 03:51:48 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 ... 139
181
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:28:16 PM »
iOS 8 has a ton of bugs. I have been using it for most of the summer through my Developer Account. There were actually very few betas for this release...makes me wonder if they wanted to just get it out in time for the new phones.

Either way, Wifi is slow or doesn't connect, apps crash like crazy, and battery performance is a mess. Location Services keeps running in the background for system services too, which is strange.

iOS 8.0.1 which was released today is a mess too. The over-the-air update through the phone or iPad system preferences caused the devices to drop cellular reception and Touch ID capabilities.

Is there any way of re loading the previous iOS ?

Yes, there's three ways of fixing the issue:

1) I believe Apple is still pushing iOS 8.0.0 through iTunes. So, if you've updated to the newest version through Over The Air, then you can connect to your phone and have it restored to the old version.

2) You can manually download the 8.0.1 IPSW file from another source online. Check www.MacRumors.com in the iPhone forums for download links.

3) Similar to step 2. Find an iOS 7 IPSW file and restore through iTunes using the Option + Restore method.

Many thanks for info.

182
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:13:30 PM »
iOS 8 has a ton of bugs. I have been using it for most of the summer through my Developer Account. There were actually very few betas for this release...makes me wonder if they wanted to just get it out in time for the new phones.

Either way, Wifi is slow or doesn't connect, apps crash like crazy, and battery performance is a mess. Location Services keeps running in the background for system services too, which is strange.

iOS 8.0.1 which was released today is a mess too. The over-the-air update through the phone or iPad system preferences caused the devices to drop cellular reception and Touch ID capabilities.

Is there any way of re loading the previous iOS ?

183
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 04:53:29 PM »
If this turns into an Apple bashing or fanboi lynching...........blurgh

I'm definitely getting less DR since installing iOS 8 .........

184
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 04:11:25 PM »
I've "upgraded" my ipad 4 to iOS 8 and it's made a right mess of everything. I strongly advise anyone with an ipad to leave iOS 8 well alone for the time being.

185
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:00:35 AM »
That's not an entirely fair comparison.  The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing.  So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing. 

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures).  That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this:  shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc.  That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others.  I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch.  At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

He's not trying to create a HDR look without doing HDR. He's trying to map the real world brightnesses of those objects into the compressed space of the L(ow) DR device that is your monitor. This is known as tone-mapping. And when your sensor is as clean as Exmor is, you don't need HDR. HDR was 'invented' to overcome the shortcomings of noisy sensors (and film, you could say). It's not some 'standard technique' everyone should use. It is and was a crutch for less-advanced technology. Once you have sensors with no noise, and with full-well capacities (FWC) so high that even shot noise is mitigated (b/c you're just sampling so many photons), there won't even be a need for HDR. Ever. The D800 got rid of most of the noise, and the D810 took us one step closer to this by extending the FWC. It's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, Canon's FWC and read noise are stuck where they were more than 6 years ago. And that's fine; they're prioritizing other things. Maybe they'll catch up, maybe they won't. But that doesn't change the creative opportunities that noise-free technology in almost every other brand affords, and there's no point in arguing against that. You might not need it, but many do, and many more don't even know they'd benefit from it.

What was that Steve Jobs quote again? 'People don't know what they want until you show it to them.'

In the future, with HDR displays, you won't even need to do any of this tone-mapping. You'll see those Exmor shadows b/c the white point will be extended and the entire brightness scale will be shifted (towards brighter). The shadows will automatically become more visible b/c they're brighter on your monitor. You won't need to do as much tonemapping, and so the 'HDR-look' will be mitigated.

And if you're looking at old Canon files on those sorts of devices (which already exist), you'll be looking at noise even before you raise the shadows.

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look?  That's not a real world look.  That's one interpretation of a real world look.

It's great that you've found a sensor that meets your particular photographic needs.  That's great!  At the same time, meeting your particular needs is not the definition of a "good sensor" or of "creative opportunities".

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs.  Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs. 

Odd or not, his feedback was and continues to be rather useful, at least to me. This coming from a long time Canon user (AE-1).

It's puzzling how users of this board take sometimes constructive criticism as an affront.

Quote
For example, now that the 7D Mark II has been introduced, should I go over to Nikon forums with posts demonstrating how this camera has a unique anti-flicker feature that helps sports photographers who shoot action in fluorescent light? Should I post examples of clean 7DII shots vs. "less advanced technology" Nikon shots that show awful exposure and white balance shifts from shot to shot and even within a shot?

If it's within context and in a civic manner, why on Earth shouldn't you?

Quote
Or should I go to Nikon forums to demonstrate other advantages of the Canon system (flash features, specific lenses, dual pixel AF for video, etc.), all the while mocking Nikon users for not "understanding" these Canon products and the "creative opportunities" they are missing?
  Short answer:  no.

If you're mocking whomever, that wouldn't be very helpful towards your arguments now would it?
I didn't find anything offensive in sarangiman's posts, on the contrary, i find them informative and surprisingly calm, considering the fact that pointing Canon's shortcomings is such an anathema here.

Agreed it's not the 'look' I would go for, but I have to say the data from the lifted second image, the Exmor, is superb and I can't really see why anyone would want more than this. Makes me wonder how sensors are going to improve upon this in the future.

186
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:34:14 AM »
As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.


187
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 07:49:51 AM »
I'm talking about normalized Raw performance, which has seen very, very small gains. Save for at the highest ISOs (e.g. 25.6k and above), where lowering sensor-level (upstream) read noise actually affects image quality, since you're amplifying the raw signal off the sensor so much (b/c the signal is so, so small).

Otherwise, ISO performance is largely dictated by sensor size these days.

If you are referring to low ISO I wouldn't agree. The 5DII had substantially more latitude that's the original 5D at the highlight end, even if the actually DR wasn't greatly different. Likewise the mkIII has substantially more latitude than the II, and the 6D a tad more again. Tonal graduation has also improved, as well as highlight headroom in terms of clipping to white, as well as at the other end in graduation to black.

OK so this might only be noticeable to the discerning user.


188
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:35:55 AM »
I can appreciate that, but that doesn't mean you are not compromising by using it at f/1.4. Knowing what those compromises is important.
Your example is poor, perhaps if you had started with a different lens in a different situation you could demonstrate your point.

I knew of that compromise. What is hard to predict ahead of time - you know me not being a computer and all - is exactly where I'd run into the noise floor.

And that's what's so nice about Exmor - you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things, like focus, or capturing the decisive moment.

My example is not poor, it's just irrelevant to you. I've posted examples of other use-cases, and gotten answers like 'well I don't shoot that high DR scene', or 'you could've just used a GND', or 'oh you already used a GND? well you could've HDR'd it then'...

My point here is that you can always have an answer as to how you could've done it differently.

Doesn't detract from the main point: this is one less thing I have to worry about now.

These same arguments are constantly recycled. The same sentiments were thrown around during the digital vs. film debate.

As for sharing the whole file - no point. I did years ago when I showed this same problem with fixing vignetting with the 24/1.4 on my then newly acquired 5D3. And it was the same thing. Some people got it and agreed it was unfortunate, others said I should've used a flash or just accepted the vignetting, etc. And all those comments still missed the main point - I wanted available light only for that shot, and I generally don't mind vignetting but for that particular shot I didn't care for it. But I didn't have the choice to take out the vignetting, b/c of the ugly banding that ensued.

There's really no point - I just saw jrista arguing thread after thread about how he'd like to simplify his workflow by not having to resort to HDR every single time. It's the same argument here - I'd like to not be so constrained by my system when there are better options out there.

I didn't consider Nikon to be a better option until enough factors swayed me. Like not designing the grip for elf hands, for example (that ones for you, jrista).

You can certainly talk the talk, but after all this typing and in put from others I don't see this can continue until you post the full, original image as many of us have requested. Mask the faces if necessary as suggested by PBD. You've made all sorts of allegations against the 5DIII not coping with the situation: let's see the full picture.

189
Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« on: September 22, 2014, 04:54:51 PM »
Always interesting to hear from people who have real, practical experience with the different systems, rather than those who fantasise over what they think a different system can do to improve their photography.

I must admit I'm a bit of a Fuji fan myself, but having learnt over the years that multiple systems are, to me, a distraction from making real images, I now religiously just stick to one, other than trying out the opposition now and again to keep myself up to date.

190
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:21:31 AM »
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image

Maybe you should learn to convert and process your files properly.

I always thought wedding photographers make use of reflectors to avoid such classic lighting problems? That was what my wedding photographer did to get a beautifully exposed shot with the sunburst and blue sky behind us. Oh, he was using the Canon 5D classic.

Oh, here is another example: http://www.mattgranger.com/light. Matt has mostly Nikon gear.  ;)

You are absolutely right, except that generally those here suggesting the Exmor tech can do a better job don't want to be bothered with fill, they want to be able to use every ounce of the extensive latitude in the Nikon file.

They will of course will be lifting data that has recorded virtually no light, so the photographer using 'old' tech such as a 5D or D200 and sound technique will produce a much higher quality image.

So what happens if you use sound technique with both Canon and Nikon ? You get pretty much the same image. A well lit and correctly exposed image will always triumph over the same one which has been poorly lit and under exposed.

191
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:21:49 AM »
Bald Eagle in Alaska - 5DIII + Tamron 150-600.



Phil.
Beautiful light. Adds a certain surreal dimension to it :)

+1', really like this.

192
Thanks ecka for your reply. I must admit I don't really get it. What I don't understand is that a given lens produces an in focus image circle and either a crop or FF sensor is "placed" in that circle, albeit with different numbers/size of pixels and the 2 images are very different. The fact that the 2 sensors are a different size appears irrelevant. The FF will cover more of the image circle than the crop sensor.

Can anyone give me a structured/scientific explanation as to what's happening please... thanks...

Basically the smaller the sensor ( or film ) format, the smaller the magnification at capture ( shorter focal length lens, smaller format) and the greater the magnification required to view = loss of quality.


193
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:15:12 AM »
So its no great secret i'm not the worlds biggest fan of crop sensors...

but the EOS-M is a great little camera to support my 5Dmk3 for various things and means no lens changing

so looking at the specs of the 7D2 I am actually pretty excited about this
well not excited enough to buy it bleeding edge but say in a year or so when prices drop and bargains are around or sales i am definately interested in picking one up to use on my tamron 150-600

I have pretty high expectations for the new AF system given how great the 5Dmk3 and 1DX AF systems are

but all I read are posts about people crying that its not what they wanted.

so anyone else excited about the potential for this new camera?

I am too. Although I've been in FF since 2005 I acknowledge that in many - (the majority ?) of circumstances there is no perceivable difference with APS, and the 7DII looks like really good value as a smart little action camera.

194
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:03:03 AM »
This entire thread is hilarious.

Conflating the needs of the masses as reflected in the sales figures with the needs of enthusiasts and pros - a completely disparate population.

Controlling for nothing, like brand name, education level, etc.

Therefore none of these numbers should be drawn into *any* conversations re: technologies that (1) enthusiasts/pros care about, (2) said technologies that don't have much impact on market share, (3) said technologies that *could* help even laypeople but since the use-cases are not communicated well enough to be ever used, end up being irrelevant to even those use-cases (a failure of many of you here, but mostly of the review/educational sites around the world).

But all that doesn't mean that those new technologies couldn't be used in groundbreaking ways, amongst many people, if iterated on and then taught appropriately.

And honestly, being on here for years, that whole 'teaching part' is never going to happen here. B/c everyone else is far too holed up in their own ways to even consider that someone else coming along might, just might, have a point.

So we're literally back to the same level of conversation I noticed when I participated in these forums 3 years ago. The entire reason I left. Great to see nothing's changed!

Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.

Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:



I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).

And that's not even talking about some of the other differentiators that differentiate the low end Rebel from Nikon's Rebel competitor: for example, Nikon's Rebel competitor has 39 AF points that can accurate subject track, even detect a face (even when you're using the OVF), and focus on and track it. Will work for your kids playing sports or for your dog running around.

Rebel - can only focus on whatever's the nearest subject it can find within its 9 AF points. Good luck tracking it with those 9 points, especially if something else enters the scene at a similar plane as your kid/pet.

If even that crowd buys Rebels predominantly, then what's the point of this entire conversation? Other than that: brand names persist. Because of word of mouth. From people like you.

Would you be prepared to share with us the whole uncropped image and the raw file ?

195
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:21:34 AM »

You guys are so vehemently against anyone saying anything negative about Canon that you readily stoop to twisting peoples words, or handily assuming they said something other than they did, then repeating those assumptions as though they are fact. I'm a Canon fan myself, I'm just sick and tired of their nasty crappy read noise. I literally cannot wait for Canon to produce a better sensor (something I believe they are more than capable of doing)...I really want them to improve their sensor IQ, but I'm done waiting.

jrista, for what it´s worth, I totally agree! Canon is behind and they should take us more seriously. I have never understood the enormous urge some have to defend Canon for their sensor quality. We should stand shoulder to shoulder and make sure Canon is aware of what we think.

It is like someone defending his old, slow, unstable, back wheel drive, 3 speed, monster V8, with 10 miles/gallon, no sound proofing and a rotten air-condition, against a fast, 4-wheel drive, 8 speed, hybrid, quiet car, with climate zones and 60 miles/gallon, because it is flat where I live and fuel is cheap and I don´t want to be caught speeding and the roads are pretty straight and it never gets really hot ...

IF Canon had delivered the D800 sensor performance and not Nikon. I am confident that we would have seen loads of posts here, praising Canon for the sensor performance and ridiculing the poor sods in the Nikon camp.

I was inches away from getting the Pentax 645z this summer. I didn´t, for three reasons. I was (unrealistically) hoping for a d810 basher at Photokina, I am a bit skeptical to the Pentax lens lineup and I don´t want to carry more equipment on a trip. But my patience is running thin.


That is not an appropriate analogy. The 'defence' of the current Canon sensors only begins when someone claims that the Exmor has basically made the Canon redundant overnight, and that the Canon is 'only suitable for landscapes up to 10x8', or 'posting on Facebook', or 'noise / banding is so bad I can't use the camera'.

In normal use, at low ISO, there is simply no difference. In the scheme of things very few people want to lift shadows by three stops. In fact I would go so far as the say the tonal graduation on the 1Dx is probably better. Certainly within the professional business of photography in which I deal the general concessus was that in the days of the D3x Nikon had the edge on pure 'IQ'. Opinion has generally changed since the arrival of the 1Dx.

If you are looking to realise more image quality than can be produced by your 1Dx I would strongly advise looking at the Pentax 645z rather than a D810. I wouldn't worry too much on the lenses because once you own the camera you will establish when and where you use it and I think you will find the lenses are OK. Also you could adapt the many Pentax 67 lenses, though don't expect ultra sharp images.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 139