October 22, 2014, 12:22:52 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 ... 132
181
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.


182
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.

183
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:10:00 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

Perhaps in real money terms, but I would say the 70-300 DO is probably the greatest depreciating lens from new in terms of percentage.

Which is interesting because both these lenses tend to get really bad reviews, and this is reflected in the second hand values. Yet Canon sensors get bad reviews against Exmor yet they still outsell the other brands. My guess is that this is because in the case of the DO lenses people are dissatisfied with the results they get, whereas with the cameras they are quite happy. So I suppose the moral of the story is that the buying public will ignore a bad review if it's BS.

184
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:52:04 PM »
Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.
I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions.  Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care.  It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me.  Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR.  I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.



On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo. 



What you probably find dissatisfying about the first picture is that it is too close to how we see things. The old artist masters of past years, way before the advent of photography, could, if they had so wished, have painted things as we actually see them. After all they could lift the shadows as much as they wanted. But they didn't. They enhanced the shadows, increased the contrast, purposely lost detail in the shadows and so on. Why ? Because they wanted to produce a picture that is pleasing to look at just as we do now.

If you look at a scene with a decent EV range and consider what you are looking at you realise that we see things very flat, which is probably why we have such good DR ( Even better than the Nikon D800 !!  ::) ), but it makes for a very poor picture.

No one here has talked of technology taking over from creativity, just the human input necessarily to produce technically sound results.

185
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:22:01 PM »
But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "   ;)

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with  :(

186
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:06:31 PM »
Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.
The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.

Good to have another person on CR who has real world experience of the front runners in the race   :)

187
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:02:52 PM »
So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor.  It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.

Why?  Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality.  Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat.  The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness. 

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

+1,

I said more or less the same thing but in an arse-about-face way on another thread and was told by a regular member that I was being 'elitist', 'egotistical', and wanting to keep quality photography 'out of the reach of novices'.

With proper technique there is virtually nothing that can't be done with the current sensors. The 'low ISO read noise' of the current sensors is irrelevant to the vast majority of users, from those who just don't know and don't care to those skilled, who's techniques result in the same view.

The fact is that is you stretch the latitude of the sensor, even if you don't get excessive noise, you still get a flat, desaturated result that is wholly inferior to the results from a camera ten years ago where sound technique has been applied. So in other words some people are howling for an advancement in technology that will still produce an inferior result when compared with doing the job properly on much older tech.

Do I want to see sensors where you can lift data by four stops and produce a result that is indistinguishable from data that has been recorded with the correct exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the remarkable advances that digital has made to photography at the present time skilled traditional photographic technique is still required to produce the best technical quality result. Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

188
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:12:46 PM »
Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.

189
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:31:03 AM »
If the 24 is a pancake I'll be disappointed that it's in EF-s mount, but I can see the sense in its application on say a 100D.

Have to say that if the 7DII is going to be shipped late October I'm amazed that such a large and diverse organisation that's needed to build it like Canon can keep such tight wraps on the whole thing.

190
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:44:39 AM »
If it doesn't have flashing LED lights Canon is doomed.

http://photorumors.com/2014/08/27/pentax-k-s1-dslr-camera-with-fancy-led-lights-officially-announced/#more-60114

I see Pentax are making a feature of 'proper' glass pentaprism- brightest viewfinder etc. Those 'flappy' mirror hating dudes are just so off the pace. (anyway who ever heard an APS cameras mirror 'flap'. )

As for the LED light, what is there to say ? Watch the birdie will never be the same again. The Pentax 6x7 must be rolling in its grave. ( And that mirror did flap  ;) ).

191
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:29:10 AM »
Surely up sampling to beyond 100% isn't an accurate comparison is it ? Unless you were going to enlarge the final image beyond 100%. I'd rather see the 20D reduced 37% to match. Also what happened with sharpening ? The 5D required a fair amount, more than the 20D if memory serves me, but it was a long time ago now.

192
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 05:23:48 AM »
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII :D

Shooting at base ISO and being able to process a file without having to watch awful blotches or noise would be nice


A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ?

Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)

193
Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 26, 2014, 07:48:10 AM »
The images of mine that are shown on the Building Panoramics site are all, without exception, a maximum of two exposures. I never have trouble with shadow detail and I never have trouble with noise.

There just isn't the EV range in a normal scene that people think; in fact when dealing with incident light, that is the light falling on the subject, the EV range is never going to be more than six to eight stops, and this is within the dynamic range of transparency film, never mind the latest digital sensors.

This all changes when you include the light source itself, and this is where the fighting starts. I don't know what the EV value of the sun's surface on a clear day, but I can tell you it is way, way beyond the D810's sensor !

In my pictures I want to show the sun as I see it, ie I can't see detail in it, or even look directly at it unless it is just before sun set or sun rise, and then I might expose to show detail. I would not consider my pictures to be 'photoshop'd'  much at all really, only in so much as to correctly expose for the latitude in the incident lit scene and for the light source - the sky. If you are shooting with the sun or light source behind you then one exposure easily copes with the dynamic range because that range is so within the DR capability of the sensor.

When dealing with scenes of high contrast it's important to start with a raw image that is as flat as possible, that is do not apply jpeg settings to the raw conversion where you might produce a 16 bit TIF file that already has too much contrast, and you then start having to alter the RGB.

The best advice I could give to someone who is wanting to learn about exposure is buy an incident light meter. People can then find out for themselves how the EV range can be positioned on the sensor, and the compromises that then have to be made when you include the light source itself in your exposure. It will also show what the histogram should look like for "correct" exposure, and then how much of a movement you are making in maximising exposure over the range of the sensor. Just remember that the ISO on your camera isn't always what it says it is, so for instance if you have a 5DII set at 100 ISO this is really 73, so I set the meter to ISO 64. 100 ISO on a 5DIII is 80, so I set the meter to 80. Otherwise you'll be thinking 'this meter that that git Sporgon recommended is underexposing' !

194
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 06:13:29 PM »
Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better).

This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame.
The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.

The second picture is, IMO too flat, but is how people who talk of 'blocked shadows' seem to want theirs.
The third is as about the contrast I would normally go for with a little punch.
The fourth is a 200% crop of the wall in shadow.

When I can shoot straight into the sun with last generation tech I am basically quite happy, but normally I would bracket and blend like the samples you have shown.

Despite being APS I would expect the up coming 7DII to be able to do better than this, so that is going to keep 99.9% of users happy.

195
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:41:39 PM »
Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either.  and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?  ;)

Look at all that wholesome DR  ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 132