December 18, 2014, 10:29:43 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 139
286
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.

287
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.

288
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.

289
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  ;) ).

290
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.

291
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.......)

292
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' !

293
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.

294
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

295
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:46:37 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical.  take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?

Move to a 180ym process....... :-X

and out side of a few "engineering" consultants that don't work at canon; how would we know that would improve it by what?

would a 180nm sensor all of a sudden make you feel like you could take better photos?  would the assurance that the sensor used 90nm lithography all of a sudden open your eyes up to the nature of light around us, and explore details like no one has done before?

not to mention canon could develop down to 5nm lithography - today.  if there was a fundamental need.  they have the technology.

This time I was being ironic  ;)

296
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:35:51 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical.  take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?

Move to a 180ym process....... :-X

297
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:24:29 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

298
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:03:49 PM »
It does seem to happen a lot.  Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released?  Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore.  If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.

+1. Here in the UK ( or should I say England & Wales  ;) ) the 5DII used prices held up very well when the 6D was first released, but now they are dropping considerably. I would assume this is because 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' , and people are finding the eating pretty good.

Strange how this happens with Canon gear. I think it's because they are relatively conservative in new releases, but those new releases turn out to be solid, well sorted. Remember the introduction of the 70-300L ? People howled that it was no better than the non L - because it's paper specification was similar  ::). Remember the 24-70 f4 IS ? The 6D ?

The only people who are complaining about the performance of the Canon sensors are those that are obsessing over the fabrication process. It's still 500um or whatever so there cannot have been any improvement......

Annoys the hell out of me.

299
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:55:09 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.

300
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:05:33 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Don't think so; not the first one anyway. The give away in the first one is the really bad lateral chromatic aberrations caused by some severe overexposure during one of the stages of the pictures completion.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 139