October 24, 2014, 09:48:49 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 132
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 06, 2014, 12:30:36 PM »
Looks like you must use the Sigma dock to calibrate these very fast lenses reliably - which is why I don't use them personally.

32
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 05:16:57 PM »
New sensor and light proof lens caps - to show off the new sensor when you shoot with the lens cap on.

33
I have never tried ML´s software/frimware before, but I think I would like to. But I do not want more problems than necessary. When I go to ML´s web site, I do not find any support for the 5DIII, but I believe that is the camera you´re using. Is that correct? If so, how do you go about getting the thing installed?

Nope, I've got a 6d, but the 5d3 is much better supported by ML. The website is outdated, look at their forum, there's a good installation thread: http://magiclantern.fm/forum/

Basically it's downloading ML "rolling release" for your camera (http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/), put the files on your cf card, update the firmware with Magic Lanter's mini-firmware, done. ML runs from the cf card, the fw update only tells the camera to enable loading it.

Beware though, ML has many features and it'll take you some time to sort through them - what you want is the "dual_iso" module.

If ML are doing this with normal sensors what would Canon be able to do with dual pixel technology ?

34
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 02:44:28 PM »
High mp + latest fabrication process + a new twist on the dual pixel technology = 18 stops DR and less noise than undesirable crypt.

Now that would reduce the need for bracketing.

35
Canon sensors meet the needs of many photographers better than you or I will ever be

There are two different questions at work, and both are valid.  (1) whether it "meets the needs;" (2) whether a different sensor would better meet the needs.  By analogy, a 1D4 shooting 10fps met the needs of high-end sports photographers at the time, but a 1DX shooting 12fps better meets their needs.  I don't recall reading whether you've said you've tried any camera with a current-gen Sony sensor.  I have not, so I don't know the answer to (2) for myself.

Please propose a test protocol that you would find fair and meaningful.

For the point I was making, the distinction between 'meets' and 'better meets' is irrelevant.  I don't think photographers – award winning or not – list 'poor IQ' among their needs.

I have no doubt that for some, the Exmor sensors better meet their needs...just as for others, an ultrawide tilt-shift lens better meets their needs.  Everyone's needs differ, there's no 'test protocol' for that.  There are market research tools that help determine the needs of the majority, Canon and other manufacturers obviously invest in such research.

I get that, but I think you're missing another important point: sometimes people don't know what they're missing.  There are cognitive biases that prevent people from believing information which would change their minds.  Since you're in the pharma industry I'll risk a pharma analogy: consider medications to treat a particular condition, one of which is 10% cheaper, 10% more effective and has 10% lower risk of side effects.  Suppose the physician is not aware of this; s/he may prescribe the less desirable medication because it meets the needs, which it certainly does.  Now suppose a major trade journal publishes a large-scale study demonstrating the superiority of the alternative.  Most physicians will now be aware, and will likely change their prescription practices.

How this applies to photography: I agree with you on the whole "system" thing -- I really do get that.  However, if there were reasonable tests which demonstrated a significant difference to the few hundred(?) high-end loyalist photographers who work with Canon on product development, Canon might start feeling some pressure to improve that one component of their system.

I agree with you about how things are today (system, personal choice, market, business choices, etc).  I disagree that it needs to remain so.  The first question is whether there really is significant difference that we'd like to see in our next Canon purchase.  If the answer is yes, then the next question is whether there's a way to bring that to the attention of people who have some influence.  It should go without saying that all the voices on all the photo blogs in the world would not have the power to influence, but a few hundred key professionals might.

I'd also like to see good tests just to satisfy my nerd curiosity.

The point is that the Exmor can't actually meet the demands of a discerning / professional ( insert what you want ) photographer in the vast majority of challenging light situations in one exposure. Yes you can underexpose more, yes you can push more but you will not equal the technical quality of someone who has blended exposures correctly. that is the point. Yes you can try and artificially create a situation to give the Exmor an advantage in one exposure, but it is just that: artificial.

You are correct in saying many working pros may not 'know what they are missing' but don't underestimate the professional 'grapevine', and one of the reasons some don't know is because the Exmor sensor has not taken the professional work by storm, because, as has been very clearly demonstrated in this thread, the advantages are limited, primarily to those who are happy with poor tonality / saturation from heavily pushed data.

A good example of this was the link I made to a friend of mine, international automobile photographer David Burgess. Jrista made a comment about his interest in what the likes of this pro (having seen his work ) would make of the D810. However he must have missed the fact that all David's work is lit by an army of lights and lighting crew, even outside !

36
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 05, 2014, 02:27:54 AM »
Visit http://www.luminous-landscape.com

The principal behind that website used to own and review a lot of Canon equipment. Going back as far as the EOS 1V. The 5DII was his last serious Canon camera.

Now, he not only doesn't own any but Canon products haven't feature on that website in many years now.

ah... i pretty much know this site since back in 2012, those days that i have started to learn using dslr, and registered to be a CR user to learn more from other members.  i even know pretty much everyone in those workshop partners, especially jay maisel (famous about using color composition) and john paul caponigro (canon's light explorer leader), etc.  the founder of the website is nikon user;  i did not know that he really used/chose canon as his system...

ummm... i think i now remember he was talking about mirrorless in a video and as i remember he did flip-flop about mirrorless and not mirrorless.  however, i am not a big fan of mirrorless since it is no more fun and challenge.

want to get a sure shot?  video it and then extract a frame out of it... but i am calling this as a cheat  ;)

i do not use low iso,  even i am shooting at noon.  below images were taking at high noon and my iso is not 100, 200, or even 300.  jay maisel hits street with iso 400 and up...

not even afraid of grabbing my canon 30d with 50mm f/1.4 for testing sport photography (today), still doable for the job but honestly still miss shots due to frame rate.  again, one point auto focus instead of all...

note:  sport photography is not really my interest, but heck... just for fun... why not...

But ishdakuteb, if you are going to take part in this debate you must play fair; comparing the D30 is not playing fair as everyone knows the older Canons were much better than the new ones and Sony / Nikon latest offerings are aimed at being better than Canons latest offerings, not those from 2006.

Nice pictures by the way !

37
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 04, 2014, 04:49:14 PM »
Ishdakuteb, old pal; he's not worth it

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: An introduction and a dilemma
« on: October 04, 2014, 02:57:11 AM »
So, if you were me what would you do if $2800 (and possibly a little more, as I have more things to sell and birthday coming up) fell into your lap?

If I had nearly 3 grand and a ton of free time I'd throw that 7D and a couple of those lenses in a bag, buy a ticket to somewhere in  southeast Asia or south america and see how long I could hang out before running out of money. I bet that would help get some photographic creativity going. Experiences and opportunities are far better than any gear you can buy. It might be worthwhile to think of other things you could spend that money on that would be good for your photography besides a new camera body or lens. Good luck, man, and take care of yourself.

Good point. I wouldn't pay out for a 5DIII if money is tight. The 6D is a fine camera and the AF has never let me down.........it would also be a much better match for your current lenses. Sell the EF-s and add a 50 f1.4, then youre good for anything.

39
Here is a link to a guy who uses Sony, including the a7 and the a7s (Yosemite Sunrise). These look to be single exposure pictures and many are really lovely, but you can see the EV range limitations with one exposure even here.

https://500px.com/burkardphoto

@ orangutan: jrista has backpeddled when stating "in many cases there is no difference" and he has done this since trying the a7r for himself. Prior to this he was saying Canon had fundamental issues with image quality, and it is statements like that which create the arguments.

The a7s, the D810s, they are all capable of fantastic quality - just like Canon.

40
I could take a picture of my ass with the A7 and there'd be "X" amount of dynamic range.

I could take a picture of a smiling baby with my 60D...not as much.

Which would you rather BEHOLD?

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DAMN DATA!

If you are Miss Minolta I think you should post some examples.

41
I wasn't able to find any kind of landscapes on the first day that had high dynamic range (traffic held me up earlier in the day, when I finally got deep enough into the mountains, the sun had set before I found a scene.)

Hmmm......

My goal was to provide data.

There's a slight contradiction here; no one was asking for a pictorial masterpiece, simply a genuine but EV challenging landscape shot into, or across the sun.

Be that as it may, can you blame him for wanting to find something beautiful to shoot with short-term rented gear?

Not at all, and he was heading that way by the sound of it. But once it became clear that I was being beaten by time ( which happens to me sooo often !), in this case, and given his goal to provide data, I'd have pulled up and just got a sunlit landscape shot of something. And as you have read above, I think he probably did.

42
I wasn't able to find any kind of landscapes on the first day that had high dynamic range (traffic held me up earlier in the day, when I finally got deep enough into the mountains, the sun had set before I found a scene.)

Hmmm......

My goal was to provide data.

There's a slight contradiction here; no one was asking for a pictorial masterpiece, simply a genuine but EV challenging landscape shot into, or across the sun. Any bright or sunlit landscape will do.

Fortunately mnm stepped into the breach with some real examples, and one of them is very pleasing to boot.

I reckon you found, not surprisingly, that you were unable to emulate the wonderful pictures that you linked to on 500px in a single exposure because those images were, of course, multiple exposures, even if only two.

43
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 01:21:24 PM »
To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard.  Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post?  Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

If you only see benefit in better IQ at ISO 400 and below on occasions when you need to push 5 stops then I feel sorry for you.

Using the front page of flickr, I click "explore". The distribution of ISO across the first 32 images is:
   8 No ISO
  11 100
   1 1250
   3 200
   5 400
   1 4000
   2 500
   1 80
(I stopped at 32 because the tab bar in chrome was looking a bit full.)

Feel free to write an essay or add more witty comments about how it makes more economic sense to improve camera performance at ISO ratings that 1/16th of the population uses than it does at an ISO setting that 1/3 of the population uses. Or just continue flaming away in ignorance.

The attached image is evidence of just how bad the banding is. And this is at ISO 100, where IQ is meant to be at its best. How far did I push the image? 1.9 stops. Note again that the histogram indicates that there is a continued presence of detail all the way up to the highlights (some of which are blown and elsewhere in the image), meaning that there is not really any room for ETTR. Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera then that banding and noise in the shadow area that has been lifted simply wouldn't be there.

The histogram is from the exposure push. You have pushed virtually zero data and got FPN as a result. It doesn't matter if it a half stop push or five. I think that nearly everyone accepts that if you want to push zero data you will get less noise from the Exmor. That ship has sailed. Forget it, nobody is interested in this now but the likes of yourself. This whole debate has distilled out to the base nitty gritty: forget overall dynamic range, you have to push zero data to see the result you want.

You can keep posting images like this but all you are doing is waving a white flag as far as your argument is concerned.


44
I see what you tried to do with this thread jrista, and while it does show that the A7R's sensor is superior to the 5D3's at the settings you used, unfortunately the fanboys have gone on the defensive and resorted to borderline bullying.

He has deliberately drastically under exposed to try to prove his theory.

The images are NOT underexposed if the goal is to preserve the view outside the windows.  In fact, some of the pixels from the windows are blown out in the raw data.

Now, if you don't mind all-white windows, then the images are underexposed.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Exmor isn't better in this rather niche circumstance, if you are happy with the, let's face it, unacceptable result to most.

I asked the OP to shoot some realistic landscapes in challenging light. He failed to do so, claiming the weather was too poor, yet in his rock comparison picture both the image and the histogram suggest there was some bright light - unless of course both these cameras have a dynamic range of about four EV.

However mnm has kindly made available some A7r raws which were shot in a realistic but challenging landscape EV situation. I'm currently working on those with interest.

45
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:32:51 AM »
To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard.  Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post?  Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ when pushing five stops

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 132