October 20, 2014, 06:06:52 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 6 ... 132
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:21:19 PM »
Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?

To demonstrate how Exmor is better than Canon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading - What To Expect
« on: October 02, 2014, 03:36:08 PM »
After a magnificent 2.5 years spent with my amazing EOS 500D, I will be upgrading to the 7Dii when it launches.

I've taken a few decent to good pics with the 500D but my growth as a photographer meant that I needed something a little bit more advanced for what I would like to shoot, namely birds in flight and wildlife in general and the 7Dii definitely has what I'm looking for.

ITR. 65 points. Advanced AF modes. 10fps. Intelligent viewfinder. Up, down, left, right. Tracking sensitivity. Lens group designations... Uhm, wow! All of a sudden, upgrading seems rather daunting.

I just got done reading a post on Facebook where somebody upgraded from a 650D to a 7D about 3 months ago but is finding his pics from his 650D sharper. The lenses were calibrated against both bodies yet the results stay the same.

Can an upgrade of this nature be too much for some photographers?

Regarding an upgrade of this magnitude, what would you folks see as being the three most difficult to grasp features?

The 7D has quite a strong AA filter than requires subtle sharpening to give optimum results, un-sharp mask 100% at about 0.3 does the job. The 650D was a much later incarnation of the 18mp sensor and didn't require a great deal of sharpening.

I think the 7DII sensor will be much better sorted, year for year, than the 7D was.

Trust me, you are going to love the 7DII after the 500D.

I think the subject is interesting, I am trying to get better at landscape photography, I am however unsure what methods yield the best results-

I been out the last days and chanced on couple of sunsets, both from rather boring places though. Tried to take some single exposures on my a7r and process them and they are both near the limit of what the a7r can do so needless to say it would just be garbage if taken with a Canon camera.

My question is, would they be better if taken as multiple exposures (with any camera) and mixed or HDR or any other form of processing? And if so what would the benefits be?

Well at least you have posted something the OP should have done, some landscape shots into the sun with the A7.

The first picture is really quite beautiful.

Were you being serious about saying the images would be garbage if shot on a Canon ? Not sure if you were being sacrastic or not.

In the first picture it looks as if the sun has virtually gone, obviously not in the frame so not a huge EV range in this pic. My only comments would be that the horizon is just a little off ( down on the left ) and the luminosity - light intensity of the sky does not match the luminosity in the rest of the picture, so to me it just looks a little unnatural, but that is just a personal point of view.

In the second picture the camera has been unable to record the sun disc which is no surprise. Perhaps you have a tiny bit more around the sun that's not blown than I would expect, but you'd have to put the two pictures together to notice it. You have a masking shadow or correction radius left on the hills, but to be honest I don't think you would see much of a difference between Canon and Exmor in these situations until you began pushing shadows more, which is not what most people want to do.

Regarding using B&B or HDR it is difficult to give a definitive response without seeing the raw files. I suspect the luminosity of the valley and hills in the second shot could be improved significantly if you'd worked from a B&B file.

I'd like to ask about input and inspiration about a problem that wildlife photogs are bound to face:

The heap of digital data grows and the *absolute* "good enough" threshold for most purposes seem to be reached - so it's getting harder to excel just by using the latest gear. On the other hand, the *relative* iq progresses, so your 18mp shots from now will be obsoleted by the 36mp shots from tomorrow if they basically look much alike.

How do you handle this problem, what's your idea of being different?

Even more expensive gear (200-400L...)? Even more remote shooting locations? Novel postprocessing styles? Or as an amateur, is it you simply don't care if your shot of a white-bellied heron looks exactly like every other as long as you know it's *your* shot with *you* being there?

Thanks for any inspiration, and if there are some good replies I'll share my approach :-)

I think your question applies to photography in general now, not just wildlife. But the cream still rises to the top. Look at Edward Lang's (eml58) wildlife pictures. Simply stunning. Some of them are so well lit you'd think they had been shot on a set. You obviously must have the tools to be physically able to do the job, but as many have stated: we've never had it so good in photography.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 09:09:45 AM »
So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Come on Dildert, man up ! You've admitted it was your use of that particular head with that camera, lens combo. The head was not faulty, ergo you as the operator were faulty.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:42:12 AM »
No, the 5D3 sample is correct. The sensor in the 5D3 is almost the same as the 5D2 - complete with banding and noise. Canon did nothing to improve the IQ of the sensor between these two cameras.

so, according to dxo, both sony and nikon are both good at IQ when comparing to canon.  why don't you take any of them, i do not mind even if you are using D4s which has better focus.

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?
For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

Considering that they're what I consider to be throw aways ...
So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.

The yosemite pic (sunset) is blurred due to the camera moving. It's useless for anything other than a web forum.
So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

One hundred and eighty !!

Or for anyone that has never played darts;

Bullseye !

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:50:43 PM »
I know Sarangiman would probably disagree.


They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality

Does that mean there's won't be a wedding any time soon ?

Fundamental. Do you know what that means ? How can you say that in the face of all the superb quality imagery produced on Canon sensors they have a fundamental problem with image quality ?

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:18:51 PM »
WTF? What market response are you talking about?

The market response according to the law of accipiterQ: I sayeth therefor it be true.

Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:17:10 PM »
A great place for walks

Or was it that he found, as I have been saying all the time, the Sony can't record the actual light source as well as what it's illuminating either in one exposure ?

Dude, get a grip.  Go read the Internet.  It's Exmor!!  There's nothing it can't do.  Need to stand in a cave under overcast skies at night and capture the sun while pushing shadows to reveal crater detail on the dark side of the moon?  Get an Exmor!!


Well there is at least one 5DIII that appears to have an Exmor sensor installed in it; at least when fitted with a 17 TS-E  ;)


Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: October 01, 2014, 07:45:13 AM »
The up load to CR seems to be killing the contrast. I think this is what has happened to Tex pictures. I've modified mine accordingly.

The Forum converts the images to PNG, but they suffer.  I try to link mine directly from SmugMug so no uploading happens.
I took some shots of our local Inland Grange trail riders again last Saturday.  I've done it every Fall since 2010.  I shoot the images when the riders are heading out at 10 AM, take them home and do a little cropping and adjustment of lighting, then print them on 4 X 6 photo paper, and have them back for the Grange when the riders return at about 12:30.  The grange sells them for $5 each which goes into their operations.  We live out in the country where the grange system is still going strong, community members all pull together to support each other.  Rather than bog the thread down with a lot of images, you can see them here:

Thanks for that info; I had no idea that the site converted to png.

Enjoyed the pictures in your link, I haven't seen so many pleasure riders in the States all riding Western ! Those saddles cost a fortune over here in England.

I've added another shot, this time in png. Not as dramatic but I like the lighting.

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:12:09 AM »
17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIII

The tonal quality in the foreground is exceptional ! How many exposures was this ?

I'm still puzzled why the OP didn't take some 'landscape' shots as a direct comparison between the two cameras,,and this has been something of a disappointment to me. I know he stated that the weather was very poor but the shots of the rocks, judging by the image and histogram, looks like there was a fair amount of bright light about when they were taken. Why didn't he just point the camera at a sky/land/trees scene and shoot ? Or was it that he found, as I have been saying all the time, the Sony can't record the actual light source as well as what it's illuminating either in one exposure ?

Anyway the samples so far have put me off getting a Sony A7s. I've been half talking myself into one of these due to the 12 mp sensor and large pixels. Canon will never produce another 12 mp FF camera because it is just too niche a product for them. It's probably too niche for Sony too, it's just that unlike Canon they don't realize that yet. As all the serious work I do is stitched, 12 mp is just ample in one frame and I have been kidding myself that others might actually see a difference in the tonal ranges of the final print, but really it's just an excuse to purchase something new.

And in the UK the D810 is being offered at a £300 ($450) discounted sale price for a 'limited period of time'. What's that all about so soon after launch ? Someone is supposed to be dropping one of these in for me to try any time now, and I still have a few Nikkor lenses left, so I'll post some 'normal' high contrast landscapes when I've used it.

For me it would be focus. In the days of manual focus the ones I didn't quite get right, with AF lack of AFMA resulting in off focus at fast apertures.

For virtually everything else there has always been a work around.

I've updated the original post with a set of example images from this weekend. One of the few sets that actually were not blurred by camera shake on the A7r. I don't know if I'll get another chance to use the A7r in any kind of DR-limited situation...weather moved in, it's been raining a lot, so there simply isn't any high contrast. I could do more interior shots...but we all know how that would probably go down.

Looking at your new samples there is considerably more highlight ( direct sunlight) on the rocks on the right of the picture in the Sony file - I mean significantly more, anyone will see it. Either the light was changing as you changed cameras or once again the Canon file is under exposed relative to the Sony.

I'll be interested to see the raw files.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 132