March 03, 2015, 07:20:01 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 150
526
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 03:46:05 AM »
...
So, the thing you might be missing...is that HDR isn't difficult these days. If you need more DR, take an extra frame or two (or 14). That works in every camera, regardless of it's sensor capabilities.
...

HDR is only useful where you can use a shutter speed of > 1 second because otherwise the inter-frame changes make it look crap. Think wind blowing in trees, moving water, etc.

That assumes landscapes. There are plenty of still-life use cases...such as PBD's interior design scene, or my description of the WWII plane interior. You could expose for as long as you wanted with such a scene, as there are no trees, or flowing water, etc. Most of the 15-frame HDR images I've seen were still scenes, usually interiors of something or some kind.

Talking of landscape, I find it really really strange that the antagonist in this thread is clearly a studio photographer where you have full control over DR, in fact for a studio photographer DR is the last of your worries, assuming that is, that you are competent in studio set up. So I just don't see why this guy was banging on and on about DR. Oh well yes I do, it's the only area where the Canon sensor can be regarded as inferior to the Sony.

Ironically the landscape pictures that our antagonist posted as examples of greater DR were terribly flat. Even the small landscape shots posted by PBD shout tonal range and luminosity which complement and enhance the light that was already present.

I suppose when you compare those images it boils down to the age old adage: it's not what you've got, it's how you use it  ;)

527
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:31:38 AM »
If my memory serves I was the only one present who'd used both cameras, and had 10 years experience of Canon sensors before going to Nikon's D800, of which I have over 2 years experience, using it every day.

Well it doesn't serve you correctly because there were at least two people involved in that discussion that have used the D800. To assume that those on CR are arguing from a position of ignorance is disingenuous to say the least.

The video posted by the Russian guy is typical of the comparisons in image quality between the 5DIII and the D800. The 5DIII is consistently underexposed compared with Nikon and then heavy shadow areas are lifted to above mid tones and the two compared. I never have to lift shadows anything like this and therefore have no issues with any noise that might lurk beneath. As you like oblique comparisons lit's like saying the paint work on a Rolls Royce is crap because of the undercoat they use.

I'm about to have a D810 land at Building Panoramics for me to try, it's going to have to offer a lot more than the D800 before I would be interested. In my opinion the low ISO image quality from the latest generation of FF cameras is simply stunning, and the extra DR offered by the D800 was not enough on its own to make me want to change. Look at the tonal graduation on the Canon, see the graduation into high and low light; it is as good as the best of film, as good as, if not better than the Exmor.

I will say though that I found it easier to produce the sort of images that I make on the D800, but that is not enough to make me want to change. Bear in mind that in any sort of photography where you are producing relatively few images, there is inevitably a large amount of pp anyway. If you want to shoot landscapes as jpegs off camera the D800 is the way to go, but who wants to do that ?

But what puzzles me is why you have kept following CR. If you have been enlightened with the Sony chip why bother ? Or do you have a nagging doubt that maybe you haven't done the right thing ? You've spent $12,000, changed systems and well, was it really worth it. What's going to happen with the next generation of Canon sensor ? What if soon there will be a Canon chip where I can lift underexposure five stops and still have the superb ergonomics that I now miss so much ?

Just one last point; I'v seen a few pictures that Neuro has posted here on CR, shots of his kids in a make shift studio and they are every bit as competent and impressive as the best of your studio work that I have seen on your website. 


528
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:05:34 PM »
Он чувствует себя немного странно, что Canon больше не кажется, быть в состоянии конкурировать в таких областях, как качество изображения, шума датчика, даже сильных полях Nikon AF, кажется, догнал D810. немного волнуясь

3eBaTb

(Yawn)


529
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:27:01 PM »
Yeah...he seems to think EVERYONE shoots at ISO 100.

Yes but what he is saying has no relevance to ISO 100 either. To suggest that if paper only can reproduce x range of latitude so there is no point in working the data in 16 bit as opposed to an 8 bit JPEG is, quite honestly astonishing, more so given the fact that there are now so many good references to post processing on the web.

There really is no excuse for being so misinformed in this day and age.

530
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:55:47 AM »
If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

I don't know what to say. I'd have never made a school teacher.

You're confusing theoretical DR from bit depth of A/D converter with a 16 bit RGB TIF file in post processing, or something like that.

531
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:23:15 AM »

So you have harped on about how there is no need to have cameras with high DR because this isn't capable of it or that isn't capable of it but yet your entire workflow is in 16bit.


Something doesn't add up here. You're saying that printing only delivers 7 or 8 stops of DR yet your workflow supports 16. Why not just work in an 8 bit workspace since that is all that your printing can deliver?

Oh my goodness. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Every now and again someone on CR who is trying to sound knowledgeable and intelligent drops a real clanger - remember professor Pi - "Exposure Value ? That's a term you just made up".

Now jrista is going to patiently and conscientiously, like a seasoned old school master teaching a delinquent child, explain to you why we work in 16 bit.

Update - I see he already has !

532
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:48:28 PM »
Holy Mountain

Just love the colour and tones - the atmosphere of this picture.

533
Street & City / Re: Street Candid Portraiture
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:31:29 AM »
i like your telephoto street shots !

534
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:46:06 PM »
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here.  I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used.  And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review.  I'll admit it,  I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used.  But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference.  I'm now worried that I must be missing something.  Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me!  When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera?  If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12.  I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.

I sure hope this is sarcasm  :-\

No, it will be true.

I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.

On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.

I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.  ;)

There is, obviously, little difference between images taken with any SLR under optimal conditions FOR that camera.
A daylight image with a Rebel vs a 1D might not look different.
However, that doesn't still mean a 5DIII isn't a far superior camera to the 5D, because when the highlights are blown, for example, I can recover them in my 5DIII and not in my 5D (just one of many factors).

You are of course quite right, the 5DIII is a far superior camera technically, and yes I very much agree on the highlights. The latest Canon FF also have much better tonal graduation and graduation to White and black, as good as film now really, in fact IMO this aspect of the film-like tonal graduation is better on the 5DIII than the D800, at lowest ISO too.

[/quote]
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.
[/quote]

Actually I'm only professional when I feel like it  ;)

To be honest the reason I'm using FF is because I come from an era when APS was the most hideous creation of film ever developed, and the crop factors on lenses drove me nuts.

There are many brilliant photographers using four thirds, never mind APS. I could produce all my pictures on APS and no one would know - except for me, and that's enough.

535
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 11:02:09 AM »
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here.  I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used.  And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review.  I'll admit it,  I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used.  But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference.  I'm now worried that I must be missing something.  Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me!  When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera?  If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12.  I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.

I sure hope this is sarcasm  :-\

No, it will be true.

I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.

On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.

I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.  ;)

536
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 06:12:16 AM »


In that case, don't we want to start with a camera file that doesn't have any issues with excessive, visible (pattern) noise in darker areas that may show up more when lifted for printing.. Especially if lifted & accentuated more for optimal viewing in dimmer lighting conditions?

Yes and we've had those since 2002.

I print hundreds of large canvases and art prints that go all over the world. Never once have I been asked for a print to be 'optimised for viewing in dimmer lighting conditions'.

A picture is there to be viewed - you need to be able to see it - therefore you need to have a reasonable amount of light falling on it.

However aren't you the guy who wants to lift heavily underexposed shadow area by four, five stops or more ? In that case I suggested the dimmer the viewing light the better. Preferably no light at all.

537
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:29:11 AM »
400mm + 1.4x TC = IQ went down a bit

I really like this shot: the background has the look of an artist's brush, and the whole picture , subject, colours etc have a pleasing balance. As for 'IQ went down a bit' - who cares ?!  ;)

538
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 02, 2014, 01:48:14 PM »
To Canon,

I am either buying the D810 or the 3D if it will be over 36 MP and reviews of it will be better than reviews for the D810. If reviews for both of them say that their picture quality is equal and the 3D has WIFI, I will get the 3D. I have only bought Canon cameras in the past. I do not want to break the trend, but from everything I read, the best camera for landscapes is the D810.

I hope you find this post.

If you're serious about wanting this sort of Mp forget FF and go for a Pentax 645z system.

539
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 02, 2014, 09:31:02 AM »
In common with others, I have an old light meter, but find that my iPhone does the job.

I do have an old one that is now retired permanently so doesn't count, but I also have a modern one ( Sekonic), and to me it is just such a useful tool, especially when I am wanting to perfectly expose frames that I don't want to pp later. I find the camera's meter is generally quite accurate for producing raw data for pp; it tends to expose to spread the light levels (histogram) across the sensor's range, whereas exposure from an incident light meter will pin the exposure at it is.

So I find it quite amusing that despite the very different mediums of film and digital there is still the same relationship between exposing for negative film ( aka Raw ) and slide / transparency / reversal film ( aka jpegs).

I think my leased used piece of gear is my cable release. I just use the delayed timer because in practice I've found the two second delay is long enough for release vibrations to dampen out.

540
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:17:24 PM »
I really hope I'm proved right and the 7DII doesnt have a pop up flash. I just hate that nasty little bit of cheap plastic on a quality camera.

I really hope you are wrong!!
It's mostly those who want to show their camera off and appear to be such cool 'real pros' who knock stuff like that.

I wish you'd been there when the pop up flash got snapped off my D200, but then you'd probably have been in nappies at that time judging by the above quote.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 150