March 04, 2015, 03:43:59 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 150
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 03, 2015, 04:11:06 PM »
Don't get a lot of snow in East Yorkshire really. This is about as frozen as it gets.

Seeing as there is all this talk of a new 50 mil I thought I would give my old one an outing.

canon 5DII + EF 50 1.4 @f5 1/125 ISO 160

Lenses / Re: Canon 135L vs Canon 200L 2.8
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:05:36 PM »
Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time :D

I have had them both until recently, and I'd say in practice there is nothing between them. If you're going to be really picky the 135 at f/2.8 is probably a tad sharper than the 200 wide open at f/2.8.

The 200 is cheaper, and even cheaper still used. Agree with marsu42 on the flattering perspective; they are both pretty much the same.

A couple of practical points. The 135 is easier to hand hold and needs less space. Also bear in mind that you could get a 200 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.8 for the same price as a 135. ( or at least you can here in the UK). 85 is great for half length portraits. I think it's too short for a tight head crop.

Lenses / Re: New 50mm & 70-300mm Coming Soon? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:19:09 AM »
Count me in on a new 50. I'll even pay the EAP. My 50/1.4 is a superb lens, but I've never had it fixed since the AF went a bit feeble and hesitant and since dropping it it now has a de centring issue.

Hopefully, the 50 will be better optimized for wide open shooting.

That's certainly not what I want. The current lens is superb across the frame from about f/3.5 onwards; the new one had better be the same. I expect a small improvement in faster IQ, maybe achievable by not making it so fast in the first place, ie an f/1.8 or 2. How about an f/1.7 just for marketing purposes ?

The 50 1.2L is optimised for shooting open, and you are welcome to it.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:23:16 AM »
The ruined church is all that is left of the deserted medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire, England. The site is now owned by English Heritage.

THe village suffered in the Black Death of about 1350. However it's final demise came when the ruling Lord decided to do away with the peasant's fields and put it all down to grazing for sheep due to the profitability of the wool trade. And we think we have it bad now !

5DII + 24-105 @ 32 mil, f4.5, 1/100, ISO 160.

EOS Bodies / Re: The most important feature missing from the 5Ds/5DsR is...
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:29:11 AM »

Dilbert's continual griping if the camera matches the DR and FPN of the Exmor sensor.

Landscape / Re: ETTR and sunset skies
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:26:03 AM »
@dilbet: if one or more of those images was unaltered in exposure during conversion then you have under exposed anyway. Something that you seem to be either very good at, or completely helpless in avoiding.

So your 'ETTR' was probably more the correct exposure anyway.

On the discussions that we have had on CR regarding over exposing to increase image quality - or lack of it - the principle is around over exposure beyond where the data should sit on the sensor response.

Go buy yourself an incident light meter and find where the starting point is.

But don't go trying to set your sky exposure from incident light ! 

Technical Support / Re: ISO "L" or ISO100
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:27:00 AM »
ISO 100 on the 5DII is actually ISO 73 anyway. Whereas on the mark I overexposing by one full stop and bringing down on conversion ( ISO 'L') did give an improved quality, on later cameras, including the 5DII, I find there is no benefit.

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: Price of 5Ds
« on: February 01, 2015, 04:37:21 AM »
Use common sense people. Choose the lowest value.

The camera isn't even released and Canon marketing may be watching the poll to see what you are willing to pay.

This is not a poll of what I'm willing to pay, I am being pessimistic what Canon will charge for it. This camera will be in the same league as the 1D, so I expect the price in the same league.

Why is this in the same league as the 1 series ? Will the new 24 mp rebel be in the same league as the 20 mp 7DII ? Or the 40 mp phone ?

My opinion is that Canon are responding to a niche in the market and continual commentary on the matter has forced the companies hand, even to the point of two models, one with, and one without, the AA. They have seen that Nikon have been able to charge more for the AA less model, despite the fact that 99 times out of 100 you're better off with the AA. So expect the AA model to be the real price and the AA less one jacked up further, Canon working on the principle of a fool and their money.......etc. Both cameras will definitely come in at a big premium over the 5DIII but it will still be less than a 1Dx. The retail price will most probably then gravitate to sit somewhere between the 5 and 1 series. I'm guessing it is always going to be more expensive than the D810 because the Canon equivalents are, genuinely, more expensive.


You can simply test your software. Switch to manual mode and take a photo of some dark objects before a dominant white wall and expose like the camera would do (make the white wall grey). Then expose to the right and remember how many EV you increased the exposure. E.g. 1/100s camera exposure vs 1/25s ETTR exposure = +2EV. Then use the RAW files and convert them with your software and apply -2EV exposure to the second picture. Now they should have EXACTLY the same color properties but the ETTR picture should have less noise. If not, your software is not up to that specific task.

At the end of the day the goal is to take a picture and to expose for that specific subject and the sensor noise may actually be low enough that you are satisfied with the exposure suggested by the spot metering of the camera. In that case you can directly use the camera JPEGs and be fine. Heavy postprocessing is only for low volume activities or people with too much time.

What a load of rubbish ! You have underexposed the White wall in the first place due to the failings of your camera (reflective ) meter ! Your 'ETTR' is only to get back to the correct exposure anyway.

I've said it many times; those interested in learning photography should get themselves an incident light meter and start to get to grips with exposure. (And the fact someone posts here suggests they are interested).

As for 'the' spot meter reading, this is another exposure error give away. The whole idea of a spot meter is to take multiple readings. One spot meter reading is likely as not to be highly inaccurate.

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?
« on: January 31, 2015, 06:03:28 AM »
When I would scan my Velvia on a good film scanner I would get files that are about 30 MP in size.  I have always felt that was about the best that I could get out of the my film with a 35mm slide.  Still, modern lenses can out resolve my best film age lenses, so I would love to see what the files would look like from a 50 MP sensor.

How much of that 30 mp is emulsion grain ?

EOS Bodies / Re: Appreciation post
« on: January 31, 2015, 04:34:15 AM »
I just got some old 8mm video reel converted to digital (taken on a Canon 514XL in 1978).
While its content is priceless I was struck by how incredible the gear we have today is in comparison.

Back to 2015 and the video from my 1Dx is stunning. Every time I put on a different Canon lens on my body I think - actually this is an incredible lens too! So thank you to all the engineers and scientists who have contributed to gifting us insanely powerful photography equipment.

Some people are waiting for the never to arrive tomorrow to be satisfied - incremental updates in dynamic range come to mind!

I seem to be having a very insighful and mindful morning :)

I have drawers full of medium format 6x6 and 6x7 negatives and transparencies as well as a number of 5x4 transparencies. All in great nick; I'll scan some and post a few on CR some day.

I recon that FF is now comfortably ahead of 6x7 and my stitches are ahead of 5x4.

And then the blacks:

To summarise, we have lost saturation in the lighter blue and have gained nothing in the smoothness of the blacks.

Thanks for taking the time to do such an elaborate illustration of your point.  However, maybe you don't see gain because your sensor didn't produce noise in the blacks in the first place.  Is it possible to repeat your experiment with a much higher ISO? (I could try it myself, but if I post the results my crop sensor will spark DR arguments I fear, so I'll refrain).

Honestly, it wasn't that elaborate. It took all of ten minutes !

You are right about not producing noise in the blacks in the first place, but that is the issue with so many of these discussions regarding Canon 'IQ'.

If the exposure was correct with high ISO, and the EV range was within the scope of the sensor, I don't see it would make any difference to the principle here.


unless I changed the settings so much that then the preview looked dramatically different than the subject.

Welcome to raw RAW !

I think the tonality "issue" when trying to lower exposure of a overexposed sky is due to the fact that the closer we are to clipping all the channels, the harder it is for an individual channel to stick out and be visibly dominant. When we, in post, drag our sliders down, we are stuck with values that's perceived as closer to a "tinted light grey" (240 240 255), than a "subtle blue" (170 170 185).

How about that as a thought?

I think it has something to do with blue being the 'weakest' or 'darkest' wavelength of light, and the camera processor is applying more amplification to blue.

Certainly red and green are not as effected by overexposure, but it is there if you are extreme enough.

I haven't used a color picker to check saturation, I judged by looking at the pictures in the second set. Anyway, the brick wall does not look like it has identical exposure in both pictures.
I am wondering how the OP has done his adjustments. I think that using sliders in any software is not going to produce a linear shift of the values. I haven't tested it yet, but the best bet would be to use the curve tool and shift linearly everything.

They were not identical exposures, the second was two full stops over, then reduced two stops in DPP before converting to 16 bit TIFF.

I don't use 'sliders' to alter an image, this was tweaked in curves to balance the appearance. A very minor adjustment but I can't remember now, and these files are deleted anyway.

Using a small amount of ETTR is well established for assisting in a number of circumstances, and often something that I would do if faced with a single exposure shot of something in high contrast. However my point was made because of the LL article advising that the 'correct' exposure for a black cat in a coal hole is to expose the raw as virtually white, even given the date that this was produced.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 150