September 23, 2014, 04:21:50 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 127
91
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:05:01 AM »
Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down.  Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

As I said I don't really see this as an accurate comparison unless you are going to enlarge beyond 100%, but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Down sampling from a higher resolution - more pixels on target  - should give more definition just as 10 mp sRAW in the 5DII results in more definition than the 5D 12.7 mp RAW.

I agree that a 12 mp 1100D is not an 18 mp 7D, but even so I would have expected to see some difference.

92
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:03:05 AM »
Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down.  Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

But with more original pixels on target I would expect the higher res one to be better defined even when reduced. I'll try up sampling the lower res one, but still not go further than 100% enlargement as this seems to inevitably disadvantage the lower one to me.

93
This really has me baffled.
85mm f1.8 @ f4, 1/1250. ISO 100
Shot on 5DII and 1100D. The crop camera down sampled to match 5D as that camera works out at about 8.5 mp when cropped and the 1100D is a 12 mp aps camera. Hand held, but had to resort to live view focusing as I couldn't believe the results.

100% crops from each camera.

94
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:34:43 AM »
I have to say that this has really surprised me. Here's another example this time using a much better lens at optimal aperture, hand held. I have to own up and say I cheated because I ended up using live view to focus as I couldn't belief the results. 5DII cropped to APS so about 8.5 mp and a 12 mp 1100D. Just for fun I removed the data to see who can tell which is the crop camera. It should be obvious.

I'm now going to go and read up on the appropriate thread to try and understand what's going on.......

95
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:06:35 AM »
I've been following this debate on the FF cropped vs extra 'reach' of the denser pixel'd APS, and couldn't quite believe that the APS wouldn't be better, so I shot two quick hand held shots with AF out of the window on a 5DII and a 1100D, so after cropping it is about 8mp from the FF and 12 from the crop. Downsampled the crop to the same size and here are the results at 100%

I'm quite surprised. Going to do it again with a better lens to see if this can bring out the benefit of those extra pixels.


96
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 04:50:07 AM »
This thread has made my brain swell with dumb minutiae.

jakeymate, please, don't wait to get banned from the site.  Just leave and don't come back.  You are a troll, plain and simple. Sorry to be honest here, but that sums it up.  You enjoy stirring the pot with stupid stuff just for the attention, and with only ~15 posts to your current avatar, you add nothing but frustration.

Obviously you favor Nikon, a great system.  Canon, also is a great system.  Go to Nikonrumors.com and enjoy their company, and don't look back.

If you choose to stay, I promise that if I see your name, I won't read anything you write, as it offends me.

Regards.

sek

Get banned for what exactly?

I simply can't believe that you'd read my posts, which talk about the good, bad and indifferent elements of Nikon and Canon as trolling.

I think you need to learn the difference between informed opinion, facts, and trolling.

Because yours is the stupidest post I've read in some time.

If that's how you feel, then be my guest, ignore me.

I'll not lose any sleep over it.

Jakey, since our last conversations here on CR I've dug out my old Pentax 67 system, blown the dust off it and have been shooting Portra 160. Honestly mate, your repeated posts arguing the minutiae between the Canon and Nikon sensors is trivial compared with a high quality scan of a well exposed 6x7 negative. The facts are you are still confined to the piddley little 2.4 x 3.6 image. If you want to see real tonal graduation, real improvement in DR, go get a 6x7 medium format system and shot some decent format sized film. You won't be arguing about the difference between Nikon and Canon digital FF anymore.

Looking at the stuff you shoot it could give your work a real 'here's something different' look to the common-or-garden digital images we're all used to seeing now.

97
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:10:00 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

Perhaps in real money terms, but I would say the 70-300 DO is probably the greatest depreciating lens from new in terms of percentage.

Which is interesting because both these lenses tend to get really bad reviews, and this is reflected in the second hand values. Yet Canon sensors get bad reviews against Exmor yet they still outsell the other brands. My guess is that this is because in the case of the DO lenses people are dissatisfied with the results they get, whereas with the cameras they are quite happy. So I suppose the moral of the story is that the buying public will ignore a bad review if it's BS.

98
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:52:04 PM »
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.
I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions.  Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care.  It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me.  Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR.  I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.



On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo. 



What you probably find dissatisfying about the first picture is that it is too close to how we see things. The old artist masters of past years, way before the advent of photography, could, if they had so wished, have painted things as we actually see them. After all they could lift the shadows as much as they wanted. But they didn't. They enhanced the shadows, increased the contrast, purposely lost detail in the shadows and so on. Why ? Because they wanted to produce a picture that is pleasing to look at just as we do now.

If you look at a scene with a decent EV range and consider what you are looking at you realise that we see things very flat, which is probably why we have such good DR ( Even better than the Nikon D800 !!  ::) ), but it makes for a very poor picture.

No one here has talked of technology taking over from creativity, just the human input necessarily to produce technically sound results.

99
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:22:01 PM »
But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "   ;)

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with  :(

100
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:06:31 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.
The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.

Good to have another person on CR who has real world experience of the front runners in the race   :)

101
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.

102
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.

103
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.

104
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  ;) ).

105
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.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 127