August 18, 2017, 09:08:25 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
91
EOS Bodies / Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Last post by privatebydesign on August 17, 2017, 02:22:56 PM »
I download the RAW files from DPReview and do my own processing to them for any comparison I am interested in.

I do this too in order to get a feeling of the raw output from different cameras, but the problem I find is that virtually all the images, whether they be from DPR or others, are either exposed for an unedited ooc jpeg, or under exposed. Often the two go together. So it is difficult for me to establish from these on-line downloadable files what the results would be if the exposures were optimal for the kind of output I had in mind. This brings us back to the point you were making about being able to compare optimally exposed and processed files for a specific camera, rather than an across the range standard that often disadvantages Canon.
The tests we do are in a controlled environment using a sphere with an evenly lit aperture that can be consistently checked so we know its the same from one test to another. This has a grate that has an equivalent of a 20 stop DR change and shots taken with this using a base ISO of 100 (for instance) are then analysed automatically i.e. no human interpretation. The process we use is identical to manufacturers.

The same light sphere can also be used to shoot resolution tests with the CIPA High resolution chart which we also do however these are not automatically referenced and do rely on human "knowledge" the same as using a projector to test lenses for a number of aberrations but again nothing different to how the majors lens manufacturers work because we have visited them and had their training as well as our own.

Finally we shoot LOTS of footage / images in varying light conditions and know the ones that will really test equipment.

I stand by the Bill Claff comment my point was his methods are consistent.

Yes I agree his methods are consistent, what I am questioning is the relevance of the results.

What real world value do esoteric numbers have from an undemosaiced RAW file? My point is if every file has to run through an algorithm to be able to see the image then what is happening is we are seeing people applying the same post processing to different files or showing differences in unseeable data, neither of those has much relevance to people interested in actual output image quality. Yes that information can give pointers to performance, but neither illustrates what we can actually expect from the files if we bought the camera.

Further, to Sporgon's point, even consistent test images are regularly found wanting, have you seen the illumination difference between the right side (brighter) and left side (darker) of the test images DPReview puts out?

I am not saying jeffa can't be more consistent, or take better quality test images, what I am saying is how you present those comparisons is critical for that comparison to have meaning and relevance. Personally the only relevant comparison I am interested in is an optimally processed image that was optimally exposed because that is what I will be working with if I buy the camera.

Optimally processed invariably, and in my experience, means different processing for each camera.
92
6D Mark II Sample Images / Re: First 6DMKII photoshoot
« Last post by tomscott on August 17, 2017, 02:22:31 PM »
Ok guys managed to get these uploaded to Flickr to share with you guys.

Experience was extremely positive, I don't think its playing overly well with my 24-70 F2.8 L MKI in terms of AF but all my other lenses I had no issue with at all 70-200mm F2.8 MKII and 16-35mm F2.8 MKII.

All i can say is wow... the 6DMKII handled flawlessly and the tilt screen came in handy in so many shots! The high ISO is incredible and the low light AF... put it this way both blow the doors off a 5DMKIII I don't think the AF missed once on the dance floor.

Now I have got used to using the two dial AF point selection method I think its actually faster than using the joystick and really enjoyed using this technique.

Auto ISO was very intelligent and I love the focal length minimum shutter speed. Actually didn't realise the 7DMKII had it also so used it all day and honestly is one less thing to think about. Situations unfold at 100 million miles an hour and its so nice to know that you won't get caught out. Although it doesn't work so well with standard telephotos 24-70mm for example it will shoot in that range so you can't rely on it for freezing action. Had to watch that and have now altered it to one stop. It would be nice if you could set minimums for lenses as three lenses I use the most is the trinity and obviously on the wide end if you let it shoot at a shutter speed matching focal length you get in trouble.

Very very happy performed fantastically. Above and beyond what I expected.

The camera has been slated but dam did it perform well, the feel, weight and how responsive it is I really feel this is a big improvement on the 5DMKIII I got shots which weren't possible to me with that camera and it has made my job a lot easier.

Loved it so much I'm pretty sure I shot over 2000 images with it and I took 3 cameras....

Helps to have a really awesome venue. Calthwaite Hall, Cumbria UK.

Here are some images

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

These two shot are so hard to shoot with the viewfinder, most brides can't really sit down when they have had their dress corseted so you have to get a really big chair or get them to sit by a window but this isn't always possible so using the tilt screen made this really easy, just touched the screen to focus and shoot. Just have to be careful as you don't have the three points of contact with the camera you have to make sure your shooting fast enough.

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The shutter speeds are a little low in these shots but kept the ISO down. I would like preferred to be in the 1/60-80th as above now set this up a stop so at 24mm for example minimum will be 1/60th.

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

ISO 1600 looking really good

Sammy & Richard Watson by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Cheeky 10,000 ISO at the end

Really pleased with the results. Hope you like them and they are helpful. These are full size and resoltion so have a look on Flickr to zoom around. No noise reduction added didn't think it needed it apart from the 10,000.

Cheers

Tom
 
93
Abstract / Re: Vintage & Classic & Aged Object
« Last post by Pookie on August 17, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex Beta, the first camera I owned.
Looking good there !!!
94
Abstract / Re: Vintage & Classic & Aged Object
« Last post by Pookie on August 17, 2017, 02:13:30 PM »
@ Pookie - It's beautiful camera :)  If Leica has AF system in their digital range style, I would be interested.

@ dpc - would be wonderful if Canon has something like that in FF mirrorless  ;)

Range finder and AF...  :o HCB just did somersaults in his grave with that comment. They are either a rangefinder or they are not. "Digital range style" is like saying "sort of pregnant" or "partial zero emission vehicle".
95
That would help a little, but you still have to use the carpel tunnel mouse....for me, better solution would be improved keyboard shortcut use in adobe....so you can just click E to adjust exposure with arrow keys --- but single click keys are already fairly mapped out so that' not gonna work.  Your idea may work for some, but for those like me it's just more taxing on my already taxed right hand


After watching a few videos on this, No.  I edited tape to tape video for many years and the controllers were well designed. 
The first thing that caught my eye was that the knob layout is ergonomically wrong.  They should be along the side edge vertically so they don'y block your movement to the upper controls.
The scroll type wheels are ways too slow to claim it would speed up processing.  The smarter method would have been a touch pad that you could slide your finger across to make adjustments.

I think the greatest thing to speed up PS/LR workflow would be to couple slider adjustment to the scroll wheel on the mouse.  This would eliminate a tremendous amount of wrist movement. Basically, that is what this controller is doing, but mechanically.   That would be an awesome hack!
Just click on the adjustment and scroll away.  :)
96
So your scan will likely look quite grainy on the screen, but that does not mean it will look that way when you print it.

Grain in a scan can be reduced just like we reduce noise in a digital image. The caveat is that algorithm designed for CCD/CMOS noise may not work well with film grain, because of the different distribution and behaviour. There are some Photoshop plug-ins designed to reduce film grain, and some can yield good results. They also need to take into account the scanner itself will introduce some noise.

Downsampling will reduce grain just like it reduce noise, thereby it could be better to get a high-res scan (as long as the scan can deliver good results, and not just more grain/noise), instead of a smaller one.

Anyway, some grain in some images may also convey the "film" look.
97
Software & Accessories / Re: Use of solar eclipse filter once the eclipse is done
« Last post by bholliman on August 17, 2017, 01:30:15 PM »
The quickest thing I learned was that being out in the sun in August in North Carolina with a black t-shirt over your head gets uncomfortable very fast. But it does help focus using the screen.

No kidding!  I was just out doing some practice shooting during my lunch hour with blanket over my head -
 it wasn't fun! (90+ and humid here).  I suppose I could invest in a Hoodman loop, but I doubt I would use it again, so really can't see spending the $90 or so for a one-time event.

I tried autofocus, and the camera went wild and seemed to display the corona briefly and arrived somewhere odd. So I turned that off, put the t-shirt over my head, and focused manually from the screen.

I had found somebody's lens tests, and their charts suggested this lens is at its best somewhere between f/11 and f/16. That should help the focus issue, too. So I took a bunch of pictures at f/14, some at f/16, and for grins a few at f/32 and f/45, at various shutter speeds between 1/1000 and 1/30. The overexposed ones seemed to mask the CA better. The darker ones appeared to show a bit of detail. I suspect most of that is noise, but I was not successful with stacking in Photoshop and seeing anything useful from the difference, etc., modes. The apparent sunspot on the upper left is apparent in all the shots that aren't way too dark or way too bright. Since the pictures were shot over a period of 16 minutes and different parts of the sensor were used at different times, that makes me reasonably sure that wasn't an artifact of the sensor or lint on the filter. And thus I suspect that it was in good focus and that the filter is not bad.

Here is a full-size crop of a shot at 1/320 sec. f/16 ISO 200 manual focus AWB. I did no adjustments in camera raw, and did just the crop in Photoshop and saved as a JPEG:
Your focus looks pretty close here.  My AF goes crazy unless my focus point in LV is picking up the edge of the sun, in the center there is no detail to focus on.

I've been shooting at f/5.6, wide open with my 300mm f/2.8 + 2x extender with pretty good results.  The e-book I read recommended f/4 to f/8 as wider apertures will keep you ISO down during totality.  I'm planning to use ISO 400 and f/5.6 during totality so I can keep my shutter speeds under 1/4 second, to avoid the earth's movement being picked up by a slower shutter speed.  This is using the recommended setting in the book, but if there is any partial cloud cover higher ISO or slower shutter speeds will be required.

Today was my final practice and it went pretty well.  I've been through it enough to have the steps down, but who knows what will happen in the excitement of the moment.  Good luck with your practice and actual event shooting!
98
Software & Accessories / Re: Decent tripod for a heavy head and camera
« Last post by SecureGSM on August 17, 2017, 01:24:31 PM »
oops, how about this one here?  :D

seems to be 4 section portable travel tripod and rated for 25lbs.:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20499.msg387490#msg387490

"... The Really Right Stuff TQC-14 is their 'travel tripod', the lightest and weakest one they make. It's rated for 25 lbs. That load capacity might, just might, be a bit conservative...."

(c) Neuro




Really, about 6-7KG is the maximum I would ever put on ANY 4 section travel tripod, and the vast majority will make you feel like it's not only unstable, but dangerous.  Most of these have spindly, thin, light legs, and putting any heavy lens on there will give it just too much flex.
99
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« Last post by Jack Douglas on August 17, 2017, 01:06:24 PM »
Need help with this flycatcher?? and I assume I'm correct on the house finch but maybe not.

Jack
100
Lenses / Re: acceptable storage conditions
« Last post by sulla on August 17, 2017, 01:04:48 PM »
Thanks. That looks great!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]