October 25, 2014, 02:07:30 AM

Author Topic: Crazy... go Nikon?  (Read 39157 times)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #165 on: April 01, 2013, 01:26:32 PM »
My humor can only go so far.

It only has 11 stops of DR.

+1   If you use a D800, your humor will be able to capture the full emotional range of the conversation, from the deepest greenish blacks of jealousy to the brightest, most ebullient highlights of joy.  Sadly, your pathetic 11 stops doesn't allow you to push the blocked up shadows of trollish frustration without the repeated pattern of noisy 'Canon sucks' whining.

If I didn't nail my punchline with 11 stops, I doubt that 14 stops would make it less of an awkward pause.

Yeah right ... Gear doesn't matter! ;)

+1

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #165 on: April 01, 2013, 01:26:32 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #166 on: April 01, 2013, 01:33:37 PM »
Unless it is a 135 f2................

The day a EF 135mm F/1.8L IS USM is released is the day I will change that but I doubt either will happen.

meli

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #167 on: April 01, 2013, 02:37:05 PM »
If you had exposed optimally for the look you wanted to end up with then either manufacturers camera could have done that, with ease. But you didn't, you underexposed both and one is better at sorting out your mistake than the other, Had you overexposed both then the Canon, in my experience, would have been a better file to give you the result you wanted, Canon RAW files have much better highlight recovery potential than Nikon RAW files do.

Learn how to expose optimally for the image you want and your equipments capabilities and stop relying on being able to post process the crap out of badly underexposed images when taken with a Canon. Ever notice that nobody ever complains about the highlight recovery of Canon? That is not true if you look at Nikon forums, all Nikon users know you must underexpose to get optimal results, start overexposing your Canon and your "issues" will largely evaporate.

I keep hearing of this ever since canon sensors were surpassed by every other player out there.
That unquantifiable, ethereal, hidden in the edges of overexposure, DR. Tell you what, there is no such thing. There're no hidden dr stops there. Canon is nailed to <12 DR stops for half a decade now and that includes the whole spectrum. No hidden highlight dr anywhere. No mystical 11.5dr + 2stops hidden in the highlights kind of thing.
And as someone who shoots nikon alongside canon i cant really see where you're getting that: "Canon RAW files have much better highlight recovery potential than Nikon RAW files do". Could you post an example?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #168 on: April 01, 2013, 02:41:05 PM »
:|

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #169 on: April 01, 2013, 09:47:48 PM »
It only has 11 stops of DR.
That sucks

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #170 on: April 01, 2013, 09:51:56 PM »
At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.

I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!
Help?
Help is when you have compared 2 systems as here, and you can se the pattern noise in Canons sensors compared to Sonys sensors in Nikon with out any pattern noise= 14 stops DR compared to 11 with pattern noise
In others words, it depends how you are developing the pictures and what you want to show from the shadows up to high lights
Or you could have exposed them differently to start with. If you take a picture into the setting sun, are you sure you are after the details in the ladies' backs? Personally, I would see that more as a silhouette shot.

that is not the question, with larger dynamic range you and I can present the pictures as we would have them
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Maybe it's my shortcomings as a photographer since I am only a hobbyist, but taking a picture into the setting sun, I would see it more as an art picture capturing the beautiful silhouettes than details of the ladies' shirts.

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2013, 03:39:32 AM »
Kind of like Aglet wanting a camera to automatically level for him!

check out a Pentax K5  :P


Learn how to expose optimally for the image you want and your equipments capabilities and stop relying on being able to post process the crap out of badly underexposed images when taken with a Canon. Ever notice that nobody ever complains about the highlight recovery of Canon? That is not true if you look at Nikon forums, all Nikon users know you must underexpose to get optimal results, start overexposing your Canon and your "issues" will largely evaporate.

that means, in some cases, ETTR but exposing to not clip highlites and then recurving the rest in post
a technique that works better with most other mfr's cameras that don't begin with "C"

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2013, 03:39:32 AM »

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #172 on: April 02, 2013, 03:48:17 AM »
Now show me a Nikon file that could do this.

HAHA!
That's a lot like, "show me a Canon file that can do this?"
you just moved the sliders the other way.

And SINCE PATTERN NOISE IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THE HIGHLIGHT END, exposing to retain as much hilite detail as possible and BRINGING UP CLEAN SHADOWS is, more often, the desirable approach.
Unless, that is, you're shooting with some bandy PoS camera whose noisy raw files won't allow you to do that w-o required a whole lot of extra time in Photoshop.
(Are you an Adobe sales rep? ;) )

ragmanjin

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 37
  • Life's never boring when you're insane
    • View Profile
    • Scratch Photography
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #173 on: April 02, 2013, 04:32:24 AM »
Now show me a Nikon file that could do this.

HAHA!
That's a lot like, "show me a Canon file that can do this?"
you just moved the sliders the other way.

And SINCE PATTERN NOISE IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THE HIGHLIGHT END, exposing to retain as much hilite detail as possible and BRINGING UP CLEAN SHADOWS is, more often, the desirable approach.
Unless, that is, you're shooting with some bandy PoS camera whose noisy raw files won't allow you to do that w-o required a whole lot of extra time in Photoshop.
(Are you an Adobe sales rep? ;) )

So....he showed you a Canon file that could do this. Sure, he carried out his argument-supporting shot with expert exposure and handling, but you're still arguing rather than showing much in the way of proof to support your own side. Care to share your Nikon wizardry? I can't be the only one who's curious.
Kodak A-1 Autographic, Pentax K1000, Canon EOS ELAN 7E, Mamiya 645AFD, Samsung Pro815, Canon XT, T2i, T3i, G11, SX40, Nikon D7000, Pentax K5IIs, Phase One DF+, P30+ and P45+ digital backs, Nikon D800....several systems worth of glass and lighting equipment. Regular renter of other gear

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1979
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #174 on: April 02, 2013, 09:09:11 AM »
@privatebydesign; interesting point about using ETTR with Canon. This may be why I find many Canon users feel they get better results from ISO 50 (L), as that is essentially exposing to the right.

@ankortwat; a really good example of post processors having a desire to lift shadow detail to a totally unrealistic level. If you did this with your Sony sensor file it would undoubtably have less noise, but the result would look just as crap  ;)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #175 on: April 02, 2013, 09:12:00 AM »
Nikon has better DR, but Canon DR is not limiting if you expose properly. We already knew this.

The photos are the end all. Does the comments of the members align with the photography they've displayed? If you appreciate photography, you will quickly find a lacking from certain proponents of overly strong opinions on this thread.

It was getting old, like a year ago.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 09:13:56 AM by RLPhoto »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #176 on: April 02, 2013, 09:37:38 AM »
As always this "example" is not OPTIMALLY exposed, look at the histogram.

Rule 101 for getting OPTIMAL results from a Canon, ETTR.

The majority of the information is below center, a typically 18% metered exposure, learn to use your camera, or just set the EV compensation to +2/3 and forget about it.

Could not agree more. I do believe that pattern noise is a problem in some situations with scenes of extreme DR but in this case, the scene could have been exposed to the right. The histogram reflects a converted image, and there is plenty of highlight room on the right, not to mention that part of it could be blown without a problem.

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #177 on: April 02, 2013, 01:47:09 PM »
The vast majority of us DO know how to get the most from our gear, even with challenging exposures.
But, as in Ankorwatt’s dappled sunlit image, lifting some dark areas of even a reasonably exposed image will often show FPN.
It comes down to a matter of individual tastes.  I prefer the lightened look of the shadow lifted crop he’s shown.  I prefer slightly less lifted, actually, but even so, that would still be enough to show FPN.

Seems like many others are saying, “NO!  You shouldn’t do that!  It doesn’t look natural.”
To which I reply, “Like HEL_ it doesn’t.”  You need to actually LOOK at the scene you’re shooting, what can you see?  Are you going to represent the final image like you saw it or are you going to capture it within the limitations and compromises of your equipment and technique?

When you shift your gaze around a real-life scene, your eyes are very much a center-weighted-averaging-metered device. (more like between CWA and “partial” in Canon parlance)  If you were standing where he took the shot and were to look at that lady sitting in the shade, your eyes would adjust to provide your brain with a view more like the shadow-lifted example than the silhouetted version.

When I create an image like that, I want someone viewing that image to be able to look around it and see the kind of details they would see if they had been there, not the overly contrasted rendition provided by many cameras/software and seemingly preferred by many voiciferous shooters.  This is especially applicable to large prints, where you’re actually moving your gaze around from one area to another.  It’s not unreasonable to want or expect to see some detail in the darker areas as in Ankorwatt’s example.
Yes, this is a matter of TASTE.  If you like clipped shadows, go ahead and produce them.
I don’t like them, my customers compliment me on what they see when I process and print an image the way _I_ like it.  That’s what matters, the end result. 
As means to that end, i dumped my 5d2 and replaced it with a D800.  Works MUCH better for what I need from it.

So advising on matters of post-processing “taste” is a style argument and does not really address technical shortcomings of the actual hardware.  That’s best left to Canon engineers, we need to spur THEM to do better.

The argument still remains, however, that some cameras do not allow us to produce images that meet some of our tastes in some conditions whereas other cameras ARE capable of doing just that without difficulty or extra work.  This will remain the case until Canon can remedy their read noise problems.  If you shoot Canon and want to lift shadows then you are stuck with optimizing the compromises or other work-arounds.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #177 on: April 02, 2013, 01:47:09 PM »

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #178 on: April 02, 2013, 01:51:22 PM »
I was pleasantly surprised by the improved sensor performance from Nikon’s modern crop bodies as well.
I’ve been too often disappointed by my early version 5d2 (which I’m now convinced was a lemon and got rid of) and my also early-production 7D, which I’ve also sold.
I should have returned BOTH of those turkeys to Canon as soon as I discovered the problems. On top of that, my 5d2 did often like to meter rather conservatively, usually under-exposing more than my other Canon bodies, but not consistently.  I hated that thing!  The only time I got consistent and decent results with it was shooting fully manual where lighting wasn’t changing faster than I could keep up to it.  In variable and mixed lighting (incl flash fill) i often got inconsistent and under-exposed results from it.  A major frustration when I could easily get reliable and consistent results from my other Canon bodies in similar conditions.

Since nobody here’s ever offered their 5d2 raw files or shot test samples to compare FPN, all I’ve had to work with were files DL’d from I-R.  Their raw file could be pushed a LOT more than mine could and not show significant FPN.  My 5d2 files would show FPN from shades as high as 3EV below metered zero if those shades were pushed as little as +1EV. This is totally unacceptable from a FF body of that cost.
I don’t think I’m the only one who’s experienced this either.  There seems to be a fair bit of variability in FPN performance within samples of the same model.  One CR poster even commented recently he sent his 1Dx back because of poor FPN performance so even pricey new models are not immune. (not sure if that was low ISO or not tho)

I still prefer the handling, color rendition and WB performance of Canon over the other mfrs.  I still have a handful of Canon crop bodies, newest now being the 60D.  Of the bunch, the 60D is the worst offender for low ISO FPN, but it is much better than my 7D was, but not as good as my late production 40D or even my old Rebels.
I’m still hoping Canon will produce a body with a sensor system that doesn’t have the high read noise problems that afflicts so many of their recent cameras.  The 6D is the best I’ve tried so far but still has some vertical banding visible around 400 iso on the sample I tested.  If the price drops enough, I’ll likely still buy one to try it.  Same with the 7d2 or 70d where I also need the better AF system.
I’m keeping my Best EF glass for another year or so.  If Canon does not produce a camera I can afford, that can provide low ISO with clean shadow areas like the competitors can, i will have held my breath long enough.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #179 on: April 02, 2013, 02:01:18 PM »
Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very best work and then I promise I will do the same.

It must be your best, no less.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« Reply #179 on: April 02, 2013, 02:01:18 PM »