April 22, 2018, 11:13:04 AM

Author Topic: What's Next from Canon?  (Read 114335 times)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6756
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #105 on: February 15, 2014, 03:13:05 PM »
Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a lot of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose.
+1 :)
Know how I compose shots at night? .... Turn ISO up as high as it goes, set for several seconds exposure, take time exposure, look at it... and repeat several times until the framing is right. Then set ISO lower to get less noise and shutter speed longer for more light, and take picture..... That is far simpler than just taking a peek through the optical viewfinder :)

BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....

« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 03:15:58 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #105 on: February 15, 2014, 03:13:05 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #106 on: February 15, 2014, 04:03:03 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....

 ;D ROFL!!  ;D

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6756
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #107 on: February 15, 2014, 04:30:00 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....

 ;D ROFL!!  ;D

It's easy to spot with my dslr..... I just need more focal length and less shake....
The best camera is the one in your hands

mkabi

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #108 on: February 15, 2014, 05:05:03 PM »
yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?

Huh?

But seriously, photography is a very subjective subject and just because you don't like my style doesn't make me wrong. Unless, of course, you actually think that my style is wrong and then you're the one who's wrong.  :D

On the other hand, IF you're one of those "photographers" who believes that you can only take decent pictures with the latest and most expensive gear, you've got a lot to learn about the art that is photography.

You can say that you are right and I am wrong, all you want...
But just pointing out that after you said this....

I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better. The 6D equates to roughly 8MP equivalent in APS-C, which is the same as my 30D ... so, in my warped opinion, no big improvement there; as for the low-light capabilities of the 6D, well, over here the sun is so bright that I'm nearly always on ISO200 (because it's a good trade-off).

How can you say this....????


Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.  :)

Because technology is progressive... I agree.
But, you didn't think that 60D was better than the 30D, and the 6D was basically the same as the 30D.
Progressively speaking.... how do you know that EVF is going to get better? Each year that passes?
And, even if it does... on the spec sheet, how do you know that the current ones out there won't be better than the subsequent ones to be released from here on end? After all, it is "subjective."
Bah...

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1820
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #109 on: February 15, 2014, 06:24:27 PM »
but there is a very good reason why looking at the environment through the lens helps you to take a better picture.... That is the posture that the ergonomics of a DSLR is designed for. You will be more stable and you will not shake as much.

Posture doesn't change between an EVF and OVF, what you're thinking of is the main screen on the back of the camera, I don't think that qualifies as a "viewfinder" by most people's terminology. That's one of the things that needs clarification.
Also, you can buy eyepieces for the main screen as well.

Sorry, you haven't put anything to rest.  Well, ok, one thing - the eye doesn't have 'unlimited' DR.  But it has much greater DR than a dSLR or EVF - as pointed out in the post you linked (the 'instantaneous DR' simulates a picture, but looking through an OVF is live and your eye accommodates).

As for an OVF resulting in a better picture, missing peak action due to the EVF lag makes for a bad picture.

Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

Shutter lag is around 60 milliseconds on the best cameras and over 100 milliseconds on most, then human reaction time is usually measured in hundreds of milliseconds. A bad EVF can be a problem, but good ones seem to be around 30 milliseconds these days. Just factoring in the human component EVF lag becomes statistical noise.


Sorry, but I can see FAR more dynamic range with my eyes than my camera sees. Whether it is my brain blending "frames" to achieve it, or individual exposures...the mechanics of how don't matter. When people say 8-11 stops is similar to 10-14 stops, they are ignoring the fact that a stop is factor of two. It's a difference of 8 to 64 TIMES greater tonal range. My eyes see at a minimum 14 stops...from clouds to bark detail in the shadows, which is probably closer to 20 stops than 14 stops. It doesn't matter that my brain is "doing all the work" to blend the information the biological device that is my eye actually receives...I SEE it.

Now, I don't say my eye can see unlimited DR. However an optical viewfinder is not going to limit you further. The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...so my eyes can operate at maximum capability when looking through an OVF. When it comes to shooting in lower light, with my eye to the viewfinder, being able to utilize the full 24 stop dynamic range potential of my eye...i.e. allow it to adjust to the dimmer light so I can clearly see my subject without noise for the purposes of framing and composition, regardless of whether my camera could see the same thing when read out at 60fps, is a huge boon. Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a lot of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose. However I can look through an optical viewfinder and see everything as if I was looking right up at the sky without a camera in front of me. The dynamic range of the human eye is VASTLY superior to the dynamic range of a camera (and an EVF.)

If you're doing landscapes I really don't think the limitation actually hinders anything, since you're going to be looking at the scene quite a bit before you ever lift the camera to your face (or set up a tripod, which only furthers my point). At which point seeing what the camera sees is only a shortcut to making a proper exposure.

In action, are you actually adjusting the exposure moment by moment to match the changing conditions? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that (I usually hear about sports shooters using aperture priority, giving most of the control to the camera anyway), but if anyone does sit there with their finger constantly whirling the control wheel back and forth more power to you.

Low light, ok you got me. Playing around with the 5D2 in live view just now, it was pretty limiting. The pictures turn out a lot better than what I can see, but the live view implementation is lacking. I have to think that some tweaking would fix that though.
I should also note that my naked eyes were still much better than looking through the OVF.

I'm still grasping for a situation where the dynamic range of the OVF is a critical aspect of capturing a photo.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 06:28:03 PM by 9VIII »

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #110 on: February 15, 2014, 06:47:10 PM »
Modern cameras have much better night vision (ISO well above 1000).

What?  You're eyes can go up to the equivalent of on the order of 1 million ISO.  Oh, EVFs ruin your dark adaptation.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2014, 06:54:12 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....
It's a challenging target, but I was able to hand-track it at f/21 wide open through my 20D at 4,250mm.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 06:55:49 PM by Lee Jay »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2014, 06:54:12 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6756
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #112 on: February 15, 2014, 07:02:20 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....
It's a challenging target, but I was able to hand-track it at f/21 wide open through my 20D at 4,250mm.


NICE!

I haven't been able to hit it yet through the telescope....
The best camera is the one in your hands

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2452
  • Petitioning CRaig for a 135 f/1.8L IS moniker
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #113 on: February 15, 2014, 07:47:18 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....

 ;D ROFL!!  ;D

It's easy to spot with my dslr..... I just need more focal length and less shake....

it's an Angel! Quick call The Digital Picture
EOS 5D3, EOS M5, some lenses

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22527
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2014, 07:50:55 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #115 on: February 15, 2014, 08:08:23 PM »
Sorry, but I can see FAR more dynamic range with my eyes than my camera sees. Whether it is my brain blending "frames" to achieve it, or individual exposures...the mechanics of how don't matter. When people say 8-11 stops is similar to 10-14 stops, they are ignoring the fact that a stop is factor of two. It's a difference of 8 to 64 TIMES greater tonal range. My eyes see at a minimum 14 stops...from clouds to bark detail in the shadows, which is probably closer to 20 stops than 14 stops. It doesn't matter that my brain is "doing all the work" to blend the information the biological device that is my eye actually receives...I SEE it.

Now, I don't say my eye can see unlimited DR. However an optical viewfinder is not going to limit you further. The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...so my eyes can operate at maximum capability when looking through an OVF. When it comes to shooting in lower light, with my eye to the viewfinder, being able to utilize the full 24 stop dynamic range potential of my eye...i.e. allow it to adjust to the dimmer light so I can clearly see my subject without noise for the purposes of framing and composition, regardless of whether my camera could see the same thing when read out at 60fps, is a huge boon. Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a lot of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose. However I can look through an optical viewfinder and see everything as if I was looking right up at the sky without a camera in front of me. The dynamic range of the human eye is VASTLY superior to the dynamic range of a camera (and an EVF.)

If you're doing landscapes I really don't think the limitation actually hinders anything, since you're going to be looking at the scene quite a bit before you ever lift the camera to your face (or set up a tripod, which only furthers my point). At which point seeing what the camera sees is only a shortcut to making a proper exposure.

In action, are you actually adjusting the exposure moment by moment to match the changing conditions? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that (I usually hear about sports shooters using aperture priority, giving most of the control to the camera anyway), but if anyone does sit there with their finger constantly whirling the control wheel back and forth more power to you.

Low light, ok you got me. Playing around with the 5D2 in live view just now, it was pretty limiting. The pictures turn out a lot better than what I can see, but the live view implementation is lacking. I have to think that some tweaking would fix that though.
I should also note that my naked eyes were still much better than looking through the OVF.

I'm still grasping for a situation where the dynamic range of the OVF is a critical aspect of capturing a photo.

Sorry, I guess I wrote my prior response in a way as to be misinterpreted. It isn't so much the dynamic range of the OVF. Technically speaking, it doesn't have dynamic range, it's just an optical light path. The point is that it does not LIMIT dynamic range...where as EVFs most certainly do! There are two factors that limit DR in an EVF. The first is the dynamic range of the sensor...whatever the sensor is limited do, whatever you see on the EVF is limited to that as well. Furthermore, as EVF pixels have shrunk, it seems to be more difficult to extract much dynamic range out of them as well...it seems that shadow tones are particularly difficult to replicate when EVF pixels are even smaller than sensor pixels (under three microns for some of the higher resolution ones.)

I won't discount the possibility that a better way of emitting light from micron-sized dots may come along. If and when a technological improvement does come along that is demonstrably better than current technologies, I'll reevaluate my opinion. To date, the kinds of screen technologies that allow for small pixels don't quite seem up to the task of developing micron-sized pixels. They do much better when pixels are several hundred microns, such as in high density smartphone screens.

Even assuming some new technology does come along, there is the whole resolution issue as well. I have 20/10 vision with my glasses or contacts. When I use my contacts, the 1" (or often less) eye relief of an EVF in a mirrorless camera is short enough that I can CLEARLY see the pixels. I HATE that. Aside from the quirky tonality/DR issues that I've seen in the kinds of EVFs that are currently being used in mainstream mirrorless cameras, the pixellation is the absolute worst. I did the calculations here before...for 20/10 vision at 1" eye relief, you need 12,000ppi in order for pixellation to become invisible. That is a pixel size of 700nm, and a light channel size even smaller than that. Your filtering out visible wavelengths of red light from around 680nm through 750nm and all IR. It would be impossible to reproduce accurate color that way.

So even assuming EVF's reach a technological pinnacle where they are otherwise superior to EVFs...for anyone who has 20/10 vision (which is a LOT of us, given how many people use corrective lenses, and how eye docs strive to find the best fit for you...at least, my doc does and she sees several thousand patients a year for regular checkups, a regular checkup is every two years, she is one of six eye doctors in that facility who all see similar patient loads...do the math, LOT of people), anyone who has 20/10 vision will be stuck looking at pixellated EVFs. When I look through my 7D OVF with its Transmissive LCD...I can see the pixels of the LCD, but because of the optical design, all that stuff just kind of fades into the background. You don't look at the TLCD...you look at the real image projected through the pentaprism. The effect is only magnified when you look through a 5D III or 1D X viewfinder...larger, clearer, crisper...and the TLCD pixels are even smaller relative to the viewfinder frame size. The aesthetic appeal of what I see through an OVF is vastly superior to what I have seen through EVFs. There is no lag time, no flickering of any kind, everything is nice and bright and crisp and clear, everything is highly detailed, color is quite rich, and I STILL have an active and useful HUD (and I can only hope Canon's Hybrid EVF takes advantage of their TLCD, making it even more useful for general purpose OVF stuff.)

When it comes to landscapes, I don't even care about an OVF or an EVF. I care about the LCD screen. The bigger the better, as I always use my DSLR in "field cam" mode with live view on. This is one of the reasons I appreciate the rumor that the 7D will be getting an even larger LCD screen...I think Canon's current ones are 3.2"? That means the 7D is going to be 3.4", maybe larger. THAT is what I care about for landscape photography. I can only hope that a huge LCD screen like that makes its way onto whatever their big megapixel camera is...would be superb as a landscape camera.

As for changing settings while photographing action. I don't change settings WHILE PHOTOGRAPHING action, however I quite often change settings in between bursts as I see lighting change when tracking a bird. I'm not nearly as good at it as I wish I was, and I hope to get much better at it, but when your tracking a bird that is moving such that the angle of the sunlight on it changes, you have to react. You can't leave your settings be and hope for the best. I usually start out with the bird broadside to the sun, but as you track, especially when the bird is flying at an angle slightly towards you across your view, the distribution of light and shadow changes. You have to protect the highlights, and that means changing exposure while tracking with your eye pressed up against the viewfinder.

Now, having tried out a few mirrorless cameras, I honestly do not believe I would have accurate enough information responsively enough to deal with such a changing DR scenario real-time, without moving my eye from the viewfinder. For one, no matter how good the DR on the EVF, the image you see there is processed to one degree or another, so the contrast does not represent reality. Even if you had an exceptionally high response rate, you would never know for sure whether what your seeing actually represents reality or not...you have to guess. When the birds highlights look blown on the EVF...are they really blown? I don't have any visual or digital cues to tell me this for a fact with an OVF...but I have developed an instinct for it, because I have REAL information to work with...I am seeing something that actually exists in reality, not a replica of what might exist in reality.

So...I'll grant, perhaps, maybe, someday, an EVF will come along where I don't have to even think about these issues, these facts. Maybe someday an EVF will come along that gives me information that is as good as the kind of real information I work with now. That day has not yet come, and I know enough about the technology ad the scale it's being designed at to honestly wonder if it could ever get as good. My suspicion is EVFs might start offering visual cues to indicate what you would simply sense, without necessarily even having to think about it, with an OVF. These visual cues would help you make the necessary decisions about changing exposure or whatnot...but I don't think they will ever be as good as having an optical window into the real world. With practice, you can operate largely on procedural memory and instinct without ever removing your eye from the viewfinder. Because you can 100% rely on the information reaching your brain through the viewfinder. That will simply NEVER be true with an EVF.

Call me a skeptic, but, I'm one of those people who will stick with my good ol' mirror slapper until they literally pry it from my cold dead hands (or, until the last OVF camera ever made that I manage to purchase dies some horrible electronic death, and I'm literally left with no other option but to move to an EVF...oh, what a sad day that will be...)

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1820
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #116 on: February 15, 2014, 08:15:22 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #117 on: February 15, 2014, 08:41:24 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

This is what your misunderstanding. It doesn't matter the mechanics of how we see 20 stops...we SEE 20 stops! We see what our brains tell us we see, not what our retinas sense. As a human being, I am not individually seeing 14 stop frames from my eyes...I am SEEING that nearly 20-stop HDR post-processed image that my brain produces.

You can't break down human vision to mechanical steps, and claim that because our eyes, which take an exposure every 1/500th of a second, are only capable of discerning about 14 stops of dynamic range for each and every one of those 1/500th second frames, is limiting our VISION to 14 stops. Vision in the human brain isn't really even HDR. It is more like a rolling exposure stack...fresh full-detail frames flow in while stale, old frames fade. It's like an astrophotography calibration, stacking, and stretching process all rolled into a biological process that occurs hundreds of times per second. We see ~20 stops because we see what ends up in our visual cortex, and that is AFTER all the processing. Our total dynamic range is over 24 stops, because our retinal sensitivity adjusts over a period of time as we move from dim environments to bright environments. Our eyes can become dark adjusted, but become overly sensitive to brighter light...therefor "clipping" it. Our eyes can become bright adjusted, yet limit our ability to see the same kind of detail in the dark as we did when we were dark adjusted. When dark adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 10 stops (in large part because our cones don't deliver sensory impulses until they have accumulated enough photons in a given time slice, so we lose a good portion of our total sensitivity per retinal area). When bright adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 20 stops, as both our rods and our cones are working at full capacity.

But simple fact of the matter...we don't see each of the 500 "frames" per second our eyes deliver to our brains...we SEE the HDR image our brains generate in our visual cortex.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #117 on: February 15, 2014, 08:41:24 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22527
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #118 on: February 15, 2014, 09:41:41 PM »
You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

LOL.  Sorry, but have you heard the expression 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'?  Undergrad and doctoral degrees in Neuroscience, close to a decade of teaching it, and over two decades of research in the field. 

While psychophysical experiments have demonstrated the capability to perceive disruptive images (e.g. a black frame in a video sequence) with dwell times as short as 12-14 ms, normal vision in effect 'sums' a rolling period of ~100 ms, i.e. when you 'see' an image, it's a 7-shot stack. So...human vision IS, among other things, "...post processed HDR image video combining multiple exposures."  We really do see that 20-stop range, due to a combination of slower optical mechanisms (sphincter and dilator pupillae muscles of the iris) and much faster physiological mechanisms (ganglion cell tuning and attention processing in the visual cortex).
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6756
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2014, 10:23:14 PM »
You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

LOL.  Sorry, but have you heard the expression 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'?  Undergrad and doctoral degrees in Neuroscience, close to a decade of teaching it, and over two decades of research in the field. 

While psychophysical experiments have demonstrated the capability to perceive disruptive images (e.g. a black frame in a video sequence) with dwell times as short as 12-14 ms, normal vision in effect 'sums' a rolling period of ~100 ms, i.e. when you 'see' an image, it's a 7-shot stack. So...human vision IS, among other things, "...post processed HDR image video combining multiple exposures."  We really do see that 20-stop range, due to a combination of slower optical mechanisms (sphincter and dilator pupillae muscles of the iris) and much faster physiological mechanisms (ganglion cell tuning and attention processing in the visual cortex).
But Neuro..... you can't be right..... people on this forum can detect under a millisecond of delay... :)
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2014, 10:23:14 PM »