October 31, 2014, 04:47:36 AM

Author Topic: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?  (Read 40272 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1526
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #195 on: October 09, 2012, 04:13:17 PM »
For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?

Pressing the shutter button.

ROFL !!   :D :D :D

Were you not following the thread? He made that claim, then provided an example with absolutely no noise.

Quote
Why should us Canon customers accept less than stellar IQ...

I don't get anything less than stellar IQ from my Canon cameras. Perhaps you should take a course on digital photography at your local JC?  ;D

Chill Dtaylor.... you can't bully people into agreeing with you... everyone has their own sense of reality that governs their perceptions and opinions.

I saw the noise... He saw the noise....  He made a witty remark, I fell off my chair laughing, whats your problem.

EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #195 on: October 09, 2012, 04:13:17 PM »

nightbreath

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #196 on: October 09, 2012, 04:35:18 PM »
Chill Dtaylor.... you can't bully people into agreeing with you...
I find this thread the most interesting on the whole forum, so please don't draw them away from sharing valuable information on how things really work in camera world!  8)
There's so much new one can get just by reading these posts, that I don't want this to stop  ;D
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

TheSuede

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #197 on: October 09, 2012, 04:35:18 PM »
The person I quoted in my reply, for one. 

A method that produces impossible data is flawed, no matter how you rationalize it.  The 'whatever' was not an acknowledgement that the rebuttal was correct, but rather boredom and a realization of the futility of arguing the point further.

This statement actually just shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, AND that you don't know first base in signal theory. It is perfectly normal to have signal accuracies higher than the signal quantization, and there are several universally accepted way to indicate this. The linear one used with almost all types of imaging sensors is actually the most easily understood and logical one.

DR has a very strictly locked down definition, and it is:
[maximum signal strength] / [minimum noise floor]

And the only correct way to do this is to take the average of several (at best, several thousand!) individual pixels and then work with their AVERAGE result or error in stead of doing it with single-pixel steady-states - which are heavily biased by things like individual impurities in the photo-cell, individual sensitivity deviations and small amplificiation deviations. You would get 22 million individual results for a 5D3, and this isn't very practical.

So, if you accept the (for any person versed in the area) natural and self-explanatory necessary fact that any and all signal measurements are to be taken as AVERAGES of as many individual samples as possible to get the most accurate end result, you can get results that look very strange when you look at them from a purely numerological PoV - but they're still valid, and also very easily proven with practical empirical tests.

This also kind of explains the mechanism behind down-scaling results.
If you take a 2000x2000px crop from an image and scale it down so that the end result is 1000x1000 you have effectively binned four pixels into one. This lowers the average error 'per pixel' in the crop by a full stop (1Ev) by averaging the errors - but it doesn't lower the maximum value of each individual pixel. Hence you get 1Ev more DR in the 1MP image compared to the 4MP image. Lower resolution, same maximum value, half the average amount of noise per pixel.

One practical test is to put any Sony high-DR sensor based camera at 12-bit raw output, and then compare the end image result to that which you get from a Canon-based 14-bit raw. The Sony-based solution will STILL be a lot cleaner in the shadows at low ISOs, and it will STILL have about 13Ev's of DR, even though the raw file is "just" 12 bits. AND this will still be easily visible in the image.

(not a very "nice" way to introduce myself to a forum, but it just annoys me when people that have no idea what they're talking about makes self-assured remarks like that. My advice would be to STOP being such an adult. Growing up seems to totally stop some people from being able to accept (or admit) that there are lots of things they don't know or understand. Children have a much more open mind to new knowledge and learning new things - and we could learn a lot as humans by adapting their openness to new knowledge.)

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #198 on: October 09, 2012, 05:17:37 PM »
Neuro you know you're popular when people join just to comment on your posts.   ;)
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #199 on: October 09, 2012, 05:43:22 PM »
This statement actually just shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, AND that you don't know first base in signal theory.

Right.  Because with a PhD in Neuroscience, I've never studied signaling. Synaptic transmission and neural networks tend to involve complex signaling - at least in some brains.

not a very "nice" way to introduce myself to a forum

A demonstration of good metacognition, at least. 

Your 'intro' notwithstanding, welcome to the CR forums!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 800
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2012, 06:07:42 PM »
Chill Dtaylor.... you can't bully people into agreeing with you...

Bullying? ::) I don't think I'm the one who needs to chill.

Quote
everyone has their own sense of reality that governs their perceptions and opinions.

Silly me...I thought we lived in a common, measurable reality.

Quote
I saw the noise... He saw the noise....

Allow me to quote jrista:
Quote
That "uniform" nature? Thats called photon shot noise. It's a physical effect caused by the NATURAL random distribution of light that follows Poisson distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_noise#Poisson_noise_and_characterizing_small_occurrences). FYI...every single camera on earth experiences photon shot noise, regardless of who makes it or how good it may be.

There was no noise. There was nothing that could be interpreted as noise until 100% pixel peeping, at which point you see the natural random distribution of light. And even that is difficult to make out. If that bothers you...if you want plastic skies while pixel peeping at 100%...it is stupid simple to make the sky plastic in PS.

But I hope I'm not being a bully in pointing that out  8)

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2012, 06:09:38 PM »
Neuro you know you're popular when people join just to comment on your posts.   ;)

He is not popular,mybe popular among ignorant people . Neuro writes so many inaccuracies and  he is not listening to other people with knowledge.

You do realize of course that by this statement youare saying the majority of people on this forum are ignorant, because neuro is highly respected around here.  Maybe you'd be happier on a different forum where you don't have to tolerate all us ignoramuses. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2012, 06:09:38 PM »