Threads
Tanagers (Brazil)
- Animal Kingdom
- 3 Replies
I've been working away this week on catching up on all of my processing backlog from the past year or so. Here's a few from Brazil last fall that I hope you will enjoy.
All the best!
All the best!
Exmor vs DualISO
- By raptor3x
- EOS Bodies
- 27 Replies
Note: This was a two particle article that I merged together so I may have missed some things and there may be sections where the writing doesn't flow properly.
I've already posted this on another website but thought people here might be intersted as well. I've noticed there's a feeling that MagicLantern's DualISO for the 5D3 is nothing more than a gimmick and that it's too flawed to actual be useful.I've been using it for over a year now and while there were some major tradeoffs to using it in the beginning, the MagicLantern guys (i.e. mostly A1ex) have made enormous steps towards making it a genuinely useful tool for high dynamic range shooting on Canon DSLRs.
When the A7R was first released I bought one because I wanted to see what it was like shooting on the same sensor as the D800E, but after a couple days I returned it because I just could not get over the terrible ergonomics and poor battery life of the camera. I did do some very rough comparisons between DualISO and the A7R at the time so I had some sense then of how they compared. Anway, fast forward to a couple weeks ago; like always happen someone was complaining that their 5D3 didn't give enough dynamic range, so I recommended DualISO and then a bunch of people started claiming that you lose half your resolution, get horrible aliasing and artifacts, it was completely unsuitable for printing, and still didn't get rid of the pattern noise or bring the DR anywhere close to an Exmor sensor camera. I wanted to create some kind of controlled experiment to compare a DualISO 5D3 with an Exmor sensor, as I hadn't seen anything like that online, so I bought an A7 and EF adapter to perform the test.
The first shot shows the two shots pictures with no post-processing exposure adjustments (Note: Please forgive the terrible picture, I was cleaning up my bike while I was doing this.) Exposure was set so that the sky was as exposed as possible without clipping and I turned off all the lights in my garage so that the interior was much darker. Focus is on the rectangular object in the lower left corner, which is a Risk box, and is ~5 stops underexposed. Both pictures were taken with a 70-200ii.
The second shot shows the result of a 5-stop push in LR to the entire exposure for each shot. The 5D3 shot was scaled to match the resolution of the A7 so there was no obvious difference due to resolution. Also, for these shots there's no luminance noise reduction applied but I did apply +25 of chrominance noise reduction; I'll show a shot with zero noise reduction in the full writeup.
Finally the meat of what I wanted to know, in a severely underexposed area of the frame where I pushed the shadows an ungodly amount how well does the 5D3 with DualISO compare.
The 5D3, left, shows a bit more noise and less detail but actually maintains more accurate colors than the A7 which seems to desaturate the shadows significantly. But compared to the difference between a vanilla 5D3 and the A7 and this becomes a pretty amazing result.
For fun, here's the vanilla 5D3 and the 1Ds3 for comparison.
Also, the X-T1 vs the A7.
I've already posted this on another website but thought people here might be intersted as well. I've noticed there's a feeling that MagicLantern's DualISO for the 5D3 is nothing more than a gimmick and that it's too flawed to actual be useful.I've been using it for over a year now and while there were some major tradeoffs to using it in the beginning, the MagicLantern guys (i.e. mostly A1ex) have made enormous steps towards making it a genuinely useful tool for high dynamic range shooting on Canon DSLRs.
When the A7R was first released I bought one because I wanted to see what it was like shooting on the same sensor as the D800E, but after a couple days I returned it because I just could not get over the terrible ergonomics and poor battery life of the camera. I did do some very rough comparisons between DualISO and the A7R at the time so I had some sense then of how they compared. Anway, fast forward to a couple weeks ago; like always happen someone was complaining that their 5D3 didn't give enough dynamic range, so I recommended DualISO and then a bunch of people started claiming that you lose half your resolution, get horrible aliasing and artifacts, it was completely unsuitable for printing, and still didn't get rid of the pattern noise or bring the DR anywhere close to an Exmor sensor camera. I wanted to create some kind of controlled experiment to compare a DualISO 5D3 with an Exmor sensor, as I hadn't seen anything like that online, so I bought an A7 and EF adapter to perform the test.
The first shot shows the two shots pictures with no post-processing exposure adjustments (Note: Please forgive the terrible picture, I was cleaning up my bike while I was doing this.) Exposure was set so that the sky was as exposed as possible without clipping and I turned off all the lights in my garage so that the interior was much darker. Focus is on the rectangular object in the lower left corner, which is a Risk box, and is ~5 stops underexposed. Both pictures were taken with a 70-200ii.
The second shot shows the result of a 5-stop push in LR to the entire exposure for each shot. The 5D3 shot was scaled to match the resolution of the A7 so there was no obvious difference due to resolution. Also, for these shots there's no luminance noise reduction applied but I did apply +25 of chrominance noise reduction; I'll show a shot with zero noise reduction in the full writeup.
Finally the meat of what I wanted to know, in a severely underexposed area of the frame where I pushed the shadows an ungodly amount how well does the 5D3 with DualISO compare.
The 5D3, left, shows a bit more noise and less detail but actually maintains more accurate colors than the A7 which seems to desaturate the shadows significantly. But compared to the difference between a vanilla 5D3 and the A7 and this becomes a pretty amazing result.
For fun, here's the vanilla 5D3 and the 1Ds3 for comparison.
Also, the X-T1 vs the A7.
Gear Realities
- By mackguyver
- Canon General
- 45 Replies
As someone who has had the great fortune to make good money and acquire a fairly extensive set of pro cameras & lenses, I thought I'd offer my personal insight into the age old question/fear of whether gear matters and if so, how much. I have used and upgraded lots of gear over the last 6 years or so since getting back into (D)SLR photography, so here are my thoughts.
The following discussion assumes good or maybe even great technique. This is a critically-important assumption as technique matters far more than equipment. The best gear in poor hands will always yield poor results, but that's a matter for another post, so we'll just go with the assumption for now. What follows is my personal opinion from where gear is least helpful to most helpful.
General Photography
Generally, a Rebel body with a kit lens will deliver excellent photos of most general subjects. Even in low light, the IS & STM work quite well unless the subject is moving. In good light, even sports and other difficult subjects can be captured with lenses like the 55-250 if the photographer has good instincts in terms of when to press the shutter.
Portraiture
The first step up in terms of gear helping is probably portraiture. The kit lenses are slow in terms of aperture making it harder to get that great shallow DOF style. Here, camera bodies matter very little other than to direct your lens choice, generally 50-85mm for crop, 85-135 for full frame. An aperture of f/1.2 to 2.8 is best and will give you a big step up from the kit lens. Standard EF primes work very well, though you don't need a fast lens if you shoot in a studio as you'll typically be at f/8-f/11 for most shots. What you save on cameras & lenses can easily be spent on lighting gear, but that's another topic. Just know that reflectors and diffusers used outdoors can acheive excellent results for very little money. The model/subject and your connection with them and their poses is the most important factor in getting great shots.
Landscape
The next step up is landscape photography. There are now a number of excellent wide and ultra-wide angle lenses for crop bodies, so the advantage of full frame in that regard is fading. Better bodies and equipment give you two real-world advantages - better durability and weather sealing for outdoor use, and better shadows in low light. If you don't hike to far away or rugged places or shoot before or after sunset in windy conditions where you need ISO 1600 to hold up in big prints, a Rebel body and one of the newer Canon or Sigma ultrawide zooms will serve you well. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the winning landscape photos from major contests in the last few years. Most have been shot with crop sensors. One other thing worth mentioning are Tilt-shift lenses. While they are by no means necessary and won't revolutionize your work, they can give you unique shots and better control over DOF. They aren't easy to use, aren't weather sealed, and are all expensive manual focus primes, so these are best used once you've mastered landscape photography.
Macro
From there, I suppose macro photography is the next place where lenses and cameras make a difference. Macro shots are a bit misleading, though, as many of the zooms with short minimum focus distances work very well for close-up shots. What I'm talking about here is 0.5x (1:2) to 1x (1:1) and beyond. A true macro lens will make a huge difference here as you can get much closer, but focus tubes can work quite well with many lenses at a much lower cost. The 25mm tube and the old 24-70L took excellent photos and I used it a lot before I got a macro lens. One you start macro, you'll also realize that you're likely to need a lot of light. That means getting a macro flash, or a body that does well above ISO 1600, or both. I took lots of great photos without them, but trying to shoot a small flower in light wind at ISO800 is a serious exercise in patience. If you shoot still subjects indoors, there's no need to worry about, but for moving subjects or low light, it's important. Finally, focus rails and software like Helicon Focus can allow you to "focus stack" shots giving you much greater creative freedom, but again, it's not necessary.
Architecture
This is another specialty area where normal equipment can be used, but specialized equipment can make a big difference in your work. Full frame bodies aren't need for low light, but they allow you to use fisheye lenses and wide angles with complete freedom, but lenses like the Sigma 8-16 and third-party fisheyes can work with crop cameras. The exception are tilt shift lenses, which will give your work a professional edge. The TS-E 17 & 24 are able to straighten lines, give you better DOF and overcome issues that leveling the camera & cropping the photo simply can't overcome. If you can't afford this stuff, don't give up, though. A crop camera and a ultra-wide zoom + standard kit zoom will get you started and can generate excellent results in most situations if you take the time to learn how to use them and how to shoot architecture.
Event Photography
If you shoot weddings or other events, you will need to invest in better equipment. Fast lenses, especially f/2.8 zooms and flashes are very helpful to have. You will also need to have a back up camera, lens, and flash in case your main gear fails and to use for quick moments when you can't change lenses. More durable bodies and lenses are good to have as your gear will take a knocking. For some events, having a high end body with a fast frame rate and high ISO capabilities is also necessary if your subjects move quickly or the lighting is poor.
Sports & Wildlife Photography
As I said in the beginning, in good light, with good reflexes (and pre-focus) even the lowliest gear can capture great sports photos in the right hands. Think about the great sports photos before autofocus and digital...
Unfortunately, if you're serious about shooting fast-moving subjects (athletes, birds, animals, etc.) a camera with a 6+ FPS frame rate is going to be very useful. If you're getting paid, I would say it's mandatory unless you have incredible reflexes and anticipation skills. That doesn't mean you'll be holding down the shutter the whole game/time, but in quick bursts to catch the peak moment and using AI Servo mode to track the subject(s).
If you want to shoot those same subjects in low light or very low light, plan on getting a high end pro body (5DIII or 1D X). The same goes for lens choices. Athletes and wildlife are very sensitive about having cameras in their face, so telephoto lenses are needed for most shots, and lenses with a f/2 to f/4 aperture will help stop motion and allow good AF in low light.
Finally, I won't cover astrophotography or many other genres where specialized gear is essential. I think that's obvious
Summary
So in summary, the answer is - it depends. A good photographer can take good photos with any gear (see the DigitalRev series for proof), but gear does help some or a lot depending on what you shoot.
The following discussion assumes good or maybe even great technique. This is a critically-important assumption as technique matters far more than equipment. The best gear in poor hands will always yield poor results, but that's a matter for another post, so we'll just go with the assumption for now. What follows is my personal opinion from where gear is least helpful to most helpful.
General Photography
Generally, a Rebel body with a kit lens will deliver excellent photos of most general subjects. Even in low light, the IS & STM work quite well unless the subject is moving. In good light, even sports and other difficult subjects can be captured with lenses like the 55-250 if the photographer has good instincts in terms of when to press the shutter.
Portraiture
The first step up in terms of gear helping is probably portraiture. The kit lenses are slow in terms of aperture making it harder to get that great shallow DOF style. Here, camera bodies matter very little other than to direct your lens choice, generally 50-85mm for crop, 85-135 for full frame. An aperture of f/1.2 to 2.8 is best and will give you a big step up from the kit lens. Standard EF primes work very well, though you don't need a fast lens if you shoot in a studio as you'll typically be at f/8-f/11 for most shots. What you save on cameras & lenses can easily be spent on lighting gear, but that's another topic. Just know that reflectors and diffusers used outdoors can acheive excellent results for very little money. The model/subject and your connection with them and their poses is the most important factor in getting great shots.
Landscape
The next step up is landscape photography. There are now a number of excellent wide and ultra-wide angle lenses for crop bodies, so the advantage of full frame in that regard is fading. Better bodies and equipment give you two real-world advantages - better durability and weather sealing for outdoor use, and better shadows in low light. If you don't hike to far away or rugged places or shoot before or after sunset in windy conditions where you need ISO 1600 to hold up in big prints, a Rebel body and one of the newer Canon or Sigma ultrawide zooms will serve you well. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the winning landscape photos from major contests in the last few years. Most have been shot with crop sensors. One other thing worth mentioning are Tilt-shift lenses. While they are by no means necessary and won't revolutionize your work, they can give you unique shots and better control over DOF. They aren't easy to use, aren't weather sealed, and are all expensive manual focus primes, so these are best used once you've mastered landscape photography.
Macro
From there, I suppose macro photography is the next place where lenses and cameras make a difference. Macro shots are a bit misleading, though, as many of the zooms with short minimum focus distances work very well for close-up shots. What I'm talking about here is 0.5x (1:2) to 1x (1:1) and beyond. A true macro lens will make a huge difference here as you can get much closer, but focus tubes can work quite well with many lenses at a much lower cost. The 25mm tube and the old 24-70L took excellent photos and I used it a lot before I got a macro lens. One you start macro, you'll also realize that you're likely to need a lot of light. That means getting a macro flash, or a body that does well above ISO 1600, or both. I took lots of great photos without them, but trying to shoot a small flower in light wind at ISO800 is a serious exercise in patience. If you shoot still subjects indoors, there's no need to worry about, but for moving subjects or low light, it's important. Finally, focus rails and software like Helicon Focus can allow you to "focus stack" shots giving you much greater creative freedom, but again, it's not necessary.
Architecture
This is another specialty area where normal equipment can be used, but specialized equipment can make a big difference in your work. Full frame bodies aren't need for low light, but they allow you to use fisheye lenses and wide angles with complete freedom, but lenses like the Sigma 8-16 and third-party fisheyes can work with crop cameras. The exception are tilt shift lenses, which will give your work a professional edge. The TS-E 17 & 24 are able to straighten lines, give you better DOF and overcome issues that leveling the camera & cropping the photo simply can't overcome. If you can't afford this stuff, don't give up, though. A crop camera and a ultra-wide zoom + standard kit zoom will get you started and can generate excellent results in most situations if you take the time to learn how to use them and how to shoot architecture.
Event Photography
If you shoot weddings or other events, you will need to invest in better equipment. Fast lenses, especially f/2.8 zooms and flashes are very helpful to have. You will also need to have a back up camera, lens, and flash in case your main gear fails and to use for quick moments when you can't change lenses. More durable bodies and lenses are good to have as your gear will take a knocking. For some events, having a high end body with a fast frame rate and high ISO capabilities is also necessary if your subjects move quickly or the lighting is poor.
Sports & Wildlife Photography
As I said in the beginning, in good light, with good reflexes (and pre-focus) even the lowliest gear can capture great sports photos in the right hands. Think about the great sports photos before autofocus and digital...
Unfortunately, if you're serious about shooting fast-moving subjects (athletes, birds, animals, etc.) a camera with a 6+ FPS frame rate is going to be very useful. If you're getting paid, I would say it's mandatory unless you have incredible reflexes and anticipation skills. That doesn't mean you'll be holding down the shutter the whole game/time, but in quick bursts to catch the peak moment and using AI Servo mode to track the subject(s).
If you want to shoot those same subjects in low light or very low light, plan on getting a high end pro body (5DIII or 1D X). The same goes for lens choices. Athletes and wildlife are very sensitive about having cameras in their face, so telephoto lenses are needed for most shots, and lenses with a f/2 to f/4 aperture will help stop motion and allow good AF in low light.
Finally, I won't cover astrophotography or many other genres where specialized gear is essential. I think that's obvious
Summary
So in summary, the answer is - it depends. A good photographer can take good photos with any gear (see the DigitalRev series for proof), but gear does help some or a lot depending on what you shoot.
Canon 1dx vs Nikon d810
- By IsaacImage
- EOS Bodies
- 16 Replies
Hello dear friends
I'm shooting people mostly and was very interested in this comparison,
So for those who is also interested here we go
Canon 1dx + 85L at 1.8 on the left
and
Nikon D810 + 85G 1.8 at 1.8 on the right
I didn't use 1.4 Nikon version as in my opinion 1.8 much sharper at 1.8 and the rest apertures.
So enjoy.
In other hand love the sound and the filling of the d810 shutter it's just incredibly quiet.
and the weight of the Nikon combo much lighter
But screw the weight and sound if 1dx giving me those results
I'm shooting people mostly and was very interested in this comparison,
So for those who is also interested here we go
Canon 1dx + 85L at 1.8 on the left
and
Nikon D810 + 85G 1.8 at 1.8 on the right
I didn't use 1.4 Nikon version as in my opinion 1.8 much sharper at 1.8 and the rest apertures.
So enjoy.
In other hand love the sound and the filling of the d810 shutter it's just incredibly quiet.
and the weight of the Nikon combo much lighter
But screw the weight and sound if 1dx giving me those results
Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB