Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,679
6,116
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
privatebydesign said:
Lawliet said:
jrista said:
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand

My statement wasn't blanket...it's limited to the original context that inspired it: high speed action photography. Sports. Wildlife. Birds. You could probably throw air shows in there as well. I am not saying that in every form of photography an OVF is superior. There are simply certain types of photography where an EVF has a LONG way to go before it even catches up, and from a technological standpoint, unless someone figures out a way to emit 700nm-550nm light from a 400nm aperture, they will never provide pixel-free viewing.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well. But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two. He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D. I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format. Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

privatebydesign said:
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

neuroanatomist said:
My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,679
6,116
jrista said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well. But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two. He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D. I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format. Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

privatebydesign said:
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

neuroanatomist said:
My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

So you don't have any actual images to back that up? I did.

I print, my smallest print is 16"x24". I looked at the 7D specifically to print big and to give me more reach, it doesn't give you a focal length multiplier, enhancer, or anything else many seem to think it does. "Pixels on duck", when used in this context, is a fallacy.

Even at base iso when making big prints the 7D noise interferes with the detail, the 21MP FF doesn't have the ultimate detail, but it doesn't have the noise either.

Remember, I am not theorising here, I did the tests to see for myself.

Here is 200% crop of the APS-C and a 300%+ crop of the FF, no development processing just resizes to match pixels to each other. To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or
 

Attachments

  • 2222.jpg
    2222.jpg
    38.3 KB · Views: 727

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,289
6,866
jrista said:
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

neuroanatomist said:
My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances.

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,289
6,866
privatebydesign said:
To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or

Exactly. Roger Clark's moon shots are consistent with this. He notices the noise of the 7D, but doesn't find it objectionable - and maybe with the background of the moon shots, it's not. But with the blurred-out green of a forest or grey of clouds in the background of a bird shot with the 7D, it's both noticeable and objectionable, to me. Sure, it can be reduced - at the cost of detail...and bye-bye goes the 'crop factor advantage'.
 

Lawliet

EOS RP
Aug 18, 2010
549
0
jrista said:
Well, you've switched contexts from sports to studio photography, where use of a tethered laptop or computer is quite normal. The original context was sports and action photography, where the OVF and a dedicated AF unit still rules as king.
No, both contexts are equavlly valid. For action photography you drop the need for predictions regarding the shutter lag. At the same time the AF gets more complete tracking data and the capability to take the guesswork out of focus priority. Add the option of using zebras to highlight information thats hard to follow due to small viewfinder size or just simple motion blur introduced by the human visual system. Thats what actually has an effect on the resulting picture, thats (among)what has killed the OVF in cinematography.
I would take my tethered Surface Pro any day over an EVF, though. There was a thread a while back where I computed the necessary pixel densities to make an EVF screen be high enough resolution for the average 20/20 viewer at a 25mm eye relief such that pixels were invisible.
First: You assume there are no optics involved. Not to think about the structure of the ground glass that can get annoying.
Second, and more important: Its not neccessary to surpass on OVF in that regards, its only a matter of benefits exeeding costs. Is the kind of additional information a type of VF delivers actually helping or just icing on the cake? Contemporary ground glass is quite transparent, combine that with the high magnifications digital brought and a simple high pass overlay wins in the utility department. Tradition doesn't help with taking sellable pictures or keeping production times short.
The day will never come when an EVF (or, for that matter, a tethered laptop screen) becomes superior to an optical view finder for action photography. There is no substitute for a truly real-time, high resolution, bright, optical prism based viewfinder. For action.
Well, those who actually had the choice went with EVFs. Guess that die was cast...so "will not come" is quite accurate. ;)
That guy charging towards your camera position: is the focus point on his eyes or rather on the shoulders? Motion blur and panning are also factors. Edge detection tells me what will be in focus & sharp on the final print, the OVF shows a blend of various motions.
Not really sure what you mean about switchable glass. Sounds like you are talking about the piezoelectric effect, however I am not really sure how that is much different than what Canon already has with their transmissive LCD that overlays their current viewfinders.
The idea is akin to LCDs, but instead of transparent/black it switches between transparent/mirror - integrate it into a beam splitter and you can blend OVF and EVF at will.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,679
6,116
In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.

That is exactly the same test I did and presented, it is not what I asked of you for though. A shot of a brightly illuminated subject at infinity is not a taxing "real world" situation. Handhold a long lens, use AF, poor lighting etc etc, that is what I asked you for.

Don't feel bad, I have asked the same question many times in different places, nobody has ever presented real world images that illustrate the crop camera "tele advantage" when comparing same generation ff and crop sensors.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
neuroanatomist said:
jrista said:
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

neuroanatomist said:
My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances.

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.

I print anywhere from 13x19" to 32x48", hence my long standing desire for pixel density. It is really more about that, than specifically crop factor (i.e. 47mp FF or 18mp APS-C, doesn't really matter to me, although the 47mp FF would be my pick for landscapes, obviously.) I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument.

I intend to buy a 5D III soon enough, and if Canon doesn't announce a 7D II by fall, then I will.
 

Wildfire

EOS 90D
Jun 13, 2012
170
0
kaihp said:
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file! If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

RAID is backup, although there are other forms of backup which might offer less risk of losing your data.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
privatebydesign said:
jrista said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well. But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two. He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D. I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format. Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

privatebydesign said:
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

neuroanatomist said:
My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

So you don't have any actual images to back that up? I did.

I print, my smallest print is 16"x24". I looked at the 7D specifically to print big and to give me more reach, it doesn't give you a focal length multiplier, enhancer, or anything else many seem to think it does. "Pixels on duck", when used in this context, is a fallacy.

Even at base iso when making big prints the 7D noise interferes with the detail, the 21MP FF doesn't have the ultimate detail, but it doesn't have the noise either.

Remember, I am not theorising here, I did the tests to see for myself.

Here is 200% crop of the APS-C and a 300%+ crop of the FF, no development processing just resizes to match pixels to each other. To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or

Well, perhaps this is just me, but the hair is much sharper and better defined in the 7D enlargement there than the 1D enlargement. I'd print the 7D shot without any NR, as I prefer to have a bit of noise in photos I print anyway...avoids posterization. So I don't consider the NR softens detail argument to be an issue here.

Assuming I do apply NR, I always use Topaz DeNoise 5 these days. It takes about 10 seconds for most of my work, and automatically masks areas with detail beyond a certain threshold, where noise and fine detail are indistinguishable enough that noise is a non issue. Backgrounds, where Nero pointed out noise can be a real issue, clean up beautifully with one run through DeNoise. If there is any banding, it too can be removed, and a lot of DR recovered, using DeNoise as well, with practically no effort and without affecting fine detail.

I won't disagree that at ISO 1600 and up, there isn't any comparing a 7D and 1D X. I'd take the 1D X every time. I figure the same would be mostly true with the 5D III as well. But with modern tools, I've found that noise on the 7D is no longer an issue, and that when removing noise, it no longer has to be the detail decimating process it used to be.

Last, I do have 20/10 vision with my glasses or contacts on. I am also plagued by hypersensitivity issues...hearing, sight, and at times touch (and most of the time, they are not a benefit...sharp vision is the one thing I consider a bonus). I guess it is entirely possible I am seeing something most people don't see. To my eyes, however, the 7D in all of your actual sample shots appears to be quite a bit sharper, and even more color saturated, than the 1Ds III.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,679
6,116
" I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument. "

I don't want an argument, I want your own real world images backing up your assertions.

Few people trust my opinion here and there is no reason they should, but I made a statement and backed it up with my own images. Many people here respect and trust Neuro's opinion, his experience tallies with mine.

Your same generation sensor pixel density meme is false unless you are bench testing, I don't, as a rule, frame and hang prints of bench tests.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
privatebydesign said:
" I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument. "

I don't want an argument, I want your own real world images backing up your assertions.

Few people trust my opinion here and there is no reason they should, but I made a statement and backed it up with my own images. Many people here respect and trust Neuro's opinion, his experience tallies with mine.

Your same generation sensor pixel density meme is false unless you are bench testing, I don't, as a rule, frame and hang prints of bench tests.

If I had the capability to, I would. As I stated, I don't have 5DIII or 1D X in my possession right this minute. You can be as unreasonable as you want to, that's your prerogative. BTW, a LOT of my work IS the moon, and I find it to be an ideal subject to provide visual backing for an argument like this (can't get much more focal length limited than the moon). Soon as I have a 5D III in my possession however, I'll happily do some comparisons with birds as well.

I don't think I've ever posted any image here when trying to visually back up my claims that involved a technical bench test, any kind of test chart, etc. My examples have always been of my actual work (assuming I've had the capability of producing such.) I can't say I've ever framed an ISO 12233 chart sample either. ;P



So, not that it matters to you specifically, but here is a comparison of the 7D, 1D IV, and 5D II using Roger Clark's moon samples. The 5D II seems quite soft in comparison to the 7D. The 1D IV is also softer. There are nuances of fine detail that the 7D picks up that the other two blur over. Enlarged 400% for emphasis.

6X0kxJg.gif
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
Since you insist on me demonstrating my own work...here is an example of how 7D noise can become a complete non-issue when using modern noise removal. Pre and Post Topaz DeNoise 5 for an ISO 800 shot that was accidentally underexposed by about 1 2/3rd stops, then lifted in post (so, roughly the equivalent of ISO 2500). Fine bird feather detail, at it's finest merely two pixels wide, is completely untouched. The background cleans up completely. Used one of the premade DeNoise profiles for medium noise removal:

Before:
bUTfJqs.jpg


After:
eZ1VMvl.jpg


Final shot (Green-tailed Towhee, for anyone who's interested):

m1bRg8F.jpg


  • Canon 7D
  • Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II + 1.4x TC
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
33
jonrista.com
garyknrd said:
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

It seems to be to me. I wouldn't say by a hugely significant margin, but it seems to do less damage to detail, and is definitely more configurable. It does noise reduction and detail recovery, as well as debanding in both horizontal and/or vertical. It has black level correction, as well as independent shadow, highlight, red, and blue channel fine tuning.

So far, I have not seen much need to really tweak much beyond the basic "RAW - light" or "RAW - moderate" presets. If, for whatever reason, I find detail loss in my subject to be too much, I simply mask off the subject in Photoshop, copy it to it's own layer in place, and run a preset on the base layer...and my critical subject detail remains 100% untouched. I rarely spend more than a couple minutes per image, five at most, getting results that to me seem to be ideal (something I never quite felt with just Photoshop or Lightroom noise removal.)
 

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,148
259
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
Wildfire said:
kaihp said:
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file!. If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

I'm sorry, but what you are talking about is not doing backups in my mind.

When I say backup, I'm talking about professional level backup is where you on a regular (and automated) basis copies your files to separate destination media (tapes, disks, optical media, whatever), and allow you to go back a number of days/weeks/months to find snapshots of your deleted file.
It can even allow you to restore the entire filesystem (disaster recovery), should your IT room be destroyed by fire or (more likely) water.
This is backup to me and I would say that if you talk to anyone involved in professional IT operations, that they'd say something quite similar.

Again, RAID is only designed for and can only protect you against failing drives within a storage system (be it JBOD, NAS, SAN). This is why doing regular backups of your data is orthogonal to having a reliable filesystem (and this is where RAID comes in).

For an end-user at home, I do understand why RAID and backup gets mixed up - you just want your data to be safe, and both RAID and backup seem to to that thing for you.

Sidenote:
Now, if you go and create a file (e.g. take a picture) and go and by error go and delete that file before the backup system has had a chance to do a backup that file, then ... well, then you loose out.
Been There, Done That. Didn't Bother With The T-Shirt ;)
 

dgatwood

300D, 400D, 6D
May 1, 2013
922
0
Wildfire said:
kaihp said:
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file! If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

RAID is backup, although there are other forms of backup which might offer less risk of losing your data.

Those of us who work in the tech industry do not consider RAID to be a backup. The reason for this is that most of the events that would cause data loss with a single drive will also cause data loss with a RAID array. Deleting files, operating system filesystem corruption bugs, etc. are unaffected by the RAID. Even disk failures don't usually get caught except when the disk fails hard. The rest of the time, when a disk goes bad, it silently corrupts data, and the RAID controller dutifully writes the corrupted data to your "backup".

A minimum requirement for a proper backup is that it must either retain previous versions of data, be backed up only periodically, or, ideally, both. RAID's primary purpose is not to protect you from disk failures; in fact, you are almost guaranteed to have more data loss with a RAID than without, simply because the MTBF of a group of disks equals the MTBF of a single disk divided by the number of disks. The purpose of RAID is to get better performance than a single disk can provide. All of the redundancy is just intended to get the reliability back up to something approaching the reliability of a single drive.
 

garyknrd

Birding
Nov 16, 2012
168
0
70
Thailand, Texas
www.birdsthatfart.com
jrista said:
garyknrd said:
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

It seems to be to me. I wouldn't say by a hugely significant margin, but it seems to do less damage to detail, and is definitely more configurable. It does noise reduction and detail recovery, as well as debanding in both horizontal and/or vertical. It has black level correction, as well as independent shadow, highlight, red, and blue channel fine tuning.

So far, I have not seen much need to really tweak much beyond the basic "RAW - light" or "RAW - moderate" presets. If, for whatever reason, I find detail loss in my subject to be too much, I simply mask off the subject in Photoshop, copy it to it's own layer in place, and run a preset on the base layer...and my critical subject detail remains 100% untouched. I rarely spend more than a couple minutes per image, five at most, getting results that to me seem to be ideal (something I never quite felt with just Photoshop or Lightroom noise removal.)

Ok, thanks
 

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,314
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
garyknrd said:
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

Afaik 3rd party nr software like noise ninja and probably topaz do automatic adaptive nr, i.e. they are much smarter than lr/ps at smoothing background bokeh and gradients while not smudging detail where is would be disturbing.

If you stick with acr, do manual adaptive nr by using a low global nr and using the brush with a higher nr setting to smooth non-detail areas ... or vice versa. Also apply lower nr for small export sizes - both techniques combined make a large difference.