DXO uh-oh?

[Orangutan]

Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult. Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context. Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

 

[Orangutan]

What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

And some have been angry at Nikon for poor AF and QA. The D810 looks promising for Nikonians, maybe it'll be a kick for Canon.

 

[scyrene]

What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

Lol if money was no object I would definitely have more gear! I'd keep my Canon stuff because I like it and am used to it, but I'd probably get a D810, a 645Z and an A6S when it's finally available

I did actually consider swapping to Nikon once, partly for the extra resolution in the D800 and partly because their super telephoto lenses were cheaper. It wouldn't have cost much, given resale on my gear, but the differences weren't enough for me to bother. But that, again, is down to our personal taste (I'd feel more like you if I felt my kit was really constraining what I wanted to do).

 

[scyrene]

Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult. Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context. Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

;D hehe

 

[Don Haines]

Here's my problem....

I am told "12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot."

So I post an example shot at ISO12800, F1.4, 1/25th of a second, in a venue where flash or other lighting is not permitted. and I ask "What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?"

I get lots of advice on changing lighting, even though this was not an option. I had a studio flash in the back of the car and a 600EX-RT in the bag with me. If I could have used them, I would have.

Then I get advice such as "to shoot on the beat", which I had already done.... note the lack of blur in a 1/25 second exposure... and to "hit that moment of a performer when everything stops, just for a 100th of a second" which is very hard to do at 1/25 of a second, but I did anyway.. and then I am told "someone with true skill and astronomical ISO's available to them will catch something even better, than the guy who needs 12800 to catch a frozen moment on the beat because he doesn't have the skill to get it any other way".

Then I am told "you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again" despite that ISO400 would have required a shutter speed of 1 1/3 seconds, and then told "Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing".

So lots of insults, but none of this answers the original question... "What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

 

[Orangutan]

Here's my problem....

I am told "12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot."

By this time, I believe, the conversation was already poisoned.

 

[Loswr]

"What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

The one answer you got for your first question – get a camera with better high ISO performance, is one reasonable answer (even if only renting to meet an occasional need). With a current Canon FF body you could shoot at ISO 25600 and still have less noise, allowing you an extra stop to 'spend' on shutter speed or DoF. Depending on your RAW conversion software (I know you said that was SOOC JPG, but you also shoot RAW), with the 60D you could have underexposed by a stop or so, pushed in post, and used the best available NR tools (DxO PRIME, for example), and that might have been better, but might not.

As to your second question, the answer is bias - if you think more DR at low ISO is important to you (especially if you spent a lot of money to get it), but you don't shoot at high ISO, then more DR is critical for your professional photography, but less noise and more DR at very high ISO is a technological crutch for unskilled amatur pichur takers like us.

 

[unfocused]

Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult. Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context. Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

How dare you say such a thing! Clearly you are an idiot! (note to moderators, this is what is called being facetious)

On an only slightly more serious note, after following this thread through page after page, I find nothing that would make me change my earlier opinion. People use personal, subjective results to support blanket statements masquerading as facts.

Mr. Agar is clearly a very successful photographer. I don't know of many photographers who pull down more than $300,000 a year, which is what he indicated he is earning. And, yes, in my book, that does warrant some consideration and respect.

On the other hand, I refer again to the parallel post discussing Zach Arias' amusing rant http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21991.msg419168#msg419168 on sensor size. I suspect that Mr. Arias might be close or even exceed Mr. Agar in income, so here we have two highly successful photographers who appear to have reached nearly opposite conclusions.

I have to say that in my experience (subjective observation acknowledged) from reading articles by commercially successful photographers, the bulk seem to fall more on Mr. Arias' side than on Mr. Agar's – that is, most tend to write that the differences between brands and formats are marginal.

I don't doubt that Mr. Agar made his decision to switch systems after carefully considering what was better for him. I simply doubt that his personal decision can then be transformed into a blanket and objective assessment of the overall quality of either Nikon or Canon products.

As was discussed earlier, confirmation bias is a powerful thing and we are all slaves to it.

On a much more random note, I am fascinated by the shadow pattern that Mr. Agar showed in that model's arm. I've never seen anything quite like that and I notice that it seems to appear throughout the image in the shadows. It's very bizarre and since I have no experience with it in my own photographs (which certainly have their share of shadow areas) I can't venture a guess as to what caused it to occur. But, of course, because I too am a slave to my own experience, I have a difficult time believing that it represents some flaw or issue with the sensor in that camera.

 

[scyrene]

Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult. Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context. Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

How dare you say such a thing! Clearly you are an idiot! (note to moderators, this is what is called being facetious)

On an only slightly more serious note, after following this thread through page after page, I find nothing that would make me change my earlier opinion. People use personal, subjective results to support blanket statements masquerading as facts.

Mr. Agar is clearly a very successful photographer. I don't know of many photographers who pull down more than $300,000 a year, which is what he indicated he is earning. And, yes, in my book, that does warrant some consideration and respect.

On the other hand, I refer again to the parallel post discussing Zach Arias' amusing rant http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21991.msg419168#msg419168 on sensor size. I suspect that Mr. Arias might be close or even exceed Mr. Agar in income, so here we have two highly successful photographers who appear to have reached nearly opposite conclusions.

I have to say that in my experience (subjective observation acknowledged) from reading articles by commercially successful photographers, the bulk seem to fall more on Mr. Arias' side than on Mr. Agar's – that is, most tend to write that the differences between brands and formats are marginal.

I don't doubt that Mr. Agar made his decision to switch systems after carefully considering what was better for him. I simply doubt that his personal decision can then be transformed into a blanket and objective assessment of the overall quality of either Nikon or Canon products.

As was discussed earlier, confirmation bias is a powerful thing and we are all slaves to it.

On a much more random note, I am fascinated by the shadow pattern that Mr. Agar showed in that model's arm. I've never seen anything quite like that and I notice that it seems to appear throughout the image in the shadows. It's very bizarre and since I have no experience with it in my own photographs (which certainly have their share of shadow areas) I can't venture a guess as to what caused it to occur. But, of course, because I too am a slave to my own experience, I have a difficult time believing that it represents some flaw or issue with the sensor in that camera.

Maybe that's in part why people want objective standards to measure stuff by. I doubt it's ultimately possible (without caveats), but what started all this was a discussion about a website giving scores based on purportedly objective measurements, ironically.

Confirmation bias is a real problem, but some people do try to account for it. Not enough though

 

[Don Haines]

"What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

The one answer you got for your first question – get a camera with better high ISO performance, is one reasonable answer (even if only renting to meet an occasional need). With a current Canon FF body you could shoot at ISO 25600 and still have less noise, allowing you an extra stop to 'spend' on shutter speed or DoF. Depending on your RAW conversion software (I know you said that was SOOC JPG, but you also shoot RAW), with the 60D you could have underexposed by a stop or so, pushed in post, and used the best available NR tools (DxO PRIME, for example), and that might have been better, but might not.

As to your second question, the answer is bias - if you think more DR at low ISO is important to you (especially if you spent a lot of money to get it), but you don't shoot at high ISO, then more DR is critical for your professional photography, but less noise and more DR at very high ISO is a technological crutch for unskilled amatur pichur takers like us.

That's what I thought.... I can borrow a 5D2 and get a 2 stop jump in noise, or buy a 5D3 or 6D and get an additional stop in value, or I could go out and get a Sony a7S and shoot at ISO409,600... but however you slice it, I would still be shooting at ISO12800 or higher. I am told not to go above 1600 so I need to find 3 stops somewhere... I checked at B+H and they don't sell a 50MM F0.50 lens so that option is out... I guess I should be shooting the subject at 1/3 second....

 

[Loswr]

... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro who earns his living from photography. Are you a pro? Are you??

 

[Don Haines]

... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro. Are you a pro? Are you??

I am a pro..... just not a photography pro...

 

[msm]

Seems someones posts are missing from this thread, the entertainment is over :'(

 

[Loswr]

... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro. Are you a pro? Are you??

I am a pro..... just not a photography pro...

You caught me in an edit…

 

[sdsr]

Personally, I'd love to have the Nikon D810, but only if I could put my Canon glass on it!
Nikon doesn't make the high quality glass that I need, for the lenses that I use. For example: Canon TSE 24mm mark2.

I'll take this opportunity to trot out one of my favorite photo wishes: an industry-standard SLR mount so we can freely interchange cameras and lenses across manufacturers.

Ain't gonna happen in the U.S. Hey, EU! We need your regulatory assistance here! 8)

Agreed. I've probably said much the same thing in response to similar posts of yours, but you can come close to that with a decent mirrorless body + adapters, provided you're willing to forego fast AF or, in most cases, any sort of AF (which of course rules this option out completely for many). Of course, given that one of the best features of Canon lenses is their extremely fast, accurate AF, it would be nice if Canon were to provide us with such a mirrorless body....

 

[sdsr]

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

Are you sure you can't afford to? Is that because the equivalent Nikon gear is more expensive? I completely jumped ship from Pentax to Canon a couple of years ago, selling all my equipment in the process. The only item where I clearly lost money was the camera body I had bought new at full price (I don't really consider it a loss anyway because I got a lot of use out of it while I owned it); everything else I sold for more-or-less what I paid for it (a bit less if I had bought it new, sometimes more if I had bought it used). I doubt that's unusual.

As for Canon the drug dealer, most of Canon's sales are of Rebels (and below), and most such customers probably stick to their Rebels and don't move either up or sideways. Those who feel trapped or who suffer from sensor envy are more likely the minority who are enthusiasts, and these days it's fairly easy for them to avoid Canon's evil plot (if that's what it is) by buying a mirrorless camera with a Sony sensor and using their Canon lenses on that....

 

[Sunnystate]

There has to be a very good reason for that, i assume but I think who does not know what happened, and was following the tread should be informed. Thanks.

Seems someones posts are missing from this thread, the entertainment is over :'(

 

[Don Haines]

...
Then I am told "you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again" despite that ISO400 would have required a shutter speed of 1 1/3 seconds, and then told "Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing".
...

About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

Thanks for a good laugh....I tried the exact same experiment ages ago and found that the two cameras were off by a factor of two... and I can't remember if it was twice as high or twice as low... DOH! Glad to be in such good company

 

[unfocused]

About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.

How were the camera's calibrated. Did you verify that the mechanical shutter of the film camera was correct? Film cameras are notorious for the shutter speeds being off. Was it the same lens on both cameras?

How did you compare the two images? Was it two prints? Transparencies?

This conflicts with the whole idea of having ISO anyway (the "s" being for standardization). If it were different between film and digital, light meters, etc. wouldn't work properly.

 

[Orangutan]

About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.

How were the camera's calibrated. Did you verify that the mechanical shutter of the film camera was correct? Film cameras are notorious for the shutter speeds being off. Was it the same lens on both cameras?

How did you compare the two images? Was it two prints? Transparencies?

This conflicts with the whole idea of having ISO anyway (the "s" being for standardization). If it were different between film and digital, light meters, etc. wouldn't work properly.

+1

I've heard of people routinely using their DSLR to meter for film cameras. I tried it once myself and it seemed to work. Of course, this is just an anecdote, and Unfocused made the important observation: the "S" in ISO is for "Standard." I.e., there's a group out there that tests this stuff in a standardized way.