Chewngum said:
Please. Either you have a well founded, factually valid response, or you just validated my point about you.
Upvote
0
*UPDATE* Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Please. Either you have a well founded, factually valid response, or you just validated my point about you.
AvTvM said:
Above ISO 400, the advances in Exmor sensors are minimal. If we refer to low-level hardware tests, most, including DXO, indicate that the 5D III is actually equivalent or has a slight DR edge over the D800 at ISO's above 400 (DR "crossover", or where Canon DR is slightly better than the D800, is at ISO 1600 (Canon 9.23ev vs. Nikon 9ev), not 6400). Now, granted, Canon had to "cheat" somewhat to achieve that...their bayer CFA is a bit more color-blind in red and blue channels (they weakened those two filter colors, allowing more green light through...making red slightly more "orangish-red" and blue slightly more "cyanish-blue". This is largely immaterial, since it can be corrected with color profile curves...but still, its a cheat.)
The numbers, however, do indeed indicate that Canon has the DR edge at high ISO settings, however slim it may be. The electron saturation numbers indicate that both Canon and Sony sensors have about 3-4 electrons worth of "read noise" at higher ISOs (which is really a measure of all electronic noise in a circuit at the time it is read and converted), so Sony sensors don't really have much of an advantage. If and when they do, its at most 1 electron worth, which is going to be largely immeasurable unless you are severely underexposing, or trying to pull shadows so deep that there is a 1:1 or worse noise ratio and there isn't any useful detail there to start with.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
That's certainly interesting, you certainly seem to have a clue about these things, please keep posting
... where does the correction take place when shooting raw, in the in-camera digic or in the raw converter?
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:jrista said:
That's certainly interesting, you certainly seem to have a clue about these things, please keep posting
Tone curves are essentially how the in-camera "picture styles" are achieved. Its basically the same as Photoshop RGB curves, allowing different attenuation per color channel. If you shoot JPEG, the raw data off of the sensor will be processed according to whatever picture style you have selected, resulting in a specific look and feel. The slight color cast that would be present in red and blue pixels from the 5D III (and, I suspect, 1D X) could be corrected with the appropriate red, blue, and green channel curves when saving out the JPEG. The same basic thing is done with RAW, however (outside of using DPP) each RAW processor (i.e. ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, RawThearapy, etc.) will usually have its own set of picture styles or camera profiles, and even in the case when they have profiles that match name-for-name those from a camera, the results will usually be a little bit different.
The application of RGB Tone Curves is basically just a mathematical/algorithmic attenuation of each color channel. Canon's embedded JPEG converter or an advanced RAW editor probably involve more advanced algorithms than just plain-jane curves...there may be some basic levels adjustments, and when lens profiles are involved, there may be further color tone curves applied...but the general result is the same: correct color output, despite any slight color casts in each color channel of the RAW sensor data. To be honest, I am pretty amazed by the 5D III's color accuracy, color contrast, and vibrancy...from the images I have seen so far, its got stellar color quality.
Upvote
0
^ it's a joy reading you, jrista
I'd just add that it's not an RGB curve, but a full demosaic algorithm that gets each R/G/B channel not only from the photosites that have that color, but from all photosites, R G and B, with coefficients that are usually positive for that color and negative for the others (to adjust from color crossover in the filters)
I'd just add that it's not an RGB curve, but a full demosaic algorithm that gets each R/G/B channel not only from the photosites that have that color, but from all photosites, R G and B, with coefficients that are usually positive for that color and negative for the others (to adjust from color crossover in the filters)
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I feel I am succinct, though my point was valid. You have tremendous scientific knowledge of what should go on in inside a camera. However, you neglect to comment on or compare real world results with mathematical possibilities. I can agree even without your posts that the 7d should produce more fine detail...but mine and many others' real world testing can show the camera does not produce in the field what it does on paper.
Upvote
0
Chewngum said:
Sure it does...your just comparing 1:1 results. The farther you push sensor resolution past lens resolution, the "softer" 1:1 crop will look. That doesn't change the fact that higher resolution sensors ARE capturing more detail. When pixels become significantly sub-detail sized, viewing things at 1:1 crop becomes incredibly useless. Scale your 7D photos DOWN to your 40D size, or scale a 40D photo UP to 7D size, and the superiority of the 7D in the real world, even WITH additional noise, will be clear.
If by some fluke they are not, then the problem is not the camera...its the way the camera is used. Find ways to eliminate camera shake, make sure your using an "ideal" aperture (i.e. an aperture within that band between a little wider than f/3 to about f/6.2), or anything else that can improve your technique.
As for being succinct...sure, however telling me I bore you is simply an evasion, not a counter argument. ;P
Upvote
0
NormanBates said:
Many thanks!
I enjoy sharing the theory and science of what makes our art possible. (BTW, based on your avatar, I think I've used a little DOF calculator you have up on the web...the site was titled Similar or something like that...)
NormanBates said:
True...however I was trying to avoid having to dive into bayer demosaicing algorithms (as once I've mentioned something, people tend to ask for more and more detail about it!
). I know a few things about some demosaicing algorithms, but thats a real rabbit hole full of rats nests...there are a dozen ways to demosaic, each with their various pros and cons. I think a lot more photographers are more familiar with tone mapping and curve editing in Photoshop and similar tools than with the fundamentals of bayer demosaicing. 
Now, here is a mouthful for ya: Adaptive Homogeneity-Directed Demosaicing Algorithm. Now, say it ten times fast! (J/K!) Try typing that out a few times in an explanation of Lightroom's current form of demosaicing, which can be turned into the acronym AHDD, and then you just get jokes about demosaicing being ADHD when AhDDing numbers....yeah... ;P
Upvote
0
jrista said:
My other posts in this thread more than address these statements. You're arguing a truism...boredom isn't evading your comments, its saying they're unnecessary as we're arguing different things. I will state again, I would like to see a much better system of APS-C image production from Canon. I don't care what has to change(AA filter, sensor, processor/s etc etc) but the next APS-C sensor should produce RAW files which require far less work to be made optimal.
Upvote
0
Chewngum said:
You'll have to provide some quotes. I've read all of your other answers, and at most you seem to allude that the 40D and 50D are "better", without much explanation as to how or why. I don't see any sample photos you have taken with either the 40D or 50D and the 7D that can be compared apples to apples (larger scaled down or smaller scaled up to normalize size). If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to get a bit more serious in your arguments.
Chewngum said:
I dispute the notion that we are arguing different things. You "argued" that using a macro lens allowed you to "far outresolve the sensor". That is a falsehood, and your argument a fallacy...easily falsifiable. I believe your understanding of the points you are trying to argue is flawed and incomplete. For your own benefit, I am trying to encourage you to argue your points more thoroughly with more evidence to back up your otherwise anecdotal claims.
You have mentioned a variety of things in your previous posts that, to me (and I believe a number of other participants in this thread), seem to indicate a problem with camera usage, rather than the camera itself. Your arguments are also often vauge or incomplete, which leaves them open to attack and falsification without further shoring up, however the arguments you make to shore up prior ones have the same flaw. A small narrative of selected quotes, to demonstrate:
* "the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself, Sony, pentax and Nikon have been killing Canon in this regard for years."
- Anecdotal.
- Vague.
- Evasive.
Counters:
Exactly what about Canon's 18mp sensors are terrible? I don't necessarily disagree that there are some things about it that are less than great, but I do disagree the sensor in general is just flat out terrible. More explanation about what and why is required here to make it a valid argument. As it is, it is antagonistic but a little evasive.
What is your best lens? This statement about your lenses is very vague. If your best lenses are consumer grade or off-brand, outside of a very few cases, then this statement is anecdotal at best. Have you micro focus adjusted all of your lenses? If you have, HOW did you micro-adjust them? There are good tools and BAD tools to use to tune your lenses and camera bodies to idealistically match. More information is really necessary to make your argument sound.
* "My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor, MF, tripod mounted etc... I have tweaked every single setting of the camera to my specifications."
- Falshood.
- Anecdotal.
- Vague.
Counters:
Plain and simple, use of a macro lens does nothing intrinsic to increase spatial resolution. Use of a macro lens can allow you to magnify something to a significant degree, and with specialized tools, you can go well beyond 1:1 magnification. From a physics standpoint, at high magnification the effects of diffraction also tend to increase, as with greater extension (required to achieve 1:1 or greater magnification), you increase the focal length, and therefor reduce the aperture. Given that, its more likely that a macro lens at its maximum magnification will have LESS spatial resolution than at an ideal aperture and greater focus distance. Fallacy and simple falshood.
What about manual focus makes your results better than if you used any form and configuration of autofocus? Very anecdotal argument.
Regarding your settings...what have you changed, why did you change it, and how? Vauge, very vauge.
* "I think its funny that you 100% assume user error, God forbid a person doesn't have the same standards as you and actually isn't happy with what you're happy with. I sold my 7d because i gave it enough time but i can repeatedly get better results with much cheaper options."
- EVASIVE!
- Naive.
Counters:
As a group, in general (however obviously with some exceptions), I believe photographers tend to be a rather perfectionist bunch. My experience online in general, and with some of my photographer friends in real life, is that photographers generally want perfect results, regardless of what gear they use. The more technically oriented tend to blame the gear...however the more naturally artistic often tend to either blame circumstances or, in fewer cases, blame their own skill! (Personally, I love it when I meet an introspective photographer who is constantly challenging THEMSELVES to improve THEIR OWN TECHNIQUE! They tend to be the most phenomenal photographers of all, with talent that floors most other photographers, and they still seem to continue gaining more skill and more knowledge...how ironic is that! ;P)
Your notion that someone else, especially on THIS forum, is not as interested in eeking out every last ounce of technological capability from their gear as you are is extremely naive, and the whole statement in general is rather evasive....avoiding the requirement that others have placed on you to back up your claims with more facts and less talk.
* "If you ever try a reasonable copy of the sigma 150 macro you will know what i am talking about when it comes to sharpness. The 7d did not render as much detail as the 50D despite having the same crop factor and more MPs."
- Anecdotal.
- Fallacy.
Counters:
Even a reasonable copy of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro is generally inferior to either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro or the Canon 180mm f/3.5mm L Macro. Both Canon lenses, one of which runs for about $500 or so and the other for about $1400 or so, are far superior to the Sigma 150. For what it is, its not necessarily unsharp, given it's priced at about a 20% discount to the Canon 180, but it is definitely NOT as sharp as either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 nor the 180mm f/3.5. Comparisons can be seen at the links below...no contest, both Canon lenses are sharper, and this reviewer is known for being particularly meticulous about his lens samples...he returns them until he gets as ideal a copy as possible before writing a review (try f/4 to eliminate optical aberrations and ensure a normalized comparison):
150/180: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=109&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
150/100: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=107&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
Sigma is able to produce cheaper lenses because they use cheaper materials, cheaper fabrication techniques, and cheaper processes. One area in particular where Sigma falls well behind Canon would be lens coatings. Sigma uses a basic form of multicoating, nothing special, but definitely more limiting to overall transmission (potentially by as much as 30% in worst conditions) than Canon's SWC (SubWavelength Coating), which is a nanotech particle based coating that pretty much ensures at least 99.95% transmission even when flare and ghosting do occur (I can attest to the astounding superiority of SWC myself as a couple of my lenses have it, and even with the sun right in the corner of a frame, ghosting across the rest of the frame is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all.)
Sigma's skill at reducing optical aberrations is certainly not as great as Canon's, or for that matter Nikon's, Zeiss', etc. The difference in resolution in the above two examples has less to do with improper micro focus adjustment or a bad sample, and more to do with the fact that Sigma's lens manufacturing industry is simply not as large and advanced as their brand-name competitors'./
Claiming the 7D did not render as much detail as the 50D is just flat out false. The 7D has a 10% resolution benefit (nearly 20% pixel count benefit) over the 50D. No matter how *sharp* the 50D results may appear, none of the deficiencies of the 7D are likely to cause it to take a solid 10% hit to IQ in general, let alone a 10% hit to its ability to resolve detail specifically. The 50D, with larger pixels, will generally appear sharper for what it records, but what it records will have LESS detail than the 7D in all cases that do not involve user error. You might be able to account for a 3% margin-of-error loss in IQ due to electronic noise in the 7D's sensor at low ISO settings, but claiming a 10% drop in IQ solely due to "the sensor" (which is an extremely vague statement in and of itself) is almost laughable and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of what spatial resolution is, or for that matter how and why the 7D is able to continue producing high quality images with competitive noise characteristics DESPITE offering 20% more pixels than the 50D.
As a very simple test, just hunt around a site like 500px.com for photos taken with the 7D. You'll be hard pressed to find any that look like crap, and when they do, I would be willing to bet good money EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is due to a lack of skill, a lack of artistic vision or capability, or any other of a number of USER related issues, and not a single hardware factor. You'll also find that photos taken with the 7D are just as good or better than similar photos taken by the same photographer with older gear that might have much larger pixels...such as a 50D, or a 350D, etc.
Upvote
0
Chewngum said:
Great! Now we can get back on topic!
Continuous AF in LiveView & Video Recording
Anyone curious if this is still just CD-AF, or possibly some kind of FPPD-AF?? Focal-plane phase detection is a critical thing for high performance mirrorless AF. I'm rather curious if Canon will demonstrate a solid willingness to compete with the likes of Fuji and Nikon in the arena of high speed, highly capable, multi-point AF in their first mirrorless entrant...or whether they will cripple it with some kind of vastly inferior CD-AF.
How Canon play's their mirrorless card(s) will be, IMO, a clear indication of their willingness or capability to compete in the new arena of digital camera equipment. FPPD-AF would indicate they ARE willing to compete, at least to keep up with the competition. A mirrorless entrant with FPPD and a high DR 14-bit sensor would indicate they are truly serious about competing and innovating into new markets, and serving their customers quality gear. Some form of Contrast-based AF would indicate they have lost the ability or interest in solidly competing and innovating into new markets against fierce competition. A mirrorless entrant with CD-AF and the same kind of "Canonized" sensor with high low-ISO read noise and poor DR would be seriously worrying...
Maybe the 650D's continuous live AF will be an indication of things to come? A hint at Canon's competitive prowess?
Upvote
0
jrista said:
rest assured, it will be only plain-vanilla CD-AF in the 650D and most likely still slower than CD-AF in recent mFT mirrorless cameras.
Canon's "technical prowess" means, they are finally offering "continuous/Servo-AF" in video mode, probably also face-detection for tracking moving head-shots across the frame ... if and when conditions [lighting, contrast, speed, direction, predictability of movement] are so good and simple, that anyone could keep it manually in focus as well. And even that feature coms years after Canon's competitors have implemented it.
I myself have been waiting for hybrid, 2-stage AF systems for a long time. FPPD for "fast and rough" stage one focussing, followed by ultrafast CD-AF for stage 2 ... "precision focusing". Closest to that concept is the Nikon 1, which currently is the only camera on the market with FPPD. Presumably Nikon is sitting on a bunch of pretty valuable patents by now. But up to now, even Nikon has not managed to implement FPPD on APS-C or FF sensors.
Overall, Canon is getting increasingly punished for not being a true innovator. During the last 4 years they have increasingly become a pure marketing (-differentiation!) company. Technically all of their cameras are at least 1 step behind state of the art in virtually every aspect - from sensor to FPPD to hybrid viewfinders ... only their in-cam jpg engine(s) do very well compared to competitive products.
I also seriously doubt, the 650D will have a really kick-ass new Canon sensor with significantly higher DR [= with better dark noise specs]. I expect only a tiny, incremental update on the current 18 MP APS-C sensor (as used in 7D, 550D, 60D, 600D).
What's worse, by now I am fairly convinced that Canon is UNABLE - as opposed to just UNWILLING - to come up with new CMOS imaging sensors that are fully competitive with Nikon's (/Sony) latest sensors. The Canon G1X was the latest disappointing proof to that. Definitely NOT terrible but rather "pretty good" ... meaning: about 1 step below current "gold standard" on the market.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Maybe looking back from 5 years in the future, this current situation will just look like a temporary lapse, we'll see. The thing worrying me with a quick look at my budget is that if they are a step behind the bleeding edge, this should at least reflect in their camera body prices. But since they still have some excellent lenses, they seem to get away with optimizing marketing for their bodies until now.
AvTvM said:
I guess we'll know about unable vs. unwilling that when they update the aps-c sensor with the 70d, because in this market segment unwilling is no longer an option for them.
And we'll see if they decide to cut back on their marketing and really release the 70d as a 7d-like body with an updated sensor at a reasonable price, or if they come up with these little quirks again that make users wish for an upgrade.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Indeed, that's my site
And it has a section where everybody can see lots of 100% crops from that 18mpix APS-C sensor, with dozens of different lenses (the sharpest ones probably being the Rollei Planar HFT 50mm f/1.7 and the Leitz Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4):
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
(there are a couple of macro lenses there; one is quite sharp, but not as sharp as that tiny Rollei; the other is pretty mediocre)
Upvote
0
jrista said:
jrista:
I enjoy your posts and you obviously have a wealth of tech understanding.
As far as the 7d softness debate. I too, borrowed a 7d for a few days, and compared it with my t2i. The out of camera images appeared softer / fuzzier. This mystified me... as the 7d is supposed to be far superior. Could you explain again in terms for laymen,
why this is - and how I can make the 7d's jpgs appear sharp ?
Upvote
0
I've heard that some Canon bodies apply far less in-camera sharpening than other models even on maximum sharpness settings (with "pro" models producing less sharp images than "consumer" models). The idea being that less sharpening applied results in more detail being retained and the photographer can later achieve their optimal mix later via software. If true, could that also be the case here? Or is this just another old wives tale to disguise sloppy technique and/or poor camera and lens performance?
Upvote
0
I'd bet most of those "I went from XXXD to 7D and images were soft" stories just boil down to "I didn't use the AF microadjustment feature in the 7D" ("most", not "all")
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts
Upvote
0
koolman said:I enjoy your posts and you obviously have a wealth of tech understanding.
As far as the 7d softness debate. I too, borrowed a 7d for a few days, and compared it with my t2i. The out of camera images appeared softer / fuzzier. This mystified me... as the 7d is supposed to be far superior. Could you explain again in terms for laymen,
they have more or less the same sensor, the same processor so the resolution would be similar.
the 7d is supposed to be far superior for costuction/fps/AF and so on but not for the resolution of the sensor (maybe the sensor of 550D is a little better than 7d one)
maybe the lens you used has better focusing on 550d than 7d; i had a problem like that with my old sigma 70-200 hsm ii, that focused almost perfectly with 450d and FF a lot on 50D (i had to change the mfa to +16)
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
