Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 01 Jul 2013 (Monday) 23:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EOS 70D officially announced!

 
vertigo235
Goldmember
2,009 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 374
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 10:09 |  #676

This technology should also fix the EOS-M, wonder how long it will take them to come out with the EOS-M with this.


Canon EOS 6D EOS 5D Mark III | Apple Iphone 6 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM EF 85mm f/1.8 USM EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM 50mm F1.4 DG HSM ART | Samyang 85mm f/1.4 AS UMC | Canon Speedlite 430EX II Speedlite 90EX | Yongnuo YN-468II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,253 posts
Likes: 2298
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jul 06, 2013 10:13 |  #677

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16096078 (external link)
Perhaps Canon could implement an auto-MFA function with this then, if we cannot use it for full-time AF.

The camera could very, very easily be put into a mode where you put a special target on a wall some distance out, and select a function. It would then run through 5 iterations of phase detection AF, then flip to dual pixel AF and see how far off the two lens values were for the two modes, and average the 5 runs.

It would eliminate the need for my Focus Genie I sell, and all the other gadgets/tools in the marketplace. Once dual pixel AF was able to be used for still photography through the viewfinder, then no more need for MFA. Perhaps ML could implement this.

FoCal does something very close to what you say now at least when all is said and done. Clearly it doesn't have access to the dual pixel sensor, but it can evaluate the image looking for maximum sharpness.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,114 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 06, 2013 10:57 |  #678

vertigo235 wrote in post #16096142 (external link)
This technology should also fix the EOS-M, wonder how long it will take them to come out with the EOS-M with this.

i'd think that would be the next announcement...especia​lly with the fire sale on the eos-m right now...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,684 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3832
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 11:44 |  #679

kcbrown wrote in post #16095264 (external link)
That is something I find very surprising, because I actually have both the 50D and the 7D, and I've found the 7D to be superior in terms of image quality in every respect save one: low ISO artifacts in the very deep shadows. The 7D has that, the 50D doesn't.

Underexposing (intentionally) is often very necessary in the type of photographhy I do. When I underexposed 7D images, the noise grain was noticeably worse than when I intentionally underexposed 50D images to the same extant. Perhaps for the type of photography you do, you do not need to underexpose often, but if you have, have you noticed the difference between the way the two bodies handle noise grain when shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 800?


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,114 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 06, 2013 11:54 |  #680

i'm trying to figure out an instance where you would under-expose intentionally at ISO 400...and I can't...if you're after a faster shutter speed, why not raise the ISO, you'll get less noise than underexposing and bringing it back in post...if the shutter speed doesn't matter, then why would you be at ISO 400?

what types of shots are you underexposing intentionally at ISO 400?

EDIT:...unless maybe a silhoutte shot, where you also want to freeze action?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,684 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3832
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 12:14 |  #681

DreDaze wrote in post #16096368 (external link)
i'm trying to figure out an instance where you would under-expose intentionally at ISO 400...and I can't...if you're after a faster shutter speed, why not raise the ISO, you'll get less noise than underexposing and bringing it back in post...if the shutter speed doesn't matter, then why would you be at ISO 400?

what types of shots are you underexposing intentionally at ISO 400?

EDIT:...unless maybe a silhoutte shot, where you also want to freeze action?

My wildlife subjects are often darker than their surroundings, so I need very much to expose for the highlights so that I capture detail in the bright areas. Sunlight is often "absorbed" by fur/hair, but reflected off of leaves, blades of grass, water surfaces, etc. Plus parts of my images sometimes show the sky in the background, and I don't want it blown out. With wild animals, there is no time to mess with graduated filters, etc.

Also, sometimes some of the surroundings are much darker than other parts of the surroundings. More than the dynamic range of my sensors can handle. Hence, I need to expose for the highlights in these instances, as well.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,253 posts
Likes: 2298
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jul 06, 2013 12:21 |  #682

I think that the point was that if your at ISO400 and underexposing, then pulling the image back, you'll get more noise than if you shot at ISO800 or ISO1600 and exposed properly. By underexposing you are decreasing your S/N and then pulling it back magnifies the noise. Shooting at a native ISO also has more noise, but as the amplification is much closer to the source, and the S/N to start with is much better, the final image will have less noise.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,684 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3832
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 12:31 |  #683

gjl711 wrote in post #16096445 (external link)
I think that the point was that if your at ISO400 and underexposing, then pulling the image back, you'll get more noise than if you shot at ISO800 or ISO1600 and exposed properly. By underexposing you are decreasing your S/N and then pulling it back magnifies the noise. Shooting at a native ISO also has more noise, but as the amplification is much closer to the source, and the S/N to start with is much better, the final image will have less noise.

I understand what you're saying, and agree with it. But it doesn't solve the problem of a great span of dynamic range in a composition. If the highlights are exposed properly, then the other areas of the composition will be underexposed, regardless of what ISO is used.

It would be great if Canon gave us a 1.6 crop body that would allow us to expose for the highlights, and then bring the darker areas up without having noise grain in them. But they continue to put their R&D into gadgets & gizmos like video & WI-FI. Maybe, just maybe, this 70D will change that . . . but I have my doubts.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,253 posts
Likes: 2298
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jul 06, 2013 12:34 |  #684

Got ya. Your saying that as ISO400 the highlights are properly exposed but portions of the image are not, yes?

Alas, the answer to that from Canon is to HDR and blend, or switch to the new Exmore sensor cameras where shadow recovery is way better.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,114 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 06, 2013 12:36 |  #685

personally i'd rather expose for the darker subject, and then bring the highlights back in post, and have less noise overall...but if the highlights are so blown out that they can be brought back in the raws...then you're stuck in a pickle...

i would also love more dynamic range, but i do see uses for wifi with wildlife...i'm already hoping to set up my camera near a spot where i know a peregrine that likes to sit...then i'll be 25 ft away using my phone...could lead to some interesting shots...or just junk :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,684 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3832
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 13:20 |  #686

gjl711 wrote in post #16096478 (external link)
Got ya. Your saying that as ISO400 the highlights are properly exposed but portions of the image are not, yes?

Alas, the answer to that from Canon is to HDR and blend, or switch to the new Exmore sensor cameras where shadow recovery is way better.

HDR on a walking deer, or a flying bird . . . I'm not sure how that is going to happen. Maybe someday it could work, but I don't see how it could, what with all of the subject movement.

DreDaze wrote in post #16096482 (external link)
Personally, I'd rather expose for the darker subject, and then bring the highlights back in post, and have less noise overall...but if the highlights are so blown out that they can be brought back in the raws...then you're stuck in a pickle...

The bold part is what is often the case. A better sensor in a 1.6 crop body would be a great solution!

DreDaze wrote in post #16096482 (external link)
. . . I do see uses for wifi with wildlife...i'm already hoping to set up my camera near a spot where I know a peregrine that likes to sit...then I'll be 25 ft away using my phone...could lead to some interesting shots...or just junk

Yes, that would be useful . . . but aren't we already doing that with wireless remotes? I don't see why we need a camera to access the internet just to be able to fire it remotely.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,114 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 06, 2013 13:49 |  #687

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16096572 (external link)
Yes, that would be useful . . . but aren't we already doing that with wireless remotes? I don't see why we need a camera to access the internet just to be able to fire it remotely.

i think it's more about being able to see on your phone exactly what the camera is going to shoot that's a bit more beneficial

being able to change the settings, and changing the AF point(which I also think will be a lot faster due to the dual sensor) are what it's more about

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=EtKmJIuOMaw (external link)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ravenseal
Member
65 posts
Joined May 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 06, 2013 13:53 |  #688

No 1080p60 video? That's a shame :\

Everything else seems alright.


Current Camera - Nikon D5200 + FX 24-85 VR | AF-S DX 35mm 1.8 |AF-S DX 18-55 VR | AF-S DX 55-200mm VR
Previous Gear - Canon 60D - Sony NEX-5R - Nikon D3000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
5,935 posts
Likes: 114
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Dallas TX
     
Jul 06, 2013 14:34 |  #689

ravenseal wrote in post #16096640 (external link)
No 1080p60 video? That's a shame :\

Everything else seems alright.

I'm not sure why Canon doesn't do that. Maybe they want to reserve it for their "C" cameras, maybe the codec can't support it with the buffer rate,...does ML allow for 1080/60 when installed??

Sony does it on their cameras so I wonder what the difference is.


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canon_Lover
Goldmember
Avatar
2,695 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2011
Location: WA
     
Jul 06, 2013 14:55 as a reply to  @ BrickR's post |  #690

FYI, Nikon DR is only superior at lower iso.

Once above 800 Canons actually tend to a slight advantage in DR.

Unless someone shoots ISO 400 or lower for birds in flight, there is no advantage.

Still would be nice to have more though! :)


My 500PX (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

288,199 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EOS 70D officially announced!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is umerbilal
1077 guests, 225 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.