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 15 Sep 2014 (Monday) 11:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!

 
JVthePT
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 744
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Iowa
     
Jan 17, 2015 09:25 |  #3541

I see where you're coming from John, I guess I'm just of the school of thought that if an image is pleasing at the size the artist intended it to be viewed at, then why do all that investigation.
The way Robert has it posted here, as well as the way it appears on Flickr are quite pleasing to my eye and I give the photographer kudos for a nice image.


6D & 7D mark II - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II, Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro, Canon EF 1.4x III
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,777 posts
Likes: 766
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 17, 2015 09:53 |  #3542

JVthePT wrote in post #17386797 (external link)
I see where you're coming from John, I guess I'm just of the school of thought that if an image is pleasing at the size the artist intended it to be viewed at, then why do all that investigation.
The way Robert has it posted here, as well as the way it appears on Flickr are quite pleasing to my eye and I give the photographer kudos for a nice image.

I wasn't saying anything about the underlying image; I liked it when I first saw it, and just accepted its micro-texture as it was as that is how many people present their images on these pages just that as presented in a small web image, you can't tell what the image was like at full res. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for small images, just that they do not show the difference between a soft full-res capture and a sharp one.

Far too many times, I have seen people get excited and seem to decide to buy something based on web images, when the real reason their own images never look like that is either because they are not getting close enough to the subject and they are cropping too hard, or have stability or settings problems, or they don't know how to get the sharpness that they want in post-processing. I don't own a single lens or camera, including cheap kit lenses, that can't create a very sharp-looking 1280-pixel-wide image.

I need to see a 100% crop to think, "wow; that's sharp!", because those levels of magnification are the ones that reveal differences in equipment and technique.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74803
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jan 17, 2015 14:35 |  #3543

Good morning all...yep 3:27 pm and I'm just waking! I did work all night long though so no all night partying.
Thanks JV, my theory on the new lens is that it will ride on the 5Diii, it and the 24-105 should cover a lot of ground.
The 400DOii on the 7Dii with the cTC1.4...anything beyond that I won't be able to see anyway.

On the processing I bet most of you have figured (correctly) I know about as much about it as I do the dark side of the
Moon. My workflow (if you can call it such) is suck off the raw from the card into LR5, its does the dng...then I apply the
mask for sharpening in LR via the alt key and the slider.....just learned that within the last couple of months. Then if my ISO
seemed to make the pic grainy I slide up the luminance noise reduction.
Then send the pic to CS6 where I save it as a jpg after cropping.
All of this compared to most at POTN is simple Simon--just like me :)
I have also learned of sharpening in CS6 by duplicate/overlay/filt​er/other/high pass.

Honestly I'm glad this is a stress reducing hobby and nothing I have to take too serious like someone who makes a living
shooting professionally.


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ancientone80
Senior Member
Avatar
648 posts
Gallery: 498 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 945
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Perth, Western Australia
     
Jan 17, 2015 16:22 |  #3544

JVthePT wrote in post #17386613 (external link)
Congrats on the new lens Robert!

Darn you Gus, now I want one too! ;-)a
From this forum and FM, it sure looks like the 7dII and the 100-400II were made to be paired together.

LOL JV .. :-)


They do seem to be made for each other and you only live once :lol:

Cheers
Gus


Canon 7D II, 650D | Canon EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF-S 18-135 STM, 100-400L IS II, 70-200L IS II, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 IS Macro | Canon MT-24EX, Speedlite 600EX-RT
Image Editing Ok..
See more at my Flicker site :) flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JVthePT
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 744
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Iowa
     
Jan 17, 2015 16:33 |  #3545

ancientone80 wrote in post #17387213 (external link)
LOL JV .. :-)

They do seem to be made for each other and you only live once :lol:

Cheers
Gus


True.... but if I buy another piece of camera gear any time soon, the one life I live, I will live alone!:lol:


6D & 7D mark II - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II, Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro, Canon EF 1.4x III
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74803
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jan 17, 2015 18:53 |  #3546

....and not made for the 5Diii. Is my logic flawed ?!?!
but agreed looks like a primo choice for the 7D2 withe crop going on, that and the cTC1.4 and
what do you have in mm's.


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JVthePT
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 744
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Iowa
     
Jan 17, 2015 19:36 |  #3547

The samples of the 100-400II look good no matter what body it's on. You'll have a great combo with great IQ in the 5d3 and 100-400II.


6D & 7D mark II - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II, Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro, Canon EF 1.4x III
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ancientone80
Senior Member
Avatar
648 posts
Gallery: 498 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 945
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Perth, Western Australia
     
Jan 17, 2015 20:41 |  #3548

JVthePT wrote in post #17387430 (external link)
The samples of the 100-400II look good no matter what body it's on. You'll have a great combo with great IQ in the 5d3 and 100-400II.

I agree, the 100-400ii on the 5Diii produces excellent results, I just missed the extra reach of the 7Dii.
With the AF options, FPS, MFD, 1.6 crop factor etc, the 100-400ii on the 7Dii for wildlife just makes me smile.

With the 7dii, 1.4 EXiii and 100-400ii we end up with an equivelant of 896mm :-D

Cheers
Gus


Canon 7D II, 650D | Canon EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF-S 18-135 STM, 100-400L IS II, 70-200L IS II, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 IS Macro | Canon MT-24EX, Speedlite 600EX-RT
Image Editing Ok..
See more at my Flicker site :) flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Methodical
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,840 posts
Gallery: 235 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3551
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Where ever I lay my hat is my home
     
Jan 17, 2015 20:44 |  #3549

John Sheehy wrote in post #17386696 (external link)
A good part of the reason that it is "razor sharp" is that it is aliased because of the way that it was processed, which seems to be with some sort of nearest neighbor downsizing, which gives sharp-but-distorted results. With web images being small in both megapixels and screen area, it is hard to include a lot of detail, so the temptation is always there to make them look more detailed than the small image can portray by using nearest neighbor. Personally, I prefer to properly downsample and then sharpen a tad with USM at 0.3px. There is no way to use nearest neighbor and control the distortion, other than blurring the image before downsizing it.

So, one man's "razor sharp" is another man's distortion.

What do you downsize to?


Gear
MethodicalImages (external link)
Flickr (external link)
"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,777 posts
Likes: 766
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 17, 2015 20:56 |  #3550

Methodical wrote in post #17387494 (external link)
What do you downsize to?

Whatever the display concerns require. If it were on this site, then it would be no more than 1280 pixels wide.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gschlact
Senior Member
1,318 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 487
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chicago 'burbs
     
Jan 17, 2015 22:51 |  #3551

John Sheehy wrote in post #17386810 (external link)
I wasn't saying anything about the underlying image; I liked it when I first saw it, and just accepted its micro-texture as it was as that is how many people present their images on these pages just that as presented in a small web image, you can't tell what the image was like at full res. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for small images, just that they do not show the difference between a soft full-res capture and a sharp one.

Far too many times, I have seen people get excited and seem to decide to buy something based on web images, when the real reason their own images never look like that is either because they are not getting close enough to the subject and they are cropping too hard, or have stability or settings problems, or they don't know how to get the sharpness that they want in post-processing. I don't own a single lens or camera, including cheap kit lenses, that can't create a very sharp-looking 1280-pixel-wide image.

I need to see a 100% crop to think, "wow; that's sharp!", because those levels of magnification are the ones that reveal differences in equipment and technique.

John,
I couldn't agree more, the small I, ages posted here without links to the original full resolution tells us nothing about the original. (that hawk portrait still made me say wow)

However, I think there is a corollary to your observation that many downsized images look nice and sharp. . I have seen downsized images that weren't that impressive either way wrt sharpness, but when looking at the original at 100% gave the wow. Pondrader's shots come to mind (foxes) . My guess is that he processed for full res and this site did the downres. How do you explain the difference, I doubt too many people are processing for the smaller size. . Does Flick (pomdrader) downres differently than their sites engine?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kesterc
Member
228 posts
Gallery: 107 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 607
Joined May 2013
     
Jan 18, 2015 08:31 |  #3552

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7500/16279949716_40b90e107f_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qNAZ​Sd  (external link) Burrowing Owl Headshot (external link)


flickr (external link)
Canon 7D Mk II | 6D | Canon 500 f/4L IS | 300 f/4L IS | 24-105 f/4L IS | 1.4x/2.0x III
600EX-RT | 430EX II | Gitzo 4542LS + Wimberley WH-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,777 posts
Likes: 766
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 18, 2015 10:10 |  #3553

gschlact wrote in post #17387600 (external link)
John,
I couldn't agree more, the small I, ages posted here without links to the original full resolution tells us nothing about the original. (that hawk portrait still made me say wow)

However, I think there is a corollary to your observation that many downsized images look nice and sharp. . I have seen downsized images that weren't that impressive either way wrt sharpness, but when looking at the original at 100% gave the wow.

That's because the processing was soft. When you downsize, the range of resulting sharpness is tremendous. Witness Photoshop's choices of "bicubic (softer)" and "bicubic (sharper)".

Pondrader's shots come to mind (foxes) . My guess is that he processed for full res and this site did the downres. How do you explain the difference, I doubt too many people are processing for the smaller size. . Does Flick (pomdrader) downres differently than their sites engine?

Sure, a lot can happen to an image from the time it is uploaded to a host, and the software here displays it. If the image needs to be downsized to the size limits here, anything could happen to it. That's why I prepare images myself to be displayed within the rules of a web site, if I want them to be seen correctly, pixel-wise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JVthePT
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 744
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Iowa
     
Jan 18, 2015 10:16 |  #3554


Outstanding Kester!


6D & 7D mark II - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II, Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro, Canon EF 1.4x III
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pekka
El General Moderator
Avatar
17,965 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 1850
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Jan 18, 2015 16:11 |  #3555

John Sheehy wrote in post #17388133 (external link)
That's because the processing was soft. When you downsize, the range of resulting sharpness is tremendous. Witness Photoshop's choices of "bicubic (softer)" and "bicubic (sharper)".

Sure, a lot can happen to an image from the time it is uploaded to a host, and the software here displays it. If the image needs to be downsized to the size limits here, anything could happen to it. That's why I prepare images myself to be displayed within the rules of a web site, if I want them to be seen correctly, pixel-wise.

Just FYI: the downsizing algorithm we use here is producing very good quality. The results of browser downsizing the photo on your screen may vary according to browser and its settings (happens with all embedded images), but the actual file that is hosted here (seen by clicking the glasses icon if image does not fit into browser width) is always good. You can try it out with test targets like http://web.ncf.ca …inishers/multit​arget5.jpg (external link) (you can test uploads in the post editor without posting).


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.1 Changelog (installed here now)

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

10,575,432 views & 101,392 likes for this thread
-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!
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 Nita66
798 guests, 240 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.