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

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.

JVthePT wrote in post #17386797
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.

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.

JVthePT wrote in post #17386613
Congrats on the new lens Robert!

Darn you Gus, now I want one too!
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

Cheers
Gus

ancientone80 wrote in post #17387213
LOL JV ..

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

Cheers
Gus

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

....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.

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.

JVthePT wrote in post #17387430
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

Cheers
Gus

John Sheehy wrote in post #17386696
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?

Methodical wrote in post #17387494
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.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17386810
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?

gschlact wrote in post #17387600
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)".

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.

kesterc wrote in post #17387981

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qNAZ​Sd Burrowing Owl Headshot

Outstanding Kester!

John Sheehy wrote in post #17388133
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 (you can test uploads in the post editor without posting).