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 28 Jul 2014 (Monday) 15:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why Canon, when Nikon...

 
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,806 posts
Likes: 554
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 15, 2014 07:37 |  #271

electricme wrote in post #17097467 (external link)
I never understood side by side comparisons of the same picture. Different equipment will give different results. the picture on the left isnt worse than that on the right it just needs to be approached differently based on the equipment your using.

This. I have yet to see comparisons of the DR limits of the cameras. Just noise handling in the shadows. There is no argument that the Nikons have better noise handling (because of sensor technology and resolution). There may be a slight difference in how you expose with a Canon vs Nikon (with the Canon, you have to be more mindful to ETTR)....but the fundamentals of photography is not.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,806 posts
Likes: 554
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 15, 2014 07:43 |  #272

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17097531 (external link)
This isn't true if you use good software to upscale. There are many algorithms out there to upscale, some very rudimentary, others more analytical in nature. The largest effect you would see from upsizing, if done properly, would be that artifacts that were originally in the photo are just larger. You should never see bad data introduced from good data.

That's not true at all. That's like an argument I heard that an upscaled DVD is the same quality as a blu-ray. You're always relying on a computer program to fill in missing pixels of data. Generally, those algorithms make the image look fuzzy if printed large scale. If it's trying to analyze individual pixels, though, it can amplify a pixel of noise.

You're always going to get better detail if you keep to the original resolution or downscale. Upscalling will always be at the whim of the computer to fill in missing pixels.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,166 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5923
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 15, 2014 07:46 as a reply to  @ davesrose's post |  #273

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1393255

Examples of recovering shadows from a high DR image between different cameras and dual ISO from magic lantern....

Regardless of your opinions, this is how the photographic community looks at DR, how far can they push a high DR scene so that all parts of the image are recoverable and acceptable for viewing. This very type of comparison is occurring in just about every major photo forum. ISO noise is completely tied to this, because at the floor side of the sensor capturing the scene, the amount of random noise added by the electronics plays a part in how far one can push the image, and how acceptable it is.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 15, 2014 07:52 |  #274

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #17083939 (external link)
For most objective photogs and video people, the debate isn't Canon vs Nikon. The debate is Canon vs Sony or more recently Canon vs Panasonic.

And at the heart of the issue is glass. Canon is a fantastic glass producer and if Sony or Panasonic created a camera with an EF mount, I'd purchase it without a second thought.

This is also coming from a 1DX owner.

Unless you need low light (high ISO) shooting; Canon sensors still top Sony's in that area. But yes, the lens lineup is the biggest reason, IMO.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,806 posts
Likes: 554
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 15, 2014 07:54 |  #275

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17097547 (external link)
Regardless of your opinions, this is how the photographic community looks at DR, how far can they push a high DR scene so that all parts of the image are recoverable and acceptable for viewing. This very type of comparison is occurring in just about every major photo forum. ISO noise is completely tied to this, because at the floor side of the sensor capturing the scene, the amount of random noise added by the electronics plays a part in how far one can push the image, and how acceptable it is.

I have a lot of respect for dynamic range. My day job involves 3D animation and utilizing 32bpc image maps. I look forward to the day in which I don't have to think about whether I'm clipping my highlights in my photography. Your statement does not contradict with anything I have said, though. When you're pushing up shadows, you're looking more at noise handling.

I would argue that ML dual ISO is not adding DR. It's splitting the difference between two ISOs to get better sensitivity throughout the inherent contrast range of the image. It is not raising the saturation point of the sensel though. This is a fine technical point to be sure;)


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,133 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6196
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:17 |  #276

davesrose wrote in post #17097522 (external link)
No I'm not. My math is quite apparent: scaling a 22MP image up to 36MP, you're randomly adding 40% more pixels. You know, I work with graphic designers and printers. They try to avoid blowing up an image at all costs. A computer algorithm tries to average X number of pixels and then adds more of a similar color. If it averages one pixel of noise, it may amplify it quite a bit.

I've already stated that the noise handling of the D800 is apparently better then the 5D (both a factor of sensor AND resolution). You can keep showing examples of non-HDR photographs with noise in the shadows. That doesn't address what my point is: that I have yet to see examples of how well the Sony sensors handle clipping....one of the primary factors of DR.

dave, skip the scaling and pull exposure and shadows, the sony sensor will soundly beat the 6D sensor, which beats the 5D3 sensor. You wont even have to pixel peep, just start pulling and you will see. Raws posted a few pages back.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,166 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5923
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:27 |  #277

davesrose wrote in post #17097543 (external link)
That's not true at all. That's like an argument I heard that an upscaled DVD is the same quality as a blu-ray. You're always relying on a computer program to fill in missing pixels of data. Generally, those algorithms make the image look fuzzy if printed large scale. If it's trying to analyze individual pixels, though, it can amplify a pixel of noise.

You're always going to get better detail if you keep to the original resolution or downscale. Upscalling will always be at the whim of the computer to fill in missing pixels.

Again, you are talking about the simplest of upscaling algorithms. There are many different algorithms to choose from. There are products that do some of the best upscaling, and have made millions, like Genuine Fractals. Your background, based on comments, is around very simple "take x and make slightly differently colored y pixels", and that is the most rudimentary of algorithms.

You should know this if you are so versed in imaging software, even 3D rendering and animation varies greatly based on what engine you are using. Also javascript and html, and 3D animation for mobile apps at Zyqued is a completely different animal than low level image manipulation, like what we would use for satellite imagery, forensics, etc. Get into some very difficult algorithms in C/C++ for example, the very core of the engines you might use for your games.

I am not going to argue the point any more, you always have to have the last word and never concede anything. It is a chore to discuss anything with you unfortunately. You seem very intelligent and knowledgeable, but you have to argue every single point laid out by others. :( That teaches me to expand the replies...


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,806 posts
Likes: 554
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:35 |  #278

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17097640 (external link)
Again, you are talking about the simplest of upscaling algorithms. There are many different algorithms to choose from. There are products that do some of the best upscaling, and have made millions, like Genuine Fractals. Your background, based on comments, is around very simple "take x and make slightly differently colored y pixels", and that is the most rudimentary of algorithms.

I have yet to see any upscaling software approach the detail of a source that's native to that resolution. At Siggraph, I have seen developmental software that does a fair job with blowing up an image to not be as fuzzy. Professional printers still prefer native resolution sources. In the video realm, plenty of folks where opting in buying expensive video upscalers to try to get HD quality out of DVD. Even with the best of them, there's a night and day difference between SD vs HD resolutions on a HDTV.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:46 |  #279

Charlie wrote in post #17097617 (external link)
dave, skip the scaling and pull exposure and shadows, the sony sensor will soundly beat the 6D sensor, which beats the 5D3 sensor. You wont even have to pixel peep, just start pulling and you will see. Raws posted a few pages back.

Exactly! It's a simple concept! :lol: Pull the files and drag the slider! How hard is that?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:48 |  #280

davesrose wrote in post #17097459 (external link)
Matched in what? You can spend all money you want on camera gear, that still doesn't change the physical limitations of a sensor recording DR.

It's not about how much money is spent. I'm just talking about DR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,806 posts
Likes: 554
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:56 |  #281

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17097640 (external link)
You should know this if you are so versed in imaging software, even 3D rendering and animation varies greatly based on what engine you are using. I am not going to argue the point any more, you always have to have the last word and never concede anything. It is a chore to discuss anything with you unfortunately. You seem very intelligent and knowledgeable, but you have to argue every single point laid out by others. :( That teaches me to expand the replies...

You've expanded your post since I posted. I think our responses started off with a wrong footing. A lot of times you respond to me by saying I'm wrong. Usually during our arguments, we find middle ground and I do conceed in topics. Sometimes I will still argue about terminology, though. IMO, dynamic range can be mislabeled in photography, and there's nothing wrong in questioning the "excepted" notions.

3D animation software is not really a direct comparison of image quality. All 3D programs are capable of rendering an image at any resolution. The main differences are how they simulate light and the technology that's employed for "raytracing" (or casting those light rays) the scene.

Let's start with another thread and agree not to begin with "you're wrong". Truce? :D


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vipergts831
Has the TF retired? Or just being utterly lazy?
Avatar
43,932 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 234
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Taking better shots with an iPhone than MDJAK with a 1DX
     
Aug 15, 2014 08:56 |  #282

Charlie wrote in post #17097617 (external link)
dave, skip the scaling and pull exposure and shadows, the sony sensor will soundly beat the 6D sensor, which beats the 5D3 sensor. You wont even have to pixel peep, just start pulling and you will see. Raws posted a few pages back.

This. Its not even close in this comparison. Having shot the 5dmkIII and A7r right next to each other and running the same test my mind was blown away. And if we go into low light shooting i had the A7s. It produced the nicest high iso noise i have ever seen right out of the camera with no processing.


-Omar- Flickr (external link) , 5px (external link)
Phaseone 645DF+...because only the best will make up for my lack of skills.
Beginners worry about gear, professionals worry about skill and masters worry about light

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,166 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5923
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 15, 2014 09:18 as a reply to  @ vipergts831's post |  #283

The next month or two will be very telling for Canon. If people like me are even considering something like Sony with an EF adapter, Canon should be a bit worried. I am lazy enough to be happy with my Canon equipment currently, but if smaller lighter cameras that have better DR and noise performance come out with nearly as fast AF as the 5D3 (may take a year or 2 more), I will move over. I have alot of friends that respect my take on photo equipment, and if I move, they will know it. Imagine that at a global scale all the way down to the soccer and band parents that buy DSLRs due to recommendations of others around them.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vipergts831
Has the TF retired? Or just being utterly lazy?
Avatar
43,932 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 234
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Taking better shots with an iPhone than MDJAK with a 1DX
     
Aug 15, 2014 09:37 |  #284

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17097732 (external link)
The next month or two will be very telling for Canon. If people like me are even considering something like Sony with an EF adapter, Canon should be a bit worried. I am lazy enough to be happy with my Canon equipment currently, but if smaller lighter cameras that have better DR and noise performance come out with nearly as fast AF as the 5D3 (may take a year or 2 more), I will move over. I have alot of friends that respect my take on photo equipment, and if I move, they will know it. Imagine that at a global scale all the way down to the soccer and band parents that buy DSLRs due to recommendations of others around them.

Agreed. Almost two years ago when i purchased the 5dmkIII i only did so because the nearest small FF camera was a leica. It was beyond my price point. So i knew then that if a camera came out in a small package i would be very interested. Sony has done a decent job with gen 1 of the A7 series. If they give gen 2 the AF of the A6000? Oh boy!


-Omar- Flickr (external link) , 5px (external link)
Phaseone 645DF+...because only the best will make up for my lack of skills.
Beginners worry about gear, professionals worry about skill and masters worry about light

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 15, 2014 10:03 |  #285

davesrose wrote in post #17097535 (external link)
This. I have yet to see comparisons of the DR limits of the cameras. Just noise handling in the shadows. There is no argument that the Nikons have better noise handling (because of sensor technology and resolution). There may be a slight difference in how you expose with a Canon vs Nikon (with the Canon, you have to be more mindful to ETTR)....but the fundamentals of photography is not.

But DR is DEFINED and MEASURED by mathematically evaluating the signal to noise ratio in the darkest shadows and calculating, from the data coming from each sensel, the luminance value at which signal rises above the noise and can therefore present real image information. You cannot even specify a DR without first measuring the noise level in the shadows. If you do not use the terms this way, please define sensor DR in terms of how you do see it.

Here (external link) is a complete discussion of the concepts as used in describing and measuring sensor performance that are used in the digital photography world:D In particular see Fig 8a for noise sources, each of which affect the sensor DR. Here (external link) is a thorough analysis of the 5D3 for a blow by blow analysis of banding and improvement over 5D2.


My picture galleries (external link)

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

56,996 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why Canon, when Nikon...
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 exoplismos
595 guests, 323 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.