Archive 2017 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Guest
Guest
p.61 #1 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Isaacheus wrote:
What about lens corrections? I find a number of wider lenses take a lot of correction, and I end up with nasty colour noise on the sides and corners, even without shadow pushes. The sigma 20mm art and 16-35 f4 seem to be prone to it. I believe the new 16-35 f2.8 is even worse?
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see better pushing ability
Vignetting correction for more than +2EV push is needed only if shooting wide open. Who shoots landscapes wide open, when DR and sharpness are important? And shooting at f/8 at least eliminates vignetting to manageable range.
If you shoot wide open then the scene most likely includes the main object in the center of the frame with bokeh area on edges. And bokeh areas are easily correctible for noise after pushing due to lack of details there. Personally in this case I won't do any vignetting correction cuz it weakens attraction on the main (center) object.
p.61 #2 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Yeah, this is a fair point. And when I think about it, I've had the issue with this mainly when shooting landscape timelapse, where keeping the lens wide open is recommended to avoid flicker.
The other times have been with filters, which is likely the cause of the vignette I see there
AlexDROP wrote:
Vignetting correction for more than +2EV push is needed only if shooting wide open. Who shoots landscapes wide open, when DR and sharpness are important? And shooting at f/8 at least eliminates vignetting to manageable range.
If you shoot wide open then the scene most likely includes the main object in the center of the frame with bokeh area on edges. And bokeh areas are easily correctible for noise after pushing due to lack of details there. Personally in this case I won't do any vignetting correction cuz it weakens attraction on the main (center) object.
p.61 #3 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Dlee13 wrote:
I always laugh when I see people complain about the IQ of any camera when they are pushing an image by 3-6 stops. If they need to push that much, they should complain about their skills not the camera!
How true. Most of the time those people are incapable of identifying the subject of their shot, so the indecision in their exposure ist a direct consequence... And then they wonder why people notice lacking image quality - because the lack of a subject draws attention to any technical flaw - and underexposing that much is a blatant technical flaw!
p.61 #4 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Paul Mo wrote:
It's very useful - broader DR and malleable files. My nemesis is dappled light - shadow and light patches - basically ugly light.
Exmor sensors do make evening out such ugliness a lot easier.
You can polish a turd but you will end up smelling like sh*t - no matter how much you "even out" such ugliness it still will look like a bad snapshot, no matter how much leeway you may think you had!
p.61 #5 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
charlyw wrote:
You can polish a turd but you will end up smelling like sh*t - no matter how much you "even out" such ugliness it still will look like a bad snapshot, no matter how much leeway you may think you had!
What I am saying is that I believe our eyes to be far more democratic than sensors and processing - and that 5D3 gen. sensors in particular are no match for A7 Exmors when it comes to giving us the best chance of correcting sensor shortcomings.
p.61 #6 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Dlee13 wrote:
I'm sorry to inform you but the days of having skill, nailing exposure and actually processing your images are long gone. Now people just like to shoot at whatever settings, then just play with the exposure slider in post and that's it :P
I always laugh when I see people complain about the IQ of any camera when they are pushing an image by 3-6 stops. If they need to push that much, they should complain about their skills not the camera!
And likewise I always laugh when I see posts like this. For 5 years useful examples of significant shadow pushes have been shown across the net, and still people don't get it.
Here it is, one more time: it's not about correcting exposure errors, but being able to push shadows in a wide dynamic range. The 5 stop pushes simply tell you how much shadow recovery you have available.
Are you getting this yet?
And yes, then the answer may be "well, I don't like this HDR effect". Nor do I when it's done badly, but it's very simple to correct for pushing shadows in LR if you know what you're doing. You said you know about post production so I'm sure this doesn't apply to you.
My point has never changed - 99.8% of my photos will never need it, but the remaining 0.02% will benefit. Here's an example of a single shot capture that would benefit. It was shot on my 5d3. It's messy in the shadows. The 5d4 wouldn't suffer from the same problem. Does that mean the 5d3 is a rubbish camera? Of course not. It's just not as effective with 0.02% of my photos.
Also .. please try to get off your sanctimonious high horse about the skill of photography being gone .. percentage wise, I see more amazing photography now than I did 20 years ago. People seem more able to concentrate on their subject these days. They might use a different process to get there, but so what?
And even if that wasn't the case, what care is it of yours? If people are enjoying it, so what?
p.61 #7 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
I cannot agree with the statements that if you have to push shadows then you must have mucked up the exposure. Being able to push shadows to reveal more detail is one of the great benefits of digital photography. Maybe what some people shoot doesn't require pushing shadows or under exposing to preserve highlights but I do it often, especially shooting in overcast conditions or in large cavernous places like railway terminals. Having this flexibility turns oh-hum shots into magic and requires fine attention to exposure. As for dappled light the art is not to remove the dappled shadows but to reduce the effect. More dynamic range helps in all these situations, as does the pushability of shadows. If the 6DII enables shadows to be pushed a bit more, thus maybe increasing the quality of lesser pushes then that is a good thing.
p.61 #8 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Ferrophot wrote:
I cannot agree with the statements that if you have to push shadows then you must have mucked up the exposure. Being able to push shadows to reveal more detail is one of the great benefits of digital photography. Maybe what some people shoot doesn't require pushing shadows or under exposing to preserve highlights but I do it often, especially shooting in overcast conditions or in large cavernous places like railway terminals. Having this flexibility turns oh-hum shots into magic and requires fine attention to exposure. As for dappled light the art is not to remove the dappled shadows but to reduce the effect. More dynamic range helps in all these situations, as does the pushability of shadows. If the 6DII enables shadows to be pushed a bit more, thus maybe increasing the quality of lesser pushes then that is a good thing....Show more →
What's amusing to me is that 5 years ago the film'ers were saying "well, we can use 14 stops of DR ... can you?" as a reason to stick with film. Depending on the type of film and result you wanted, larger DR has often been a desire.
Maybe it's just that people get a bit hurt that Canon has been lacking, so they lash out? Dunno.
p.61 #9 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
My point has never changed - 99.8% of my photos will never need it, but the remaining 0.02% will benefit. Here's an example of a single shot capture that would benefit. It was shot on my 5d3. It's messy in the shadows. The 5d4 wouldn't suffer from the same problem.
Hy Phil, what about the missing 0.18% rest of your shots?
Concerning your pic: great shot! But shadows are pushed much to strong. There is no way, that the human eye is able to catch this kind of range in one visual moment, imo. Your shot does not give me any feeling of looking "right". And this does not come from "messy 5D III shadows" but just from overdone shadow recoverment.
Maybe it is just my underdeveloped brain that lets me feel a shadow push more than 1.5 to 2 stops as unrealistic.
p.61 #10 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
My read on this (which could be way "whack") is that if you shoot low ISO, you'll have plenty of lift capability and clean shadows. If you shoot at high ISO, you won't have much lift capability, but you'll have better noise at native ISO (i.e. not much ISO invariance), just don't expect a lot of lift latitude for high DR situations.
While obviously not an ISO invariance champion such as the K-1 or D7200 ... it seems well suited to two different roles. 1) Low ISO with ability to lift for high DR situations. 2) High ISO with good noise for low light situations (not to be confused with high DR needs).
In that regard, it seems that the Sony has a similar approach (albeit with a bit more invariance along the way up). That, and if we use the ability for iSO invariance as THE guiding metric, then it would suggest that the 80D is the "better" camera than the 5D4.
Then, if we look at the 6D2 vs. 6D ... the cry was immense that the 6D2 is worse than the 6D. But, the margin that it is "worse" up through about 2500 is on the order of .1 EV "worse". Yet, the ISO 50 is the same .1 EV "better". Does that mean that the cry for heralding the improvement at ISO 50 should be equally immense over the .1 EV ? Not likely, but it does seem to present the slight shift in the angle across the fulcrum being slightly steeper. If that "pivot" aids the gain at ISO 50 ... I've got no complaints with that trade-off. Yeah, splittin' hairs here ... but mostly trying to understanding what is vs. isn't vs. changed vs. not changed. Good, bad or indifferent.
p.61 #11 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hy Phil, what about the missing 0.18% rest of your shots?
Concerning your pic: great shot! But shadows are pushed much to strong. There is no way, that the human eye is able to catch this kind of range in one visual moment, imo. Your shot does not give me any feeling of looking "right". And this does not come from "messy 5D III shadows" but just from overdone shadow recoverment.
Maybe it is just my underdeveloped brain that lets me feel a shadow push more than 1.5 to 2 stops as unrealistic.
Conny
Haha it's Sunday! Let me enjoy my lack of maths
Maybe it is. To me there's no issue with it. It doesn't have the very fake HDR look to it which people seem to dislike though. The human eye doesn't work like that, so no it wouldn't, but the brain would stitch it together to look very much like this IMO.
But hey ... we don't all have to like the same thing! That's fine too.
p.61 #12 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Why does the "9" have banding?
Jul 23, 2017 at 06:12 AM
Guest
Guest
p.61 #13 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
My point has never changed - 99.8% of my photos will never need it, but the remaining 0.02% will benefit. Here's an example of a single shot capture that would benefit. It was shot on my 5d3. It's messy in the shadows. The 5d4 wouldn't suffer from the same problem. Does that mean the 5d3 is a rubbish camera? Of course not. It's just not as effective with 0.02% of my photos.
Phil, your image is almost perfect considering 5D3 restrictions in shadow recovery. Clipped highlites spoil it a bit but the reason is familiar - DR limited by the camera. Anyway I like it and it does look quite natural to me. At least it's as good as images with the same lightning conditions recovered by brain from my memories.
p.61 #14 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
To have ISO invariance on those charts, the flatter the line across the ISO ranges the better. 1) read the disclaimer at the bottom about differing sensor sizes, and 2) what that chart shows is that the higher a line goes, the more noise there is using a base ISO and brightening up later, versus the results if you boost the ISO amplification right out of the gate. You don't want a graph that goes up, even in steps, for an ISO invarant camera.
p.61 #15 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hy Phil, what about the missing 0.18% rest of your shots?
Concerning your pic: great shot! But shadows are pushed much to strong. There is no way, that the human eye is able to catch this kind of range in one visual moment, imo. Your shot does not give me any feeling of looking "right". And this does not come from "messy 5D III shadows" but just from overdone shadow recoverment.
Maybe it is just my underdeveloped brain that lets me feel a shadow push more than 1.5 to 2 stops as unrealistic.
Conny
It doesn't matter if it looks right to you. I am not being disrespectful, but you aren't the client. What matters is whether the client likes it, and tells their friends. Photographers are MUCH MORE discerning (I use that term loosely) than the average client. It doesn't matter if our eyes don't catch that in one visual moment, that is the beauty of photography, you have the luxury to alter the real scene of what a human eye might see to something different, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but always subjective to the viewer. That is why dynamic range in camera is so important to a set of photographers and not others. This is also why photography is an ART and not a SCIENCE.
p.61 #16 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
TeamSpeed wrote:
You don't want a graph that goes up, even in steps, for an ISO invarant camera.
What I want is a camera that gives good IQ when properly exposed for the aperture / SS / ISO combination appropriate to EV(x) illumination levels ... with the ability to do well in EV15 (Sunny 16) or EV0 ... when afforded the requisite aperture / SS / ISO combination.
ISO invariance is not my primary agenda.
TeamSpeed wrote:
ISO amplification will always seem cleaner than bringing up ISO 6 stops
BTW, to suggest that photography is NOT a science ...
I understand that it is ALSO an ART, but that does NOT disqualify the science involved. In fact, the human physiological response to which ART is being applied toward, is in and of itself a science. The skill (i.e. art) of applying the science of light & optics in concert with the human physiological response to visual stimuli is one that embodies knowledge of the science of each.
Imo, to dismiss science from the equation is incorrect (or at least, incomplete). The art is rooted in and derived from the science, not a replacement and dismissal of the science involved ... even if one chooses not to acknowledge the relationship regarding the science.
p.61 #17 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
And likewise I always laugh when I see posts like this. For 5 years useful examples of significant shadow pushes have been shown across the net, and still people don't get it.
Here it is, one more time:
it's not about correcting exposure errors, but being able to push shadows in a wide dynamic range. The 5 stop pushes simply tell you how much shadow recovery you have available.
Are you getting this yet?
And yes, then the answer may be "well, I don't like this HDR effect". Nor do I when it's done badly, but it's very simple to correct for pushing shadows in LR if you know what you're doing. You said you know about post production so I'm sure this doesn't apply to you.
My point has never changed - 99.8% of my photos will never need it, but the remaining 0.02% will benefit. Here's an example of a single shot capture that would benefit. It was shot on my 5d3. It's messy in the shadows. The 5d4 wouldn't suffer from the same problem. Does that mean the 5d3 is a rubbish camera? Of course not. It's just not as effective with 0.02% of my photos.
Also .. please try to get off your sanctimonious high horse about the skill of photography being gone .. percentage wise, I see more amazing photography now than I did 20 years ago. People seem more able to concentrate on their subject these days. They might use a different process to get there, but so what?
And even if that wasn't the case, what care is it of yours? If people are enjoying it, so what?...Show more →
What an excellent example of how pushing the shadow has ruined otherwise a very good shot. Instead of a beautiful late night atmosphere and people admiring the fleeting moments of the sunset lights, it turned it to a brightly lit daytime bar deck.
p.61 #18 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Paul Mo wrote:
What I am saying is that I believe our eyes to be far more democratic than sensors and processing - and that 5D3 gen. sensors in particular are no match for A7 Exmors when it comes to giving us the best chance of correcting sensor shortcomings.
Those newfangled sendors sucker people to forget the art of working with the light - and still the results suck badly!
p.61 #19 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Here's an example of a single shot capture that would benefit. It was shot on my 5d3. It's messy in the shadows. The 5d4 wouldn't suffer from the same problem. Does that mean the 5d3 is a rubbish camera? Of course not. It's just not as effective with 0.02% of my photos.
Bleh, what an uninpiring shot, looking artificial and fake - no ambience whatsoever left, could have done the same compositing, heck, every compositor would have done much better!
p.61 #20 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
gfiksel wrote:
What an excellent example of how pushing the shadow has ruined otherwise a very good shot. Instead of a beautiful late night atmosphere and people admiring the fleeting moments of the sunset lights, it turned it to a brightly lit daytime bar deck.
Yes, the ambiance / mood is altered. But, I don't think I'd go as far to say it ruined the shot. Rather, it portrays and conveys something different (albeit significantly less natural looking ... which is currently en vogue in certain circles). Imo, it is having the contrast level (self-inflicted blocking ) that is not harmonious for the lighting condition that makes the shot seem as it does (I don't care much for it either) ... moreover than the lack of (or ability to) lift in the shadows.
Having the ability to "dodge & burn" has a longstanding history in our beloved craft. To dismiss it as entirely unnecessary I think is a disservice to our craft and its legacy. But, I do agree that it is not the holy grail to our craft.
Coming from a background of shooting chromes ... ummm, What Ya Shot, Was What Ya Got. Meanwhile the darkroom lovers were pushing the envelope in ways that a chrome shooter wouldn't even consider as viable.
So ... here we are in the digital realm of the same thing. Chrome vs. negative. One shoots with little post DR capability, the other plenty of post-capture adjustment capability. Personally, I shot Chrome for everything but weddings. For weddings it was VPS 160 all the way (with light as needed). Having a camera that has limited ISO invariance is akin to shooting with chrome. Having a camera with ISO invariance is akin to having the darkroom latitude afforded by negatives.
It was different strokes for different folks back then ... nothing has changed. Some folks like to wield the digital darkroom extraordinaire. Meanwhile, others, not so much. I once said of Ansel Adams "He Cheats !!!" because of all the manipulation that was involved. And yet, I was a fan of Adams work, despite it being unfaithful to the conditions ... instead he strove to present presence. The "art" here ... is the skill in which the craftsmanship is applied. Lacking the discerning and judicious craftsmanship ... the DR issue can take on less than desirable attributes. In the hands of discerning and judicious craftsmanship it can be a valued tool. Yet, that doesn't render it a mandatory tool for all to use anymore than it was mandatory for to use the negative and darkroom techniques in lieu of chromes.
It cuts both ways ... and in the end, there will always be a degree of "horses for courses" and subjective preferences. So it has always been, is ... and will be with our beloved craft.
