Nice bird pics, abqnmusa.
They would be more interesting in the Nature and Wildlife forum, though.
As they are presented, they could have been taken with any crop camera from the 10D, through all the rebels. They are low ISO pictures in good light.
Here in the gear-talk forum, they tell more about the lens than the camera.
Still, I think it is OK that you posted them here.
What is not ok, is that you jump on people who post images that can show us the DIFFERENCE between cameras.
100% crops of sky matter in fine art printing in large formats.
200-400% crops are helpful to see the exact nature of the noise, and analyze what caused it and what can be done to improve it. Just beacuse you don't understand everything, please don't try to stop what is going on here, a cooperation between different photographers and engineers to help poeple get the most out of their camera.
For the record, the crop from a flower I posted previously, shows so little mazing to me, that I actually think my camera is acceptable.
ejmartin wrote:
Yeah, more .5MP images from the 7D. What is this supposed to prove?:
Frankly, about as much as 200%, 300% and 400% views posted to "prove" that there is a problem...
It's funny that the folk on this bandwagon never see fit to question that when this artifact is discussed - it's OK to post images that equate to a four foot print viewed from six inches away (exaggerating to make a point there) when having a go, but - when someone posts a perfectly valid real world presentation of an image, it's "hiding something"...
This discussion reminds me of a man I used to know. He had one of the most expensive hi-fi setups imaginable, and his living-room was designed for listening to music, and nothing else. Unfortunately, he owned less than 20 LP records, the only albums of a high enough technical quality to listen to... according to him. A real music lover
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
This discussion reminds me of a man I used to know. He had one of the most expensive hi-fi setups imaginable, and his living-room was designed for listening to music, and nothing else. Unfortunately, he owned less than 20 LP records, the only albums of a high enough technical quality to listen to... according to him. A real music lover
Thanks for proving our point. We are discussing production equipment here, not reproduction equipment.
alundeb wrote:
Thanks for proving our point. We are discussing production equipment here, not reproduction equipment.
My photos are reproductions. I'm no artist, and my first goal is to capture what I see so that I can reproduce it. If I didn't accept the constraint of reproduction, I might take up painting.
brainiac wrote:
My photos are reproductions. I'm no artist, and my first goal is to capture what I see so that I can reproduce it. If I didn't accept the constraint of reproduction, I might take up painting.
Do I have to explain my point? Learning to live with the restrictions is much more fruitful than discussing them ad nauseam, particularly if the same restrictions are only visible at 400% magnification. Too much knowledge can be a barrier towards creativity sometimes.
brainiac wrote:
My photos are reproductions. I'm no artist, and my first goal is to capture what I see so that I can reproduce it. If I didn't accept the constraint of reproduction, I might take up painting.
That's production and reproduction on a different level. I am talking about the technical level, not the content level. I use my camera and computer to produce a file with photographic content, and then a monitor or printer to reproduce the content of that file.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Do I have to explain my point? Learning to live with the restrictions is much more fruitful than discussing them ad nauseam, particularly if the same restrictions are only visible at 400% magnification. Too much knowledge can be a barrier towards creativity sometimes.
I think Brainiac is broadly agreeing with you, Jorgen - he's acknowledging (as I read his comment) that restrictions are inherent in the process and that their constraints need to be accepted - and by logical extension, dealt with or worked around.
keithreeder wrote:
I think Brainiac is broadly agreeing with you, Jorgen - he's acknowledging (as I read his comment) that restrictions are inherent in the process and that their constraints need to be accepted - and by logical extension, dealt with or worked around.
I'm saying that a camera is much more like a photocopier than like a canvas and paint. It is a hi-fi, not a violin, nor even a blank sheet of musical score. The purpose of the photocopier and camera, by their design is to reproduce, and the best ones reproduce with great accuracy. The accuracy of their reproduction is their essence. A camera which routinely makes a footballer look like a pot of rabbit stew isn't really a camera. It could be an artistic tool, and it could be a lot of fun, but it wouldn't really be doing photography. I think that photographers too often fancy being the author, and lose sight of the fact that the real power of photography comes from the photographer as transducer or recorder. In its purest form the value of photography lies in what is portrayed rather than how. Photography stole that role from painting. As such I think it's important to remember that the camera is a reproduction tool because that is the main thing that differentiates it from production tools like rocks, chisels, and typewriters. Of course, the camera can be used as a production tool, but it is no different from scissors and coloured paper in that regard.
The reproduction tool is getting more and more accurate and available, and that is why we scrutinise every pixel, so that we can know precisely how well the tool works, and thus wield it more effectively. Bring on the 200% crops, as long as any comparisons take magnification into account.
I'd also like to add that, since I am helping design RAW conversion software that may someday see the light of day, I am finding the technical discussion immensely helpful in that effort.
Ok, let's not get too far off topic, but it is my humble opinion that photography in many ways is comparable to music recording. In that industry, they call it production.
(1.4x ) I know that with the cropping ability of the 7D it may not be necesary to use the 1.4x but (just in case) has anyone tried using the canon 1.4xTC w/Taped Pins on a 400/5.6? I know that certain (non 1-series) bodies handled the 1.4x w/Taped Pins & 400/5.6...has anyone this combo with the 7D?
I recall seeing somewhere that the AF hunts badly at f8 (ie with f5.6 lens and non-reporting TC). Canon changed their AF specs between the 30D and 40D, and since then the non-reporting TC trick has not been viable.
Huh... I recall reading the opposite, that it got better again with the 7D. Unfortunately, I don't have my 7D yet to test it myself. I guess a search here or at those other forums is needed (or someone can test it for us and report back).
) I know that with the cropping ability of the 7D it may not be necesary to use the 1.4x but (just in case) has anyone tried using the canon 1.4xTC w/Taped Pins on a 400/5.6? I know that certain (non 1-series) bodies handled the 1.4x w/Taped Pins & 400/5.6...has anyone this combo with the 7D?