p.4 #1 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I have been shooting for a long time and all I ever concern myself with technically is how to operate my equipment. I shoot, process, and print and leave the manic discussions to the techies.
p.4 #2 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Daan B wrote:
IIRC there was a banding issue with the Nikon D200 that heated up the Nikon boards
Now, Nikon just makes cams that don't produce any banding like the Canon cams... not even after heavy PP. Nikon makes good cameras... and now some tasty fast primes too
That was before the time I started dabbling into the Nikon forum . I shot a wedding with someone that used a D200 recently. He gave me his files to work on and his images turned out just fine and I didn't see any banding out of close to 2,000 images. Again, I didn't look for it either.
Taking the risk of being redundant - seeing banding/ghost image or whatever flaws under normal shooting and/or post processing conditions is one thing but trying to look some kind of fault by deliberately pushing the exposure to the extreme (in both directions) while shooting or in PP, to reveal/look for possible shortcomings is a completely different story.
p.4 #3 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
Drifting slightly off topic, but I just want to share my veiw on megapixels on a 36x24 mm sensor and print sizes.
The 36x24 mm sensor size is IMHO ideally suited for high quality landscape imaging at a reasonable cost. The voulme is so much higher than for MF, both regarding camera bodies and lenses, that the prices will always be competitive as long as cameras like the 5DII exist and continue to evolve with higher resolution. Not saying that Digital MF will not always be two steps ahead, but there is still plenty of room for 36x24mm tomorrow to do what digital MF does today. There are EF-mount lenses that will have no problem with resolving for a 50MP sensor, and still give additional resolution on a 100MP sensor.
As for printing, I want to distinguish between what looks satisfactory at "normal" viewing distances, and what can be discovered of extra detail at close-up inspection. With my printer (Epson 3800) and workflow, printing 16x24" at 180 ppi looks satisfactory at normal viewing distances, and all details visible at 100% view on a monitor is also visible in the print. Increasing the resolution from 180ppi up to 360ppi and even 480ppi results in more detailed prints, visible at close-up inspection, but the effect fades, and the print no longer shows all the detail present in 100% view. Above 480ppi there is no longer any added detail in the print. So there is a "transition zone" between 180 and 480 ppi where additional detail can be shown in the print, but not everything present in the file. I want to be able to print at 360ppi, and to fill 16x24" with that, I can use 50 mexapixels.
You may disagree that it is worth making a print that requires close-up inspection to see everything, but I have had experiences seeing perfectly crafted LF contact prints that were just astonishing, and I have also seen piezography and well crafted inkjet prints that promise the same possibilities on digital.
You may also question why I don't want to jump to digital MF, but there are so many other practical benefits about 36x24mm, and the ability to do everything with the same system is very cost efficient. ...Show more →
I can even notice more detail up to 540 dpi on my epson (heck even at 720dpi i can yet see more but by this point the increase is only just barely noticeable, 540 is the last really big jump in detail that I can notice)
p.4 #4 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Beni wrote:
The 1Ds3 taught me that it's no longer possible to focus recompose, that I need a higher shutter speed and that DOF falloff is brutal. That even a minor focus error is very apparent ditto camera shake. The other responses here just prove my point, suddenly everyone NEEDS medium format resolution in their small cameras. Amazing isn't it. How on earth did we survive for the past century?
you seem to forget all the small MF, the 4x5, the 8x10" film shooters
plus people always want more, and why not?
with your line of thought, digital would still be 1MP with horrible SNR
we'd have 1fps at best
etc.
p.4 #6 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
thw2 wrote:
+2
even more amusing is when some pixel-peeper finally does give in and present a nice set of photos the bashers of pixel-peepers suddenly disappear and run away only to pop back a few months later with the same disparaging claims
p.4 #8 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
AGeoJO wrote:
That was before the time I started dabbling into the Nikon forum . I shot a wedding with someone that used a D200 recently. He gave me his files to work on and his images turned out just fine and I didn't see any banding out of close to 2,000 images. Again, I didn't look for it either.
The D200 banding was specifically exposed around high contrast edges. Back then, many people were debating heavily about it... much like we are now discussing the shadow banding of Canon sensors on this board. This got pretty nasty from time to time
Taking the risk of being redundant - seeing banding/ghost image or whatever flaws under normal shooting and/or post processing conditions is one thing but trying to look some kind of fault by deliberately pushing the exposure to the extreme (in both directions) while shooting or in PP, to reveal/look for possible shortcomings is a completely different story.
That's the whole problem Joshua... what is normal for one person, isn't for the next. If you like or need to enlarge DR artificially in PP by exposing for the highlights and pushing the shadows, the shadow banding may be a limiting factor (depending on how much DR you need). If you don't have to resort to such tactics, the shadow banding might be no real factor to consider.
p.4 #9 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Daan B wrote:
That's the whole problem Joshua... what is normal for one person, isn't for the next. If you like or need to enlarge DR artificially in PP by exposing for the highlights and pushing the shadows, the shadow banding may be a limiting factor (depending on how much DR you need). If you don't have to resort to such tactics, the shadow banding might be no real factor to consider.
Daan, it is true that people's requirements vary quite a bit. I would consider pushing 2-stops (EVs) "normal". I could see the need to increase the DR in landscape/cityscape/architectural photography. In that case, would that not be better for folks that want to increase the DR to take several shots of varying exposures (using AEB or just manually changing the exposures) and blend them in PP? Serious landscape/cityscape/architectural photographers use tripod anyway .
Of course, taking bracketed shots is a luxury wildlife/sport shooters can only dream of and thankfully, the need for an increased DR, while desireable from time to time, but it is not crucial. Capturing peak actions is on the top of the list for those folks. People photography, especially portraits is mostly done under controlled lighting. As such, a normal DR should be OK, too.
p.4 #10 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I believe the biggest difference in the two is the nikon camp tends to be a bit more helpful, complimentary, and less defensive. The canon forum turned me off all together there were many help full nice people but a equal amount of defensive arrogant people.
p.4 #11 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Bruce Sawle wrote:
I believe the biggest difference in the two is the nikon camp tends to be a bit more helpful, complimentary, and less defensive. The canon forum turned me off all together there were many help full nice people but a equal amount of defensive arrogant people.
Understandable, but at the same time there are also many underserved criticism aimed at Canon gear and I guess people got sick of it.
p.4 #12 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
n0b0 wrote:
Understandable, but at the same time there are also many underserved criticism aimed at Canon gear and I guess people got sick of it.
Why do people take a critisism of a camera so personal? I own the 5d2 and all the banding discussions has not once affected my ability to take excellent photos with the camera. Who cares what a shuck has to say about a camera? They are all entitled to their own oppinions. Everyone should be secure enough with their purchases to just ignore all these bashings.
p.4 #13 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
chez wrote:
Why do people take a critisism of a camera so personal? I own the 5d2 and all the banding discussions has not once affected my ability to take excellent photos with the camera. Who cares what a shuck has to say about a camera? They are all entitled to their own oppinions. Everyone should be secure enough with their purchases to just ignore all these bashings.
We don't all think the same mate.
I do think that misinformation or incomplete information can be just as bad as having no information. With online forum like this one, misinformation can be blown out of proportion and perpetuated into internet myth that a lot of people will unfortunately accept at face value.
Now some people choose to act on it, others like yourself choose to do nothing.
You said people are entitled to their opinion right? Well, isn't opposing it a kind of opinion as well? The only difference is that it's from the opposite view.
p.4 #14 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Adams was indeed a master of the technical aspects of photography. He also said (to paraphrase) that there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept.
Adams also dealt with limitations much greater than we do with our DSLRs, and by understanding how to use his technical understanding and mastery he chose to overcome and work around them. For example, when dealing with the inability of his film to handle deep shadow detail (kinda' like the "noise banding" issue that so many blather on about here), rather than bitching and moaning about Kodak, he learned to pre-expose his film, make optimal decisions about exposure, and/or alter the development process to compensate for the characteristics of the technology he used - and then he applied sophisticated post-processing techniques to get the print he envisioned. And somehow, despite working with recalcitrant and imperfect technology, he made stunningly beautiful photographs.
Of course, today many seem to imagine that they should be able to produce Ansel-quality photographs without applying the same sort of shooting and processing sophistication that he possessed. Some here seem to believe that the camera should do it all, and that if the camera cannot produce utterly "perfect" images in any conditions and with no thought then the camera must be defective.
You really didn't see Ansel blaming his camera/film for difficult exposure conditions. Think about it.
Finally, the point of Adams' work is not it's sharpness any more than the point of a great musical performance is getting all the right notes. Technical skill is, to my way of thinking, very important... but not the point. It is that sharp photo of a fuzzy concept thing again.
Dan
snapsy wrote:
Thankfully Ansel Adams was a pixel peeper and didn't just "go out and take photographs". I also don't think he'd take too kindly to banding, or to people who tell him it happens because he doesn't know how to expose properly.
Naturally very few digital pixel peepers will ever rise to the creative or technical talent of an Ansel Adams. But a few just might. And all their obsessing over gear and sharpness and maximizing DR will make for some memorable photographs.
p.4 #15 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Very well said Dan.......I might add their are picture takers....who the more the camera does for them the happy they are. They tend to continually complain about a cameras short comings. And their are artist`s....or at least aspiring artist`s that just happen to use a camera to create their vision. They are much more apt to accept it`s short comings and find ways to work around problems to create their vision. Having said this there are times I get a little frustrated with Canon....
p.4 #16 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
What would Ansel Adams have said/done if Kodak offered him a new film type with smaller and less grain than he was used to, but that was manufactured with an emulsion distribution process that left some of the grain aligned in rows, and those traces became visible as horizontal stripes only after that sophisticated "pre-exposure" he was using to lift the shadows, but not in normal use?
Would he suggest to Kodak to improve their manufacturing process, or select a film type without this defect, or leave the shadows in the black, or develop another method, perhaps adding more grain in the copy process to mask out the banding?
p.4 #17 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I dont think its Brand related, its just a certain type of personality you will usually find in the engineer type. Im one of them. I dont try and push things to go beyond and complain in the least. I do pixel peep as I want the best possible output regardless because one never knows how the image may be used. If something isnt working for me I dont complain and whine about it, I just get rid of it and move on. I usually find the bashers to be fanboys of another brand or as the monkey said dont produce images or may not even own the gear. I was just reading a back and forth over a 24-70 vs 24-105 and the poster bashed the 24-70 derating it then in his last sentence said he never used one. How can you give such a strong opnion on something you have never laid eyes on let alone used? There is an awful lot of this that goes on and seems to be the brunt of it, most serious togs dont get into a pi$$ing match over gear, they know what works for them, offer their opinions and leave it at that.
p.4 #18 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
JustinThyme wrote:
I dont think its Brand related, its just a certain type of personality you will usually find in the engineer type. Im one of them. I dont try and push things to go beyond and complain in the least. I do pixel peep as I want the best possible output regardless because one never knows how the image may be used. If something isnt working for me I dont complain and whine about it, I just get rid of it and move on. I usually find the bashers to be fanboys of another brand or as the monkey said dont produce images or may not even own the gear. I was just reading a back and forth over a 24-70 vs 24-105 and the poster bashed the 24-70 derating it then in his last sentence said he never used one. How can you give such a strong opnion on something you have never laid eyes on let alone used? There is an awful lot of this that goes on and seems to be the brunt of it, most serious togs dont get into a pi$$ing match over gear, they know what works for them, offer their opinions and leave it at that....Show more →
p.4 #19 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
What would Ansel Adams have said/done if Kodak offered him a new film type with smaller and less grain than he was used to, but that was manufactured with an emulsion distribution process that left some of the grain aligned in rows, and those traces became visible as horizontal stripes only after that sophisticated "pre-exposure" he was using to lift the shadows, but not in normal use?
Would he suggest to Kodak to improve their manufacturing process, or select a film type without this defect, or leave the shadows in the black, or develop another method, perhaps adding more grain in the copy process to mask out the banding? ...Show more →
He would have kept making great photographs with the previous product that worked so well for him most likely, I think.
But judging from your reply you seem to have pretty much completely missed the point of my post, and you would appear to know little about Adams to boot...
p.4 #20 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
gdanmitchell wrote:
He would have kept making great photographs with the previous product that worked so well for him most likely, I think.
But judging from your reply you seem to have pretty much completely missed the point of my post, and you would appear to know little about Adams to boot...
Dan
It is not the case that I missed the point of your post. I fully agree with what you say there, as in 99% of your posts. But I find your guess in the hypothetical case interesting. That choice is different from mine with respect to how I cope with gear limitations of the latest genereation digital cameras. With my 7D, that has vertical banding in midtones and highlights that are visible after contrast enhancement, I use NR software to remove it, rather than revert to my old 40D. The banding produced by the 7D repsonds well to Nik Dfine 2.0 debanding, much better than the 5DII pattern noise. So I have a solution, and I don't run around and complain about the 7D.
But because of the harsh climate that arises when someone seeks accurate knowledge about what the limitations are, I no longer want to contribute when people ask. (Like Daan B recently did.) Your censorship here on FM, about what deserves to be discussed or not, is working. Bye.
