Lance Couture
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
EverLearning wrote:
Geez Lance, talk about "gits and shiggles", your statement takes the cake!
First off, my reply to that was to Daan. I said I did see what he was seeing in his crops, but I tried in 4 different RAW converters to get it to behave the same way, with the same image, and I couldnt.
Based on the quote of mine you are commenting on, you have no way of knowing if read one article on LR3 or if I am the world's most knowledgeable non-owner of LR3.
Point being: you claimed that LR3 is no better than LR2 in NR, yet you do not own the products in question!!
Further to that, you are basing your claim on something you've READ rather than actually taken the time with to understand yourself in a hands-on fashion.
Plus, despite me explaining it a multitude of times now, you still don't get it. One, highlight banding has nothing to do with noise management.
I don't get it??
No, I get it. *Nowhere* did I say that this "banding" "issue", if you can even call it either one of those, was related to noise.
I was calling you out on your absolutely false assertion regarding LR2/3.
Canon has already admitted they missed adjusting one of two dials on the sensor the first time it was for service. They made the adjustment and the banding went away.
Great! It happens. All pieces of technology have their "phasma in machina".
Two, a 7D owner should not have to use any form of noise management at 800 ISO, nor apply it heavily at 1600 ISO. Even the best noise management software will result in some degree of loss of sharpness. Why even offer 12800 if 3200 isn't usable?
Wow. Where to even start.
I dont see a need to use NR at 800. I use barely a shade at 1600. 6400 ISO is entirely useable too.
If your post processing work flow does not extract what the camera is capable of - that's your problem, not the camera's.
8x10, 1600 ISO prints from this camera do not need NR. They really dont. If you, or anyone else, who believes that you need to apply NR "heavily" at 1600, then I dont know what to tell you, b/c that line of thinking truly is lost.
Three, Canon's correction of my banding and noise should not have thrown my WB way out of wack. And yes this too can be fixed with LR, but why should I have to adjust every picture? The WB was fine before their most recent adjustment.
Dunno? More importantly, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, I dont really care. I didnt address this issue. I only addressed your LR2/3 assertion.
This is a discussion of problems with the 7D. It is not a 'religious' war by Canon haters (I was thrilled with my 40D by the way) nor is it supposed to be an infomercial for LR3. And I truly am happy for those of you who are happy with your copy of the 7D, but it doesn't change the fact that some of us got bad copies.
My 30D was a great little camera. I had to send it in for 2 circuit boards to be replaced. I had to send in a battery grip for a board replacement too. I had to get my 70-200 calibrated b/c it looked like someone had wiped vaseline on the lens. My 5D needs the mirror fix, My 50/1.4 has been in, my 17-55 has been in, etc., etc., etc., etc..
There are bad copies of EVERYTHING out there.
It doesnt mean that every other copy is bad too. Threads like this seem to be looking for problems which arent even there, and moreover, the haters jump in non-stop telling people that <insert product here> is shite, b/c their copy was bad.
Hit up any automotive forum for cars with top-ranked reliability, and you will see so many threads about issues; its a wonder people would buy the car. The truth is that the majority of people are happy and have a well-performing product.
Daan is wondering about an issue that not all of us here can replicate, on a camera he hasnt even purchased. The fact that not everyone here can reproduce this issue lends me to think that this may not be an issue with the camera which took the pictures, but rather the conversion of the raw file.
Forums like this are a wealth of information, but more and more frequently, they are becoming poisonous. Too much information for people who are more concerned with the technical minutia than they are with the global aspect.
Its like a bunch of hypochondriacs seeing their doctor all the time b/c they think they have symptoms which fit something that they read on the Internet.
|
