Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: powerslave12r on November 05, 2014, 08:48:00 pm
-
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals
Interesting results for those who trust DxOMark.
-
While as a package, the 7D II is the strongest deal for APS-C based action shooters, it's quite concerning that canon sensor tech has been lagging for years now. Hopefully, they have something good up their sleeves with the whole foveon style sensor talk.
-
I hope they do. I think Canon's strategy seems to be:
1. Launch something really good and leapfrog everyone by a few generations,
2. Milk the market until the others catch up and perhaps surpass them,
3. Repeat Step 1.
Right now though, I am begging Canon for a "multi-layer full color" sensor. With their resources, a better sensor is inevitable.
-
1. Launch something really good and leapfrog everyone by a few generations,
2. Milk the market until the others catch up and perhaps surpass them
That's a pretty pessimistic point of view, particularly for a Japanese company.
I think it goes more like, let's exploit the market we blew wide open with the 5DII. Do the R&D on better sensors we don't have to buy from someone else and reap the rewards of the work we've already done in the compact market before everyone's phone finally eliminates the market for good.
-
What did DXO have to say about the AF system?
-
What did DXO have to say about the AF system?
DxO don't review the AF system, only the sensor.
I hope they do. I think Canon's strategy seems to be:
1. Launch something really good and leapfrog everyone by a few generations,
2. Milk the market until the others catch up and perhaps surpass them,
3. Repeat Step 1.
I'd concur with that. The interesting thing is that the 5D2 is a full frame version of the 20D and its sensor isn't leaps and bounds ahead of that, with the 5D3's sensor about as different to the 5D2 as the 30D to the 20D. So you might well argue that Canon is effectively using sensor tech that is 6+ years old in its latest full frame DSLR. Canon must be laughing at all of the pundits that are lapping it up.
-
I was just talking to a rep of Canon. I mentioned that the sensors lagged behind and maybe an EVF would come in handy too. He said, that most good landscape images have only 8 Stops, so dynamic range would not be a factor. I don't where he got that from, but maybe he was talking about images with Canon sensors. I don't think he was in landscape anyway.
He then said there will be large MP camera coming, but that wouldn't be for me, to expensive. Maybe I didn't look like a potential buyer that day. Jeans and sneakers, but I was wondering why he excluded me, an enthusiast who buys some serious gear, right away as a customer.
But what made me really wonder , is that he pointed out as marked leader they would do fine anyway. I think that is just the attitude a declining empire has. Being overconfident and not able to adapt to a changing environment.
There is always talk of a new Canon sensor, which does it all better. It never comes. I might be wrong and there is guys who know much better here. But I guess that sensor development is cutting edge technology. Sony jumped and focused on the train long time ago. Not only they use their own sensors, but hey also provide them to third party sellers like Nikon. It looks like Canon is just not up to the task and the are missing the technological capabilities required. And on the other hand they are so arrogant, that they will not use state of the art sensors provided by others.
Question to those who know more than me is...
Is it still possible for Canon to catch up with Sony in sensor development in the foreseeable future or is the specialization required so specific that it is at least very doubtable?
-
Is it still possible for Canon to catch up with Sony in sensor development in the foreseeable future or is the specialization required so specific that it is at least very doubtable.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 7D Mark II perform better, at ever function, at every level than the Sony "except" at base ISO?
It is faster, more versatile, better AF, surpasses the Sony's sensor at high ISO ... just not at base ISO.
To say Canon "is lagging behind" is rather laughable, actually. They surpass Sony in every single possible way, except 1, in a static environment at base ISO.
I don't know if you've ever shot nature photography, but hardly anyone shoots either macro, or telephoto, at "base ISO" ...
It is Sony that is lacking on almost every level, including ergonomics and functionality ...
Jack
-
The term "Nature Photography" is a little vast. If it includes moving objects like birds, I guess a higher ISO performance is helpful. But this is luminous-landscape, so the title of this website at least gives the impression that it is mostly, though not exclusively, about landscape photography.
And in landscape photography dynamic range at base ISO is what is usually used and nothing else. Of course there are exceptions. I guess you haven't had the chance to work with the files of the modern Sony sensors, like a D810 or an A7r provide. The dynamic range is covering just any situation you might encounter. If you are bracketing, as your histogram, which annoyingly uses jpg and not RAW data, gives you the impression, the scene can not be captured in one shot, in 99% of the case you may push the shadows in post production. You get all you wanted in one shoot without, green or blue noise artifacts, which by the way may not be recovered with noise reduction. There is no way you can do that with a Canon sensor. You will always find yourself blending images which may be very annoying. E.g darks trees with light skies in the background.
But if you may achieve what you desire with your camera, that is just fine. Don't be offended. The AF is great, if you are a birder or shoot animals. For that purpose the 7D might just serve well. And you have a nice lens line up to. I myself had a 5DIII. A Sony is not made for that. The D810 again is another bread.
But in terms of color accuracy and dynamic range you might have to reconsider. Almost 2 stops difference at base ISO is quiet a statement.
Two images attached. They are from the same RAW file. Can you do this with a present Canon?
PS Anybody knows why I can see the images only when I am logged in?
-
Nice photograph of Meiji Jingu!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 7D Mark II perform better, at ever function, at every level than the Sony "except" at base ISO?
How do you like your 7DII John?
Have you had the opportunity to capture some images with it already?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 7D Mark II perform better, at ever function, at every level than the Sony "except" at base ISO?
Ok, I'll do some correction since you asked :)
The DxOMark is about sensor performance, not camera performance. Besides you didn't specify which Sony-sensor camera you meant - Sony provides APS-C sensors for Nikon, Pentax, Fujifilm and it's own camera division.
If we look at what they measure, then the 7DII sensor performance does trail at lower ISOs and catches up on latter ones giving very similar performance on high ISOs though with lower colour accuracy and possibly higher colour interpolation induced noise.
It is faster, more versatile, better AF, surpasses the Sony's sensor at high ISO ... just not at base ISO.
High ISO is a toss up.
But the other properties you mention are not sensor properties, but camera properties. There are many cameras using Sonys sensors, including Nikons, and I'm sure Nikonians might disagree with some of your points ;)
To say Canon "is lagging behind" is rather laughable, actually. They surpass Sony in every single possible way, except 1, in a static environment at base ISO.
DxO measures sensor, not camera, and there Canon is lagging.
Canon has used very weak colour separation for a long time now - the colour accuracy is better on pretty much all the competition (when it comes to colour filter array). Also, it's not just "base" ISO, but 7DII trails all the way to and including middle ISOs. Also has slightly lower pixel count.
And the high ISO is a toss up.
When it comes to sensors Canon is handicapped by some things things:
- Their APS-C sensor is about 9% smaller than the main competitions
- They use their own rather coarse fabrication line (180nm) for APS-C and the competition uses 90nm or less
- To make above items even more significant, 7DII has two photodiodes per pixel due to AF
- Canon's analog to digital conversion has been subpar for ages - that's the reason for low ISO issues - maybe it's due to the 180nm geometry limitation?
Canon's pixel designs are state of the art, no question about it.
What Canon should do, and will likely do, is to move their full frame sensor production to 180nm process from current ancient 500nm (the competition again is already at 180nm or even less and outsource the fabrication of their APS-C designs. Of course they may also build or buy a new fabrication plant, but they're not exactly cheap.
I don't know if you've ever shot nature photography, but hardly anyone shoots either macro, or telephoto, at "base ISO" ...
Macro is usually done with a tripod and often with a ring flash - low ISO is just fine.
Telephoto on good light is certainly base ISO stuff.
High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO.
Also, most modern sensors - not Canons - are close to being ISOless, that is you can shoot at base ISO in low light and get the same result you'd get with high ISO, but with less risk in blowin highlight (ie. much more headroom).
It is Sony that is lacking on almost every level, including ergonomics and functionality ...
DxO still is about sensors, not ergonomics or stuff.
-
Thank you Bernard!
-
Mr. Abe R. Ration, I really appreciate your writing, as it makes a lot of sense.
Best regards
Erik
Ok, I'll do some correction since you asked :)
The DxOMark is about sensor performance, not camera performance. Besides you didn't specify which Sony-sensor camera you meant - Sony provides APS-C sensors for Nikon, Pentax, Fujifilm and it's own camera division.
If we look at what they measure, then the 7DII sensor performance does trail at lower ISOs and catches up on latter ones giving very similar performance on high ISOs though with lower colour accuracy and possibly higher colour interpolation induced noise.
High ISO is a toss up.
But the other properties you mention are not sensor properties, but camera properties. There are many cameras using Sonys sensors, including Nikons, and I'm sure Nikonians might disagree with some of your points ;)
DxO measures sensor, not camera, and there Canon is lagging.
Canon has used very weak colour separation for a long time now - the colour accuracy is better on pretty much all the competition (when it comes to colour filter array). Also, it's not just "base" ISO, but 7DII trails all the way to and including middle ISOs. Also has slightly lower pixel count.
And the high ISO is a toss up.
When it comes to sensors Canon is handicapped by some things things:
- Their APS-C sensor is about 9% smaller than the main competitions
- They use their own rather coarse fabrication line (180nm) for APS-C and the competition uses 90nm or less
- To make above items even more significant, 7DII has two photodiodes per pixel due to AF
- Canon's analog to digital conversion has been subpar for ages - that's the reason for low ISO issues - maybe it's due to the 180nm geometry limitation?
Canon's pixel designs are state of the art, no question about it.
What Canon should do, and will likely do, is to move their full frame sensor production to 180nm process from current ancient 500nm (the competition again is already at 180nm or even less and outsource the fabrication of their APS-C designs. Of course they may also build or buy a new fabrication plant, but they're not exactly cheap.
Macro is usually done with a tripod and often with a ring flash - low ISO is just fine.
Telephoto on good light is certainly base ISO stuff.
High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO.
Also, most modern sensors - not Canons - are close to being ISOless, that is you can shoot at base ISO in low light and get the same result you'd get with high ISO, but with less risk in blowin highlight (ie. much more headroom).
DxO still is about sensors, not ergonomics or stuff.
-
The term "Nature Photography" is a little vast. If it includes moving objects like birds, I guess a higher ISO performance is helpful. But this is luminous-landscape, so the title of this website at least gives the impression that it is mostly, though not exclusively, about landscape photography.
I guess you can't be forced to admit what I am saying: MOST nature photography, involving whatever animal you want to talk about, is done at 320 to 1600+ ISO.
You're a genius on your second point, so let me advance your understanding to realize that the 7D Mark II is not designed for landscape photography ... but for nature/sports photography ... which comprises a lot more folks than mere landscape photography ... and all of which rely on higher ISO.
And in landscape photography dynamic range at base ISO is what is usually used and nothing else. Of course there are exceptions. I guess you haven't had the chance to work with the files of the modern Sony sensors, like a D810 or an A7r provide. The dynamic range is covering just any situation you might encounter. If you are bracketing, as your histogram, which annoyingly uses jpg and not RAW data, gives you the impression, the scene can not be captured in one shot, in 99% of the case you may push the shadows in post production. You get all you wanted in one shoot without, green or blue noise artifacts, which by the way may not be recovered with noise reduction. There is no way you can do that with a Canon sensor. You will always find yourself blending images which may be very annoying. E.g darks trees with light skies in the background.
See my last paragraph: the 7D II is not for landscape photography primarily.
I seldom waste my time trying to get photographs with a lot of heavy shadows over the subject ... I zero right in on live subjects, preferably in optimal light.
But if you may achieve what you desire with your camera, that is just fine. Don't be offended. The AF is great, if you are a birder or shoot animals. For that purpose the 7D might just serve well. And you have a nice lens line up to. I myself had a 5DIII. A Sony is not made for that. The D810 again is another bread.
Exactly my point. I am not offended. I am saying, I could care less about base ISO, since I almost never use it.
But in terms of color accuracy and dynamic range you might have to reconsider. Almost 2 stops difference at base ISO is quiet a statement.
Allow me to repeat myself: I almost never use base ISO ... 320 is about the lowest I go, and I usually am at 640+ in optimal light.
Two images attached. They are from the same RAW file. Can you do this with a present Canon?
No offense, but I would never bother taking such an image.
PS Anybody knows why I can see the images only when I am logged in?
Because it's coded so that "only members" can see the images: which your loggin-in confirms you as being.
Jack
-
Ok, I'll do some correction since you asked :)
The DxOMark is about sensor performance, not camera performance. Besides you didn't specify which Sony-sensor camera you meant - Sony provides APS-C sensors for Nikon, Pentax, Fujifilm and it's own camera division.
I realize that.
But whoever wrote that DxO article is a geek behind a desk, not someone who's ever been outdoors trying to take nature or wildlife photography. You rarely use "base ISO" for that. The article was written from the perspective of a guy who doesn't even know what a camera is FOR ...
If he had the first clue about what a crop camera is for it is REACH ... and if the Canon 7D Mark II has better low ISO performance than all the others and better ergonomics, AF, functionality, etc. ... then it eclipses the competition pretty much on every level, as a wildlife/sports camera.
A person who actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this.
If we look at what they measure, then the 7DII sensor performance does trail at lower ISOs and catches up on latter ones giving very similar performance on high ISOs though with lower colour accuracy and possibly higher colour interpolation induced noise.
High ISO is a toss up.
But the other properties you mention are not sensor properties, but camera properties. There are many cameras using Sonys sensors, including Nikons, and I'm sure Nikonians might disagree with some of your points ;)
DxO measures sensor, not camera, and there Canon is lagging.
Wow, I keep having to repeat myself: people who actually use cameras for sports and wildlife photography don't really care about "base ISO," as they almost never use this.
The EOS 7D II is a more fully-functional camera, on pretty much every level ... and surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs.
For wildlife and fast-action, it is very compelling camera all the way around, including its sensor.
Canon has used very weak colour separation for a long time now - the colour accuracy is better on pretty much all the competition (when it comes to colour filter array). Also, it's not just "base" ISO, but 7DII trails all the way to and including middle ISOs. Also has slightly lower pixel count.
And the high ISO is a toss up.
I am not sure this is a fact.
I have heard Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon, etc.
Most of the really great macro I have seen comes from Canon.
Most of the keen sports photography comes from Canon.
When it comes to sensors Canon is handicapped by some things things:
- Their APS-C sensor is about 9% smaller than the main competitions
- They use their own rather coarse fabrication line (180nm) for APS-C and the competition uses 90nm or less
- To make above items even more significant, 7DII has two photodiodes per pixel due to AF
- Canon's analog to digital conversion has been subpar for ages - that's the reason for low ISO issues - maybe it's due to the 180nm geometry limitation?
Interesting facts, thanks. But, again, high ISO is what matters most to wildlife/sports photographers, so if that is where Canon excels ... and if its ergonomics, frame rate, and functionality also at the top of the food chain, then this merely confirms its position as THE best camera of the lot of them for this purpose.
Canon's pixel designs are state of the art, no question about it.
And AF, and FPS, and lenses, and programmable functionality, etc.
What Canon should do, and will likely do, is to move their full frame sensor production to 180nm process from current ancient 500nm (the competition again is already at 180nm or even less and outsource the fabrication of their APS-C designs. Of course they may also build or buy a new fabrication plant, but they're not exactly cheap.
Whatever they're doing now, they already have the best all-around wildlife and sports camera available. If they do what you suggest to their next FF camera, the would be nice, but already what they have is nice.
Macro is usually done with a tripod and often with a ring flash - low ISO is just fine.
Speak for yourself: I am a natural light macro shooter.
I do use a tripod, but I almost never use flash, because I prefer the rendering of natural light.
Because of this, I am invariably at a mid-to-high ISO.
Telephoto on good light is certainly base ISO stuff.
I know some awesome super telephoto wildlife photographers, and have seen scores of their images, and almost none are at base ISO ... so I think you're just making this up in your head, and don't actually try to capture wildlife photography yourself with such lenses.
High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
Also, most modern sensors - not Canons - are close to being ISOless, that is you can shoot at base ISO in low light and get the same result you'd get with high ISO, but with less risk in blowin highlight (ie. much more headroom).
Don't know what to say about this, nor what fantacizing about the future has to do with the present subject: the Canon 7D II right now a full complement of superior features to the competition and possesses a sensor which is equal to/better, at higher ISOs, where it matters to people who actually use their cameras.
DxO still is about sensors, not ergonomics or stuff.
And cameras are all about being used for a purpose, not just having one, isolated aspect sensor performance evaluated by bespectacled geeks who don't actually use cameras.
And, for the purpose of wildlife photography & sports photography, which usually involve REACH, higher ISOs, and the ability to nail "a moment" before it's gone, the EOS 7D II delivers.
Jack
-
... A person who actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this....
Jack, my friend, that is a pointless argument. DXO measures ONLY sensor quality, so there is no point in accusing them of not taking into account anything else. It is like looking at your car's speedometer and complaining it does not tell you antyhing about your car's cargo capacity.
Also, DXO clearly states "landscape" as a criterion, not nature/wildlife, so base ISO is absolutely relevant there.
...surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs....
I have yet to see that in any test. At best, Canon starts matching other sensors at higher speeds.
-
I do not remember the DXO numbers for this camera, but I do recall many of the beautiful images shown here by Glenn Bartley and Jack Koerner using the original, now 5-year old 7D. If they both like the new camera model and plan to get it, we can expect even better and cleaner images from them in the future (and hopefully also from other 7DII owners).
The DXO sensor numbers don't lie, but the final image quality is a result of multiple factors and camera features, absent in these tests.
For photographers of insects, wildflowers, and birds, Canon 7DII seems like a great tool and sensible investment for the next five years.
-
I have yet to see that in any test. At best, Canon starts matching other sensors at higher speeds.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=nikon_d7100&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=pentax_k3&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.9288428760810555&y=-0.17592214230792416
I see the Canon files having a little less chroma noise, but are much softer than the Nikon or Sony files. The canon RAWs actually look a bit "Cooked", which is ironic as a few years ago, it was Nikon who used to cook their high ISO RAWs.
That chroma noise will clean up in a second in any decent post production software, but getting those lost details back won't be so straight forward.
Truth be told, unless you're heavily invested in the Canon lens ecosystem, there's no compelling reason to choose their bodies over the competition now.
-
...Wow, I keep having to repeat myself...
The important thing is that it works for you, and it sounds like it does. But the point about the Canon sensor stands. It performs poorly at base ISO for anyone who wants to use it at base ISO, and the fact that it delivers two stops less DR than comparable sensors along with prodigious pattern noise is a deal-breaker for many of us. The fact that you don't need to use it in its worst area of performance is a good thing for you. I would not go so far as to suggest that this kind of performance deficit was a design decision on Canon's part.
I'm very curious to see how the Samsung NX-1 stacks up in the APS-c arena when DxO gets around to it.
-
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals
Interesting results for those who trust DxOMark.
The do a good job for what they are actually doing. The key is never to assume some lab test will be totally indicative of real world performance. Same with lens tests. These tests are useful to find great performers and weed out the clunkers. Beyond that you mileage will most certainly vary from lab results.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 7D Mark II perform better, at ever function, at every level than the Sony "except" at base ISO?
It is faster, more versatile, better AF, surpasses the Sony's sensor at high ISO ... just not at base ISO.
To say Canon "is lagging behind" is rather laughable, actually. They surpass Sony in every single possible way, except 1, in a static environment at base ISO.
I don't know if you've ever shot nature photography, but hardly anyone shoots either macro, or telephoto, at "base ISO" ...
It is Sony that is lacking on almost every level, including ergonomics and functionality ...
Jack
In my mind, the 1st criteria for selecting a camera is the quality of the output. Then I consider the likelihood the camera can capture the image in the first place.
But, if you believe that some high frame rate or other 'feature' is the key to shooting sports or wildlife, you would be wrong. These types of photography have to do with knowing your subject, the environment and your technique. I would recommend the Edwards Deming method for dealing with quality. Learn to do it right first to the point of not needing high frame rates and such and once you no longer need these 'features' then buy them to make it easier.
The image below was shot at ISO 100, 1/640, f/7.1 on a D7100 with a AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-14EIII. The subject (my daughter) was in the left 1/3 of a landscape frame. I was trying to get the sweep of the foot and the grass coming up. There are 2 ways to get this image: 1) know what you're doing and take the damn image or 2) blast away with super high frame rates and hope you get it. I used the 1st method though the camera was set for Continuous High (6fps). Shown also is the 2nd image in the sequence with the ball leaving the right edge of the frame at 6fps so you damn well better have a helluva fast camera when trying method 2. The nice thing about method 1 is you can do it with a manual film camera and reasonably cheap digital (shutter lag being the constraint).
Not too long ago I read a John Shaw post about his shooting wildlife with a D800e and it's 4FPS rate. The money quote was "Remember winding film with your thumb?" Post here: http://www.johnshawphoto.com/nikon-d800-action/ (http://www.johnshawphoto.com/nikon-d800-action/) with images!
I shoot a D7100 with 6fps and it's 22nd ranking on DxOmark. The 7DMKII does some frame rate I don't care to know and has a 150 rating. Hand either to a great photographer and he will bring back great images!
-
Not directly relevant to the 7D2 but a link I've posted in the past elsewhere.
http://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range
That's a lot of juicy RAW files, irrespective of what you shoot.
-
I realize that.
But whoever wrote that DxO article is a geek behind a desk, not someone who's ever been outdoors trying to take nature or wildlife photography. You rarely use "base ISO" for that. The article was written from the perspective of a guy who doesn't even know what a camera is FOR ...
DxOMark's sensor tests are just that - sensor tests. They are not tests of camera systems or camera X or camera Z works in some conditions.
If you are not interested in such tests, why read them? Why care about them?
If he had the first clue about what a crop camera is for it is REACH
Actually it's the pixel pitch together with the quality of the lens which defines the "reach", not the crop factor.
... and if the Canon 7D Mark II has better low ISO performance than all the others
Actually it only has similar high ISO performance to that of the competition, and worse low and medium ISO performance.. The difference to one way or the other is insignificant.
There is one area of sensor image quality performance which DxO unfortunately does not measure and that is the nature of sensor generated noise, i.e. pattern noises. Traditionally this has also been more an issue with Canons, though not as much at high ISOs and less an issue lately. Don't know how 7DII performs regarding that though.
and better ergonomics, AF, functionality, etc. ... then it eclipses the competition pretty much on every level, as a wildlife/sports camera.
This is your subjective optinion, not a statement of facts. Unless you provide evidence it will only remain as such no matter how many times you repeat it.
A person who actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this.
DxOMark doesn't do such testing - it's not their niche. If you don't like their findings, please criticize them within the context of their niche instead of blaming them for bad review because they don't test the things you consider important.
Wow, I keep having to repeat myself: people who actually use cameras for sports and wildlife photography don't really care about "base ISO," as they almost never use this.
I certainly do use low and medium ISO for wildlife - and lots. To disprove you I went to flickr, searched to bird flight and took a note of the used ISO value in the first 12 pictures which showed it - here is the list of them:
- 200
- 1600
- 100
- 100
- 160
- 320
- 400
- 400
- 1600
- 400
- 500
- 200
This does not support your hypothesis at all.
The EOS 7D II is a more fully-functional camera, on pretty much every level ... and surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs.
This is of course again just your subjective opinion not backed with evidence. DxOMark doesn't measure them. It is not the point of what they do.
For wildlife and fast-action, it is very compelling camera all the way around, including its sensor.
Sure. I don't think many, including DxOMark claims otherwise. It's image sensor has some weaknessess compared to other contemporary sensors - that's what DxOMark is about. If you're not interested in that, then why complain?
I am not sure this is a fact.
(was about colour separation - for some reason the editor didn't quoe it.)
It is a fact. DxOMark measures this and provides the hard evidence. Why not just check it yourself? You need to go to the individual camera measurements though as the comparison mode doesn't allow for checking this data.
I have heard Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon, etc.
Now, this is hard evidence if anything :)
I may sound repetetive, but DxOMark measures the sensors (including the colour filter array), not how certain JPG-engines, raw-convertersion software of individuals convert the data the sensor gets into images.
Fact is that the CFA of Canon does a weak separation - this allow for less accurate colour representation than the competition. How this potential is used by individuals like you and me is irrelevant.
Most of the really great macro I have seen comes from Canon.
Most of the keen sports photography comes from Canon.
More hard evidence, right? ;)
Most of the really great macro shots I've seen comes from a quite random distribution of cameras, most from Canons and Nikons simply because there are more of them than anything else, especilly in the hand of advanced users (and for this there are many reasons).
For sports the above also applies, but even more heavily weighted to Canon & Nikon due to their pro support programs and availability of suitable lenses.
Anyhow, none of the above has anything to do with the context of the DxOMark review.
Interesting facts, thanks. But, again, high ISO is what matters most to wildlife/sports photographers,
You're welcome. But, again, unless high ISO starts from ISO 200, that's not the case as proven with the random sample of the flickr-images.
so if that is where Canon excels ... and if its ergonomics, frame rate, and functionality also at the top of the food chain, then this merely confirms its position as THE best camera of the lot of them for this purpose.
DxOMark doesn't measure what is the "best camera" - simply defining what "best" is in the context you use is impossible.
DxOMark measures image sensor performance.
7DII has strengths and weaknessess, just like any other camera. How these play out for oneself is a very personal and subjective thing. It is obvious that you like that camera very much, but that doesn't mean that it's superior to some other camera if we consider facts objectively. A good example is "ergonomics" (or rather the usability/comfort) - what you consider to be comfortable and easy to use, someone else may find to be hideous and vice versa.
Whatever they're doing now, they already have the best all-around wildlife and sports camera available. If they do what you suggest to their next FF camera, the would be nice, but already what they have is nice.
This is your subjective opinion. I don't agree when it comes to the performance of the image sensor, not even when we consider the relevant ISOs. But it certainly is better action camera (wildlife or other) than my Sony A7.
Speak for yourself: I am a natural light macro shooter.
I do use a tripod, but I almost never use flash, because I prefer the rendering of natural light.
Because of this, I am invariably at a mid-to-high ISO.
So maybe for you this is just the camera you want, but that doesn't mean that it's the same for others.
I know some awesome super telephoto wildlife photographers, and have seen scores of their images, and almost none are at base ISO ... so I think you're just making this up in your head, and don't actually try to capture wildlife photography yourself with such lenses.
I think you're repeating yourself a lot now: none of what you say is objective evidence.
The super telephoto wildlife shoots I've encountered or witnessed have almost always used a tripod, occasionally a monopod. With tripod you only need a shutter speed high enough to stop the motion. Unless the light is very low, there is no reason go pump up the ISO (and with many non-Canon sensored cameras one might want to stay at base ISO regardless to save possible highlights if any exist)
I said "High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO." and you responded:
I am not sure what you mean by this.
For most use scenatios the low ISOs are much more important than high ISO. In the niche you describe low ISO is still very important, but the (low)middle ISOs are probably the most used ones. High ISO is not, at least not if we check out exifs from images in publick sources and do a statistical analysis.
Don't know what to say about this, nor what fantacizing about the future has to do with the present subject: the Canon 7D II right now a full complement of superior features to the competition and possesses a sensor which is equal to/better, at higher ISOs, where it matters to people who actually use their cameras.
This is your opinion, not a statement of fact. Also the high-ISO thingie is not really right. Any current full frame eats it alive while Sony and Toshiba APS-C equal it at high ISO. The new Samsung NX1 is likely to be the best APS-C in low light (due to the backside illuminated image sensor).
But I am sure it's a good camera, especially in a certain very narrow niche.
And cameras are all about being used for a purpose, not just having one, isolated aspect sensor performance evaluated by bespectacled geeks who don't actually use cameras.
If you're not interested in sensor performance, then why do you participate in a thread which is all about it?
And, for the purpose of wildlife photography & sports photography, which usually involve REACH, higher ISOs, and the ability to nail "a moment" before it's gone, the EOS 7D II delivers.
So do many or most other cameras.
You come out very defensive of the Canon 7DII - I wonder why? Has it been rubbished in some way? It's a fine camera, but that's not what DxOMark measures, nor does it measure AF, usability, weather sealing, size of the shutter release button or anything like that.
I think you should consider the context of DxOMark.
In conclusion I'd like to quote the DxOMark review you attacked so strongly:
On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but that’s not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightly
The underines were added by me to emphasize things. I don't think you've got any reason to be so vocal.
Chin up mate, Abe!
-
Limited DR can be a problem with birds:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95010.0
-
If future versions of the metabones adapter can do justice to the AF capabilities demonstrated by the A6000 , the traditional DSLR trump card of fast AF would no longer be a differentiator IMO.
-
I have to admit, I have been impressed by the AF speed of the A6000. In another generation or two, I wonder how much Sony will improve it. Combined with its price point, a lot of sports/action/birders are gonna take notice.
-
Indeed, my a5100 is almost as fast as my former Nikon V3, with a much higher image quality of course.
Don't know whether it is able to deliver the power required by the big guns though.
Cherrs,
Bernard
-
The 7D2 is a special use camera in the same way that a MF pancake camera is a special use camera. If you want a generalist's camera, get a D750 or 5D3 or D810 or..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.
I don't see either a D4/600 f/4 VR or a 1DX/ 600 f/4 L IS in my future soon, so the 7D2 is the likely new birding camera for me.
-
The 7D2 is a special use camera in the same way that a MF pancake camera is a special use camera. If you want a generalist's camera, get a D750 or 5D3 or D810 or..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.
I don't see either a D4/600 f/4 VR or a 1DX/ 600 f/4 L IS in my future soon, so the 7D2 is the likely new birding camera for me.
+7
-
..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.
-7
This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.
If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph? I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
-
I love this photo and several others you've shown us here. Truly great
Now is it your position that;
1) you never miss?
2) I should expect to be able to duplicate your skill in a brief time span?
3) Everyone should be as good as you are?
So unless you answer is Y to all three what's the problem with a Nancy or me giving ourselves every chance we can?
quote author=wildlightphoto link=topic=94928.msg776625#msg776625 date=1415645574]
-7
This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.
If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph? I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
[/quote]
-
I love this photo and several others you've shown us here. Truly great
Now is it your position that;
1) you never miss?
2) I should expect to be able to duplicate your skill in a brief time span?
3) Everyone should be as good as you are?
So unless you answer is Y to all three what's the problem with a Nancy or me giving ourselves every chance we can?
I don't have a problem with anyone using the latest technology. What I have a problem with is the idea that technology is always the answer. There are many solutions to photographic problems, not all involve buying the latest technology. The technology might give you an advantage until it becomes widespread, then you'll be looking for the next technology to gain an advantage.
This comes back to my question: Do you want to make photos with your unique 'signature' style, or do you want to make photos like others with the same technology? I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photos of a heron or raptor with a fish and while technically excellent I rarely if ever see a unique photographer's style in these photos. Maybe I'm expecting too much. Here's my bottom line, and I suspect this will not endear me to many of LuLa's advertisers: develop your own skills and you have the option of getting off the technology treadmill.
-
I don't have a problem with anyone using the latest technology. What I have a problem with is the idea that technology is always the answer. There are many solutions to photographic problems, not all involve buying the latest technology. The technology might give you an advantage until it becomes widespread, then you'll be looking for the next technology to gain an advantage.
This comes back to my question: Do you want to make photos with your unique 'signature' style, or do you want to make photos like others with the same technology? I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photos of a heron or raptor with a fish and while technically excellent I rarely if ever see a unique photographer's style in these photos. Maybe I'm expecting too much. Here's my bottom line, and I suspect this will not endear me to many of LuLa's advertisers: develop your own skills and you have the option of getting off the technology treadmill.
I'm firmly in this camp! I am not a technophobe by any calculation. I build my own computers, I work in the best tech of the military, I love it all. But sometimes, you just have to be smart enough to know that the best tools for the job are a piece of paper and a pencil! Most features that distinguish modern cameras are not problem solving in nature, but for ease and convenience. If you learn how to do it without them, it makes using them so much better.
I put the graphic below together to jack my Canon friends (whose shutters I hear firing away a mile a minute next to me) so please don't take it the wrong way. But it shows what we are discussing. I 'sidegraded' from the D300s to the D7100. I can assure you that from a features and function standpoint, the D300s is twice the camera of the D7100. The D300s had a faster frame rate and larger buffer capacity. I waited for D400 as long as I could. The graphic shows why I side-graded.
-
Hi,
That's a great image.
Best regards
Erik
-7
This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.
If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph? I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
-
With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.
If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph? I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.
Not that I disagree with your point though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.
No the person using a 10 fps AF camera would not be disadvantaged; that was never my intended point. My point is that there are alternatives to the endless technology 'upgrade' treadmill.
-
That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.
Not that I disagree with your point though.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not that a 10fps camera is a disadvantage, just that it is not required. If we compare the $1799 7DmkII with the $949 D7100 and both cameras can come back with the image, and the D7100 provides marginally better data for $850 less, what is the point of the 7DmkII?
As a D7100 owner, I smile and am grateful. If I was a 7D owner, I doubt the mkII is enough to make me upgrade. And that is a sad statement considering the 5 year introduction date spread between these 2 cameras.
-
Great photo, wildlight. Somehow that doesn't look like a great idea for that egret - I can just imagine that mouse tearing a hole in the esophagus on the way down, or scratching a cornea.
Of course you have to be in position to take the photo in the first place! I am just pointing out that other things being equal, yield per event is more likely to be higher with faster frame rate. For example, egret could have had its nictating membrane half or fully closed in the same shot that had the mouse optimally writhing and snarling. A certain amount of my GBH versus fish shots have nictating membrane closed - GBH reflex in place to help protect eyes from flailing fish tails, etc. I hit shutter on continuous and gather 10 shots or so.
Look, I am shooting with a Canon 60D and single point AF servo right now, and I am thrilled, because I remember trying to get photos with a 135 format manual advance film SLR and a 200mm manual focus lens.
-
As for making "your own" photos, it is truly difficult to make unique photos of common subjects, now that photography is a common activity. One can try to tell a story - about your favorite organism, favorite landscape venue, etc. It is the knowledge and emotion that you bring to a photo that makes it unique, more than the technique.
-
http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p411194137/h50e93e2c#h50e93e2c
This was taken with an-even-then-ancient D80 many moons ago.
I forgot how many FPS it had, but it was quite enough. Could have used a bit more DR though as the sky was just gone.
What good is a bazillion fps if the file isn't up to par?
AF, metering etc are all means to an end, IMO. That end being a file of the highest quality possible. The aids to reach there are not the core focus of any equipment. That's like saying a Kia is better than a Volkswagen because the former has lower interest rates for finance.
-
As for making "your own" photos, it is truly difficult to make unique photos of common subjects, now that photography is a common activity.
Agreed! I've given myself the challenge of doing exactly that.
The Anna's Hummingbird is common here all year. This is what I've come up with so far (all in my yard):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm06.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm13.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm19.jpg)
-
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
That is an incredible photo of an accomplished and very content hunter, Douglas
Amazing detail, sharp, great colors, perfect composition with harmonized geometry, and on top of it - absolutely best possible timing with real drama - from the mouse point of view!
The hummingbirds are awesome, too!
-
No the person using a 10 fps AF camera would not be disadvantaged; that was never my intended point. My point is that there are alternatives to the endless technology 'upgrade' treadmill.
This is precisely why I like improved technology - more resolution, more DR, more fps, better AF, better weather sealing.
An ideal camera is one that gets out of the way and lets me do what I do best - take landscape/cityscape/other nonmoving photos and blow them up to 40x60 to 40x120", or take photos of other subjects and print them at a more reasonable size (20x30 to 40x60). Often these are taken in difficult lighting conditions, in inclement weather, or in a state of physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation or oxygen deprivation. The last thing I want is a camera whose technical limitations make it more difficult - or impossible - to get the shot I want at the quality I want.
And the DR advantage of Nikon/Sony/anyone but Canon cannot be understated. Canon shooters like to say, 'learn to expose properly' or 'expose to the right' - but, in dramatic, contrasty lighting, you're often exposing to the right *and* to the left at the same time! Hence the need for GNDs (not possible unless the horizon is straight and the lens not too wide) or exposure bracketing (suboptimal when there are moving elements, e.g. Leaves or branches when there is a breeze).
-
This just in.
Dpreview has released a video on a photo trip to Triple D Game farm and the nearby Glacier National Park in Montana with a nice demonstration of 7DII still image and video capabilities by Adam Jones.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0640966241/video-capturing-nature-with-the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0640966241/video-capturing-nature-with-the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii)
-
Holy moley, where do you shoot, shadowblade? O2 deprivation? Everest? ???
wildlight, those are lovely shots of the Anna's hummer, and the water shot is particularly unusual. Was the hummer trying to sip from a water fountain? Getting ready to bathe?
Maybe I should rent a Nikon D810 and wide angle lens, or Sony A7r with Canon adapter, and take it out for a landscape weekend, shoot high dynamic range subjects.
I am not that demanding of image quality in that I have yet to print to the enormous sizes some people prefer. Holy Batman - 40" x 120"? For me, I stick to 11" x 14", I don't have a huge amount of wall display space, I live in a 1 bedroom flat, ginormous just looks goofy. I have printed 2' x 3' APS-C images as gifts for other people, and when seen at expected viewing distance, they look pretty good. No, the images wouldn't satisfy IQ standards of professionals and picky amateurs, full frame would have been better (but I didn't have it at the time), but I was surprised at how well they look on the wall.
-
Wow, what a capture! I feel so sorry for the unlucky rodent :'(
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
-
... The technology might give you an advantage until it becomes widespread, then you'll be looking for the next technology to gain an advantage.
This comes back to my question: Do you want to make photos with your unique 'signature' style, or do you want to make photos like others with the same technology? I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photos of a heron or raptor with a fish and while technically excellent I rarely if ever see a unique photographer's style in these photos. Maybe I'm expecting too much. Here's my bottom line, and I suspect this will not endear me to many of LuLa's advertisers: develop your own skills and you have the option of getting off the technology treadmill.
In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.
-
Hi Slobodan,
I agree and I don't.
Another place and another time ago, when I was young, I was shooting a lot of show jumping (equestrian sports). I could do with single exposure and 1600 ISO on film.
Here and now, I may have a single chance to get that picture. So I shoot at 6 FPS at 6400 ISO and hope for the best. In all probability I get better images than I got 30 years ago, but the ribbon sits higher this days
I have high regard for "wildlifephoto" and others who manage this with manual equipment, it takes life long experience, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.
-
Not that a 10fps camera is a disadvantage, just that it is not required.
but with 10 fps camera you 'd treat us to a sequence of shots about this event... not just one
PS - not you, the author, sorry
-
This all goes to the point that I made earlier, which is that with the democratization of photography and increasingly sophisticated photographic technology, the edge will go to those who tell better stories or who have unique knowledge and views. I daresay that if I am to make a portfolio, I would be better off concentrating on local subjects and staying away from the Maroon Bells photo-ops of the world.
-
DxO don't review the AF system, only the sensor.
Interesting. They recommend getting the A77 over this camera but they don't test the AF system or anything else with the Canon. Maybe they should stop making recommendations until they test a camera completely.
-
In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.
What Rowell brought to the table was knowledge, experience, anticipation and patience. Most amateurs and your 10 your old would most likely have missed the whole event that lasted 1/1000th of a second. By the time they tripped the shutter, the event would have been over. Hell, they might not even have had the camera at the ready.
I don't say that the technology is bad. I am a fanatic about shutter lag. But high speed cameras make it easier for a weak photographer to get a decent photo and a great photographer to get a great photo consistently. When it really counts, I'll bet on a great photographer with a weak camera over a weak photographer with a great camera every time!
-
With Sony poised to release an 8k video camera in time for the 2016 Olympics, it will be a moot question soon anyway. Shoot a 2-second clip of a bird diving on its prey at 30fps and you're bound to have one frame on target - and, with 8k, it will be a 32MP frame. Shoot it with stills action settings (e.g. 1/1000 and ISO 800) instead of video exposure settingsto avoid the motion blur (desirable for video, not for stills) and get a nice, sharp shot.
-
With Sony poised to release an 8k video camera in time for the 2016 Olympics, it will be a moot question soon anyway. Shoot a 2-second clip of a bird diving on its prey at 30fps and you're bound to have one frame on target - and, with 8k, it will be a 32MP frame. Shoot it with stills action settings (e.g. 1/1000 and ISO 800) instead of video exposure settingsto avoid the motion blur (desirable for video, not for stills) and get a nice, sharp shot.
'Whoosh' went the point straight over his head.
-
But did you capture the "decisive moment" of that whooshing point, wildlight?
Sorry, but the devil made me do it.
-
In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.
http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.html (http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.htmlhttp://)
-
Here is another tid bit from Sony that should be of interest to folk here
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/12/sony-plans-wants-take-dynamic-range-incredible-heights-active-pixel-color-sampling-sensors/
-
http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.html (http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.htmlhttp://)
Yes, Mangelsen also had it. I had in mind this from Galen: http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.wildlife/images.html
-
'Whoosh' went the point straight over his head.
ROTFLMAO
As a still photographer that doesn't really care about shooting video at all, what drives me is the challenge of telling the story, conveying the emotion, relaying the experience, in a single image. When you nail that magic moment in a single still image, to me it has so much more impact than the fleeting moment it passes by in video. You can be immersed in the single moment. Let it wash over you in a way that video can't.
-
Hell will freeze to ice before I would admit large pixels are a great idea!
Best regards
Erik
Here is another tid bit from Sony that should be of interest to folk here
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/12/sony-plans-wants-take-dynamic-range-incredible-heights-active-pixel-color-sampling-sensors/
-
ROTFLMAO
As a still photographer that doesn't really care about shooting video at all, what drives me is the challenge of telling the story, conveying the emotion, relaying the experience, in a single image. When you nail that magic moment in a single still image, to me it has so much more impact than the fleeting moment it passes by in video. You can be immersed in the single moment. Let it wash over you in a way that video can't.
The point is, you're not shooting video. You're shooting stills - at 25fps. Exactly like with a 1Dx or other action stills camera, but 11fps faster and with a correspondingly higher chance of catching the exact moment, instead of missing by a few milliseconds on either side.
A 2-second clip at stills exposure settings (to freeze action in each frame) would make for awful video anyway. But, somewhere in there, you'll probably have the exact moment of action you want.
-
Holy moley, where do you shoot, shadowblade? O2 deprivation? Everest? ???
Even hikes above the Interstate at Donner Pass are high enough that I just won't be able to concentrate as-well-as I could at sea level. Cognitive function degrades well before there's any health risk.
Somehow that doesn't look like a great idea for that egret - I can just imagine that mouse tearing a hole in the esophagus on the way down, or scratching a cornea.
Crush before swallowing.
This all goes to the point that I made earlier, which is that with the democratization of photography and increasingly sophisticated photographic technology, the edge will go to those who tell better stories or who have unique knowledge and views.
"Camera's capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become ever more formidable. This apparent paradox is due to rising expectations in a culture where we are surrounded by a growing number of sophisticated images every day of our lives."
2001, preface, Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=d5qPQAAACAAJ).
-
Hi Abe;
Been super busy but just read your vociferous post. I don't have the time to line-item all that you said, but did have a chuckle at this:
I certainly do use low and medium ISO for wildlife - and lots. To disprove you I went to flickr, searched to bird flight and took a note of the used ISO value in the first 12 pictures which showed it - here is the list of them:
- 200
- 1600
- 100
- 100
- 160
- 320
- 400
- 400
- 1600
- 400
- 500
- 200
This does not support your hypothesis at all.
This is of course again just your subjective opinion not backed with evidence.
LOL, do you really call this "evidence" of top-shelf wildlife shots ... a brief search in Flickr? :D
Too funny ...
Most of the really good stuff I see, action-wise, is ISO 1600 or more.
I don't think you've got any reason to be so vocal.
Chin up mate, Abe!
Abe, your entire post was kinda lame, and it wasn't really worth going into.
On the subject of being vocal, the irony is you wrote at least as much as I did ...
So worry about your own chin, mine is just fine (and, if you've ever boxed, you're actually supposed to keep it tucked in :D)
Jack
-
-7
This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.
If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph? I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
I admire your work. I admire your commitment to your principles.
However, while that is a dynamic photograph, action-wise, it is not so telling color/light-wise.
(I realize you have to take what you can get, when the moment happens ...)
That said, what is this "signature" you're talking about?
Because, other than your copyright logo, I fail to see any "signature" on this photo that makes me think "that was you" ...
I see a bird with a rodent, that's it.
Just being honest,
Jack
-
I shoot a D7100 with 6fps and it's 22nd ranking on DxOmark. The 7DMKII does some frame rate I don't care to know and has a 150 rating. Hand either to a great photographer and he will bring back great images!
Perhaps the best quote of all.
Ultimately, all of the cameras out there today are capable of capturing great images ... if the photographer behind them has the eye.
I don't think a guy like Doug cares whether his camera is #1 on the DXo chart, or not, his experience in the field ... and his being there to get them ... is what makes the photos he captures.
No one is going to pixel-peep dynamic, action shots ... it's the drama captured that matters most, and how its framed, both of which come down to experience and dedication.
Nicely said.
-
Two images attached. They are from the same RAW file. Can you do this with a present Canon?
CptZar, on the Page 1, you made a post showing a difference in two images you took, with shadows, and asked rhetorically, "Can you do this with a Canon?"
My answer is, "No--but I can do it in Lightroom." :D
(For that matter, I can also do it by bracketing.)
The seascape image I took with a lowly 50D, and the spider image with a 7D.
Both are before/after shots, bringing out the detail from dark images with Lightroom.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is in your example. Not saying the 50D is anything as a camera, or that these are epic shots, they're just examples that popped into mind. I admit the seascape one is overdone, but I don't feel like re-doing it. The spider example is more subtle.
Jack
-
Hi Abe;
Been super busy but just read your vociferous post. I don't have the time to line-item all that you said, but did have a chuckle at this:
LOL, do you really call this "evidence" of top-shelf wildlife shots ... a brief search in Flickr? :D
Too funny ...
Are you aware that you're being very impolite and rude?
As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.
Most of the really good stuff I see, action-wise, is ISO 1600 or more.
That may be your experience. Mine is different. And simply sampling random images supports my view, not yours.
Abe, your entire post was kinda lame, and it wasn't really worth going into.
Please learn to be more polite, Jack. I find your comment to be insulting.
[/quote]
-
Jack never mind. No need to convince me or you. You like your 7D II and that's OK. Others just have different preferences. Maybe you may consider checking out Raw Digger and have a closer look at Canon files and Sony RAW files. I am sure you will find some files on the net, if not I will be happy to help you out.
To start with, here are 4 Jpegs. The RAWs where underexposed, and then pushed by 4 stops. The Canon 5DMKIII image is unusable, due to noise. This kind of noise can not be removed with LR. The A7r is very clean. If there is some noise left, it might be removed with LR.
Now you can write in Red, Blue, Bold of even Kanji to emphasis your point in endless threads. But that doesn't change the facts. It just makes it harder to read. If you are into nature photography, specialized on spiders, or butterflies etc, which you will usually photograph with a low DR background that shouldn't bother you.
The nice insect pictures you make, can be done with an A6000, and A77II a D810 or with a 7DII. The sensors requirements are relatively low. The right lens might be much more important there. Fact is, that beside the usability you like, the 7DII has the weakest sensor of all of those, as has been explained by others who know much better than me, extensively.
Over and Out.
jan
-
+10 Abe.
Thank you for your post. Couldn't agree with you more.
Lawrence
-
... I admit the seascape one is overdone, but I don't feel like re-doing it....
I disagree... I think it is very realistic. You were recording a nuclear blast after all, weren't you? ;)
-
Are you aware that you're being very impolite and rude?
Not having the time to go tit-for-tat with you on a hundred points isn't impolite or rude.
What I choose to do with my time is my business, not yours. I thought I was being polite by at least acknowledging your post.
As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.
As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.
That may be your experience. Mine is different. And simply sampling random images supports my view, not yours.
As someone who was actually involved in litigation professionally, you did not provide any "evidence" at all, you only made a claim as to what you did and what you saw.
A claim isn't "evidence"; it begs the question and demands evidence to support it.
Actual evidence would be posting some truly great action shots, with actual awards or having some set/uniform standard of excellence (to distinguish them from the crowd), displaying the EXIF data of all images, and having these repeatedly and consistently supporting your claim. (I.e., 'saying' you went to Flickr and did a 'quick search,' with no standard, and no proof of results, means nothing.)
Maybe I will search and actually provide such legitimate evidence of my own claim, at a later time; this would actually involve a lot of time, I am simply not going to bother doing so now.
Please learn to be more polite, Jack. I find your comment to be insulting.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Have a nice day, and I'll try to provide documentation from some of the great photogs of that genre.
Jack
-
I disagree... I think it is very realistic. You were recording a nuclear blast after all, weren't you? ;)
:D
-
This just in.
Dpreview has released a video on a photo trip to Triple D Game farm and the nearby Glacier National Park in Montana with a nice demonstration of 7DII still image and video capabilities by Adam Jones.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0640966241/video-capturing-nature-with-the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0640966241/video-capturing-nature-with-the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii)
I guess I don't really need to do a bunch of running around for images to prove my claim, because Les provided a DP Review video, right here on this thread, that essentially underscores everything I said. (I don't know how many people actually watched the above video, but it is really kinda fascinating.)
Adam Jones, a professional wildlife photographer for over 30 years, and at the behest of DP Review, takes the 7D II on a 2-day run. I actually watched the entire 22 min video, which was a better investment of my time than searching the web for random images. Among Mr. Jones' notable quotes were:
- "I don't care so much about test charts, and scientific evaluations on the gear, what I care about is, 'Will the camera do the job that I need it to do and be publishable.'"
- "I am at about ISO 1600 or more on almost all of these shots, just for the action-stopping capability. I would rather err on the side of stopping the action with high shutter speed."
Abe asks for proof of my contention that most serious wildlife photographers shoot at high ISOs, well there you have it. Further, when the two come back to look at their image results (starting at about the 15 min mark on the video), almost all the shots are at 1600 or above, confirming the quote above.
The whole point of this video was getting your hands on a camera, and actually using it, employing the features and ergonomics, rather than quibbling about graphs and charts. (The camera even has a cool time-lapse photography feature.)
The DP Review reporter ended by saying, "I get to handle a lot of cameras in my role here at DP Review, and I can honestly say that the 7D Mark II is one of the most capable DSLRs I have ever used, and certainly one of the most fun."
Hope this provides the evidence Abe sought.
Jack
-
O2 deprivation in Donner Pass......Heh. I guess I ought to be grateful that I live in not-so-scenic Ozarks, where "mountains" are a mere 900 to 1900 ft above sea level. Plenty of oxygen, if not spectacular scenery. Here, we talk about hiking the 14ers - 14 hundred feet, that is.. ;)
Thanks for tip to Galen Rowell, Inner game of outdoor photography. I will have to try to find this.
Crush before eating....I guess the egret/heron just has to wait it out, or keep flipping the mouse until it catches the mouse in such a way to break its neck or skull.
-
O2 deprivation in Donner Pass
If you're lucky with the traffic, it's less than 4 hours from sea level; and then hike to 9,000 ft. I'm likely to have a headache the first night, and adapt quickly the following day or two; but I'll still feel the effects above 11,000 ft.
Thanks for tip to Galen Rowell, Inner game of outdoor photography. I will have to try to find this.
Those collections of his magazine columns are worth finding: all his books are worth finding.
Crush before eating....I guess the egret/heron just has to wait it out, or keep flipping the mouse until it catches the mouse in such a way to break its neck or skull.
There's nothing delicate about that beak. One-flip, catch closer to the jaw and crunch - whole crayfish, whole ground squirrels!