Photographer's Corner - equipment

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade Both companies are running sales on all their full frames, except for the newly released D750.

I was looking at prices and the sony is also running a trade-in program where they take 15% off ($345) in addition to whatever B&H will give you for the camera. I think the trade-in value is probably lowballed but I do have an old olympus that's worth pretty much nothing.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy The 7D gets very good reviews but it doesn't really have what I'm looking for (better DR/lower shadow noise at low ISO). My understanding is that the new 7D is more sports/action oriented and I don't do much of that (my action is limited to street scenes or perhaps people dancing). The AF on the 5d ii is pretty crappy but I've managed to live with that. Plus I can't go back to crop after years of full frame.

You would think that with all the marketing that Canon is doing but... in actuality, they are only pointing out the new features that are unique to this camera. Remember the 7D was state-of-the-art to begin with. To match the "usual" performance of the 7D Mk II one would need to go to the 1DX for $3-4,000 more.

I respect the choice of demanding a "full" frame sensor camera but, as I pointed out in my earlier Link, the only difference is that you need to get closer with a Full frame or farther away with a APS-C sensor camera... and isn't that what Zoom lenses are for. Yes, there are situations when you cannot move -- small rooms or great distances (landscapes) -- but they are kinda rare for me personally. Besides Panoramas cover that issue quite handily.

As far as the ISO/Noise issue goes, I am not sure I have an answer. However, I did take this photo this morning with the 7D Mk II with a Tamron 16-300MM lens set to 16mm at 1/1000 sec at f/3.5. I had the ISO set to Automatic and the camera chose 16,000. The attached images are from the RAW file in Lightroom. The first without any adjustment except as the default LR export to JPEG. The second is after a brief adjustment (10 seconds?). I know it is a lousy image but not so much under the circumstances -- the focus and Exposure were set to the darkest part of the scene so the sky is out of focus and over-exposed... AND hand-held. I am unsure what circumstance you are referring to when you want "(better DR/lower shadow noise at low ISO)" but if you describe them I might be able to duplicate it.

Anyway, as I say, I respect your choice of the "full-size" sensor. So I must ask, why don't you just upgrade to the 5D Mark III? Or install Magic Lantern software on the Mk II? Unlock hidden features on your Canon dSLR - CNET

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREd I have the NIK plug-ins and I use them all the time, mostly Color Efex, but also Silver Efex and HDR Efex. I think that they are great but a light touch is better (it's easy to get carried away and overdo it).

i like experimenting with different looks . topaz adjust can be lots if fun in photoshop once you start blending the effects on a layer with the origonal.

you can just about get a lucis art effect for alot less money. using it in photoshop is way better than just applying the filters all or nothing as is in lightroom.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd I respect the choice of demanding a "full" frame sensor camera but, as I pointed out in my earlier Link, the only difference is that you need to get closer with a Full frame or farther away with a APS-C sensor camera... and isn't that what Zoom lenses are for. Yes, there are situations when you cannot move -- small rooms or great distances (landscapes) -- but they are kinda rare for me personally. Besides Panoramas cover that issue quite handily.

I do agree with this that there's nothing magical about FF sensor size and it's popular because of historical precedent. But in practice if you take lens designed for FF and use them on a crop body, the equivalent focal lengths don't make as much sense. E.g., my 24-105 zoom becomes an effective 36-153mm but I'd much rather have the extra range on the wide end than at the tele. Losing the bottom end would mean that I would have to change lenses more often when I wanted to go wide. Or I could get new crop lens (somewhere in the range of 16-70mm) but if I have to get new lenses that decreases the advantage over switching platforms

I also shoot primes such as the 24mm T/S lens which will now become 36mm. This is a much less useful effective focal length for many of my subjects.

Other drawbacks of APS-C vs FF directly related size include needing a faster lens to get the same DOF (with equivalent framing). Also APS-C is physically smaller than FF, so given equivalent sensor technology the SNR has to be worse than FF and this one of my primary concerns.

Quote:

As far as the ISO/Noise issue goes, I am not sure I have an answer. However, I did take this photo this morning with the 7D Mk II with a Tamron 16-300MM lens set to 16mm at 1/1000 sec at f/3.5. I had the ISO set to Automatic and the camera chose 16,000. The attached images are from the RAW file in Lightroom. The first without any adjustment except as the default LR export to JPEG. The second is after a brief adjustment (10 seconds?). I know it is a lousy image but not so much under the circumstances -- the focus and Exposure were set to the darkest part of the scene so the sky is out of focus and over-exposed... AND hand-held. I am unsure what circumstance you are referring to when you want "(better DR/lower shadow noise at low ISO)" but if you describe them I might be able to duplicate it.

Basically I mean landscape style shots where you brighten the shadows in post processing. This link (Part II - Controlled tests) has a few examples at iso 100 (look halfway down the page) where you can see the sony sensor in the Nikon is much cleaner than the canon.


DxO actually quantifies this ability with it's dynamic range measurements. See the attached graph -- at low iso nikon has a 2stop advantage over canon. However at higher ISO the canon is better, but I'm usually in the low iso range.

Quote:

Anyway, as I say, I respect your choice of the "full-size" sensor. So I must ask, why don't you just upgrade to the 5D Mark III? Or install Magic Lantern software on the Mk II? Unlock hidden features on your Canon dSLR - CNET

Surprisingly the newer canon cameras haven't improved much on my 5year old 5d ii at low iso (see second attachment). And they are way behind the competition here (2+ stops).


I considered magic lantern due to it's Dual ISO capability but decided against it for a variety of reasons which include: required changes in workflow, it's unsupported nature, time required to understand and test it, and other drawbacks (e.g. reduced resolution). Other techniques like ETTR and exposure blending/hdr can help and I do use these sometimes (but these also have drawbacks).

Anyway I haven't made any irrevocable moves yet (although the sony mirrorless system is looking tempting). So inertia will keep me with canon at least for a little bit.

[RonBoyd]

And here is the same scene a month earlier with roughly the same lighting conditions. The only differences were it was shot at 1/30 sec and ISO 1600. (It was still handheld.)


Even at ISO 1600 and relatively slow shutter speed, the noise is not much of a distraction. However, the next similar sunrise occurs, I will try it at ISO 100 (may not be possible hand-held so If I have time I will drag out a tripod.)

0N6A0017-Canon EOS 7D Mark II 11-09-2014 06h 25m 08s.jpg

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy Basically I mean landscape style shots where you brighten the shadows in post processing. This link (Part II - Controlled tests) has a few examples at iso 100 (look halfway down the page) where you can see the sony sensor in the Nikon is much cleaner than the canon.

Yeah, That is pretty impressive.

You do make good arguments for change. You have done a very good job of researching this. I will be most interested in hearing how it progresses.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd You have done a very good job of researching this.

I think internet research is my other hobby

[ggbutcher]

After a lot of internet research, I just ordered a Nikon D7000 from Amazon for $484. After picking through the things I wrestle with most in post-processing, it's dynamic range, and this camera has that, even if the resolution is not that of newer cameras. It's replacing a D50, so most anything will look better resolution-wise. I was going to wait until the D7200 is released and get a D7100, but I realized just yesterday that what I needed was in a far less expensive camera.

What really helped me figure out what I really needed was to 'squeeze blood from the turnip', shoot and process with the D50, see how far it would go and list the shortcomings.

I may yet decide to go full frame, but only after I see how far this camera will go, and how serious I really am about restarting the photo hobby...

[superdave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggbutcher After a lot of internet research, I just ordered a Nikon D7000 from Amazon for $484.

Great choice. I upgraded from D3100 --> D3200 --> D7000 this year. Wrestled with the idea of getting the D7100, but didn't really see the value for my case.

I am a member of a very active photography club with several pro level 'retired' members. ie. They now shot what they want to shoot and don't miss shooting weddings, etc. D7000s are very common among our members. The true value is in glass.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggbutcher After a lot of internet research, I just ordered a Nikon D7000 from Amazon for $484.

I have one of those and I think you'll be very happy with it. While I've thought about moving to a full frame camera I have to wonder if the images would really be that much better to be worth the cost. So far I have not made the move and depending on the specs for the successor to the D7100 I might go for that.

[ggbutcher]

Nikon rumors posted rumored specs yesterday, FWIW...

I was going to wait until the 7200 was available for purchase, then look for 7100 discounts, but I recently realized the 7000 would more than meet my needs, especially since I'm going to use a 18-200 zoom exclusively. Then, Amazon lowered their price to $484, and that made the deal. I'm replacing a D50, so most anything will be an improvement.

I'm looking at this purchase to give me time to see if I'm going to get serious about photography again, enough to consider going to FX.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 While I've thought about moving to a full frame camera I have to wonder if the images would really be that much better to be worth the cost.

Read the Link I posted earlier: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1528473

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd Read the Link I posted earlier: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1528473

Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.

Those are my thoughts exactly. Well, that and I can afford justify the cost of a top-of-the-line ASP-C camera which matches (or exceeds) all the other features of the "full frame" professional camera.

[RonBoyd]

On Comparing Cameras and Sensors - https://photographylife.com/on-compa...as-and-sensors

Interesting article... and this insight:

Quote:

Comparing always leaves somebody grossly unhappy, especially if it does not favor a bias. But the best camera in fact is the one you have with you, ready to shoot. Learning photography and shooting discipline goes a long way towards a “better camera”, and offers much more satisfaction, usually Mastering new ways of shooting also goes a long mile towards “a better camera” – less noise, more dynamic range, better landscapes and macro. It all starts with a tripod, and a good one. Focus stacking, panoramas, blending HDR exposures (just to mention few obvious techniques) help to get more from the camera.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.

Perhaps. But, keep in mind that with Micro 4/3 cameras many of the prime lenses are f/1.7 and the better zooms are now f/2.8. Not bad at all for low light photography. Or when higher shutter speeds are needed.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 Got it, and understood. I guess the only real advantage of full frame to me would be full use of faster glass made for those cameras. Given that shooting in low light is generally not an issue for me I can spend some of that money on a couple of Speedlights and still be ahead.

Don't assume flash will solve all low light problems. I don't think it's that helpful at very wide angles, it can cause nasty reflection close up, and most importantly, lots of indoor locations don't allow flash.

It totally depends on what you shoot, of course, but for me flash is mostly useless, and many situations a tripod/monopod not an option, so I rely on good low light performance.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd Those are my thoughts exactly. Well, that and I can afford justify the cost of a top-of-the-line ASP-C camera which matches (or exceeds) all the other features of the "full frame" professional camera.

Except for being able to shoot at 16mm? Or even wider? To me that's been the only point of full frame.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Except for being able to shoot at 16mm? Or even wider? To me that's been the only point of full frame.

How about 14mm?

Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens B&H Photo Video

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Except for being able to shoot at 16mm? Or even wider? To me that's been the only point of full frame.

Yes, that's what I said earlier about the "up-close and far-away" issue. However, since Photoshop makes creating a panorama so easy and quick, it is not the issue it used to be. Nevertheless, with my walking-around-lens (a Tamron 16-300mm) it is an irritant (occasionally) that the 16mm captures only what a 26mm lens on a FF camera can -- particularly when lining up the second shot is difficult or the scene is moving. On the other hand, the 300mm end is the same as a 486mm. So maybe it balances... certainly the cost of that 10mm difference weighs heavily in favor of the APS-C.