[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'd be curious to know where he went over the line. A lot of what I see there looks like it could have been done with Contrast, Color Filters and Light Levels, which are generally allowed in nature competitions. (No cloning out, no adding in are the usual limitations.

Dave

I'm wondering if he added clouds or some such thing. It would have been nice to know. You would think whoever wrote the story would have asked.

UPDATE: Yes, he added clouds and cloned stuff out.

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Too much Photoshopping is a bad thing, I guess.

Great place for photos


Holy Island upturned boats - Lindisfarne by PRotography EU, on Flickr


Holy Island Castle - Lindisfarne by PRotography EU, on Flickr


Holy Island upturned boats - Lindisfarne by PRotography EU, on Flickr

Shame to lose that much money but rules are rules.

[M_Six]

^^^That's where I've seen those boats before. I knew they looked familiar.

Awesome shots, Paul.

[M_Six]

The new Canon lens prices are out. $1500 for the 24-70 f4IS??? Really? You can pick up a 24-105 f4IS for about half that. And I seriously doubt any IQ improvement would be worth twice the price. Canon dumped the 24-105 on the market as a kit lens like they were trying to deplete their inventory. I wonder if they're attempting to do just that to leave no choice but to pay the much higher price for the 24-70.

The 35f2IS is, as expected, in the same general price range as the other two IS upgraded lenses (24 and 28).

[Weebl]

It has to have some better IQ,coatings and IS. Regardless of price there are those who will need it. For example the 70-200II and the new super teles. I would drop the 1500 for it but I really need to get something wide for landscapes first along with the 70-200II

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

The new Canon lens prices are out. $1500 for the 24-70 f4IS??? Really? You can pick up a 24-105 f4IS for about half that. And I seriously doubt any IQ improvement would be worth twice the price. Canon dumped the 24-105 on the market as a kit lens like they were trying to deplete their inventory. I wonder if they're attempting to do just that to leave no choice but to pay the much higher price for the 24-70.

The 35f2IS is, as expected, in the same general price range as the other two IS upgraded lenses (24 and 28).

I bought my 24-105mm as a "kit" lens in 2008. There's nothing new about that and suspect that they'll keep it up. Part of the deal of a "kit" is to make it a bargain vs. the individual pieces.

Part of what you pay for with L-series is durability. My 24-105mm spends most of its time in my shooting vest's front pocket, where it's occasionally banged and abused as I stumble through the woods with two bodies and a big ole 500mm. It's still a champ when I need it for those sunrises/sunsets and scenics that I come upon while I'm "hunting."

Frankly, I'm amazed that Canon has managed to keep some of its Japanese made lenses at their old prices. When I was there in 2009, the Yen was 110 per dollar and now it's down around 80 per $. That is HUGE and they've been absorbing a lot of that. With the introductions of the Series II lenses and the latest round of prosumer and pro bodies, they've been getting that back, but there are stll some very low price considering the yen/dollar relationship.

The Chinese do make some very good lenses these days, but the Japanese lenses, in general, are better in both IQ and durability. Canon's new super-teles are stunning, besting their own lenses that were state of the art in their times.

Dave

[M_Six]

The 24-105 glut happened when the 5D MkIII was (for a time) unavailable as body only. The only way to get one was to buy it with the 24-105 kit lens. That dumped loads of 24-105s on the market. If Canon continues to produce the 24-105, I'll be surprised. But I've been surprised before.

I can't wait to see some real world tests on this 24-70 f4. The Digital Picture side-by-side comparisons with the 24-105 IQ will be especially interesting.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

The 24-105 glut happened when the 5D MkIII was (for a time) unavailable as body only. The only way to get one was to buy it with the 24-105 kit lens. That dumped loads of 24-105s on the market. If Canon continues to produce the 24-105, I'll be surprised. But I've been surprised before.

I can't wait to see some real world tests on this 24-70 f4. The Digital Picture side-by-side comparisons with the 24-105 IQ will be especially interesting.

For those of us that shoot in Raw and then apply Digital Lens Optimization correction in Raw conversion, many of those tests are misleading, particularly at the wide end of the focal length spectrum. We're no longer shooting film, but those tests compare uncorrected images as if we were still shooting Kodachrome.

Still, I'll be curious to see the reviews of the 24-70/f4 IS. The macro feature will be nice. If they can improve IQ to any degree, I might bite. Also, if it's lighter, that'd be nice. I doubt that I'll move, but you never know...

I'm Jonesing for a 8-15mm or the 16-35mm.

Dave

[M_Six]

Need a favor from the 7D owners. Bring up a very underexposed image (or part of an image) in ACR and crank the exposure 4.5 stops or more until you can see the noise pattern in the recovered detail. On my 7D, it's striped as in the first pic below. The second pic is the same type of thing (different image obviously) from my T1i. Note how the T1i noise is fairly random while the 7D noise is definitely striped. Is this normal or is this an issue with the 7D sensor?

7D


T1i

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Need a favor from the 7D owners. Bring up a very underexposed image (or part of an image) in ACR and crank the exposure 4.5 stops or more until you can see the noise pattern in the recovered detail. On my 7D, it's striped as in the first pic below. The second pic is the same type of thing (different image obviously) from my T1i. Note how the T1i noise is fairly random while the 7D noise is definitely striped. Is this normal or is this an issue with the 7D sensor?

I don't keep images that badly underexposed, but I'll try to do a test this weekend. What percentage is that example shown at? That's pretty incredible.

Oh, I don't use ACR, so that may be why I've never noticed that. My 7D images get a cartoonish, mosaic like character when unexposed at high ISO. I'll convert my example in DxO, Sagelight, DPP and IrFanview to see what differences might be attributable to software.

Does ISO make a difference in your example?


Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I don't keep images that badly underexposed, but I'll try to do a test this weekend. What percentage is that example shown at? That's pretty incredible.

Oh, I don't use ACR, so that may be why I've never noticed that. My 7D images get a cartoonish, mosaic like character when unexposed at high ISO. I'll convert my example in DxO, Sagelight, DPP and IrFanview to see what differences might be attributable to software.

Does ISO make a difference in your example?


Dave

Those are 100% crops. I never noticed it until I tried to recover some shadow detail in an image taken with my new Tamron 17-50. I thought at first it was the lens, and it does seem to be more apparent with that lens, but I checked shots taken with other lenses and it's there, too. But not with shots taken with the T1i. I don't think it's because of ACR, but I can try it with the native Canon software and see if it's any different.

Those are not high ISO shots. ISO 100 for the 7D shot and ISO 200 for the T1i.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Those are 100% crops. I never noticed it until I tried to recover some shadow detail in an image taken with my new Tamron 17-50. I thought at first it was the lens, and it does seem to be more apparent with that lens, but I checked shots taken with other lenses and it's there, too. But not with shots taken with the T1i. I don't think it's because of ACR, but I can try it with the native Canon software and see if it's any different.

Those are not high ISO shots. ISO 100 for the 7D shot and ISO 200 for the T1i.

Please try it with DPP. It may not have a local shadow recovery tool, but bring up the whole image to see what happens in those shadows. You can try Sagelight for free, which has local tools and a shadow recovery function.

Could you show the complete image so that we can see the context of the noise?

Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Please try it with DPP. It may not have a local shadow recovery tool, but bring up the whole image to see what happens in those shadows. You can try Sagelight for free, which has local tools and a shadow recovery function.

Could you show the complete image so that we can see the context of the noise?

Dave

These are the full images resized. The earlier image is a 100% crop of the second image here.

SOOC



With Exposure bumped by 4.95 stops.

[rodi]

it might be pretty normal. Nikon's are the ones that can underexpose by 4+ stops and still have a useable image.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by rodi

it might be pretty normal. Nikon's are the ones that can underexpose by 4+ stops and still have a useable image.

Agreed. And 99.99% of the time I wouldn't be boosting exposure like that and taking 100% crops. On that image I did try to bring up the light in the darker areas a bit and that's when I noticed the lines. I really needed to be using a grad filter there anyway. I just don't have one that's dark enough.

[ddk632]

GND filters FTW!!

I have them and use them, they are awesome. I have 2 and 3 stops and in a lot of cases, I stack them. If I would do it over again, I would have bought 3 and 4 stop filters instead. I also badly need another hard edge GND.

This image is perfect for it, with the flat defined horizon.

Sorry to thread jack. The banding is not really that apparent in the image you posted, only in the 100% crop, for what it's worth.

[dcstep]

Is the mid image grass not brown? When I look at the posted image with my screen at 400%, I see a lot of noise and light vertical striping, but not the clear stripes that you show in your 100% version.

BTW, I'd love to see a noiseless Nikon image that's been pushed 4.5 stops.

Dave

[rodi]

Originally Posted by dcstep

BTW, I'd love to see a noiseless Nikon image that's been pushed 4.5 stops.

Dave

stand by.

[rodi]

[rodi]

not sure how many stops these are...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by rodi

not sure how many stops these are...

I'd give you 3 to 5-stops.

Lots and lots of Luminescence noise (which doesn't show too badly on white) but low Chrominance. Did you treat it at all?

[rodi]

not my images, no.
lots of quality noise, not nasty unusable noise.