Karl Gnter Wnsch

Karl Gnter Wnsch

Lives in United States AK, United States
Works as a software developer
Joined on Jun 24, 2002

Comments

Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peet van den Berg: "iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones" I have found exactly the opposite - its fast and spot on in half a heartbeat! Are the reviewers used to taking BIF pictures? Love this beast already!

You can't uncouple iTR and tracking (I am not talking about predictive AF) - I am talking about the prediction of any subject movement, the algorithm needs to make certain assumptions on the subject to be able to assist the photographer (and not work against him). Any sports photographer (for whom the iTR tracking has been primarily created) will do his utmost to get a pleasing composition and will do that by moving his frame along with the subject as it moves. So the primary premise of the focus has to be that the photographer will do his best to keep the composition - and that premise is reflected in the way the iTR adjusts focusing! If the system is not do assume this you need to relax that constraint by choosing the correct case (or customizing the case to do so). You still dodge the issue of customization.
You seem to be unable to understand that the behaviour you want is pretty much unwanted in all the scenarios for which iTR was created...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 22:51 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peet van den Berg: "iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones" I have found exactly the opposite - its fast and spot on in half a heartbeat! Are the reviewers used to taking BIF pictures? Love this beast already!

The system is geared to predict subject movement, this has different patterns than a photographer moving the camera to achieve a specific composition. Probably the better the movement prediction for sports and wildlife subjects is the less successful it will be for the recomposition task.

Simply try to think what the system is geared to do. It is supposed to support the photographer who picks up a subject and then tracks it - this means the photographer tries to keep the subject at a certain position within the frame. Your use case breaks that very fundamental premise built into the system - I am a software engineer and that premise would be highest priority one, even higher than any feedback from the metering sensor. I also would expect the photographer try and regain the composition whenever that premise isn't matched. Looking how the 7DII performs the tracking I would say the Canon engineers have done just what I suggested.

Did you even try different cases or customizing it?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 20:59 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peet van den Berg: "iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones" I have found exactly the opposite - its fast and spot on in half a heartbeat! Are the reviewers used to taking BIF pictures? Love this beast already!

At least in the current writeup you didn't mention which case you were using or if you customized it (because your abuse of the system as focusing/recompose crutch requires other behaviour than tracking a moving sports car or a track runner or any number of wildlife) - and since the focusing points are bigger (relative to the frame) to expect the same small area focusing ability on the 7DII as a full frame is a fallacy to begin with. I would have expected far more diligence from you as a reviewers...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 18:17 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: What is the basis for saying the 7D II outperforms the a6000 and K-3 for noise? DXOMark shows the 7D II with the lowest score of the three for SNR.
a6000: ISO 1347
K-3: ISO 1216
7D II: ISO 1082

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Sony-A6000-versus-Pentax-K-3___977_942_914

@audiobomber - There is plenty proof that they do not a single thing to detect pre-processing of the RAW, else they would have cried cassandra about the lossy compression scheme in almost all Sony cameras, the black value clipping of the Nikon sensors... Sorry, that's a big fail on DxO side...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 18:10 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peet van den Berg: "iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones" I have found exactly the opposite - its fast and spot on in half a heartbeat! Are the reviewers used to taking BIF pictures? Love this beast already!

They are not testing against moving subjects, they are testing (incompetently) against stationary subjects where they recompose - and expect the camera to stay on the chosen target. This whole contrived test is a shambles...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 11:17 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)

By the way, why is there no mention of the flicker synchronization in the final pro and con tally? Why is there a con for "Long screen blackout during live view shooting" but not even a mention of the flicker synchronization? - A feature that has the potential to be a game changer for some!
It's not that hard to test, you even get a warning in the viewfinder whenever it may be beneficial to activate... - So what made you ignore that innovation (it's a unique feature that no other camera offers)? An innovation which not only helps with white balance but also exposure consistency - which means that it should either increase the rating of the 7DII in metering accuracy and image quality or that all other cameras not offering this feature need to be marked down in both image quality as well as metering accuracy for not offering it!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 15:18 UTC as 75th comment
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

sierranvin: How are the resolution specs for the EVF? Say Wha??? It costs $900 more than the sony A77II, which now includes a bundled vertical grip + extra battery, free, and it still doesn't have an EVF? OH- I see it has a mirror! The little clangy-bangy thing that makes the whole works vibrate as it flips up and down! Groovy, baby! Really...groovy!!! I think Austin Powers wants one, seeing as he's stuck in 1969!

Better to have that clunky mirror that get's back to showing the scene in mere milliseconds than that EVF garbage of the Sony which takes more than a quarter of a second to go through all the electronic resets it has to do...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 11:03 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: The dynamic range/image quality deficit seen on this camera's sensor, is probably a byproduct of that dual-pixel layout. As I've being suspecting since this sensor design was introduced with the EOS 70D. Putting basically 40 million pixels on an APS-C sized sensor is going to have a cost - image quality wise.

You would be wrong to assume that - the 7DII sensor has the highest quantum efficiency and fill factor of any APS-C sensor from Canon - very close to the very best sensor in this regards. It has a higher read noise at base ISO than the competition because these use a different type of A/D conversion. But contrary to the competition the Canon manages to produce consistent results even when used in fast series - where the competition fails. Unfortunately DPR doesn't account for this deficiency in sensors from Sony, Samsung or Nikon - they really should be testing these not only in single shot but also in series shooting when they have to reduce their A/D conversion bit depth to get the speed necessary.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 19:57 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

maboleth: Dpreview said that autofocus was lighting fast. But how precise is it, compared to 7D?
In my three years of experience, 7D can miss a focus quite often. It depends on the lens, true, but as much as I love this camera, I can't say I'm in love with its AF, far from it. I learned to use it well, but that's that.

So how precise is 7D MK2? If AF is much better, it's totally worth the price in my opinion.

Having both I can only say that you will be blown away by the II - the difference is about as big as the difference between the 50D and original 7D was when it was released. The 7DII can even drive the new telephoto lenses at double the speed during initial focus acquisition - something hitherto limited to the 1Dx and possibly 1D IV...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 16:05 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Is it fair to say that “you will not benefit from the extra dynamic range that the competitors offer” if you never shoot scenes that exceed the dynamic range of the sensor(ie: You never clip the highlights) and you never underexpose past the optimal point?

It would be interesting to see the dynamic range test at higher ISO values(ie: ISO 1600, 6400, 12,800) and for very long exposures(1+ minutes. Think Astrophotography).

Astrophotography and higher ISO: http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html
Just ask one thing: Is it so bad to clip the highlights every now and then? It's not as if there is something critical for your subject lurking in the highlights - and the price you pay for that preservation is loss of tonality (because at base ISO each ADU encodes more than one electron)...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 15:59 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thunder123: I like how DPReview after removing the A77ii jpgs due to an error in noise reduction still hasn't replaced them

But looking at the Raw files clearly the A77ii is better in most areas.

Using a D7000 to compare the DR, really? DPR cooked the books on this review

They used the D7000 because the newer D7100 would have been worse...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 15:52 UTC
On Leica M9 users report sensor corrosion issue article (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

dialstatic: Interesting...the transparent tubular artifacts in the corroded glass imagine look exactly like the little squigglies I see moving around in my eye when I look at the sky. Always wondered what they are. Maybe I can send my eyes to Leica customer care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

RaghavBaijal: Just to give you guys a point of reference to understand the value of 2 Stops of DR:

The difference of 2 Stops of DR is greater than changing from Crop Sensor Cameras to Full Frame Sensors!!!

In other words, Landscape photographers would benefit more by moving to Sony/Nikon Crop sensors than by moving to Canon Full Frame Sensors!!! If you jump from Canon Crop Sensor camera to Nikon/Sony Full Frame, you will gain almost 3 Stops of DR!!! That's almost like HDR Pictures!

Its just sad... Canon has a lot of catching up to do in Sensor tech...

"No, your benefit comes from underexposing X number of stops, which give you X EV more highlight headroom." And therein lies the problem: Why do you need so much highlight headroom. The highlights are not your subject if you need to lift exposure afterwards - so you are concentrating on something that at best is distracting the viewer from the subject and retaining structure in the highlights only makes this distraction worse.
And you never ever touch a deep shadow for the same reason - shadows need to keep their EV relationship with their origin, throw that relationship off and you end up with an unnatural looking, half baked shot...
IMHO you make a false assumption and that is that the highlights need preserving by 3-4 stops. If that happens to be the case then you are doing something really wrong. You are either in a landscape at the wrong time of day or you have failed to bring your flash - either way you are trying to make a habit out of a bad technique.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

RaghavBaijal: Just to give you guys a point of reference to understand the value of 2 Stops of DR:

The difference of 2 Stops of DR is greater than changing from Crop Sensor Cameras to Full Frame Sensors!!!

In other words, Landscape photographers would benefit more by moving to Sony/Nikon Crop sensors than by moving to Canon Full Frame Sensors!!! If you jump from Canon Crop Sensor camera to Nikon/Sony Full Frame, you will gain almost 3 Stops of DR!!! That's almost like HDR Pictures!

Its just sad... Canon has a lot of catching up to do in Sensor tech...

You make it sound as if you had no leeway in the Canon sensors - which is unjustified. Or that you must at all cost avoid clipping the highlights - which again is unjustified and in most cases will yield bad results.
In fact you only get the benefit of the higher DR if you underexpose by at least 4 stops. Any less than that and the Canon shots will be about as usable (or unusable) as the Nikon...
The only situation in the last 10 years where I was short on DR at base ISO was when shooting panning shots at the F1 race track because that happened to be in bright sunshine - but it was just these circumstances where I couldn't have underexposed the shots either because I needed the long shutter speed of 1/100 or longer for the motion blur I was going for... Luckily for me the Canon sensors do have enough headroom in the highlights to even get good photos of the silver, highly reflective McLaren car...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 10:24 UTC
In reply to:

RaghavBaijal: Just to give you guys a point of reference to understand the value of 2 Stops of DR:

The difference of 2 Stops of DR is greater than changing from Crop Sensor Cameras to Full Frame Sensors!!!

In other words, Landscape photographers would benefit more by moving to Sony/Nikon Crop sensors than by moving to Canon Full Frame Sensors!!! If you jump from Canon Crop Sensor camera to Nikon/Sony Full Frame, you will gain almost 3 Stops of DR!!! That's almost like HDR Pictures!

Its just sad... Canon has a lot of catching up to do in Sensor tech...

We are not talking just 2 stops here. The usual rationale of high DR is to underexpose by 5 stops because you can pull of crazy stunts with the shadows - and the results I have seen from the wedding photographer suggesting doing so are truly garbage in the mid tones. He didn't even notice that his supposed primary subject (the groom and bride) were postured as if they couldn't wait for the wedding night any longer (his and her hands on his crotch, him looking down at his hand) - because he got so absorbed in his DR mania that he probably couldn't make out them on the screen...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 09:38 UTC
In reply to:

RaghavBaijal: Just to give you guys a point of reference to understand the value of 2 Stops of DR:

The difference of 2 Stops of DR is greater than changing from Crop Sensor Cameras to Full Frame Sensors!!!

In other words, Landscape photographers would benefit more by moving to Sony/Nikon Crop sensors than by moving to Canon Full Frame Sensors!!! If you jump from Canon Crop Sensor camera to Nikon/Sony Full Frame, you will gain almost 3 Stops of DR!!! That's almost like HDR Pictures!

Its just sad... Canon has a lot of catching up to do in Sensor tech...

If you have to underexpose to get the benefit then that is worth nothing - and that's what you have to do on the Nikon and Sony sensors - because you trash the midtones (even only a 2 stop underexposure reduces tonality in the midtones making posterisation much more likely and increases noise where you are most likely to see it) and only shows that the manufacturer has balanced the camera contrary to what a photographer needs.
DR beyond 8 EV is hard to use, beyond 10 EV it's virtually impossible outside the HDR fad...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2014 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Noise performance of the Canon 7D mkII is not its biggest issue. Actually the noise performance in low light is quite good. Even the DXO tests show that its low light performance is less than ½ a stop behind its competitors. Take a look at the low light scene near the bottles at ISO 1600-6400 and you will see the 7D mkII noise is handled quite well.

Dynamic range is the issue with the 7D mkII. It is almost 2 stops behind its competitors in dynamic range. The studio scene can’t demonstrate that difference because the scene simply does not have enough dynamic range to exceed what the 7D mkII can display. If the dynamic range of the scene does not exceed the dynamic range capacity of the camera’s sensor you can’t draw any conclusions about dynamic range for that image.

@Rishi, on one hand you are advocating that the DR is oh so important that you need to show how rubbish Canon is compared to Nikon and Sony - but to make use of the DR you need to heavily underexpose the shot - this extremely reduces the total amount of light collected for the midtones and thus trashes the SNR in that utmost important area for a screwed up sense of DR. So these things are highly connected...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 21:51 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2702 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennyrae: looks like the 7D MK2's AF did not really live to the expectations of it being significantly faster and better than either the old 7D and 70D. people would be better off with the significantly cheaper 70D or higher end 5D MK3 once it becomes more affordable.

like everyone else were expecting, if there was something that the 7D MK2 has significantly improved over the old 7D, it's the High ISO picture quality. that's about it. over the 70D, picture quality difference is not significant enough to consider the 7D MK2.

@armadino, I have been in contact with Chuck Westfall from Canon and he confirmed explicitely that the faster drive of the 1DX is solely down to the circuitry and AF algorithm, not the stronger battery - and that the 7DII is the first camera outside the 1D series to have that double speed drive for initial focus acquisition.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 20:18 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2702 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennyrae: looks like the 7D MK2's AF did not really live to the expectations of it being significantly faster and better than either the old 7D and 70D. people would be better off with the significantly cheaper 70D or higher end 5D MK3 once it becomes more affordable.

like everyone else were expecting, if there was something that the 7D MK2 has significantly improved over the old 7D, it's the High ISO picture quality. that's about it. over the 70D, picture quality difference is not significant enough to consider the 7D MK2.

WTF are you driveling about? Go to a shop and handle one and then come back apologizing for your gross underrepresentation of the 7DII capabilities...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 17:57 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2702 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennyrae: looks like the 7D MK2's AF did not really live to the expectations of it being significantly faster and better than either the old 7D and 70D. people would be better off with the significantly cheaper 70D or higher end 5D MK3 once it becomes more affordable.

like everyone else were expecting, if there was something that the 7D MK2 has significantly improved over the old 7D, it's the High ISO picture quality. that's about it. over the 70D, picture quality difference is not significant enough to consider the 7D MK2.

I have the direct comparison between 7D and 7DII - the 7DII is in another league when it comes to focusing. Sorry to dispell your poor attempt at elevating the 7D and 70D to it's level, they are not even close.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »