Karl Gnter Wnsch

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

Comments

Total: 149, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 18:17 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 18:10 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 11:17 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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!

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 15:18 UTC as 135th comment
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 11:03 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 19:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 16:05 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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)...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 15:59 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 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...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 15:52 UTC
On article Leica M9 users report sensor corrosion issue (378 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

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 21:51 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 - I hope you will be testing tonal response in the mid tones when you look at the deep shadows... Because underexposing the picture by 5 stops loses a lot of tonal distinction in those areas that need it most - the midtones. So you salvage the highlights, can rescue the shadows but complete and utterly trash the midtones - where usually the subject lives.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 11:18 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Clouds over Skagsanden (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erez Marom: Hi guys,
thank you all for your comments. I appreciate the criticism, but I disagree with some of it. Let me explain myself a bit better:
First of all, as some people repeatedly fail to fathom even though I've mentioned it several times before, this article series is NOT an exhibition of my best images. To view my favorites, please go on my website and view the 'favorite' galleries. This series is rather about images on which I have something interesting to say. They therefore have to satisfy several conditions:

Just one question? What is the subject supposed to be in all that balance? For me it's complete and utterly lost because of just that whole balance act... The only thing that stands out is that white blotch in the sky - and that's unsightly and uninspiring. The rest only plays second fiddle to it and can't draw the attention of the viewer because of all the other similarly "balanced" elements.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 18:44 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Clouds over Skagsanden (117 comments in total)

There is a good photo in there somewhere - but IMHO it's not the one shown. The whole "balance makes it appealing" does in fact overpower any impact the photo may have had and watered it down to insignificance.
Let me explain:
You got too many foreground elements competing with each other, the mountains in the backdrop are (due to the extreme wide angle) small and insignificant and the sky just looks fake.
What I would have done in your place would have been to identify the items that have the most interest - for me that would be the patterns in the sand and the reflection of the mountains in the lake/sea - I would have used a normal wide angle lens and the top of the frame would have been the horizon line cut off by the mountains with only the mountain reflection beneath visible and the striking geometric forms in the sand leading up to them. That's it. The sky: gone, the mountains themselves: gone, the extremely annoying boulder in the left: gone.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 14:40 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Lipstick on a chubby pig.

Mhhhh, bacon....

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 09:59 UTC
On article Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (209 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Just wondering if this video sponsored (i.e. paid for) by Canon? The description is not clear.

In what way have Sony or Nikon innovated? Do they have anything like the full sensor PD capability of the 70D or 7DII? Nope. Do they have something as innovative like the flicker synchronisation of the 7DII? Nope, nothing, nada, zilch, nichts!

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 19:15 UTC
Total: 149, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »