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: 224, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
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.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 11:18 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.

The AF of the 7DII is in another league compared to the 70D or original 7D - it allows for focusing at f/8, it works down to -3 EV, it covers a much much larger area - those three alone are enough to elevate the AF to a new level of performance. Then there is the improved autofocus algorithm, the iTR (which is only available on the 1Dx). I suggest you read http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-II-1D-X-5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx and stop talking rubbish...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 09:06 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Clouds over Skagsanden article (116 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.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 18:44 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Clouds over Skagsanden article (116 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.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 14:40 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Lipstick on a chubby pig.

Mhhhh, bacon....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 09:59 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (195 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!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 19:15 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

@Chronis, you are forgetting a small disaster that claimed thousands of lives and ruined a whole region of Japan - this has set back all companies in that region of the world by years.
And the 7DII is that body that makes you feel the need to buy irrespective of the glass - because it hit's all the right notes. It's fast, it has the buffer to back it up, it's sturdy, it has revolutionary features like the flicker sync hitherto unseen from anyone. To whom is it catching up? The Nikon D7100 which can't hold it's own against the 70D? The Sony A77II with it's 0.27 seconds viewfinder blackout and only usable 8 fps?
Go ahead and sell your Canon gear. With what lenses will you pair up the Samsung? Not much available there. Or the end of the line Sony (the A77 II is the final hooray in their fast focusing line).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 18:40 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

@Chronis, what is your beef with the Canon 7DII body? What do you think you'll be getting over the 7DII when you buy another system? One thing is for sure, in the APS-C range you won't get any better than the 7DII by quite a margin...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 15:15 UTC
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (125 comments in total)

Two useless/detrimental filters and a CPL. Why not something else useful like a set of ND filters?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 08:09 UTC as 3rd comment
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

WatsonPhoto: Objectivity is the key here. There has been a lot of press about the 7D II; both good and bad. Interesting video as I always like to look at pro work. Back to reality. I always like to look at what my Canon 7D/5D III friends are shooting and D800/D810 users are doing. (sorry dont know Sony people) I dug back into the archives for some D300 images from 2009. The 7D II images are very similar. The noise is similar to original film grain when you crank the ISO. Very nice look; but not what I am expecting in 2014. I love my Canon, Nikon and Panasonic bodies but this Canon does not cut the mustard. If Canon were to outsource the sensor they would have a home run/grand slam camera.

Most of the noise you see is almost only photon shot noise in the 7DII at higher ISO levels - so when you see less noise at higher ISO then there is more noise reduction in play...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 08:07 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2702 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaykumarr: To me images look very nice, clean with good white balance, good sharpness, moderate saturation.

Canon Engineers must have traded off some resolution for video, since they added little pixels in sensor for better AF during video. The result is slightly less resolution, but better video and higher FPS due to saved MP size. anyway great job.

@Jaykumarr, that's exactly what they did, the sensor has 20 Mp but each cell is divided into two halves that can be read individually for focusing purposes. For the image taking process these two cell halves are joined up again. This incurs no losses in resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 17:30 UTC
Total: 224, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »