Scott Eaton

Scott Eaton

Lives in United States grand rapids, United States
Joined on Sep 20, 2005
About me:



Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2701 comments in total)

As a current Canon owner that has vowed never to buy another Canon dSLR again there's nothing in this preview that has changed my mind. Looking at the side by sides of the 7D 'Service Pack II' -vs- the Nikon 7100 I am still utterly astonished at how the Canon gets away with such trivial I.Q. improvements and yet their fan base keeps marching forward. If you objectively look at RAW side by sides the 7100 only falls behind in high ISO noise, but still has a significant lead in detail and color resolution. Plus, the 7D SP II *still* sludges high gamut reds like the 7D and 60D before it.

If you go to DR Resource the difference in detail between the two cameras is even more astonishing. I give credit to Canon for improving the noise floor, but it was dismal to begin with in the 7D and 60D.

To which Canon fans are going to slam my comments, but I stand behind my observations. If you are a soccer dad who likes to claim to be a pro while living in FB it's the perfect machine - like the 7D.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 21:05 UTC as 108th comment | 15 replies
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

More 'craft and art' nonsense from the anti digital crowd posing on a digital forum. 99.999% of the users of this junk product will use a film scanner 'digital camera' to reproduce the images. That's....stupid...and horrendously illogical. Akin to people who use drawing as an example to program a robot to do it for them in raster. At least I had experience not only manually cross processing film but then printing via optical enlargers and chemical papers which was a joy dialing in a neutral print with a conventional dichro set. We had no other alternative, and we sure as hell would go digital if we could have,

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:48 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)

Cool for hipsters, hypocrites and college art major drop-outs that say they prefer to 'work with film than digital cameras', then will use a digital camera (film scanner) to post the images on their computer.

At least in another life I would cross process and directly / optically print on C-type paper, and did so for some very pricey commercial clients. Results were sometimes cool, and sometimes weird in a Warhol kind of way. This stuff is a solution looking for a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:41 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?


No, the scanner profile, if properly designated for the film will adjust. This creates two problems; first, the orange mask varies between color neg film types, second, the compensation for the orange mask reduces density range in the film. Another reason slide film lacking these masks work better. The orange mask is a legacy concern anyways. Nobody prints with halogen light sources anymore.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:36 UTC

I shoot a lot of landscapes and haven't used a 'polariser' in years. I do realize their benefits, but their need is aesthetically quite narrow...aside from killing annoying glare on reflective surfaces for commercial work at times. Often the 'free glare' version in landscape work is often the more preferable.

In other respects, lunking around a 105mm filter when your lenses are smaller threaded makes no sense. Using a warming filter on a digital camera makes less sense. Most of the comments below trying to justify warming filters are from the same people that would use warming or color adjustment filters with print film because they we're too ignorant to realize lab printing nullifies the effect.

AWB in digital cameras also nullifies the warming effect. Perhaps Lee should include a recipe for ice cubes in the box as well.

So, unless you're still shooting tranny film this is a near pointless product,

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:29 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On Fujifilm X-T1 Review preview (630 comments in total)

I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?

Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.

DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 20:22 UTC as 88th comment | 12 replies
On Canon EOS 70D Review preview (681 comments in total)

Looking at the comparison shots objectively I'm not sure how anybody working on a real monitor can't see the improvements over the 7D and 60D. Those saying it's not improvement over the 60D need to stop surfing with their Androids and use a real computer. Color accuracy has also improved with the 70D...something 7D fanatics don't comprehend.

What's also obvious is while the 70D has made substantial improvement with high ISO noise the camera lags the 7100 by a rather substantial margin in all other areas, especially just plain detail. Typical 'smudgy' Canon sensor surprise.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 02:47 UTC as 118th comment | 3 replies
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)

One of my biggest gripes about my 60D is it's bad habit of blowing strong reds, which Dx0 confirmed in their sensor tests and can be illustrated on Dpreview's test studio scene. I hate to agree with 70D defenders, but I'm seeing a marked improvement in the 70D over the 60D, in terms of noise floor and especially color accuracy. Not sure what Dx0 is testing, but the tests I'm seeing here do show an improved sensor over the 7D and 60D, and not just results only visible by pixel peepers.

Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 02:49 UTC as 188th comment
On Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.
Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.
I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference.
Thanx for sharing!

With all due respect, get a life. Anytime old photographs are displayed on Dpreview we have an onslaught of film zealots picking away at digital -vs- analog and otherwise using their computer to complain about computers. Seriously, unplug, and go away.

Fact is, that many years ago photographers had little choice in what options to use, and had a dSLR been available -vs- kodachrome they likely would have picked a dSLR.

As it is, it took a film scanner (a digital camera that takes pictures of film) and several computers to transpose these images into a medium (digital) than others can view (digital internet). This was the only way to get these images away from the shoebox / archive they were stored in. It's uttery hypocritical to glorify a medium which was so difficult to reproduce to be seen by the masses while at the same time complimenting their ultimate display. There's a reason most people don't think color tranny existed in the early part of the 20th century, and this is why.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Poweruser: Still not sure where the point is with wide-gamut screens?

95%+ of users cant see any difference because their devices run SRGB at best (often times uncalibrated), think of tablets, phones, all Macs, etc.

Also, you cant "print" Adobe RGB.

No, you're wrong. If you really think a matte based print made from pigment ink and displayed under typical room lighting exceeds the gamut range of a backlit monitor you're stoned. In order to truly exceed the color range of sRGB a print needs to be on reflective or coated media and displayed under a light source as bright if not brighter than open sunlight. Reflective media like ink-jet prints are calibrated with densitometers, and these densitometers have very intense light sources built in. In order to reproduce the color range that you see in those fancy 3-D color maps your room light needs to match the spectral range and intensity of the calibration tool that's reading the print, and it's not practical. This is why 95% of the print industry is still sRGB an those 5% mucking around with other color spaces aren't producing anything additional in a print we can see. AdobeRGB is otherwise nothing more than an abstract when it comes to printing.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 13:12 UTC

I'm clicking around the DPREVIEW studio scene comparing the 6D and the D600 and trying to keep an objective mind. While the 6D is doing a very good job in some things like dynamic range in shadows, what's just as obvious is how it's the same old Canon in terms of purple slanted blues, reds more orange than red, and anemic yellows. Beginning to wonder if Canon is reducing the density of their CMOS color filters to play keep up with Nikon / Sony. In fact, some of the color rendition differences are quite startling, but Canon users just don't seem to take color accuracy very seriously.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 04:18 UTC as 19th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Francis Carver: I guess this thing is okay for taking stills, not so good for videography, though.

1. No functioning viewfinder in video mode.

2. H.264 codec.

3. No 1080p60 video recording ($250 cameras have that feature now, Canon!!!!)

4. Mono audio only.

5. No external microphone input possibility (as per specs listed here).

NOTE: specs say nothing about any external microphone connectivity, although on the image of the camera, there is a little door with a MIC logo on it, don't know what that is, as the door is closed, he-he-he.

6. No headphone jack.

Gotta look elsewhere, dang....

Anybody who thinks 4:2:2 video (Canon) is appropriate for professional standards is obviously not a pro. Canon is too busy protecting their upper tier pro video market to care.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

Rodrigo Sandoval: Do you know what's the 6D bitrate for video?

It's 4:2:2, so what does it matter because it's terrible. {shrug}

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 03:50 UTC
On The DSLR Field Camera article (180 comments in total)

Been using pano stitching for years, starting with my 10D to get 5K-10K dimension images for large printing. These techniques are really superb for creating high rez images for either DPI considerations or large murals. Integration with the latest versions of PS really helps as well and that's pretty much what I stick with.

By combining multiple shots in the 'Z' axis before stitching you can increase DOF via focus stacking, or even some HDR treatment. Pana stitching doesn't have to limited to X-Y treatment.

Biggest headache I've found with pano stitching is dealing with registration issues with water, etc. Also, the printing you are using seriously determines the advantages of super high DPI -vs- interpolation. RA-4 printers just don't show much advantage above 150dpi while ink-jets hit diminishing returns above 250 or so. Programs like PhotoAcute should also be discussed, but it's obvious you guys want to bicker about Nikon -vs- Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 27, 2012 at 21:30 UTC as 26th comment
On Canon EOS 6D sample images added to hands-on preview article (252 comments in total)

Nice to know that Canon is still using the same engine that blows reds and produces mushy colors that rival 1998 consumer print film.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 01:48 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

One of the most annoying aspects of the Canon 7D / 60D's I've used is how the camera's 'sludge-up' strong colors, particularly reds or colors consisting of intense reds. Drives me nuts when shooting macro work and trying to reproduce those with any kind of gamut range or detail. You can see this with the simple studio comparisons right here and how the K5IIs *doesn't* do this compared to all the Canon APS-C cameras. Along with at least a stop of lattitude in the basement, and a few orders of magnitude less noise, yadda, yadda, yadda. In terms of I.Q., I'll happily take those over extreme scenario moire'. My fellow Canon users will still stick their thumbs in their ears though and scream "I can't hear you". Well done Pentax. That's a serious amount of detail from that sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 23:52 UTC as 8th comment
On Canon EOS 6D preview (1035 comments in total)

Canon is only releasing this camera as a 'hack' to stem the upper-market bleeding to Nikon, and everybody knows it. While from a Canon system owner perspective this is all well and good, the brutal fact is that products released in such a reactionary fashion have never been strong. This also create a bigger problem with all subsequent releases of future Canon FF cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2012 at 21:31 UTC as 116th comment
On Canon EOS 6D preview (1035 comments in total)
In reply to:

Intra65: This is a great camera for both video and photography. Yes I know its lacking AF points but look if you want a camera for fast shooting this isn't for you, get a 7D and stop complaining. As videographer this is a great camera and even better than Nikon D600. This camera has a new Intra and Inter frame video compressiion (all-i and IBP) with higher bit-rate compared to Nikon D600 with AVCHD B-Frame which is the reason behind Nikon having uncompressed HDMI out. If you don't know what I'm talking about go research it. Look it's all about preferences and 6D is more appealing to me than Nikon D600 or even 5Dmk2. FYI Nikon D600 has crazy Moire and Aliasing pattern which to me is useless for semi professional video and you can't change the aperture in live view mode.

Being stuck with 4:2:0 is 'useless' for professional video if you ask a legitimate 'professional'. You can keep frame-rate voodo while I'd rather have 75% of my color data back that was just chucked out the window because Canon doesn't want to offend their over priced HD camera and Cine dSLR market. Higher bit rates of crap still equals crap, IMHO

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2012 at 21:25 UTC

I learned zone system in college from a protege' who learned directly under Adams. Zone system was a means to and ends, not the other way around as Ansel worshippers here are trying to tell us. It was also practiced by the commercial printing industry in different form and merely applied to chemical photography by Adams. Adam's didn't invent the discipline from ground zero if you ask any retired pre-press tech. The end goal of Zone System was to produce a print with aethestically linear values that were under control by the photographer from the exposure stage, to the printing stage. The problem is that the majority of photogs don't print anymore and don't process film. What's left is some relevant disciplines towards tonal control, but if you really need to understand this from a zone system perspective, which is print orientated you likely don't get it anyways. However, it might give you confidence to make insulting comments about digital photography not being as good as film, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 15:41 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

{ Continued} If a $150 Plustek and 35mm film is your vision of quality, the D600 is outside your context. 35mm film and a Plustek woulnd't be considered seriously in the quality standards prior to 2000. Your results are not great, and you dont have more dynamic range with consumer film than RAW extracted digital. I know betetr than to ask for samples.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 03:08 UTC
Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »