Igor R.
Senior Member
Canon's samples was much better, looks like new EOS is only for good light.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
1Ds samples by Phil: too noisy, and crapy colors :(
- Thread starter Igor R.
- Start date
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Oh dear here we go again. Extrapolating wildly from next to no evidence, prejudices full steam ahead.
It's interesting to see the first samples from a new camera but a proper evaluation can only be done under consistent, controlled conditions. Wait for the full reviews come out before making your mind up about any of these new cameras. It's called science not wishful thinking...
It's interesting to see the first samples from a new camera but a proper evaluation can only be done under consistent, controlled conditions. Wait for the full reviews come out before making your mind up about any of these new cameras. It's called science not wishful thinking...
P
Phil Askey
Guest
Graham3
Active member
Bulletin: Film is only for "good" light too.
"Good" is not in the list of the 7 qualities of light.
That being - contrast,unevenness,colour,intensity,direction and quality.
I suppose he means intensity. Pretty vague comment anyways.
I you wanna accept "good" in a general sense then its the same for film.
It's the light stup.....
Phil:
Did you get model releases from the wedding party? Was that a wedding you and Joann were hired to shoot, a photo op you found in Cologne while over there? Or was it a staged wedding with models as part of the Photokina event to test new equipment with?
Did you get model releases from the wedding party? Was that a wedding you and Joann were hired to shoot, a photo op you found in Cologne while over there? Or was it a staged wedding with models as part of the Photokina event to test new equipment with?
ianR
Veteran Member
It's a bit much for anyone to make the excuse that the light was bad. Some of these pictures have a shutter speed over 1/1000 and one has a speed of 1/5000. And I'm not blaming the photographer either.
I suppose I expected to see something really amazing from a $9000 camera with L glass.
They really are nothing special apart from the size, and yes I know that this is a beta camera, but how much is going to change before production? Apart from the size of the sensor this is tested technology isn't it?
regards
Ian
I suppose I expected to see something really amazing from a $9000 camera with L glass.
They really are nothing special apart from the size, and yes I know that this is a beta camera, but how much is going to change before production? Apart from the size of the sensor this is tested technology isn't it?
regards
Ian
P
Phil Askey
Guest
It was my cousin's wedding. No, I didn't get releases.. Nobody would mind and if they did I can take the image down.
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Some interesting tautology here! How can "quality" be a quality of light?!
I'd prefer:
1. Intensity (brightness)
2. Size of source (diffused or point) - which gives the contrast
3. Direction (overhead v grazing)
4. Colour
5. polarisation
I'd prefer:
1. Intensity (brightness)
2. Size of source (diffused or point) - which gives the contrast
3. Direction (overhead v grazing)
4. Colour
5. polarisation
Graham3
Active member
I'm happy you find it interesting.
I suppose you may have your preferences and thats OK.
But - academically - as I said - there are 7 and only 7 possible qualities of light.
The last one I mentioned is #7 = quality. Yes - that is correct - quality.
Yes - intensity is brightness.
But size of source is one of the aspects of quality.
Distance of source from subject in another.
Contrast which is not soley determined by source characteristics is
how much light gets into areas that are not directly exposed to the main source. That can be altered with reflectors or additional lights. So Contrast and Quality are two distinctly different qualities ( or aspects if you prefer )of light.
Direction is simply direction. No explanation needed.
Colour is the colour temperature of the light. Pretty straightforward.
I suppose that polarization could be added as an 8th quality/aspect of light if it's applied before it gets to the suject ( at the light source ).
Your list fails to note the very important characteristics of eveness.
I hope this info is helpfull.
Anyways - to get back on track - Asking a camera to do well with bad light
is not sensible.
Having good/adequate light on the subject is part of the job of the photographer and lighting may need to be added and controlled for a good image.
A camera just records the iamge. It dosn't "make it".
If you have bad light ( I assume you mean low intensity light ) then your image will suffer be it film or digital.
This may change in the future.
But for now the Canon 11MP is probably the best 35mm imagemaker in existance right now ( be it digital or film ).
Although Kodak B+W ISO 25 Technical Pan probably has more resolving power given the lens and processing of the film are up to it.
I suppose you may have your preferences and thats OK.
But - academically - as I said - there are 7 and only 7 possible qualities of light.
The last one I mentioned is #7 = quality. Yes - that is correct - quality.
Yes - intensity is brightness.
But size of source is one of the aspects of quality.
Distance of source from subject in another.
Contrast which is not soley determined by source characteristics is
how much light gets into areas that are not directly exposed to the main source. That can be altered with reflectors or additional lights. So Contrast and Quality are two distinctly different qualities ( or aspects if you prefer )of light.
Direction is simply direction. No explanation needed.
Colour is the colour temperature of the light. Pretty straightforward.
I suppose that polarization could be added as an 8th quality/aspect of light if it's applied before it gets to the suject ( at the light source ).
Your list fails to note the very important characteristics of eveness.
I hope this info is helpfull.
Anyways - to get back on track - Asking a camera to do well with bad light
is not sensible.
Having good/adequate light on the subject is part of the job of the photographer and lighting may need to be added and controlled for a good image.
A camera just records the iamge. It dosn't "make it".
If you have bad light ( I assume you mean low intensity light ) then your image will suffer be it film or digital.
This may change in the future.
But for now the Canon 11MP is probably the best 35mm imagemaker in existance right now ( be it digital or film ).
Although Kodak B+W ISO 25 Technical Pan probably has more resolving power given the lens and processing of the film are up to it.
I'd prefer:
1. Intensity (brightness)
2. Size of source (diffused or point) - which gives the contrast
3. Direction (overhead v grazing)
4. Colour
5. polarisation
Igor R.
Senior Member
Well, the word the "noisy" is not so vague! That means noise is visible enough.
What about crapy colors, it seems like there is too much green on the photo of the man with video camera.
What about "good bokeh" well, it has nothing to do with the sensor or firmware, its all about lens.
Igor R.
Senior Member
I guess Phil is not allowed to make money with the preproduction sample camera, it is only for reviews.
P
Phil Askey
Guest
It was a relative, unpaid.. I don't do paid photography work, nor does Jo.
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
Igor R.
Senior Member
Yeah, me too, but remember those bulky Kodaks for $30,000 few years ago? Price does'nt really mean anything. Selfprice of the materials spent to produce the camera is alot cheaper than the final market product. If Mercedes that you can buy for $40,000 has self price of about 4-5 thousand bux, everithing else is taxes, and money that dealers puts in their pocket.
Changes usually are not significant, maybe better noise redution algorythm.
Igor R.
Senior Member
So what is your primaty income, if its ain't a secret? Only banners?
Graham3
Active member
Well after reviewing those photos - I must say he has a penchant for taking them from about 8 feet with too small an f stop for starters. Too narrow depth of field on a lot of em - like the cat.
Also the light is crappy in almost all of em.
The only good photo is the old man with glasses shot.
This stuff won't really show how good the camera is to those that don't recognize that the photographer wasn't paying attention to the light.
Graham3
Active member
Also the close up of the flowers against the dress has camera motion blur in it. It's not sharp - but its not the cameras fault.
The little girl with backlight shows he shuda used a hand meter.
I'm sorry but these images show the limitations of the photographer not the camera.
Thanks for posting them anyways - It gives us some idea.
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
I am glad you did those wedding images and then shared them. Most of your subjects concern themselves with daily picture taking that is never within my scope. The wedding subjects quickly give me the idea that it can all be done with this camera without having a to rethink my purchase.
The images look very nice and after some USM of the man with the glasses and the red rose, I am amazed at how clean the images already are without any work. The resolution chart indicates that we are ready for the next generation of test charts, the image is smooth and without aparent halos due to exagerated sharpening.
I suggest 5 of these charts in a square with the center section being the fifth chart. That would allow us to use the same numbers on the chart but multiplied by two.
Rinus of Calgary
The images look very nice and after some USM of the man with the glasses and the red rose, I am amazed at how clean the images already are without any work. The resolution chart indicates that we are ready for the next generation of test charts, the image is smooth and without aparent halos due to exagerated sharpening.
I suggest 5 of these charts in a square with the center section being the fifth chart. That would allow us to use the same numbers on the chart but multiplied by two.
Rinus of Calgary
rick decker
Forum Pro
Hey Igor...you get off on the stuff? How much do you make a year and what is your net worth?
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Hi
I have added this paragraph after I initially annotated your comments:
After I added my comments below I realised there is clearly a misunderstanding. My comments about light are related to physical features of light sources that make sense in terms of electromagnetic theory.
Your 7 qualities of light as you express them are obviously something else as some of them don't really have a physical, scientific meaning.
You make it sound as if they were a well recognised list. Can you explain the origin of that particular terminology?
This makes no sense in terms of the physics of light. Light has a colour (wavelength/frequency), intensity (amplitude), polarisation (angle of plane vibration). It also has a source so it will have a direction of travel. The size of the light source greatly effects this as point sources have a single well defined direction whilst diffuse sources don't.
"quality" simply has no technical meaning to me in this context. It sounds more like a personal subjective term. What physical units is quality measured in?
By Introducing additional lights or reflectors you change the character of the reflected light bouncing back from the subject but you are no longer discussing the "qualities" of a light source but of the subject lit by a combination of multiple light sources.
All other light sources are a mix of frequencies and how this defines colour is very much tied up in the operation of the eye.
The sensation of Yellow for instance can be induced by seeing yellow monochromatic light or a mix of blue and green light...same sensation but different physical light sources.
I have added this paragraph after I initially annotated your comments:
After I added my comments below I realised there is clearly a misunderstanding. My comments about light are related to physical features of light sources that make sense in terms of electromagnetic theory.
Your 7 qualities of light as you express them are obviously something else as some of them don't really have a physical, scientific meaning.
You make it sound as if they were a well recognised list. Can you explain the origin of that particular terminology?
This makes no sense in terms of the physics of light. Light has a colour (wavelength/frequency), intensity (amplitude), polarisation (angle of plane vibration). It also has a source so it will have a direction of travel. The size of the light source greatly effects this as point sources have a single well defined direction whilst diffuse sources don't.
I just don't agree with this statement - you would never get a physicist to accept that "quality" is a physically measureable term. The only "quality" I can think of is Q the measure of resonance and perhaps the "quality" or "timbre" in music which is basically about the mix of harmonics in sound.
"quality" simply has no technical meaning to me in this context. It sounds more like a personal subjective term. What physical units is quality measured in?
OK
No, size of the source is related only to the direction of the light
Distance has nothing to do with "quality" it simply influences intensity (inverse square law)
Contrast is a very ambiguous term. It is oftemn defined as the ratio between the intensity of the darkest and lightest parts of a scene so it applies to light reflected back from a subject not to the light source itself. A light source cannot have contrast, rather the subject it illuminates manifests contrast.
By Introducing additional lights or reflectors you change the character of the reflected light bouncing back from the subject but you are no longer discussing the "qualities" of a light source but of the subject lit by a combination of multiple light sources.
You still haven't explained "quality" - you make it sound like a compound of several factors which means it is not a fundamental characteristic of light at all...
Agreed.
Colour is not straight forward at all. Monochromatic (laser) light has a fixed frequency/wavelength which allows it to be precisely defined along the visible spectrum.
All other light sources are a mix of frequencies and how this defines colour is very much tied up in the operation of the eye.
The sensation of Yellow for instance can be induced by seeing yellow monochromatic light or a mix of blue and green light...same sensation but different physical light sources.
Polarisation is a fundamental physical property of light and thus absolutely defines a characteristic of light. It has nothing to with photgrapher filters - starlight can be polarised by magnetic fields etc. Polarisation is so fundamental you can modulate it to carry signals...
Evenness means absolutely nothing - it is not a physical property of light like frequency, wavelength,intensity, polarisation etc is it is again a property of light reflected from a surface not a characteristic of a light source itself.
Igor R.
Senior Member
I'm not asking, how much does he earn, I'm just asking if the web site can give enough money, for not having another job.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum