•  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15(current)
  • 16
  • 17
  • ...
  • 20
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nikon Z launched
Well BC, sometimes you appear to me as if you have to search and search until you find something to balance the poor noise and high ISO performance of high resolving Canon sensors. When I was comparing DPreview's sensor charts, a couple of Canons showed simply the worst noise perfomance, no matter if shadows were pulled 6 stops - which sometimes can be necessary - or "only" 4 stops.

And as Sony, Olympus, Panasonic or Fuji as experienced manufacturers of MILC don't have banding or striping issues these days, also Nikon can find a way to overcome it, be it via Firmware or with another model lateron. You're looking for flea hair in a big bowl of rather tasty, but not exciting soup and behave as if the photographic world will end very soon. And don't blame Sony: It was Canon's 5D sensor which showed so much visible banding in the shadows that users switched over to Nikon because they were fed up of excuses. There I could see the stripes - with the Z7 it's apparently a bit tougher to produce them.

And if it comes to the worst, Nikon will exchange the sensor. They have quite a history with fialures and bugs, but they often showed repsonsibility and tried their best to fix the crap.
Well JoJu, I have like NO interest in the Canon 5Ds, because of the price and the poor high ISO performance (noise). So you can blahblah all you want, I know that I can't point to serious sensor flaws on here without Klaus, you and others blame it on me using Canon. Says more about you than me.
I did not deny the Canon 5D mk II black blown highlights issue until it was resolved, I did not ignore the Sony SLT ghost lights issue, the Fuji blown highlight discs issue with the 1st gen X cameras, the D750 mirror box issue nor now the Sony sensor PD AF lines issue. Fuji has its own purple grid/lines issues, I won't deny those either.

And yes, I can type it a 100 times: I do not care at all about pulling shadows many stops.I do not get that unattractive fad. So, do I care if whichever camera/brand/sensor shows blotches/noise banding/noiser results than another when pulling shadows many stops? No.

Sony has a SERIOUS striping issue (some models affected way worse than others), no idea why you claim it has none. The only "overcoming" that has been done about it is that a professor who posts on dpreview has developed a masking cure for affected Sony compressed RAW images, and offers it as a upload-your-RAW-image online tool.
http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/camera...ssues.html
https://photographylife.com/sony-mirrorless-problems

You seem to not understand that it is not a faulty sensor issue, it is a "the masked PD AF pixel lines on the sensor show up when light hits the sensor in certain ways" issue, not solvable by a "sensor replacement".
You do not have to care that the sensor works the way it works, but stop blaming everything on me using a Canon camera.
"Sony has a SERIOUS striping issue (some models affected way worse than others), no idea why you claim it has none."

Then I wonder why there's no visible banding in the comparison? I don't blame you for using Canon, but I blame you for ignoring that the ability fo pulling shadows up if necessary. It seems like a plea "I don't need that, because it's fad." It's not, if done properly, but keep on ignoring it.
I finally found this elusive Z7 banding issue after putting on my glasses.....very fine, but there......it's not like a lot of wide banding and isn't difficult to remove, more like "hatching" really.

Nothing at all like the D7100's banding......which was coarse and easily visible.....forum users said "you had to look hard to find it".....but in any sort of sunset shoot produced it in the dark horizons, for me that made it a flawed camera.......I was glad to find the D500/D750 doesn't do it.......it was simply horrible!

The Z7 is more of a "search long enough and you will find" I'm not sure to what size you have to print to see it at all?.......

The sensor is a quiet back side variety with PDCDAF, so there is the possibility of issues in certain lighting......but at this stage of the game I would expect and hope Nikon will fine tuning all these little pesky micro bugs with a steady flow of FW updates, this is Nikon's first sortie into ML.....overall they have done a remarkable job.
Canon have been doing PDCDAF sensors for years......so I'm not sure what their excuse is?

Still it gave BC the opportunity to waive at least a tiny flag.........something that Canon users haven't often had a chance to do over the last few years.....
Dave's clichés
(10-03-2018, 07:48 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: "Sony has a SERIOUS striping issue (some models affected way worse than others), no idea why you claim it has none."

Then I wonder why there's no visible banding in the comparison? I don't blame you for using Canon, but I blame you for ignoring that the ability fo pulling shadows up if necessary. It seems like a plea "I don't need that, because it's fad." It's not, if done properly, but keep on ignoring it.

Which comparison are you referring to, JoJu?

I will say it again. The Sony PD AF striping issue is NOT a noise from lifting shadows many stops issue. Your confusion about that is probably to blame on martind86's post which linked to a Nikon D750 vs 5D mk IV many stops shadow pulling contest, which has zero to do with what can occur with the Nikon Z sensor.

The stripes issue (a Sony live view ("mirrorless") PD AF thing) has to do with light at certain angles shows the masking of PD AF pixel lines. Sometimes becoming (more) visible when brightening the file, sometimes clearly visible when using the standard tonal curve.

Whether it may affect images you take depends on many things: the (wide) angle of the lens, or the big aperture (Sony 85mm f1.8 often reported?), the way/amount of back light(s).

And now the Nikon Z7 shows this Sony ill too, according to front page reporting by DPReview.

(10-03-2018, 07:58 AM)davidmanze Wrote: I finally found this elusive Z7 banding issue after putting on my glasses.....very fine, but there......it's not like a lot of wide banding and isn't difficult to remove, more like "hatching" really.

     Nothing at all like the D7100's banding......which was coarse and easily visible.....forum users said "you had to look hard to find it".....but in any sort of sunset shoot produced it in the dark horizons, for me that made it a flawed camera.......I was glad to find the D500/D750 doesn't do it.......it was simply horrible!

     The Z7 is more of a "search long enough and you will find" I'm not sure to what size you have to print to see it at all?.......

   The sensor is a quiet back side variety with PDCDAF, so there is the possibility of issues in certain lighting......but at this stage of the game I would expect and hope Nikon will fine tuning all these little pesky micro bugs with a steady flow of FW updates, this is Nikon's first sortie into ML.....overall they have done a remarkable job.
   Canon have been doing PDCDAF sensors for years......so I'm not sure what their excuse is?

     Still it gave BC the opportunity to waive at least a tiny flag.........something that Canon users haven't often had a chance to do over the last few years.....

There is no FW to update on this issue, Dave. It does not affect all images, and is not a firmware issue.
"Canon have been doing PDCDAF sensors for years......so I'm not sure what their excuse is?"
Excuse for what?
You don't even get dave's irony, BC Big Grin

I think, he tried to tell you "Canon can do it right, so it's doable"  It's difficult to translate irony, but it's like "what Canon's excuse is for not failing like the others" - and I'm sure this sort of humour is not your cup of tea, no offense.

And thanks for the explanation, you were right, I didn't understand the banding at highlights. I really didn't follow Sony forums and read the first time about this "issue". You know, I have some Sigam cameras. At the right (or wrong) angle their sensors go crazy in backlit situations.

The sample picture of DPReview Klaus was referring to shows a couple of other flaws as well, so it's really nothing I would print or hang to a wall. Which leads to the question "can I imagine similar pictures in similar circumstances which would lead to a presentable shot?" And I have to say "not at the moment". In fact, sensor weaknesses never ruined any picture I found worth to present, my own limits in composition or post-processing come sooner.
"The stripes issue (a Sony live view ("mirrorless") PD AF thing) has to do with light at certain angles shows the masking of PD AF pixel lines. Sometimes becoming (more) visible when brightening the file, sometimes clearly visible when using the standard tonal curve"

Exactly. all these PDCDAF sensors will have it....it's a function/drawback of the sensor.......so it doesn't serve to compare different PDCDAF sensors as it's inherent in the design.

.......If you want to avoid it buy a Nikon with it's clunky LV CDAF only, the D750/F850 doesn't suffer from it......

.........There's life in the old DSLR yet!

"Canon have been doing PDCDAF sensors for years......so I'm not sure what their excuse is?"

"Excuse for what?"

The excuse for giving me the opportunity to tease you a little BC!
Dave's clichés
(10-03-2018, 08:17 AM)davidmanze Wrote: ...
If you want to avoid it buy a Nikon with it's clunky LV CDAF only, the D750/F850 doesn't suffer from it.

There's life in the old DSLR yet!

then you still have to make an ungrateful decision:

You go in LV and if you manage to focus the tree until it looses all leaves, you can release a shutter button, wait until the shutter closes, the mirror is out of the way, shutter shutters his shattering work and hope that no new tree has grown in the meantime.

Or you can go with electronic shutter. Immediate "shutter" action, no mirror ballet, but the risk of banding or rolling shutter symptons (especially on fast moving trees in neon light)

Or you can think, skip that electrickery and pull your watercolour paint box out of your bag.
Ungrateful decision??

For the moment I'm grateful to not have to run out and spend 4,000 + euros!.......

Seriously, back a few years when many were calling for Nikon to implement PDCDAF in their DSLRs, they were heard to say they didn't want to do it because of the effects of the PD aspect of the sensor......so we never had decent smooth AF in live view, however the CDAF was medium fast albeit jerky.
Panasonic are not taking the PDAF sensor path and we will have to see where that goes....as in the ML world the rest are on a level playing field.

The situation tree wise here is painful to watch with the "Chancre dorée" killing all the platanes........if only a LV shot could produce another tree for every exposure!
Dave's clichés
(10-03-2018, 07:37 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: And yes, I can type it a 100 times: I do not care at all about pulling shadows many stops.I do not get that unattractive fad. So, do I care if whichever camera/brand/sensor shows blotches/noise banding/noiser results than another when pulling shadows many stops? No.


 I'm sorry but this is downright arrogance. Just the fact that you cannot drive Porsche to its full potential doesn't mean it is a useless sport car or "just a fad". The fact that you yourself are not able to use the dynamic range creatively in no way proves it is not highly important for many photographers who are able to really take a full benefit of this possibility. So no, it is neither fad nor a secondary sensor feature, it is actually one on the key sensor aspects for many which translates to much more flexibility in post-processing. When used properly, it eliminates the need of using external lights in many cases, it is also highly important for landscape shooters and it allows to draw complex scenes in detail with both highlights and deep shadows. Also, selective adjustments with high DR open many new creative possibilities and no, I'm not talking about "painting in Photoshop" - I'm talking about creative photography.

In general, there is no question the more dynamic range in the sensor, the better. The highest ideal is to have sensors with the range of human eye which is about 20 stops if I can remember correctly. For now, certainly having 14,5 stops (D750) or almost 15 stops (D850) at your disposal is much better for practical use than the rather poor 11,9 (6D mark II) when post-processing RAW files, I think that is out of question. 

All the time I have a feeling that you just need to blindly defend your choice. I have never said 6D is a bad camera unable to take great pictures in skilled hands, better than unsklilled hands with D850 for instance. But please try to be a bit more objective with your views. We are all photographers or photo enthusiast in the end and we should have something in common - that "something" shoud be "guild pride". 

Have a nice day.
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15(current)
  • 16
  • 17
  • ...
  • 20
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)