Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1Ds3 mini review  (Read 14727 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2007, 07:53:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A year ago I had my 5D modified by MaxMax and have never regretted having the AA filter removed (for landscapes/nature) No problem with the sharpening plugins you just use a lower setting with better results. My point is every one complains about Canons strong AA filters but if it is an issue you can easily have it removed and a visible light bandpass filter installed. Not a big deal, BTW all the raw converters/plugins handle the files fine. If you like the MFDB look (no AA filter) you can have that look in the Canon for $450. So with a years positive experience with a modified 5D I donít see it as a major issue. You want a sharper raw file, modify your camera, you want a soft raw file donít modify your camera, simple. After sharpening the difference is small but noticeable, a small improvement. I now have 1 week of experience with a P30 and still prefer the look of a sensor without a AA filter. The modification is reversible I have the original AA filter/bandpass filter in the canon box if needed. As far as testing it for moirť yes some times it is apparent and with a little Gaussian blur (around a pixel) you corrected the occasional problem. If you were always shooting fashion of course you wouldn't consider the mod.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marc, very interesting - this is the first actual user report I've seen of the results from doing that. I was on the Maxmax website some weeks ago and noticed that while they offer this service for the 5D, they do not offer it for the *1* series cameras. I wonder why. Perhaps they have not invested in one of these expensive cameras to actually try it - there are build differences between the models. Before they offer this service on a 1Ds MKIII they would need to buy one and take the risk of trying to remove and replace it. Could be interesting to get in touch with them and ask about it.

I have no basis to question your observation about the difference in the results with versus with the AA filter, and it stands to reason; but one also needs to ask, in light of the comments Ray made about the relationship between higher resolution and lower acutance, whether the AA filter is the critical determinant of the need for heavier sharpening with the MkIII.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2007, 08:21:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A year ago I had my 5D modified by MaxMax and have never regretted having the AA filter removed (for landscapes/nature) No problem with the sharpening plugins you just use a lower setting with better results. My point is every one complains about Canons strong AA filters but if it is an issue you can easily have it removed and a visible light bandpass filter installed. Not a big deal, BTW all the raw converters/plugins handle the files fine. If you like the MFDB look (no AA filter) you can have that look in the Canon for $450. So with a years positive experience with a modified 5D I donít see it as a major issue. You want a sharper raw file, modify your camera, you want a soft raw file donít modify your camera, simple. After sharpening the difference is small but noticeable, a small improvement. I now have 1 week of experience with a P30 and still prefer the look of a sensor without a AA filter. The modification is reversible I have the original AA filter/bandpass filter in the canon box if needed. As far as testing it for moirť yes some times it is apparent and with a little Gaussian blur (around a pixel) you corrected the occasional problem. If you were always shooting fashion of course you wouldn't consider the mod.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marc:

I've been tempted for the past few months to send my 5D off and have MaxMax hotrod it, though was waiting for the opportunity to do the 1Ds3 review first  

Did you by any chance do before and after comparative shots and can you comment more specifically on the improvement?  Moire isn't a big deal for me, but detail is.  The image they show on their website was not done with a great lens and the gain appears fairly marginal --- visible increase in micro-detail, but again, I'm not sure how that will translate into a print.  If better glass (I shoot mostly Canon primes) offered a better result, I'd be all over the conversion.  Again, would really like to hear more comment from you on the differences you're seeing in your images.

Thanks,

PS: As respects 1 series mods, I don't think they can be done because of the way the AA/IR filter is sandwiched to the sensor.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 08:23:13 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2007, 08:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Marc:

PS: As respects 1 series mods, I don't think they can be done because of the way the AA/IR filter is sandwiched to the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, yes - that corroborates what I mentioned in post #7 above, but it still may be worthwhile confirming with MaxMax.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2007, 08:53:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Mark:

I had it OFF for my tests, and did not have enough time to specifically experiment with it.  I am interested in your results.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack - I disabled Function II-3 [HTP], will test it as such, and report the results. It's a very grey day here today, but I may still take the train downtown and re-shoot that same dark building to see whether there is less noise with that feature off. I'll let you know once I have a useful result.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2007, 11:11:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Marc:

I've been tempted for the past few months to send my 5D off and have MaxMax hotrod it, though was waiting for the opportunity to do the 1Ds3 review first  

Did you by any chance do before and after comparative shots and can you comment more specifically on the improvement?  Moire isn't a big deal for me, but detail is.  The image they show on their website was not done with a great lens and the gain appears fairly marginal --- visible increase in micro-detail, but again, I'm not sure how that will translate into a print.  If better glass (I shoot mostly Canon primes) offered a better result, I'd be all over the conversion.  Again, would really like to hear more comment from you on the differences you're seeing in your images.

Thanks,

PS: As respects 1 series mods, I don't think they can be done because of the way the AA/IR filter is sandwiched to the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't have the presence of mind to take a before and after test shot so my comparisons are all subjective
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2007, 11:49:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't have the presence of mind to take a before and after test shot so my comparisons are all subjective
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOLOL!  Okay, I commend you on your honesty!  Can you provide some more detailed subjective input about how the files look?  I'm trying to decide if it's worth doing and I trust your brand of subjective  

Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 11:52:48 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2007, 12:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
LOLOL!† Okay, I commend you on your honesty!† Can you provide some more detailed subjective input about how the files look?† I'm trying to decide if it's worth doing and I trust your brand of subjective  

Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The final images look more real as if the subject is more 3 dimensional. The micro detail is better like stones sand etc look more realistic. My wife is an artist and noticed a difference without knowing the camera was modified "how come the print looks so sharp" again very subjective. I'm on the road and can't post a good example but perhaps I can u-send-it a raw for you to look at.
Marc
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 12:14:49 PM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2007, 12:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack
Here is a raw from last month (part of a stitched panorama) about 12,000' coming down Mouna Kea. Had to get my snow fix (I miss New hampshire and the snow this time of the year)
Marc

http://download.yousendit.com/C301AE1B06BAB243
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2007, 02:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack
Here is a raw from last month (part of a stitched panorama) about 12,000' coming down Mouna Kea. Had to get my snow fix (I miss New hampshire and the snow this time of the year)
Marc

http://download.yousendit.com/C301AE1B06BAB243
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It really is funny that we are once again at thet topic. As often discussed with good Captrue sharpening the difference is getting so small, that it doesn't really make sense to remove any AA Filter.
Take to pictures side by side one with AA and one without Filter. Sharpen them both for print. Compare them on screen and make a print. 99,9% of all people will NOT see ANY difference AS LONG AS the sharpening is done right.

I have seen quite a few reddot 5D sample shots, bu I have never seen one which is better than with AA filter.

Sorry but as I see it it is just making money on the believes of people.
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2007, 04:11:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack
Here is a raw from last month (part of a stitched panorama) about 12,000' coming down Mouna Kea. Had to get my snow fix (I miss New hampshire and the snow this time of the year)
Marc

http://download.yousendit.com/C301AE1B06BAB243
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Marc!  Downloading it now!

One of the things I hope to gain is some of the inter-pixel "sparkle" that most AA-filterless cameras tend to show more of...

Edit: Looks darn good straight off the camera, and doubly impressive given it's from the 24-105 zoom at 24.   It shows some light moire in the high-frequency detail area of the roadside gravel. It's not visible in a properly sharpened print however, and the rest of the image looks so good it may be worth living with that.  Hmmm...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 04:38:58 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2007, 07:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,

Have you experimented with the Highlight Tone Priority (Custom Function II-3) setting yet? I know there is another thread discussing it, but I raise it here for your attention. I had it enabled and took some shots of dark buildings this afternoon. I found them a bit noisier than I was expecting from this camera

Are you surprized to see more noise if you expose one step lower than you otherwise would do? (Of course, this depends on how good the "otherwise exposure" would have been.)
Logged

Gabor
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2007, 08:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you surprized to see more noise if you expose one step lower than you otherwise would do? (Of course, this depends on how good the "otherwise exposure" would have been.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes - based on the claims being made for this camera's noise performance; but the manual does warn us that using this feature will increase noise. This is correct.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2007, 08:22:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

Further to my other message on the subject of the tests with and without HTP, I did get back downtown this morning to re-shoot images similar to yesterday's of the same group of buildings - these are tall black office towers - Torontonians will know them - the TD Centre. I had two incidents of being stopped by security asking if I was a professional photographer and what I would be doing with the pictures. The second one explained he stopped me because he noticed the camera looked kind of professional. So I told him nah - it's just an expensive P&S that  allows some adjustments   . He didn't buy that, wanted to know what I was doing with it, so I told him I was testing the camera for digital noise in the 3/4 tones with versus without various adjustments. That sailed straight through like s..t through a goose    - and he invited me to go to the 38th floor for a camera permit. By then I was finished the job so no permit needed, but for those locals wanting to photograph on the grounds of the TD Centre with an expensive P&S - go to the 38th for a permit first - will save harassment.

OK back to the pictures. Definite improvement at ISO 200 - the shots with HTP disabled definitely display less noise. I also did a bunch, HTP disabled, at ISO in the range of 400~640 and I'm less impressed. Noise readings in Noise Ninja are in the 14~23 range (mainly high frequency Luminosity noise), most visible in skies and skin tones. I had expected better, and wonder whether this is typical for this camera, or I should take it back to Canon for testing.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2007, 08:25:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes - based on the claims being made for this camera's noise performance; but the manual does warn us that using this feature will increase noise. This is correct.
If the scenery's dynamic range is not not stretching from very dark to clipping the highlights, then there is no point of using HTP; the exposure has to be decreased in case of clipping.

However, if the image contained already very dark areas, and now the exposure gets reduced by a stop, then it is only natural, that there will be some noise. Otherwise the camera could claim that the DR is one stop higher than its predecessors' (Canon did not make such claim.)

I wrote above "the exposure gets reduced by a stop"; this is not accurate, the exposure remains as indicated in the camera, the ISO will be halved. However, one could see it this way: had the effectively applied ISO been selected, the exposure should have been one stop higher.
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2007, 09:13:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like a feature only useful for complete novices. If you know you're in a situation where the normal autoexposure is likely to clip highlights, then you could just as easily set the camera to -1 stop EV.

Or perhaps it really does serve a purpose when shooting in jpeg mode. In other words, HTP for jpeg output is better than a one stop underexposed shot for jpeg output.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2007, 09:20:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sounds like a feature only useful for complete novices.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure how many complete novices buy $8000 DSLRs. Maybe Canon figured it's useful for photographers who don't mind some shadow noise but appreciate the extra headroom where most of the levels will be.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2007, 10:03:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure how many complete novices buy $8000 DSLRs. Maybe Canon figured it's useful for photographers who don't mind some shadow noise but appreciate the extra headroom where most of the levels will be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark,
As I understand it, this feature is not available at ISO 100 (or is that ISO 50 on the 1Ds3) because the camera automatically lowers the ISO one stop without telling you. Does anyone except a novice want the camera to make such decisions without any prior analysis of the scene. An automatic exposure results from an assessment of the lighting conditions by the camera's metering system. This HTP feature, however, seems to be no different than the user setting the camera to -1EV. In both cases a button has to be pressed or a wheel turned.

I'm struggling to find a purpose for this feature.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2007, 10:20:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm struggling to find a purpose for this feature.

1. The in-camera image display is one stop brighter than it would be if you lowered the exposure or the ISO.

2. When recording JPEG (or raw and JPEG) format, the exposure is "corrected" and the highlight contrast is reduced somewhat in order to pull back the right end. The same is true for the JPEG embedded in the raw file, but I have not seen anyone, who made use of the that almost-halfsized JPEG image.
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2007, 12:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1. The in-camera image display is one stop brighter than it would be if you lowered the exposure or the ISO.

2. When recording JPEG (or raw and JPEG) format, the exposure is "corrected" and the highlight contrast is reduced somewhat in order to pull back the right end. The same is true for the JPEG embedded in the raw file, but I have not seen anyone, who made use of the that almost-halfsized JPEG image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay! It sound as though this feature is only useful for those who shoot in jpeg mode. There have been times, long ago when memory cards were expensive, that I switched from RAW to jpeg as my last card filled up. As I recall, despite being careful with exposure, there were shots with blown highlights that I could do nothing about.

This HTP feature seems like an insurance policy for those who shoot jpeg.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2007, 12:52:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This HTP feature seems like an insurance policy for those who shoot jpeg.

Those recording "raw only" have no reason to use HTP. The brighter in-camera display is not really important IMO, and the one full stop reduction is too rigid; one can reduce the exposure by 1/3 or 2/3 to avoid clipping. (Of course, onle can use HTP with +1/3EV or +2/3 EV bias to achieve the same.)

HTP does not help on the main problem: that one does not know if clipping occured (not even in post processing, because not only the camera does not show true raw histogram, but the raw processors are lying about clipping).

However, there are people, who shoot raw+jpeg, with the intention to use the jpeg if it looks ok, and work on the raw only in exceptional cases. For them HTP can be useful.
Logged

Gabor
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad