@jrista I borrowed a 5D and benchmarked it vs 20D my conclusion was that the difference was not enough

@EvanKrall TriCCD...I've never heard of that being done with CMOS sensors, and it has its drawbacks

Again though, even with TriCCD, each sensor is still only getting a fraction of the total light down the lens.

The only way to get 100% of the light per pixel is to go monochrome

@JohanLarsson Benchmarked how? The 5D with it's larger pixels should have done much better than the 20D.

@jrista I compared images

The 5D was better but I was surprised how small difference it was

A pic of my dog btw^^

Check out the tounge (20D)

Well, comparing cameras is not as simple as simply looking at two photos.

The 5D would have superior shadow quality and high ISO quality over the 20D, thanks to larger pixels.

@jrista I think the pixels are larger for 20D, read it somewhere, due to low resolution on 20D even though the sensor is smaller

hmm, I would be surprised...

actually, it looks like they are the same size

which means the 20D is lower resolution

normalize resolution, and the 5DC, despite having the same pixel size, will still outperform

of course 5D is better, but I was surprised at how small difference it was

And I think taking "the same" pictures with two cameras and comparing the results is a decent way to benchmark

The difference isn't really that small, I just think you had too basic of a test.

You would really need to put both cameras into stressful situations to really evaluate how they compare to each other. If you take two photos of a dog, like the one above, both cameras will perform superbly.

Comparisons in the superb aren't really going to tell you much.

Now, take two photos in low light, or take two photos of a scene with high dynamic range, and the 5D will start to show its benefits.

On a per-pixel level there is little difference, but the simple fact is that the 5DC has more of them.

On a size-normal basis, the 5DC will always win.

@jrista the dog pic is somewhat high in dynamic range, I alwasy struggle with the exposure since he is black and white

@jrista Yes you are correct

@JohanLarsson That photo was taken shade-side. Move sun-side, and the problem will disappear. ;)

lol

That is one of the key things you learn about bird photography as well. You want the sun in a 45° region behind you, and preferably not directly behind but off to one of the sides.

That gives you full subject lighting, and when the sun is 22° to your right or left shoulder, you get good phase angle too.

That enhances detail, like feathers (or in the case of a dog, hair.)

ah ok, I try to take most pictures towards the sun with some shade at least in daytime

@JohanLarsson Whenever the sun is behind the subject, you'll have extreme dynamic range, and you'll rarely ever get it, even with a camera like the D800.

Always try to be sun-side of your subject, and you won't have those kinds of problems.

The dog pic was very planned, we waited for a day with nice weather and went out in the afternoon and let them run for 30 minutes, then we bursted away with stand

@jrista that is a nice pic, yours?

The Junco above was a pretty high DR scene, but being sun side, the nearly-black feathers show up nicely.

@JohanLarsson yup.

I guess you have very expensive gear

@JohanLarsson I'd say "moderately expensive" ;)

Gear cost spans a pretty wide range.

it looks high end for sure, very nice!

You have your entry level (XXXD) at around $600, the mid level (XXD) at around $1000, the low-end pro level (7D) at around $1500, the mid-pro level (5D) at around $3500, and the high-end pro level at around $7000. ;)

I have the 7D that I picked up for $1300 on Amazon

and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS that I picked up for a little under $1600

Personally, I'd prefer a 1D X with the EF 600mm f/4 L II IS

now, THAT is what I call very expensive! :)

my kit rolls in at around $3000

my preferred kit rolls in at around $20,000

so..."moderately expensive" ;D

Let me find some of my better photos.

The Junco shots above were just to show lighting, sun side and shade side. You can see in the second shot (which was more shade side) that the junco's eye is buried in shadows, and hard to see, where as it is very bright and clear in the sun-side shot.

But I have much more professional shots than that...

That last shot of a plover (Killdeer actually) is my current favorite.

I like the shot of the Long-Billed Dowitchers as well (the second one, orange)

Click for larger versions.

@jrista nice depth of field (is that correct English?)

yeah, depth of field

DOF

That's about the best DOF I can get with my lens...I usually have to shoot at around f/7.1 to get really sharp shots, which limits how thin I can get my DOF, or how smooth the background is

I am probably going to pick up the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS next year, which should help immensely in getting cleaner OOF backgrounds at wider apertures

@jrista extremely nice yet again!

low shooting angle definitely helps

The first shot was taken at the end of summer

The second shot was taken near the end of fall

The third shot was taken after all the leaves fell, just before the beginning of winter

second is the shot with two birds?

I kind of like the progression of color. ;)

@JohanLarsson Yes...they were a male and female.

I was tracking the female and she just trotted in front of the male.

It was hard to get isolated shots, as they were always within inches of each other.

Here is an american kestrel, mostly sunside.

One of the few lone Dowitcher shots, and a Grebe with a catch

The Grebe shot was tough. Really terrible lighting, I was entirely shade-side, and had to lift shadows a lot in post.

I guess it could still use further exposure tuning...it looks a bit dark

@jrista a tad bit blue?

You sure have a way to make the long beaks look good!

@JohanLarsson Well, it was overcast, so blue is more the right color balance. The sun was behind light cloud cover, so it was very bright, but filtered by water, and shade tends to have a cooler color balance.

@JohanLarsson Thanks. :)

Bird photography is largely about "head angle".

Actually, bird photography is really all about angles. :D

Lighting angle, head angle, body angle, camera angle.

Low camera angles create those pleasing perspectives and creamy backgrounds.

22° sun-side sun angle creates nice shading

You want the bird to be looking at you, either like the Grebe, or like the dowitcher where it's bill is out and visible, rather than head on or looking out of the frame or otherwise anywhere other than the viewer

You want the birds body to be at the right phase angle to the sun to bring out detail in the feathers

and create a nice soft shadow falloff

It's ALL about the angles....

which is interesting...as I'd never quite thought about it that way until now...

The birds head is actually cocked a little weird in the solo dowitcher photo...

It's kind of looking up, instead of into the lens...

...WOW...this is some amazing prescience...

stg.do/9LDc

but he is not suggesting any solutions

Well, at this point, I don't believe there are solutions.

The sad thing is, his later predictions have already come true.

Governments around the world now take from the productive and wealthy, and give to the unproductive and selfish.

Open source software ans communities like StackOverflow gives me hope

@jrista you mean tax?

The longer that kind of thing goes on, the longer governments spend into excessive debt, the less and less likely productive people will have reasons to continue working.

@JohanLarsson I mean the abuse of tax as a means of redistributing wealth.

Societies fall when productivity is demonized and selfishness is deified.

And when morality no longer applies.

Most of the world is at that point, and I don't think it will be long until the whole system collapses.

What is the current tax in the us?

Ironically, I always figured it would die because of war, but as it seems to be turning it, the world will die in unfettered, evenly distributed greed...and out of the inevitable debt bubble explosion will probably come wars.

Well, the US uses a progressive tax system.

Most people pay around 10%.

The wealthy, between payroll, income, and dividend taxes tend to pay 40-60%.

@jrista In Sweden we have 35%

I myself pay over 30%.

Our government is currently figuring out ways to tax the rich even more, and if they succeed in doing things like eliminating the housing deduction, the rich will be paying 75% or more. Why the hell would anyone work when they have to give up the majority of their income to the government?

@jrista that is problematic

If someone is a billionaire, it really doesn't matter much.

I should get some sleep, getting late here

But the sadest thing is that the coming tax hikes will hit the upper middle class hardest, the people who run the majority of businesses in our country, and who employ millions of people.

2013 is going to be a scary year for the US... ":\

@JohanLarsson Well, night. :)

@jrista scary for Us is scary for the rest of the world

@JohanLarsson Yeah...No one is out there to bail us out when our 17 trillion dollar debt bubble can no longer be sustained (at which time it could very well be 25 trillion or more)...

And since everything is linked these days...BOOM...

I think it can be a good thing that China and Brazil is coming strong, I hope it will give better stability with three economic superpowers {EU, US, China}

I dont see the taxes as the largest problem, to me the main issue is the inefficiency

"We have millions of people working in dozens of professions that are all about being unclear but not wrong." — RegDwighт

That type of thing^^

And they get the big bucks

gnight

That doesn't really bode well for China in the event of a US collapse.

@JohanLarsson Generally agree here. I think we have far too much taxation...the largest costs on private sector businesses are taxes and people. People used to be the largest expenditure...nowadays taxes are. That simply means that the more taxes levied, the fewer people who will work. On top of all that, the money taxed IS used inefficiently on an unparalleled level.

as I remember it, no sensor in the (database) has lower QE then 5D. So 20D cant be lower than 25%.

with deductions into account I pay 40%, but I thats because get my wife's deductions as well.

for every new $ I earn I have to pay 60%

I wish the world would stop wasting resources on bad quality things

@MichaelNielsen the trend has been in the other direction for a while now

I still think a 3 Mpixel full format semi/high end could be interesting

I don't know what you are replying to now with"trend"?

btw 20D = 26% QE

@MichaelNielsen the trend is to buy more and more cheap crap as I see it

yes, I hate it. supermarkets boom with soft thin plastic replicas that crumble under your touch and then people can buy a new one, and frying pans that warp after 1 use, etc :)

and worse if hte replica foods aka industrial foods, where they constnatly try to "cut" the real components and add crap

@MichaelNielsen we see things the same way

I banned products from e.g. Nestle in my house. my wife had to get used to it, but now she doesnt miss it :)

I emailed a couple of ministers in Sweden suggesting high taxes for everything used in food that could not be proven to be nutricious

even coffee I buy green beans and roast them myself

stuff that just makes crap look sellable

in DK the sugar tax has been lurking and difficult to implememnt, but they have no trouble applying a near 100% tax on nutritious almonds!

tehy should make almonds cheaper than winegums so people munch almonds instead of winegums

how big is a full format?

lol I did af focus tests on my tripod. my canon lenses and pentax 50 1.4 prime focus behind the subject so I have a take it a notch towards closer (which isnt always the same direction). But my sigma 18-50 is perfect lol would have been nicer if I always had to compensate the same notch in the same direction.

lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/a-quick-6d-af-test

lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/a-peek-inside-the-6d

that is hte units on those axes?

@MichaelNielsen SQF

ground truth SQF versus image SQF?

horizontal and vertical SQF

@dpollitt Nice...TS-E?

Roger loves SQF

most of his lens tests use SQF to evaluate IQ

I believe he uses Imatest in his studio for all testing, and SQF is central to how Imatest works

In his AF tests, he generates SQF for all of the shots, and plots the horizontal and vertical values on a chart.

Most of the time, points fall along a rough diagonal from the Zero corner to the upper corner

the closer to Zero in an AF test, the less accurate AF was

anything above 500 is quite good, anything above 700 is stellar

hmm. wouldnt "focus plane distance from the test subject" be more interesting?

like mine is focussing 80cm behind the test subject at 2 meters distance :)

that number can be used to adjust on the scale on the lens , or to set the DOF such that the subject is covered to be sure. I guess its good that my lens without manual override works fine, and those that dont work have manual override, so I can pull it back 80 cm

@jrista thanks. It was the Canon 24 TS-E II

do you think that the crap in the water is too distracting to make it a good image?

@jrista so the 6D center point results from the lensrentals test has all points above 700? can you make any conclusions from that if you say that anything above 700 is stellar?