Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: gessman
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 509 next>>
Jun 23, 2019 16:29:33   #
lhardister wrote:
Thanks, gessman. That is really nice information to know, particularly since I happen to have a Canon ef-s 10-22 and a Canon FF 6Dmkii.

Jun 23, 2019 15:37:34   #
JimH123 wrote:
No, I wouldn't discourage the shooter to just go for it with CIZ. Plus, post processing is not for everyone.

Thank you sir. I appreciate your candor as I think some lessor experienced folks inclined to use CIZ may
but are reluctant to do so with the current levels of mystery and criticism. It is true, there is a time and a place for everything, even CIZ apparently. At least, thanks to you and a6k, anyone reading this thread who comes up with some "frankenstein" aspects to their images after using CIZ will understand why and will know how to avoid it in the future. I appreciate your contribution.
Jun 23, 2019 15:24:58   #
Soul Dr. wrote:
That's odd. I have no problems using the EF lenses with the viltrox adapter on my Fujis.
AF and aperture works just like my Fuji lenses.


Sounds like ether they improved the Viltrox or the Fuji is a better fit. Well, I'm glad that you got a good deal even if I didn't.
Jun 23, 2019 14:50:28   #
JimH123 wrote:
I should mention that the image you used for the CIZ experiment is the type that CIZ works great. When it upscales the image to generate the extra pixels, everything in the image is quite predictable. Where CIZ gets in trouble is with very busy images with lots of fine detail. In this case, the algorithms that it uses have trouble constructing a good upscaled image. But most of the time, you don't have an image that busy.

In comparisons I have done in doing the upsizing in SW on the computer, the computer wins. Photoshop has the means to do it. And so does ON1 Resize. Of course, the complexity of the image again plays a part. If the image is real predictable, then they both come out fairly close. But if the image is full of fine, unpredictable detail, the post processing effort will produce better results.

One thing that CIZ is really good at is movies. I have used it with 2.0X CIZ of birds in the distance such as cormorants, and the results are great. It is hard for the eye to see any fine detail problems with a moving image.
I should mention that the image you used for the C... (show quote)

Yep, Jim, I get that and I appreciate the consistency in your comments from the first time I heard them and I'm sure anyone wanting to know what you're saying will be miles ahead by listening to you. But, let me give you a hypothetical scenario and you give me your response assuming that none of the aspects of the scenario are subject to change. You have an early learning "straight out of the camera" (SOOC) shooter who has a shot at a Grizzly at 400mm on a snowfield, where there's no foliage or other small detail to get confused, and the shooter, who is not perfectionistic and who has no intention to post process images only has a 210mm lens mounted and nothing bigger in the bag. Shooting Raw and bringing the shots back home to post process after buying and learning a couple of pieces of software is not going to happen. Would you discourage the shooter from using CIZ?
Jun 23, 2019 13:42:19   #
Soul Dr. wrote:
Viltrox makes a Canon EF, EFs to Sony E mount adapter. I use one of their adapters to use Canon EF, EFs lenses on my Fuji X mount cameras.
It works pretty well, with AF and aperture control. They can be found on ebay or amazon.


Hmmm. Interesting. I have a Viltrox for my EF to Sony e mount and it isn't worth a plug nickle - doesn't even try to autofocus my lens, had to manual focus but the Sigma mc-ll works almost as good with my Canon lens on Sony as they do on my Canon bodies.
Jun 23, 2019 08:11:24   #
You can stick a finger through the hole of that shroud on the back of an ef-s lens and, applying pressure from the inside, pop the shroud out and use the lens that way. If your finger isn't enough you might need to use a leverage tool, maybe a screwdriver. I don't know if it's still up but go to YouTube and search for altering efs lens to use on full frame bodies, specifically a 10-22mm lens. It'll warn you that if you go lower than 12mm the mirror will hit the back of the lens but used on an adapter that wouldn't be a factor. If you don't find a video there, search here because there's a thread about how to do it by user Wendy2 back about 2012.

EDIT: Canon would, but no more, sell you a cover to finish the efs to ef conversion for about $15 to help keep dust out. In fact, here's the url - to Wendy's thread and here's the url to the how-to video - I guess you could always get the dust ring off of a broken ef lens if you felt it was necessary. The shroud may break when you remove it but the lens will still work on either ff or crop body. I've removed the shroud a couple of times without any problem.
Jun 23, 2019 07:38:00   #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?

It's kinda like a 350lb NFL lineman and a midget - everything's equal and just fine until the fight starts.
Jun 22, 2019 21:19:10   #
I did a little processing on the CIZ example and apart from the orange in the sign being brighter and the blue turning black where it says "Notice," they seemed to come out pretty close on my monitor at least, maybe the bottom one needs a little more darkening. That's the CIZ. The top one is the Raw processed. At least this will give us an idea of how close they can be with very little processing. I can't imagine how it would be if someone who knew what they were doing got hold of it.

When you take them up to max magnification here the CIZ gets kinda fuzzy on the small lettering.


Jun 22, 2019 20:35:42   #
a6k wrote:
CIZ does work for video even if the camera is set for raw stills. I keep mine that way. I leave CIZ enabled but raw for mode. Easy.

Gessman is wrong about me and my views and about my "evidence". Anyone who wants to have a serious discussion of that can PM me. Gene51 shows good evidence here, today. Personalized criticism does not refute anything.

If I mischaracterized your views or your evidence I owe you an apology but I think most folks who read what you've said here in this thread would consider it to be discouraging. It wasn't my intent to "call you out" or "personalize the criticism" but if I can't direct my comments at the person they are intended for, how else can I make my point? Now, I've read what you've had to say about CIZ and the last three times I've been involved in a conversation about CIZ you have interjected that comment about "not good for nature shots" and generally seemed to be discouraging people from using CIZ, offering a better alternative method of arriving at the same or a better place. Perhaps you might want to go back and read what you've said and look at the impression you've left that maybe you didn't intend to.

In this particular instance I happen to have information that you're missing and offered what I thought would be the best alternative given all the caveats that go into the OP making a decision. That's why I said you offer the same advice "without regard for a person's stated requirements." I don't have a bone to pick with you and wasn't picking one from my perspective - just saying what I feel needs to be said just as everyone else does. You are a lot more technically up on this stuff than I am and I yield to that but if you knew the whole story you likely wouldn't be giving the advice you've given.

a6k wrote:
Although Imagemeister's work is wonderfully good, the simple truth is that by using Sony free software you can produce exactly what the JPG would have been, from raw, and any JPG, any Creative Style, all the settings within that style AND with somewhat more pixels.

Not if you have no intention of learning and using that software.

a6k wrote:
If you don't want to use PP then that's a personal choice but shooting JPG restricts choices a lot and all you gain is CIZ which IMHO does not do as well as CaptureOne at up-sizing.

I absolutely accept that and commend you for bringing it up every chance you get. Maybe at some point those who aren't paying attention will.
Jun 22, 2019 19:51:27   #
Gene51 wrote:
Never stated that CIZ would confuse a bike with a fish - in fact, if you read and understood my entire post including the examples in the links I provided it specifically says that it would never confuse things.

LOL. I read and understood your comment and the examples and I didn't accuse you of saying it would turn a bike into a fish - I just used your example and confirmed that I had never seen it do that.

Gene51 wrote:
I shoot Nikon - guilty as charged.

Here are some examples that I quickly put together. A while ago, the summer before I purchased the RX10M4 in 2017, I also tried an A6300, which is the basis for my criticism, but I have since deleted my test images. However, the RX10M4 pretty much behaves in similar fashion.

The two images below show a CIZ and one that was shot as raw, cropped and up-sampled to the same resolution and field of view as the CIZ image.

Can we assume that you processed the CIZ shot to see if you could more precisely duplicate the upsized Raw or is it SOOC? They're pretty close actually and it looks like a little color shift and sharpening might bring them closer together.

Gene51 wrote:
I do think you're partly correct - CIZ is an in-camera feature, and should be independent of the lens. But unless you are using 100% Sony compatible lenses, you can't select the zoom in the viewfinder, you have to dial in the amount of zoom in the menu, making it a pain in the neck to use. I may be wrong, but this has been my experience.

Since you think I'm partly correct, I would be curious to know where you think something I've said in this thread is incorrect so I won't be passing out bad information in the future - if you wouldn't mind sharing that with me. I can see how shooting Raw and upsampling could give a person more control and probably yield a better outcome but I'm not sure that it would be all that advantageous for a lot of people who often aren't serious and cannot really appreciate the finer points of what is an excellent image as opposed to a really good one, especially those who don't want to get bogged down in post processing.

As to dialing in a lens, my understanding is that Sony didn't make it possible to store non-Sony lens data as it does Sony lens data so if you're going to use an adapted lens of another manufacturer and you want it to autofocus fast and accurately, you do have to tell the camera what the focal length of the lens is with a menu change, not so CIZ can utilize it, but so it will autofocus. Obviously, this feature will work better with a prime lens and if you're going to be shooting with an adapted zoom you have to tell it what focal length you're going to be shooting at which means to me that if you're going to shoot a 70-300mm at 300mm you need to set that in the menu and not figure on zooming in to 70mm with the expectation that it will autofocus fast and accurately. It is clumsy with a zoom but works very well with a prime lens. I've gone from 200mm to 70mm with my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and it's slow and hunts some but still focuses after the zoom-in without the menu change. In a pinch it works ok, not optimal but it does work.

Gene51 wrote:
I also agree that people should stick to critiquing things they actually have experience with firsthand, and not parroting what they have read, which, depending on the source, could be a parroting of someone else's poorly informed opinions.

I certainly would agree with that.
Jun 22, 2019 01:11:14   #
MDI Mainer wrote:
More like a pet peeve -- the RX10 series are fabulous cameras, but as far as I'm concerned the "600 mm" claim is usually so prominent that it seems a bit misleading, esp since the "equivalency" part is usually buried somewhere in a foot note.

Well, MDI Mainer, I don't object to you having a pet peeve about that. It does shoot like a 600mm lens when screwed all the way out so I'm fine with people saying that. It seems to me like it's just a way of having some frame of reference for the effective focal length.
Jun 22, 2019 01:02:31   #
dbfalconer wrote:
Sorry I opened a Pandora’s Box, gents! Head spinning! I’m returning the borrowed 70-300 and will experiment with CIZ in controlled settings, see what I get. Thanks for all your insights and perspectives.

There's no problem dbfalconer. It's just any time a question is asked of so many people, there's going to be different answers and some will not be right for you and others will be irrelevent. Perspective is a strange thing and everybody has one and very few work for everyone. If you understand everyone's perspective who offers an answer then you can make sense of their answer. If not, you can't. I urge you to go look at the url I offered above.
Jun 22, 2019 00:50:46   #
MDI Mainer wrote:
Not to quibble, but let us not forget that the "600 mm" zoom on the RX10iv is a "full frame equivalent," so that camera's one inch sensor produces a 2.7 crop factor vis-a-vis a 35 mm or "full frame" sensor, or a "full frame" focal length of about 225 mm.

Right, but I don't see that as being a factor in the validity and practicality of the use of CIZ on an a6000 in extending the reach of a 55-210mm lens which is a main part of the question here, along with whether CIZ works with a metabones adapter and a Canon 70-300mm lens.
Jun 22, 2019 00:42:55   #
dbfalconer wrote:
Does Clear Image Zoom work with adapters? I have a Sony a6000. Borrowed Canon70-300 with Metabones adapter (no glass).

If I have it set up correctly, the Clear Image Zoom does not seem to work with this combo. And the picture at 300mm is not too different from one from my 55-210 (without Clear Image Zoom).

With CIZ and my 55-210, I get much closer. Quality seemed fine on camera screen. I am unlikely to ever print larger than 11x14. Hobbyist only.

Thanks for thoughts.
Does Clear Image Zoom work with adapters? I have ... (show quote)

I did a poorly designed and executed test that involved a Sigma mc-11 adapter and a Canon 400mm lens with and without CIZ and a 1.4x Canon teleconverter and even as bad and impromptu as it is it will give you some idea about what you can expect from using CIZ. I urge you to read what I wrote and not be overly judgemental of the outcome. It was totally impromptu, shooting out of a dark house at a target in bright sunlight that was blowing in a gentle breeze at times. Still, with everything that's wrong with my methodology, you should be able to see the benefit of using CIZ at least in this case.
Jun 21, 2019 21:50:14   #
dbfalconer wrote:
Good to get all kinds of opinions. I’ll certainly try it for myself. I’m learning so much from UHH. Thanks all!

Wouldn't it be nice if those folks who say they have a better method would show their CIZ shots and then the same shot and what they got with their "better way." Or at least show how CIZ messes up nature shots and let you decide if CIZ is good enough for you. All anyone has shown me is that it can make distant foliage in shrubbry look like it's curled up in places. I've seen no examples of anything grotesque it has done like turn a bicycle into a fish.

Gene51 is primarily a Nikon shooter and has every lens anyone could want. He recently got a Sony RX10IV which has a 600mm zoom lens so he has little need to use CIZ but perhaps your urge to shoot certain subject matter with your 210mm lens is why you might want to use CIZ.

a6k is always negative about CIZ without respect of why a person might want to use it but he rarely posts any pictures to justify what he says about it.

I believe, and will continue to do so unless someone here can show me otherwise, that CIZ is an in-camera function independent of any specific lens or adapter combination so if it didn't work with your 70-300 and metabones adapter perhaps you missed something in the menu. Anyone here care to correct that assumption?
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 509 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.