December 18, 2014, 05:06:29 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 321
1
The midframe and corner performance of the 100-400 II with a TC is amazing:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


Compared to the Tamron 150-600 at 600 f/8, the 100-400 at 560 f/8 has WAY better midframe and corner performance. I think the Tamron might be a smidge sharper in the center, but it's not enough to give up the whole-frame performance of the 100-400, IMO.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ENELOOP ????
« on: Today at 03:16:00 PM »
Thanks you, Sir, Dear Friend Mr. jrista
Wow, That New name for me "Imedions" and Same cost of  Eneloop too.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerEx-Imedion-2400-mAh-AA-NiMH-Batteries-8-Pack-with-Case-Maha-MH-8AAI-BH-/320855295891?pt=Camera_Flash_Accessories&hash=item4ab4774793

Yes, Sir, I will try my fist 24 AA  "Imedions" with your recommend, After my Old, Old Eneloop are dead.
Thanks again,. Sir.
Have a great weekend
Surapon


You're welcome. I think you will be pretty happy with them.


One thing I should mention. The 2100mAh Imdedion batteries are a little "fat". By that, I mean they have a slightly higher diameter than most AA batteries. I don't exactly know why, but they are often a fairly tight fit. They fit into my Canon 430EX II, but they are fairly snug. I have to lightly tap to get them to shift out of the flash enough to actually pull them out. The batteries fit pretty snugly in my Logitech MX mouse as well, which is also rechargable.


This slightly fat size and snug fit might be an issue in some devices. Before you go "all in" buyin Imedion batteries, I would grab like one pack of 4, and make sure they fit into everything they need to. Eneloop batteries are also usually slightly fatter than regular disposable AA batteries, but the Imedions are just a tiiiny fraction fatter than the Eneloops.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ENELOOP ????
« on: Today at 02:45:32 PM »
@Surapon: I LOVE your gear-laden photos. :D Great!


As for a replacement battery for your Eneloops...have you ever considered Imedion? I use Imedions myself, I have about five or six four packs worth of them, mostly AA one AAA. In my research for a good rechargable battery, the Imedions came up frequently as having good capacity (I think most of the AA ones I use are 2100mAh), with high efficiency, 1000+ recharge capacility, and stable power delivery (i.e. when used in strobes.)


I use Imedions for pretty much everything now...I've basically expunged my house of disposable batteries. About the only disposables I still have are the 9V ones in my smoke alarms. I've been able to do some pretty rapid-fire flash work at near-full brightness with my better beamer with bird photography. I can often get three or four high powered flashes in a row before it needs a little bit of recharge time. The Imedions go pretty much full bore until they finally just run out of power, then they simply stop working until recharged (I prefer that to a standard disposable AA, which slowly peters off over time requiring longer and longer recharge times in a flash.)


Anyway, there's an alternative for you. I was pretty dismayed by the 500mAh lifetime of the new Eneloop Pros myself, but since I kind of started with Imedions when I went to rechargable batteries a couple years ago, I haven't had any complaints.

4
Photography Technique / Re: EC - adds or subtracts light?
« on: Today at 02:35:41 PM »
You are misunderstanding what exposure compensation does. When you adjust EC, your are NOT adjusting your priority setting. If your Av, that means aperture is your priority setting. YOU control Aperture, the camera controls shutter (let's assume fixed ISO for the moment.) If your Tv, that means shutter is your priority setting. YOU control Shutter, the camera controls aperture. When you compensate, your compensating the OTHER setting, not the one you control. So, it isn't f/4 +1/3 -> 4.0 + Aperture 0.3333. That's fundamentally wrong. You CHOSE f/4, the camera cannot compensate your exposure by adjusting aperture...it has to adjust shutter. So, it/s f/4 + 1/3 -> 4.0 & ShutterSpeed One Third Stop SLOWER. In other words...MORE LIGHT!


For more specificity:


EV +1/3 means ADD one-third light. This is obvious, as when you adjust EC positive, it shifts the metered exposure indicator to the left. If your shooting Av, that results in a SLOWER shutter speed; if your shooting Tv, that results in a WIDER aperture (if possible...obviously you've got a problem if your already at max ap.) If you adjust EC negative, that shifts the metered exposure indicator to the right. If your shooting Av, that results in a FASTER shutter speed (if possible, if you hit 1/4000 or 1/8000 or whatever your camera max is, you've got a problem); if your shooting Tv that results in a NARROWER aperture (if possible, if you hit min aperture, you've got a problem.)


SLOWER shutter/WIDER apeture = MORE light
FASTER shutter/NARROWER aperture = LESS light



Exposure compensation should be very easy to understand...you "compensate your exposure by adding or subtracting light." So, +1/3 means ADD a third stop light, and -1/3 means SUBTRACT a third stop light. This is easy to verify...just look at what your EC adjustments do to the automatic exposure setting (the other one, the one you are not controlling yourself).


This explanation assumes your using a priority mode on the camera. In manual mode, EC often does not do anything on many cameras. Some cameras, like Canon's 1D X, will allow you to use EC to adjust ISO, while you control both aperture and shutter. It's the same deal, though, +1/3EC means increase ISO to increase the exposure.


Sorry bub! Gotta tell the truth here. Sounds like your buying lunch! ;P

5


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! :P (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.

It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.

+1

I have a startling inability to walk on water so zooming with my feet rarely works.....

Obviously you need a duck boat with a blind on it. The old FF with a boat blind vs the crop on the bank debate.

Then there is the opposite question, how do the animals react when you have to get up and run away from them because you are framed to close with a crop body.


Well, that one's easy. Switch to a shorter lens, drop a TC, or use a zoom. I think a 150-600 would be an ideal pairing with a 7D II these days...and give you all the versatility you need for framing. Opening up your FoV isn't really an issue, there are options. You can also just wait for your subject to move off a bit to get better framing. There are plenty of easy ways to deal with a subject that is too close. If you really had to, you could crawl away to get farther. I've never had an animal run because I was moving away from it. ;P

6


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! :P (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.

It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.

+1

I have a startling inability to walk on water so zooming with my feet rarely works.....


+1


LOL, there are indeed all those physical limitations as well...water, cliffs, birds up in trees, etc. :)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: Today at 02:18:26 PM »
I've been shooting my 7D Mk II for about a month now, and it's spectacularly good: the image quality improvements over the 7D leap out, and (I'll post some examples tonight) at say 4000 ISO (and above), conversions from Photo Ninja are ***literally*** noiseless at 100% view.


Literally? Really?


You want to provide some visual evidence to back that up, buddy? I just love these internet anecdotes lacking any form of physical evidence whatsoever, especially when they seem to go against the laws of physics.


Can you provide a direct conversion, no additional edits, full size 100% crops no scaling at all, to demonstrate what "literally noiseless" means in your vocabulary?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:57:10 PM »
I wonder why do from time to time CR begins to make storms out of nothing. I presume when the visitors stats begin to go down he brings an old topic just for the sake of a few tech geeks to comment around and say old crap in a new way.

1/
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.
+1, totally agree! Canon just needs to actually compete on the larger format sensor front. I really hope they do next year...
I do agree as well. However they would need "a-pair-of-good-old-MF-L-lenses". And we have seen 0 patents so far.


I don't mean medium format sensors. Just larger sensors. APS-C and FF are larger, by quite a margin, than the ultra high volume market, which uses sensors a fraction the size of a fingernail most of the time. People don't realize how much larger APS-C and FF sensor are...many times larger. I consider that "larger format". Medium format is a whole different game, and that is not what I'm referring to.

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:13:07 PM »
I have some more examples to share. I'll try to get them up today. I think the 5D III is experiencing a little bit of diffraction softening at f/10+, and it seems aberration limited at f/8. Tough call there, but with sharpening, it cleans up pretty nicely.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:07:45 PM »
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.


+1, totally agree! Canon just needs to actually compete on the larger format sensor front. I really hope they do next year...

11

The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

The statement is a bit skewed. I like these kind of statements because they are half based in reality and enough outside that only pieces of it can be disputed.

However

You need to check how this idea works out in the real world. The distance you need to get closer is no where near 2x as close.

More like 20% closer, maybe a bit more. I have already shot a few test shots on this one with the 7D II.
This is one real world test I have been thinking about doing a bit more. Shoot a test shot with FF at say 30' and then 6 shots at 3' intervals till I am at the same framing 1.6x out. I have already done comparisons at about 1.4x to 1.6 and the FF had much better resolution. It might be a good way to see how much benefit the crop factor really is.

In the concept you offer camera shake is a smaller part of the resolution equation.


I said 2x because that would generally normalize composition within the area of the frame as well (not exactly, but enough). No, you probably don't need to move that full distance forward to start seeing an improvement, but I try to stick to equivalency...otherwise the size of the subject in the frame/the number of pixels on the target, is entirely arbitrary. I think about OOC composition I guess...is the bird framed, in camera, how I want it to be framed? I used to crop...heavily. The only time I crop these days is to straiten or tweak composition...I'm not dropping down to 10-20% of the frame like I did the first six months I had my 7D and 100-400mm. To that end, FF is actually more than 2x the area of APS-C (2.6x, actually), so I wasn't actually stating that you should halve your distance to subject anyway.


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! :P (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.


It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.


If you are willing to expend the greater amount of time to get closer to really make a difference with FF, you can indeed get some phenomenal shots...but not everyone has that kind of skill or time. That's why the reach argument exists in the first place. A 7D II with a 400mm or 150-600mm lens is going to get a lot more people excellent shots in fairly difficult situations with birds and wildlife than a 5D III with the same lenes. To take it to the next level, a 500mm or 600mm f/4 and some TCs so you can get 1000mm to 1200mm on FF (which would also normalize composition with APS-C at the same distance), is well beyond most people's budgets.


Now, I'm not saying you get more resolution with smaller pixels for free. It takes a lot of effort to hold and KEEP a lens steady while your shooting it. Especially longer lenses, which magnify ever smaller movements. It is possible to maximize the potential of your system, though, small pixels or large. That's my point. We can throw around numbers like 20% or 1.2x or 1.4x or whatever it is all day long. In the end...does your tactic change? Do you actually think in the field, I have 20% bigger pixels, so I can relax my hand-holding technique by 20%? No one does that. You hold yourself, and your gear, steady, as steady as humanly possible, period. You cannot account for the differences in the field...if you try, the chances of experiencing blurry shots with FF are going to be higher, as your not putting your full attention on what matters. Keeping yourself and your gear stable, as stable as you possibly can, with whatever tools are at your disposal to do so (IS, tripod, monopod, beanbags, whatever.)


12
When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give.  They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution.  Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution.  So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before.  Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution.  That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be.  I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible.  Then, my images really improved.  I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea.  I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length.  That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.
 
You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference.  With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage.  I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.


Again, I'm not denying the theory. I simply don't see any real-world difference in the impact to my photos when I shoot with the 7D or the 5D III.



Perhaps it is simply because I started with a camera that had 4.3 micron pixels, I don't know. But I tend to get the sharpest shots of all with the 7D and 600mm lens. I had no option but to force myself with the 7D to learn how to stabilize as much as possible to get the best sharpness possible out of that system. I also really DO use the sharpest glass available...perhaps that is skewing my perceptions here. I don't shoot any differently with the 5D III, but unless I'm right on top of my subject at the shortest focal length and fastest apertures possible, the images from that, although maybe less noisy, are usually not sharper than what I get from the 7D. If I shake...it ruins the shot, it doesn't matter which camera I'm using.


Shutter speed is also of paramount importance. With either camera, getting the shutter speed high enough to freeze motion is also critical. I have some skill in freezing motion of fast little birds at very low shutter speeds, but it takes a lot of effort, regardless of the camera. It also usually takes longer bursts to get that one sharp frame (to which the 7D/7D II is going to be more advantaged than the 5D III). These days I just say to hell with it, and jack up the ISO nearly as high as it will go, 3200 on the 7D II, 6400-12800 on the 5D III. That motion-freezing shutter results in critical sharpness, which in and of itself helps diminish the impact of noise.


One thing I will say, diffraction does certainly present earlier with cameras that have smaller pixels. The 5D III is FAR more forgiving of smaller apertures than the 7D ever was. If I was normally shooting at f/8, then I don't think I'd see much of a real-world difference between the two cameras. In a reach-limited situation, I am usually at a faster aperture with the 7D (i.e. 600mm f/4 vs. 1200mm f/8)...the diffraction limited resolving power of a lens at f/4 is significantly higher than at f/8, and assuming a stable frame (I always burst, so there is pretty much always a frame that's razor sharp), that gives the 7D's smaller pixels what they need to be as sharp as possible.


There is also the fact that at 1200mm I suffer from the effects of less camera shake a touch sooner than the 7D at 600mm. So, for any given amount of camera shake, the impact to the image is pretty much the same. There are a number of normalizing forces when it comes to getting the same kind of framing in the real world, and those forces, in a reach limited situation, tend to balance out the "benefit" of larger pixels as far as camera shake goes.


The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

13
You maximize the potential of the system in hand. The amount of effort you put in is high regardless of whether your shooting APS-C or FF. So, personally, I don't really believe the notion that bigger pixels mitigate issues from camera shake or anything like that...

Your belief or lack thereof doesn't change the underlying geometry that determines the relationship between pixel size and the effect of angular motion.


I'm not denying the math. I'm denying we can account for the minuscule differences in pixel size out in the field. People experience blurring from camera shake with every system, with a wide range of lenses, regardless of sensor size or pixel size.


My simple point is, you either hold the lens stable, or you use IS, or not. If you don't, your GOING to experience the effects of camera shake no matter how big your pixels or your sensor.

14
I always try to hold my cameras as steady as possible too. But if I'm using a crop sensor I'll use a faster shutter speed while hand holding because of the crop factor. I try to follow the the 1 over the focal length for my minimum shutter speed. So if I'm shooting a 400 mm lens on my FF I generally won't shoot under 1/400th with a 400mm on a crop sensor I generally won't shoot under 1/640th.


I used to follow those rules, but I think once you get a handle on stability, they don't matter as much. I have shots as low as 1/100th and even slower, hand-held, with IS enabled on my 600mm f/4. At that point, burst rate is really what matters most...as it's the movement of the subject that matters most. The faster the burst, the more likely you are to nab a razor sharp shot, even down to shutter speeds a fraction of the focal length.


For example...Chickadee, 1200mm f/10 1/100s ISO 800. This is 1/100s! SIX STOPS lower than the 1/focalLength rule would dictate I shoot at, and two stops lower than my IS system supposedly allows for. Shot at f/10 with a 2x TC (diffraction limited, which is probably where the sharpness limit is ultimately coming from, although I may be a notch or two off on my AFMA as well):

Original:


Sharpened:


Processed:




You maximize the potential of the system in hand. The amount of effort you put in is high regardless of whether your shooting APS-C or FF. So, personally, I don't really believe the notion that bigger pixels mitigate issues from camera shake or anything like that, or that just taking a step or two forward is going to fix the reach issue. I was getting shots like this with a 500mm f/4 on the 7D. F/4...the diffraction-limited performance of an ideal lens at that aperture is higher than any current DSLR sensor on the market, significantly higher than the diffraction-limited performance of a lens at f/10 (key benefit of using faster lenses on APS-C...smaller pixels that can maximize the performance of a high resolution lens at a fast diffraction-limited aperture).


Faster aperture, more light, sharper details from nearly the same distance as a 1200mm FF in the end (pretty much right on top of the MFD).


Like this:



Or this:


Now, these days I can get close enough to use my bare 600 at f/4-f/6.3 and get phenomenally sharp results with the 5D III. I've just been having fun with the 1200mm f/8 focal length this week, and have been seeing how much I can extract from that particular system. It's useful out in the field, vs. in my back yard, where it is a lot harder to get close to the songbirds I want to photograph.


You maximize the system in hand...and you don't skimp on doing everything that's possible to maximize your results (not if you want the best results possible, anyway). I don't put less effort in to keep my lens stable when using FF than when using APS-C...I put in the maximum effort either way. I think the notion that you cannot get the most out of a sensor like the 7D, or the 70D/7D II, or the even higher resolution NX1, that your perpetually limited to barely any better than what FF can do...I think it's all a myth. If you learn how, and put in the effort, if you use all the features of your system (lens IS, sensor IS, any kind of stabilization, external supports like tripods, beanbags, bracing your arms against your body when handheld, etc.) you can experience camera shake so small that it doesn't affect even the smaller pixels of an APS-C (or the pixels of say the D800, which are quite smaller than anything from Canon's FF sensors...and thus, one would expect, susceptible to the same problems.)


15
The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop  is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.



Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.


There isn't any difference here. Either you maximize your camera system's potential, or not. You either hold the lens as steady as possible, or not. No one thinks about the size of a pixel or the relative differences in pixel sizes in the field...they simply think: "Keep it stable."


Camera shake is a small part of it, it can be increased by other factors. You loose some light with the crop. Add to this you have to shoot at lower ISO than FF because of noise. To compensate for this you may be shooting at slower shutter speeds.


Conversely, you have to shoot at a higher ISO and a narrower aperture with FF to get the same depth of field. I have been shooting at 1200mm f/8+ for most of the week, to fill the frame with small birds. That results in an incredibly thin DoF. Shooting at 1200mm f/8 roughly normalizes the 5D III FoV, normalizes the DoF, normalizes the amount of light at the sensor, normalizes the amount of noise with an APS-C. If were talking equivalence here, let's truly be equivalent. For all my efforts at 1200mm on FF, I still get even sharper results with a 7D and a 500/4 (which should be expected...at f/8+ I'm getting diffraction limited...at f/4, the 7D is at a perfectly ideal aperture for maximum sharpness).

APS-C has an advantage when it comes to DoF and getting pixels on subject. Yes, it's when your reach limited...but that is most often the case when your not a pro with tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, or the ability to spend every day of the weak learning how to get extremely close to your subjects.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 321