October 25, 2014, 07:20:27 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 - Marsu42

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 322
Personally i am not interested in long tele primes, and even less in DO designs. But i would strongly consider a non-push pull, hand-holdable and compact, 4+ stop IS, absolutely excellent IQ 100-400 II at a price not far beyond 70-200 II. By Absolutely excellent IQ would mean every bit as good as 200-400 MTF, just 1/2 to 1 stop slower.

... while I am at posting pictures, this comes to mind concerning your wish for a top-notch, reasonably priced "mini 200-400" :-p

The 70–300 DO costs about the same as the 70–300 L these days.  Give it enough time, and the 100–400 DO will probably cost the same as the 100–400 L.  :)

The DO version of the 70-300L has just dropped in price because of the mediocre reputation (though it seems to be a great travel lens), imho not because of a "natural" movement of L lens' prices downwards.

If Canon introduces new, but mature and actually working tech they'll add a big premium - that is on top of the difference vanilla vs. DO production costs. Until the competition catches up, they'll try to keep it that way - who knows when this will be.

So for budget-limited photogs the (only) nice perspective is grabbing used legacy lenses while the new kids on the block smirk about the stone-age size and weight of these old school bricks:

The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.

A midrange zoom isn't supposed to "beat" a prime because unless you're focal length limited. With the zoom you can get the optimal sensor coverage meaning less noise and more sharpness because of less nr. With a prime, what do you do if your subject decides to get near you? Quickly switch to the 300L, 200L and 100L?

What's not to like is "supposedly".  Also, there's not too much weight reduction, although the length decrease is nice.

After their first botched DO attempt, imho Canon will only release a new generation if all possible criticisms (except for the price :-p) are eliminated. And they'd better hurry up as Sigma and similar are catching up building traditional high-iq lens designs...

Is it DO?
Hopefully not!  8)

The new DO system supposedly has vast improvement over the old 70-300 attempt - and if it works, it means less weight and length for the same image quality. With a lens the size of a 100-400L, what's not to like about it?

Photography Technique / Re: A photo a day....
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:11:37 PM »
I found that once I started challenging myself, my overall ability set got a lot better.

Well, I went the other way - instead of pushing myself without need and coming up with mediocre crap that needs heavy postprocessing, I now have more experience to recognize when I'm likely to get keepers that are up to my current standard - and then really go for it.

I do like a challenge at client shootings when I have an hour to produce commercial shots of pets and their owners - both often having an attention span shorter than my guinea pigs at home. But when just producing stock shots, I'd rather switch between shooting and postprocessing days.

Photography Technique / Re: A photo a day....
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:57:36 PM »
Meaningful as: well thought out, well composed, well framed etc... with consideration of why would you even care if you had a photo of whatever the subject matter is.

As I'm doing mostly wildlife and people/pet portraits, I cannot really plan how it works out - if conditions happen to be peachy I can shoot myself silly and go home with 1000 shots, while on other days nothing will work out at all and you barely postprocess together the absolute minimum requirement.

What I try to do is to *produce* at least one good shot a day, and this includes difficult postprocessing shots which to my dismay often takes much longer than I'd like to.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe or Apple photo software?
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:52:31 PM »
They seem to be heading the same direction.

I don't know about the Apple software, but it's clear in which direction they're heading since the dumped Aperture. As I Lightroom user, I can only recommend Adobe - fast and terrific library management when your collection grows.

Most of all, LR (and PS) are using the standard Adobe Camera Raw process with associated editing tools which is 90% of what you'll ever need. Usually I'm no fan of software by monopoly giants, but I cannot ignore Lightroom is designed to be the one ring to rule them all.

We’re told that demo versions of the upcoming replacement for the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS have hit select photographers hands for field use.

... which might in result in Canon dumping the prototypes again if their test audience isn't happy and fixing the problems would mean blowing the lid off the budget/ acceptable price tag.

I guess this lens is bound to make a lot of people unhappy, either it will be very expensive (but good with with tcs, crop and upcoming higher mp ff) or it will have an affordable price which means it won't outclass its predecessor - and a bit more sharpness and 100mm more reach vs. the 70-300L isn't revolutionary unless you're set upon using a tc all the time.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:21:00 AM »
I think when all is said and done, if you shoot 100, 200, etc you get the most information in your image.
If you shoot 160, 320, etc, you are shooting at 200, 400, etc, but then stopped down 20% and this appears to "clean" some of the pattern noise.

+1, after shooting at iso160-multiples for some time I came to the conclusion that it isn't worth the hassle... and you cannot just put all sensors in one basket, a 18mp crop sensor on the old 7d1 will behave in a very different way than the latest clean, ff 6d

For other in-depth analysis by the Magic Lantern devs, read this thread "Do have iso160-multiples have more dr & less noise?": http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9867.0

But the real threat is Canon simply disabling the 3rd party loader ML uses. As you might know, the ML "firmware" just patches one byte so that their "autoexec.bin" is loaded from the card - probably the same mechanism Canon uses for in-house fw development.
There is always going to be someone with too much time on their hands willing to take up a challenge.

The challenge would involve opening your camera, unsoldering the firmware chip from the pcb and replace or reprogram it as it's done with hacked game consoles. If there's no software way to enable 3rd party code, that's it for 99.9% of the current ML users.

The reason ML devs didn't bothered with the 1DC have probably more to do with hassle, lack of access to a 1DC body, and having to support it,

Nope, Canon told them not to touch the 1dx or else, see the ML forum where this is stated for all to read. It's pretty easy to say "Well, any lawsuit will be dismissed anyway" from an armchair approach, but if you're the private individual w/o any law insurance being actually sued it might be another perspective altogether :-o

Last not least, and I'm happy at least the main ML dev is there with me, ML isn't made to pimp rich people's 1d gear for free or backport 1dc->1dx features. It's an enthusiast's project to expand the possibilities of low to midrange gear that limit creativity because Canon designed them with your Mom as a user in mind. In that spirit, the hilariously expensive €3000 5d3 is the absolute top of the line that qualifies for ML support.

But on what legal grounds would Canon try to fight ML? They could fight ML if ML reverse-engineered their firmware, since the firmware might be the property of Canon.

On the US firmware download page, there's something about re being not allowed while in the EU there isn't for some reason or another. Not that this would matter - would you like to have a global company sue your behind with an armada of lawyers, no matter if it turns out you're in the clear after half a decade of trials?

But the real threat is Canon simply disabling the 3rd party loader ML uses. As you might know, the ML "firmware" just patches one byte so that their "autoexec.bin" is loaded from the card - probably the same mechanism Canon uses for in-house fw development.

They can simply ship their next fw update w/o this or use a stronger fw update file encryption for their next dslrs so the signed(!) ML mini-fw won't be accepted anymore: Currently it's just xor, of course Canon knows it's been broken and ML has a signature key. So by not changing this they're unofficially allowing ML to run and say "Well, kids, be nice so daddy won't come over and take away your toys".

Note: if you're comfortable with magiclantern, add to the comparison above: Focus peaking, Zebras, Waveform monitor, on screen meters, crop markers, and a few other feature to all the Canons.

Imho this is the real Canon killer feature - of course no thanks to Canon as a company except for not aggressively counteracting/disabling 3rd party firmware addons: 14bit resolution, full dynamic range uncompressed raw video!

Admittedly it's a postprocessing hassle, but the ML devs are very active on imrproving their mlv container format and there are more and more projects supporting it w/o further conversion.

The Magic Lantern development has moved away from the current "rolling release" nightlies, so to see what they're up to next look at their branches and esp. pull requests where the real bleeding edge is: https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all

Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 22, 2014, 02:40:27 PM »
If you don't have a charger that has individual battery slots to use, you can use another paper clip to connect the negative terminals.

Thanks, I didn't know this is possible - after searching the net, below are other relevant links on the topic. And whatdayaknow - it worked! Both batteries are alive again after short-circuiting for a few secs, so thanks to the helpful posts above and in your face, Yongnuo :->


Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 22, 2014, 11:31:56 AM »
Yeah, as a previous poster mention, rechargeable batteries sometimes won't re-charge if they have been fully drained. Also, I have some inexpensive radio triggers and a few 3rd party flashes. In general, for non-name brand electronics, I do not trust the "Off" switch.

Harrrrgnn, well, it's only two batteries and you never stop learning - thanks for the information. I'll adapt my behavior accordingly if I keep buying Chinese junk products, obviously the cheaper electronics do make a difference - I've never experienced with my Canon flashes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 322