October 23, 2014, 03:14:06 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
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: Today at 02:11:53 PM »
Very interesting. Is this because the 1D X applies the gain at an analogue stage for each ISO, instead (I presume) of for multiples of ISO 100 only, followed by digital push/pull on other sensors? If so that is surprising, as I would have thought such behavior is a product of the sensor architecture shared by all 500 nm process DSLR sensors.

Nobody outside Canon would know for sure, but the 1dx is unlikely to have a sensor from outer space that fell through a time hole from the future. As with all 1d functions, the guess is that Canon simply applied much more fine-tuning of their various amplifier stages, a process the Magic Lantern devs currently backport for the rest of us resulting in more dynamic range for free.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: Today at 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.

Lighting / Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:53:52 AM »
I am a victim of the rather unreliable Yongnuo rt trigger which only performs at least so-so if you put a pair of spanking new, fully charged batteries into it.

But Yongnuo keeps surprising me, now the unit killed my batteries (two rather new Eneloops): I left them in for ~3 months because I didn't use the trigger anymore, and now they're stone dead and refuse to be recharged.

Questions: Does anyone know this behavior? Is this a warranty case (the unit itself works with another set of batteries)?

Thanks for any advice!

It has been mentioned in another thread about the $180 Yn clone, but imho this deserves a thread on its own: http://flashhavoc.com/shanny-flash-and-trigger-models/

Their first model "SN600SC" doesn't have rt built in, but you need an additional "SN-E3-MD" clip-on rt receiver - for slave flashes, I don't think this is too much of a problem. Like Yn, their sales site mentions they've got a "SN600EX-RT" in the queue which will be an integrated part.

Let's hope these things actually work, either there's some big catch here or otherwise these prices are outright crazy vs. Canon. However, as one victim of the unreliable Yn ST-E3-RT transmitter, I'll be very cautious esp. because the firmware seems to be still work in progress.


Lighting / Re: Is this dangerous when using the 600ex rt´s?
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:27:18 PM »
It's no problem leaving HSS as default.

... which makes it so annoying you have to explicitly turn hss on after each battery change, and if you forget it the flash clips at max x-sync and the camera engages safety shift :-\ ... if the flash doesn't remember the setting, I'd rather have a "no hss" setting next to 2nd curtain than the way it is now.

I would like the possibility to stop action with HSS, but also to overpower daylight.

You can use Magic Lantern, dual_iso ~triples+ the flash effectiveness... I use it all the time for high-power hss in bright daylight with a single flash as I find the 6d's max x-sync of 1/180s very limiting.

Lenses / Re: 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter on crop body
« on: October 20, 2014, 01:22:52 PM »
These were taken with my 7D on the 100-400 with a Kenko 1.4TC.  You must use the outer 2 middle row focus points to get decent focusing ability.  Focus is slower, you need greater light and contrast.

Question is if at this magnification, you'd see a difference with a tc and the bare lens.

To the op: I've just got a 70-300L with the Kenko (you get a working but sloooooow f8 af), so take it for what it's worth - but it's about the same iq or even a bit better than the older 100-400L. Basically, forget about using this on a crop body, you're cutting 1.6x times 1.4x away from the glass and it really shows with these midrange lenses.

I only use it to zoom in on sunsets and the like nowadays that need even more cropping, but for anything that require sharpness it's not worth switching the tc on.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:03:54 AM »
I think everyone's looking at the 6D as some sort of crippled Mk3.  They're missing the point:  the 6D represents a stripped down approach to full frame.  Its as though Canon looked at the Mk3 and said "What don't we need on this camera?"

... in this case, they could just have added the full-blown firmware - why can I play audio files along side my in-camera slide show, but cannot save hdr source files or do raw hdr? This is software crippling by removal of features, just like removing 1/8000 shutter or 1/200 x-sync is on the hardware side. Beware, it's absolutely terrific you like the 6d just as it is.

4) Focus peaking (not just confirmation)

You do know Magic Lantern has focus peaking and then some, right?

I've used the 6D in the rain and in the cold.  It's plenty robust.  To call this camera "entry-level" is nonsense.

Your opinion of other people's opinions is appreciated. However, one word of warning from bad experience - the 6d's sealing isn't as sturdy as (semi-)pro camera bodies like the 5d3 or 7d, using the 6d in rain w/o any damage basically comes down to even more luck than with other non-1d cameras.

EOS Bodies / Re: Crop camera upgrade
« on: October 18, 2014, 06:11:03 PM »
Are you saying aside from frame rate and AF performance, you don't foresee any IQ improvement for the 7D2 over the 550D?

I'm not in the market for a 7d2, so I only had a rough look. There certainly will be an improvement as your 550d's 18mp sensor is the earliest incarnation, so less banding, a little more sharpness (weaker aa filter), 2 more metapixies, maybe 1-2-2/3 stop iso improvment. Refer to other 7d2 threads or reviews for details - question is if you've experienced the problems with the older sensor the newer one might improve.

It all depends on your budget, but that wouldn't be worth €1700 for *me*, I'd rather stay with my 60d which admittedly has better usability than your Rebel. Camera bodies come and go, the 7d2 will drop in price like all do...

... but for less money (after selling your current lenses) you could upgrade to a 16-35L-IS and Sigma 50mm ART - now *that* would have an impact on your pictures for sure. Having the latest, absolute two top-notch camera bodies and shooting with some medicre lenses imho is a bad decision as your gear isn't balanced.

EOS Bodies / Re: Crop camera upgrade
« on: October 18, 2014, 04:44:40 PM »
Thanks to both of you for your comments.  It did seem like it wouldn't provide me any significant advantage over my current equipment.  However, I don't know how much reach I will need to get good shots of the animals that I will see.  Some subjects (i.e. elephants, giraffe, zebra, hippo) will not be moving quickly, so advanced AF is not imperative.

I'm not a safari geek, but I imagine with too far away subjects the atmospheric disturbance in hot climate gets so significant it won't really matter what sensor you're using :-p

After reading those posts, I'm more inclined to use it on the 5D3 and use either the 17-40 or 24-105 on the crop body for wider shots.  It does seem counterintuitive to use a FF for longer shots instead of crop.

Don't only be set upon pixel peeping sharpness, there are other lens propierties. Cropping just the center from a full frame ef lens means a vastly different bokeh and vignetting look wide open. That doesn't matter stopped down, so you should be fine with the 17-40L @f8+ on crop and using your best lens on your best sensor.

I do recall Neuro stating on more than one occasion that the only advantages crop provides are size and cost.

... and other people disagree with our full frame editor, including me and obviously jrista. Crop is certainly great for macro and having to carry around less weight & bulk for the same reach. As you wrote, you're no a pro, so shooting is supposed to be fun - which actually is a good reason to get the 7d2 toy just for the heck of it if you've got the €€€.

EOS Bodies / Re: Crop camera upgrade
« on: October 18, 2014, 02:23:19 PM »
Based on that information:  is it worth upgrading the crop body to the 7D2?

Imho you've got all the information you need to make the decision: You know the iq of the 200mm zoom with tc on crop (won't change with the 7d2), you know the af performance of the 5d3. Looking at the shots, the 7d2's sensor performance isn't revolutionary.

Now - is having an equal af system on the crop (but with af points nearly all over the vf) and more fps worth spending €1700 on? If in doubt, what other gear parts would you spend that amount of money on as an alternative? Some of your lenses are medocre, there are good replacements esp. for the 17-40 and 50/1.4.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 322