August 01, 2014, 11:29:22 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 - psolberg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: May 03, 2013, 06:56:30 AM »
I still don't know why they didn't give the 5D3 high quality cropped modes for wildlife and stuff and 2x2 block modes. They had so many years and such a market to conquer and dominate and it seems they got all side tracked in going other ways and maximizing profit margin and internal segmentation and this and that instead, so conservative too.

C-line protection. that's all.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom coming to iOS
« on: May 03, 2013, 06:45:20 AM »
I run full photoshop and LR on a surface pro already. Is it fast? well it is as fast as it is on a mac book air which is to say that it is better than nothing but certainly times and times faster than on the slow cpu of an ipad as the surface pro has a notebook cpu.

however even on a 10inch screen surface, there isn't enough room to do much. as such, having this on other tablets seems pointless unless they can connect to a mouse/keyboard/screen and augment their screen real state this way.

then there is the issue of precision. try using the PS tools with your fingers. not it isn't just that they are hard to select, which is something adobe could solve with larger dpi scaling, but your finger's precision in applying strokes is far worse than that of a mouse, not to mention your hand get in the way of 1/4 of the screen resulting in a strange experience.

so even with UI re-design, I question if I'd ever use PS and LR more than just occasional editing. If apple can put it's full OSX on an ipad somehow, the way Microsoft did and run all the laptop software, and allow for keyboard/mouse/monitor use, then they may have a winner. Otherwise I've been doing what they are promising for months (all my pro apps on tablets) and don't see why all the buzz is about.

Noticeable difference yes, but still soft as all get out.  :-\

yeah, still has that 720p -> faux 1080p look of dslr video.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: May 02, 2013, 06:52:56 AM »
this is an excellent article on the ML hacks which although not related to the firmware in question, it does answer why the quality improvements are minor at best.

apparently the 5DmkIII internal processing before encoding pretty much degrades the image quality while preparing it to exit the camera either via the h264 encoding engine or hdmi. In other words, this dashes all hopes to improve on the soft output via HDMI recording. It's a hardware limitations problem.

With the latest firmware (1.21) we now know what the compression does not really change image quality, as the uncompressed H.264 output via HDMI looks just as rubbish as the internally recorded compressed H.264 (at 24Mbit in IPB mode).

however THIS looks way more interesting

That said, what they did find interesting was that the resolution of the DNGs they got from their RAW mode were way higher resolution than just the traditional h.264 video stream from Canon. Not sure if that means that Canon intentionally is crippling it, or if the h.264 encoding loses a lot of resolution, but, that could be useful for some purposes.

Of course, if you want Raw video at 2k, you'd just spend the same amount on a BMCC instead and get a much nicer workflow.

yup. BMCC FTW.
Regarding the RAW video hack of ML,
EOSHD has a really interesting update

Canon’s Chuck Westfall and Tim Smith say line skipping on the sensor was necessary to get down from the native sensor resolution of 21MP+ to 2MP, implying this results in moire and aliasing. However the 2K output of the sensor is much cleaner without the same moire issues as the final 1080p video, and resolution is much closer to 1080 lines than the mushy 5D Mark III 1080p is.

The softer image with moire and aliasing appears to be introduced by the image processor further (and crudely) resizing the 2K raw image, which seems unnecessary. All the camera should need to do is crop to 16:9 and compress the data, not reduce the resolution dramatically further like it is doing. It could be that in order to provide a simultaneous VGA live view feed and 1080p to the SD card, the 2K data has to be downrezed to a middle ground between 640×480 and 1920×1080, then upscaled back to 1080p but I’m purely speculating.

line skipping, yikes.  :( I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this yet.

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:29:10 AM »
Hey folks,
I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(

Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?

Just wondering....

The ease of the transition depends to an ever decreasing degree on what your photography is. The majority of people will lose or gain little, unless off course you're looking for something specific in the competitor's system. Your skill as a dealer will also impact your final numbers as well as your initial inventory. With lenses as outrageously priced on the canon side recently, as well as some bodies, it is no longer always true that the Nikon side is more expensive. Again, it all depends on your current gear.

I did the switch last year after being with canon for over a decade. It was quite painless and I consider it a net gain as Nikon has essentially fixed all the major gaps they had just a decade ago which would have prevented me from switching. Both systems still have big holes, but that is irrelevant if those holes do not affect you.

I encourage you to think of this without considering too much the opinions of people that suffer from Stockholm syndrome. unfortunately photographers identify with their OEM brand far more than most professionals and therefore try too hard to make people like you change their minds (or if they are on the other side, convince you). 99% of the people that question my switch boiled down their arguments to irrelevant factoids about the lack of some particular lens model, or body feature, which I didn't care for, or some glass ball prediction.

I'd recommend that if you do the switch, do it because you want to. Don't hold gear because of some loyalty. That is stupid. I shoot Nikon today but 8 years from now, I'd shoot Sony if that is what worked for me, or canon again. I don't advise switching every month off course, but it is good to re-evaluate choices, specially in times of great change. In 2002, I could write Nikon off.  But in 2012, I could not longer find a single reason to stay with canon. What a difference a decade makes. Screw loyalty. This is about YOU.

I agree that CR is an amazing photo community. But as with all spec-centric forums, people tend to overemphasize the importance of the latest/greatest gear. All the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs are amazing. People fretting over "Canon vs. Nikon" are splitting hairs. Both brands are amazing. It's great to hear about the relative strengths and weaknesses, but those marginal differences rarely hold back good photographers.

exactly right. I would in fact advise OP to avoid this board for this kind of decision. find a neutral board with shooters of all systems. there is off course going to be a huge bias to canon on a rumors board for people are pre-disposed to canon gear's latest and greatest or they wouldn't be here. Nikonrumors board would be just as bad a place to be fair.

When I switched, I asked in some Nikon boards for opinions but was quick to rule out the fanboys. I did get some useful honest info, in particular because many Nikon guys were canon guys not long ago, and they could offer far more valuable advise than the typical forum person pushing the only brand they've ever known.

waiting on EOSHD to do a full test, but so far his early conclusions is that the uncompressed HDMI only yields minor improvements. If this is the case, the soft output of the 5DmkIII compared to other cameras, as documented on many of his tests, may in fact be impossible to fix with a firmware update, at least one from canon.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:05:25 AM »
hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon echo (where every time Nikon releases a lens, there is a rumor of canon doing the same thing, but rarely happens) or the real thing.

Then again, the infamous push puller from canon has been in need of a refresh just as badly as the Nikon one.

nice competitor to the sony 135 f1.8, which to date, it is my favorite 135mm lens over both the canon/Nikon variants. hopefully sigma will hit another home run after their 35 1.4 which just about writes the book on 35mm lens design.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: April 23, 2013, 03:33:01 PM »
sigma makes a 1.8 zoom for APS-C. For full frame, you're just dreaming.

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?
« on: April 23, 2013, 03:27:28 PM »
I hope this fiasco doesn't become standard for other camera companies. Announce a product they will not have for ages.

Canon General / Re: Canon is Number 1 for 10 Straight Years
« on: April 23, 2013, 03:17:11 PM »
translation: "We went from de-facto with no competition, to big player feeling the heat enough to put out a press release."

Interesting take on this press announcement over on
He's got a point. This reminds me of when Microsoft comes out to brag about windows PC sales, and how they're still team #1  ::)

Good for canon, I hope they do well having shot with them for many years. But I'd love to see how much market share they've been bleeding over the last decade. I recall shooting with nothing but canon gear around me by others. Today I see tons of Nikon, even sony. Heck mirrorless is on a roll. This industry has experienced a huge re-balancing and the re-birth of competition which was sorely missed, at least by those of us that don't really marry a brand.

sorry canon, but the trend is towards a more diverse future.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 18, 2013, 07:50:53 AM »

To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.
I've done it. no big deal. It is actually quite trivial specially because both sides are so comparable. you give up some, you gain some. When the D900 vs 5Dmk4 game starts 3-4 years from now, I'll revaluate my choice.

Trivial? How many lenses do you own? I have five L's and one non-L. All those carefully researched. I have to sell all of them, deal with unknown people on ebay with all the risks involved, spend a lot of time to research the new system, spend more money to get new lenses (and Nikon lenses are more expensive, even though Canon is trying hard to get a lead); just to discover that my new Nikon body cannot focus as well as, say, my old Canon - for example. And just when I do all this, Canon comes up with a new body, and I start selling lenses again.

I sold over 10 high end canon lenses and two bodies. private sales are best. specially if you find a Nikon shooter who wants to go the other direction. I will not say it is no effort, but considering how much I use the gear, the fact I need to post a classified and deal with paypal is actually a minor issue. I don't do it every month and if the release cycles are any indication, the D900/5Dmk4 won't be around for a LONG time meaning the hassle is a twice in a decade occurrence, at best.

Newer lenses tend to be more expensive. the 70-200 and 24-70 canon revisions are more expensive than just about anything. Yet I fully expect the Nikon refreshes of that to come in about 5 years to reach even higher. Is this not expected? off course it is. It's called inflation, dollar devaluation, and simple feature creep.

I will never marry my gear.  8)

If you're shooting weddings or 'generalist' stuff, maybe.  But those gaps in the lineup are significant, and I think Canon has the lead there. The MP-E 65mm for macro shooters and the TS-E 17mm for architecture/interiors are unmatched.  For landscape shooters, the Nikon 14-24mm is nice, but Canon has a 14mm prime and a zoom starting at 16mm.  For wildlife, Nikon's real and purchasable 200-400/4 is nice, but I'll take my handholdable 600/4 over that any day.

You can do more than *weddings* on a Nikon system. 17mm TS as well as the MP-E65mm are nice yes. And those very specialized shooters will likely not move. In my case I find the 24mm TS to be more suited to me on both systems. But I'll count them as loss for the sake of argument. Landscape wise, the 14mm canon prime which I owned is no match for the 14-24 zoom, in fact no even close. So I count that as a gain. The 1mm difference on the 17-35vs16-35 wide zoom is not holding anybody back. When I switched, I found that Nikon has a 16-35 IS f/4 zoom that goes down to 16mm vs the non IS 17-40 Canon that is also quite old so that was a gain. I'm much happier with the wide landscape offerings than I ever was before, but I can see how both camps can get hung up on justifications for either side as long as they can makeup some shooting situation. Overall for me, it was a net gain on landscapes even neglecting the sensor advantage. The rest of my switch was more of a flush trade. Nikon has a modern 80-400 which canon absolutely lacks so I gained that and so far have been extremely impressed with it. And as you said the 200-400 which *someday* will ship on the canon side at likely greater cost (not that such zooms remotely peeks my interest for now). My other stuff transitioned easily all the way to 400mm.

600f/4 hand-holdable? I'll take your word for it. You're stronger than me and steadier than me for an 8 1/2 lb lens is not something I'd use without good support but it will save your donkey, I'll give you that :)

Ultimately, there is not much point justifying our own choices. Going to any system, you gain some, you loose some, which is my point. I certainly see plenty of the same tales in Nikon land. In most cases however it is just the usual nonsensical loyalty photographers have for mere tools which is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

I know that there are people on both sides of the fence stuck on some lens or camera and erect a shrine to it and overblow its significance based on some anecdotal evidence or personal experience. I'm just glad, long gone are the days were it was canon or nothing and we should all celebrate it and hope it only gets to better. The trend certainly indicates the future is very heterogeneous and there will be plenty of choice. AWESOME.

They used to be the only game in town about a decade ago when it was strange to shoot anything else, so I did pick them. Thankfully for everybody, the days when it was canon or nothing are long gone. Choice is awesome and I went from 5DI/II/III-> D800. Mirrorless, I'm set on m4/3 at this point. Video, Sony easily trumps anything canon, although I'm more interested in the small low cost players like blackmagic, specially their m4/3 offerings.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30