January 28, 2015, 07:18:14 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 - PhotographerJim

Pages: [1] 2
Good read, I learned on film myself so I think modern digital imaging is fantastic! Although I still like shooting & then developing my own film best, something is different about it. Somehow more satisfying or something..

Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 14, 2014, 03:11:13 PM »
I should have enough saved about the time the price drops... (or it's eligible for a rebate)
I'm really excited about this lens.

Canon General / Re: CPS loan returns
« on: October 31, 2014, 11:24:19 PM »
Yeah, I'd call and ask. There was one time that I would have had to send it overnight to get there before a holiday, but the shipping would have been REALLY high (like $150). So I just sent it regular FedEx (2-day from FL), and it got there the day after the holiday. I never had a problem.

Lenses / Re: Official: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:04:56 PM »
Impressive.  Most impressive.   :)

Totally OT, but did anyone else read this in Darth Vader's voice? :D

If they managed to do this with 400 DO, I wonder if they can pull same trick with 70-300 DO. That would be one nice travelling telezoom :)

I did, hehe

You Pacific Northwest guys have to show us your landscapes now so the rest of us in flat and boring America can drool in envy :D

Colorado boys are welcome to do this as well :)

Canon EOS 20D. EF 20mm.


I don't mean to harp on Tallahassee as it has a lot of other things to offer (including the National Champion Seminoles), but there sure are a lot of trees and swamps.  I grew up in New England and near the Smoky Mountain National park and have lived in Colorado as well, so I'm just missing those amazing mountains and distant vistas :)

I lived for 4 years in Frisco, CO, miss it everyday....

Clermont, FL, just west of Orlando

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 05, 2014, 12:10:30 PM »
Loaned this lens from CPS last week, love it!
Resolution is really good wide open, especially in the corners. Much better than my 17-40L, I think this one will eventually replace it (as soon as I can save for it!)

6D, 1/50, ISO400, 16mm @ f/4

Photography Technique / Re: Website launched!
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:32:08 PM »
Nice work! I love your About Me page, I also am a hobbyist photographer and I appreciated reading that.

EOS Bodies / Re: ISO D+ function
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:28:12 PM »
I made the test
2 shots using same ISO (200), speed and f stop

Except they weren't the same ISO, because your camera lied.  ;)

im pretty sure it does sweet FA in raw but i might be wrong.
It just applies a different process to the raw file than it normally would
check the manual

It's not so much that HTP affects the RAW data per se, but it does affect the RAW metadata in a way that's not handled properly by anything but DPP.

What HTP does is deliberately underexpose by one stop, and 'misrecord' the ISO in the metadata - that's why ISO 100 isn't available when you turn on HTP, i.e. you set ISO 200, it shoots at ISO 100 but records 200, or you set ISO 800, it shoots at 400 and records 800. If shooting JPG, it processes the underexposed image to brighten everything except the highlights (meaning it applies a tone curve).  If shooting RAW, it sets a metadata flag so DPP can apply that tone curve. 

If you open that RAW file in a 3rd party converter, results vary. Some ignore the flag and you just get an underexposed image.  Others compensate by just boosting the total exposure by one stop - I think ACR (LR/CS) does that.  Of course, that just re-blows your highlights and adds shadow noise. AFAIK, no 3rd party converter tries to replicate the tone curve to preserve highlights. 

So, if you shoot RAW and use a converter other than DPP,  I'd leave HTP off so your reported ISO reflects the actual ISO used to take the shot, and just expose properly to preserve highlights.  You can apply your own tone curve, not limited to the one full stop forced by HTP.

Thanks for the info Neuro, you always amaze me...  8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:10:52 PM »
I'd love to have a 120mp APS-H that can do 9.5fps...I really wonder why they haven't stuffed that wonder into an actual DSLR and just trounced all the competition.

Its a wonder for Photographers who need much MP.
 I want a camera with extremely lowlight performance (like or better than Sony a7s). A 120 MP Sensor hasn't it  :-\

Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance.

The notion that pixel size affects noise is largely a myth.

I think it comes from film days, where the higher the film speed, the more grain, due to the larger silver halide crystals which made it more sensitive to light.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon Pixma Pro-100 $34 at Adorama
« on: June 28, 2014, 09:14:45 AM »
I ordered one yesterday, $34 is a no-brainer. Even with the cost of ink, it's still less expensive than having quality prints made. Especially if it comes with decent paper too. I'm looking forward to it, lots of good reviews, and my experience with Canon printers has been very good.

Now I need to learn about color management & profiling....  ::)

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 06, 2014, 09:20:10 PM »
24-105mm L

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 5DM3 need your help guys
« on: June 01, 2014, 07:07:49 AM »
I have the 6D, there's a reason why they paired it with the 24-105mm, they make a great combination. Purchased as a kit, you can usually get a really good deal.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 03:43:02 PM »
I have the current 70-300 DO, I use it often. I love the small size & light weight. For all the bad opinions it gets it really is a great lens. I don't know why most people are so negative about it, I'd buy it again. It does have less contrast, but there is a camera setting for that. Dial it in, and you're good to go.

Granted, I didn't buy it new, $1400 seems too much for it. I got an almost new one for $550, I guess that's one benefit of all of the negative reviews :)

Pages: [1] 2