November 26, 2014, 08:24:30 AM

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 - 3kramd5

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
EOS Bodies / Re: I killed my brand new 7D MK2 today
« on: November 13, 2014, 11:06:48 PM »
You're not the only one:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13892

Nice. I once fixed bent (shorted, criss-crossed like the in-n-out palm trees logo) pins of a USB 3 jack on a motherboard with a pair of tweezers. Good times.

2
It's shocking, IHMO, that the new 7DII has lower scores than cameras with even smaller sensors.

That's been the problem all along with DXO. While their three individual metrics are very insightful, how DXO weighs these metrics against each other to arrive at a single score is one giant mystery. And people are willing to riot over that single overall sensor score :)

The Zeiss 24-70 f4 just bested the Canon and Nikon versions, despite the fact that the Nikon outscored the Zeiss in each metric the Zeiss still got an overall score one more than the Nikon.

Lest we forget, DXO mark includes sensor performance in lens scores. If you use the A3000 rather than the A7R, the Zeiss turns to crap.

So not only are there some bizarre undisclosed weightings involved, but DXO isn't even testing bare optics.

3
As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. ..
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.

Interesting. May I ask why? It's a nice to have, maybe, but if that (software) functionality adds "a lot of money" to the cost of a body, I'd prefer to put that money into memory and crop in post.

For most of my work there is no time for post processing.  My images go straight from the camera to viewing stations where my customers can view and purchase the images.  Selected images also go straight to slideshows running on multiple 50" screens.  If a parent sees a good shot on the 50" screens, chances are they are going to head to the viewing stations to look and hopefully make a purchase.  A my larger venues my selected shots are projected on 20'x30' screens.  Again no time for post processing.

The crop on the fly ability allows me to put a more tightly cropped image in front of the customer, whether it be on my viewing stations, 50" monitors or 20'x30' screen.  For me this increases sales.

-John

Fair 'nuff. Thanks John!

4
Lenses / Re: Why does a 2x TC lose 2 stops?
« on: October 29, 2014, 02:06:22 PM »
Such an adapter would not be practical for two reasons:  first, because the image circle is reduced in proportion to the conversion scaling factor, and because most if not all EF lenses are designed to only project an image circle roughly large enough to cover the 24x36mm imaging sensor, the result of such a converter in an EF-to-EF system would be large sections of black, unexposed sensor in the image periphery.

Naturally, but note that many people don't mind cropping (D800/600, probably many sony models will do it in camera), and may be willing to give up peripheral pixels in exchange for brightness.

That said, there likely isn't a major market for it.

5
Lenses / Re: Why does a 2x TC lose 2 stops?
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:52:01 PM »
The reverse is also true: A 0.5x TC gains 2 stops.


Wow, I have never heard of that.  That's two learnin's I got from one thread.  :)

http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

So they are only used with mirrorless cameras?  That's probably why I never heard of them.  Still interesting though.  Thanks for posting it.

I've not seen one that is, for example, EF to EF. It would be kinda cool I suppose to use one to brighten up and widen EF lens for use on a crop body. Maybe there's something out there.

6
Lenses / Re: Why does a 2x TC lose 2 stops?
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:40:15 PM »
Time for the day's stupid question:

It is a known fact that all 2x teleconverters lose 2 stops of light, and all 1.4x TCs lose one stop of light. Why? What if the glass in the TC was twice as large? ... it would let in more light, therefore the light loss would be less. Now I realize this logic is somehow flawed, but I can't reason why. Anyone?

What a TC effectively does is magnify. It spreads a constant amount of light over a larger area. So no, if it were bigger, it wouldn't let in more light.

7
Lenses / Re: Why does a 2x TC lose 2 stops?
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:36:19 PM »
The reverse is also true: A 0.5x TC gains 2 stops.


Wow, I have never heard of that.  That's two learnin's I got from one thread.  :)

http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

8
As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. ..
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.

Interesting. May I ask why? It's a nice to have, maybe, but if that (software) functionality adds "a lot of money" to the cost of a body, I'd prefer to put that money into memory and crop in post.

9
I have some difficulty seeing what Canon could pack into a camera to justify a $10k price tag.

Accounting for inflation, didn't many of the 1Ds models cost that much?

Anyway, for me the answer is yes. The ultimate camera will be so revolutionary that every image I record earns me a dollar. At 50FPS, it will pay for itself post haste.

Also, it won't be full sized, but will ship with two detachable grips:
1) typical battery grip, and
2) memory grip compatible with two 2.5" solid state drives at SATA-express bandwidth.

10
Lenses / Re: Review: PowerShot G7 X via DXOMark
« on: October 27, 2014, 08:38:57 PM »
That's really hijacking. Cool!  >:(

Nothing has been hijacked. This thread doesn't even exist!

There are two sites I will never link again, and one of them is DXO.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 11:39:08 PM »
Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"?  In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8 ...

600/5.6.  You don't get something for nothing.

It's always both amusing and rather sad that people don't understand the word "equivalent".

It's very odd, especially when the same people don't make the same mistake with teleconverters, which do exactly the same thing as smaller sensors (crop and enlarge).

They do the same thing. So do scissors and bandsaws. That doesn't make them the same. Optical cropping and magnifying does not equal digital cropping and up sampling. The end is likely very similar, however (although with canon's signal chain, I imagine enlarging and increasing sensitivity before digitizing is better). It would be interesting to actually test which process takes a bigger noise penalty.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 05:13:32 PM »
The combo will be cheaper, lighter, smaller and unless I'm shooting at dusk or dawn, the grizzlies will show the same size (and probably comparable IQ) on the same size print, or my screen.

Time of day changes magnification?  :o

Why should I buy a trash can sized lens
...
I want the reach of 800mm or more

That's why :P

13
Canon General / Re: Does "Banding" exist
« on: October 20, 2014, 11:04:24 AM »
the new crappy iMac 5K display got me thinking.

Have you ever seen one in person to say it is crappy? What kind of deep, objective, technical analysis did you perform on them? I would love to hear your evidence-based conclusions. Until then, get your facts straight.

He's obviously basing it on the specifications (in particular it only being sRGB), the only factual thing most of us have access to currently.

14
We have 10 iMacs in the studio..... They are completely reliable workhorses and none of us would rather sit at a laptop with an even smaller screen and weaker config.

I don't doubt their reliability. My MBPs have been mainly reliable. And no, I wouldn't rather sit at a laptop either; that isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is this: you give up expandability with all in ones just like you do with laptops; you give up portability with all in ones and traditional desktops. Each of the three systems gives up something. All in ones give up more. If I'm tied to a desk, I want a tower with all it brings (easy swapping or addition of components, multiple video card options, multiple hard drive options, optical drive options, etc). If not, I want a laptop. However, this obviously works for some people and that's great.

The upside is upgrading of storage without any disassembly, the downside is more clutter if you have several drives.

The upside is pretty minor given modern chassis design. It's really easy to replace drives. I run 4 internal drives, and keep two open SATA ports for when I swap out the main data drives (currently they're 4TB). Pulling the drives and putting in new ones is easy. On the other hand, I hate clutter. That's a big downside for me. I have an external drive tucked away out of sight which I use for temporary external backup, but my main backup solution is cloud based, so I don't need nearly as much external storage as internal storage.


The speed of Thunderbolt allows an external drive to perform to the full potential of its internals, whether spinning disk or solid state. Given a fast enough connection, there is no performance downside to the drive being external.


Out of curiosity, can you build RAID arrays over thunderbolt (heh, I think these days we can all ignore the "I" in that particular initialism).

15
Single hard drive and max 8GB memory is not my dream. Nice display, but all in ones still feel to me like immobile laptops.

That's the minimum config.  You can upgrade to 32Gb memory and a 1Tb SSD drive.  Also has two thunderbolt ports and 4 USB 3 ports.  You would typically add a thunderbolt RAID for your photo storage, leaving the internal for the OS and applications. 

This would be similar to what you would do with  a maxed out MacPro that contains 12 cores, 64Gb, a 1Tb internal drive, 6 thunderbolt ports and 4 USB 3 ports that can handle 3 4K displays or 6 thunderbolt displays.

Ah, I read "up to 8GB."

Regardless, one internal drive with a built in display kills it for me. YMMV

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31