October 20, 2014, 09:15:29 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 - FunPhotons

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP?

The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is why do you care? I want a high MP body, I can pay for it, and I'm tired of people telling me I don't (why do people overquote?) "need" it. I want it, got it?

Because we are trying to help you get better images. ...

That's great, thanks for the unasked for and unwanted help! Maybe I/we want a high MP body because we like gadgets, maybe we just like lots of pixels, maybe we have too much disk space that needs filling, or maybe we feel it will help us get better pictures. Who cares? But stop dictating the same, tired trope that more pixels doesn't give better pictures. I suspect that people who push this idea are trying to convince themselves more than us, maybe they can't afford it? Or more likely, maybe they can't afford the infrastructure to handle the larger shots?

Anyhow I have cameras that span the gamut, from Google Glass on my head to a 5D with a ton of glass perched on it. Guess what? The more pixels with the better glass gives me better pictures! Technically they're better, and even more I take far more care with them, so get better shots. At the low end with my phone or Glass, I'll just snap away and hope for the best.

Sure some nabob will promptly say, for the thousandth time, that a cell phone camera can take a picture worthy of National Geographic. Yeah, whatever, we've heard that a few times, but I have yet to see a iPhone shot that made it on those pages with any regularity. Regardless you don't find us telling you guys that 24 isn't enough for you, so stop trying to tell us that 24 is enough for us.

2
The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP?

The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is why do you care? I want a high MP body, I can pay for it, and I'm tired of people telling me I don't (why do people overquote?) "need" it. I want it, got it?

3
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600-ex-rt upgrade?
« on: May 22, 2014, 02:42:41 PM »
Maybe they can make a flash with adjustable light temperature.

Sounds nice but I don't know of technology for that at the flashbulb level. What I'd do is put a thin film LCD in the front, then put whatever color cast you want on it. Effectively it's an electronic gel, and you'd lose a half stop or whatever. Of course that could be done as an add in too, though batteries might make it bulky.

Convenient, but plastic gels are more accurate and cheaper.

4
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 430 RT
« on: May 22, 2014, 09:49:01 AM »
The iPhone that I am posting from can transmit and receive live video, and it's interior volume is far smaller than that of a 400-series flash.  I don't think the complexity of the signal is an issue. 

The two problems with an RF flash is signal reliability and latency. It's actually easier on the smart phone because there you can have huge amounts of slop, all that matters is bandwidth which is physics limited. Getting tight synchronization over RF is tricky because of all the components and the necessary driver stack, and of course you have to deal with a messy analog flashbulb, capacitor and batteries. Notice that trigger lines are simple TTL lines for this reason; anything more complicated gets hard (but still doable).

Anyhow the only possible physical issue with the 400 would be antenna I expect, they can certainly have a FPGA even with room for a SMA to the antenna. Certainly they won't make it a master from a product line standpoing.

5
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600-ex-rt upgrade?
« on: May 22, 2014, 09:33:57 AM »
I suspect that small flash technology with the 600RT has reached a relative peak and is leveling off. It will be difficult to get more photons out of it as that's fighting physics. The wireless technology isn't going to change, again physics and band regulation. That just leaves firmware and features. At some point they might go to a color touchscreen which wouldn't hurt, of course that would eat more battery too.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 18, 2014, 07:39:42 PM »
This may have been covered by somebody, and of course we won't know until it's released, but based on the charts will this lens differ from the 16-35/2.8 above f/8 much at all?

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 17, 2014, 08:18:18 AM »
I wonder if the geographic divisions are somewhat independent. Why would Canon China post pictures but nowhere else? They make seemingly random and uncoordinated marketing efforts much of the time (such as the U.S. EOS-M decisions)

8
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 08:49:03 AM »
Choices, choices ... this is the year of the UWA zoom.

Do you want IS, IQ and filters, or less range, slightly lower range, another stop and a big, bulbous nose?

9
16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

Good point! I was wondering if I wanted to keep my 16-35 II f/2.8. I hate bothering to sell lenses, this gives me an excuse to keep it.

10
If they pulled it off, it would be a major major scoop over the Nikon 14-24.  To my knowledge, a lack of comprehensive filtering options is the only major drawback to that lens.

And the size/weight, lack of IS and loss of 11mm at the top end compared to a 16-35mm.

With my 16-35 I have a very versatile lens for my kind of shooting - landscape with some people and general shooting. 35mm is just fine for shooting people and general but 24mm is really too wide for my taste. Likewise 14 is an unnecessary extra 2mm over the 16mm.

My 16-35mm is on my camera most of the time, but I don't like the distortion and frankly don't use the 2.8 due to poor performance. This version, where I lose one stop but gain four more via IS, in addition to 77mm filters, size (mainly in the hood), and especially IQ is a clear winner. This will be my #1 lens I'm sure.

11
I think for many photogs this might be the ultimate UWA.

My reasoning is that people tend to focus on IQ and the exotic. The Nikon 14-24 is a wild gem, but you can't put filters on that beast, and do you really need 2.8 for an UWA? Further you gain only an extra 2mm on the bottom end but lose 11mm on the top end compared to a 16-35. I'd contend it's more of a specialty lens, despite the popularity.

This lens is much more versatile ...

  • 16-35mm is huge range, having 35mm makes it usable for more than just UWA landscape.
  • IS
  • weather sealing with a sane 77mm
  • Compact size, etc

I use the 16-35II most of the time, this one I think will be on my camera even more. UWA for all the scenery I shoot, and 35mm for the people shots. If I need more light I've got plenty of flashes.

12
Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:37:26 AM »
I like the camera but find changing settings difficult. Yesterday I had it out and wanted to take a custom white balance. First had to change to manual focus (buried in a menu and had to use touch), take the shot with the WB filter on, then turn AF back on, then find the Set Custom WB setting, then navigate to Use Custom WB setting. Frustrating and took far too long. Whereas on my 5D I can get it done in about 5 or 10 seconds and it's an intuitive process. Also the lack of a viewfinder makes it difficult to see many shots.

But the size, versatility and IQ combination can't be beat.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1 Announcement Q2 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:02:14 AM »
It seems that Canon is dropping their "better pixels" argument in favor of "more pixels" then?

14
Lenses / Re: 100-400 f/4-5.6 or 200-400 f/4 "little brother"
« on: August 10, 2013, 02:39:54 PM »
Damn you guys are intense, forget I asked ... (no not going off in a rage quit, just wondering why I bother)

15
Lenses / 100-400 f/4-5.6 or 200-400 f/4 "little brother"
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:46:27 PM »
The apparent upcoming release of a new 100-400 got me thinking, would I prefer a 100-400 replacement (100-400 f/4-5.6 IS) or a 200-400 f/4 little brother, with higher IQ, no built in TC but would work "as well" as the 1.4 add on TC, for around $2k? I think I'd prefer the latter.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27