August 27, 2014, 07:19:49 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147
1
That might be true in a testing scenario, but few of us shoot in those. Factor in AF, handholding, higher than base iso, less than ideal aperture or shutter speed etc etc etc and the differences become minimal, as so many people who have owned both have attested to.

That doesn't mean there is no point to a 7D, 70D 7D MkII, as a compliment to a 6D etc one might work very well, but the resolution thing really is a red herring unless you are using a heavy tripod, 10X live view manual focus blah blah.........

What the estimates tell you is that even if you have a heavy tripod, base iso etc you will gain only a small increase in reach, and not 60%.

I've been saying that for years and practically nobody agreed with me, it is great to see the winds of change, finally.  ;)

I deliberately stayed out of the last 5D MkIII and 7D reach comparison thread, it was interesting that after ironing out some flawed methodology the same conclusions were drawn that I did a long time ago, albeit to the utter disdain and disbelief of the then only 7D owning OP.

I wonder if people will believe me on some of the other contentious stuff I say now too? I doubt it..........


2
That might be true in a testing scenario, but few of us shoot in those. Factor in AF, handholding, higher than base iso, less than ideal aperture or shutter speed etc etc etc and the differences become minimal, as so many people who have owned both have attested to.

That doesn't mean there is no point to a 7D, 70D 7D MkII, as a compliment to a 6D etc one might work very well, but the resolution thing really is a red herring unless you are using a heavy tripod, 10X live view manual focus blah blah.........

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: Today at 01:39:34 PM »

I assume you are including me in the "FF snobs" comment? If so why, what do you know about my needs, current gear and the 7D MkII that I don't?

Oh I own a 1D too.


No, but you did.  But you made me read your post.  You say you have no interest in a "performance" crop body but you still own a 1D?  Incidentally, the 7D and the 1Ds Mk III were aimed at different segments.  While the 7D is better for some, the 1Ds III is better for others.  I've seen 7Ds on the sports sidelines and no 1Ds IIIs.   It's the reverse in the studio.  I have FF, APS-H, and APS-C bodies that I use in different situations.  The 1Dx would replace all 3  but at twice the cost. I don't know your needs but you don't know everyone else's either.

Like all my gear, I have a specific reason for it. The 1D is worthless to sell but a very good stop motion camera, I can, and have, left it for days taking pictures of grass growing, I'd rather put 4,000 frames on a camera I can replace for less than the shutter of my other cameras.

I have no doubt many would favour the 7D over the 1Ds MkIII, I wasn't answering for them, or the "sports shooters" you have seen with them, I was answering from my perspective because that is the one I am qualified to answer from.

I too have FF, APS-H and APS-C, I have no interest in a "performance" crop camera. The OP's question is "Are you planning to purchase a 7D2?". My answer is still that I have no interest in a performance crop camera, 100,000,000 might, but I don't.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: Today at 01:03:49 PM »
Wow, FF snobs abound......everyone knows the 1D Marks I-IV are crop bodies, right?

I assume you are including me in the "FF snobs" comment? If so why, what do you know about my needs, current gear and the 7D MkII that I don't?

Oh I own a 1D too.

I found the 7D to be no better than the 1Ds MkIII cropped in actual shooting, so there was zero point in getting one. I suspect the same will be true with a 7D MkII and a 1DX MkII, so I will get the latter, again.

5
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

6
I can't find a lot of information online about these so far.  I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.

The Canon brand filters are more expensive than the other filters I see in my catalogs.

Are they worth it?

No.

I had to buy a Canon CPL once and it was the biggest POS I ever got, it delaminated in a matter of weeks and scratched very easily. Do not buy them.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: Today at 12:22:02 PM »
No. Absolutely no interest in a "performance" crop camera.

8
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped. There is no reason to expect the MkII to be that much better and even if it is a similarly speced FF will follow.

9
Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:35:09 PM »

Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal".  Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression.  Let me explain.

Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5.  A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view.  However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background.  Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression.  These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel.  This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras.  Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".

The same this is going on with an APC sized sensor compared to FF.  The equivalent field of view for a 50 mm lens on a full frame sensor is about 35 mm on an APC sensor.  The apparent distance between background and foreground for given a field of view is greater in an APC sensor than in a full frame sensor.  Hence, the images do not look as good and lack the 3D feel.

Your instructor should know this stuff.  Maybe he/she should read Ansel Adam's excellent book "The Camera".  In fact, all of us should read the entire Adam's series: "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  There is still much to learn from the old masters even in the digital age.

Don Barar

Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.

Dgbarar seems to have deleted his post. As has been stated the perspective remains the same because you are at the same distance, but the 210 mm lens does give more magnification which is then accommodated on a much larger format, so the end result is that you have a larger image. The same thing happens when you shoot a panoramic; you have to use a longer lens to get the same framing because you are creating pieces of a larger format. The difference is subtle but if you put two images side by side, one shot as a panoramic and the other as a panoramic cropped single frame, the difference is there.

Yep, you will never catch me saying a smaller sensor will give you better IQ! The perspective is the same, but the inherent additional IQ you get from a larger sensor, especially if you stitch to effectively make it even larger, will be apparent, things like lens aberrations are more easily seen with more magnification (the intrinsic problem with smaller sensors is the need to enlarge the capture more), the CoC is smaller when you go smaller, AA filters will generally have more impact on smaller sensors etc etc.

To be sure the differences are there, especially if you look very close, but they have nothing to do with perspective or focal length, just a myriad of other more mundane technicalities.

10
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:23:43 PM »

Another option. Let's say none of the print size choices fit the ratio you really want. For example, you've shot a panoramic image that is like 8 inches tall and 24 inches wide. Create a new layer and fill it with white (use the paint bucket--be sure the white square is the foreground color in the two squares near the bottom of the tool bar. Use the little arrow to toggle back and forth between white and black and background and foreground) .

Move that layer to the bottom, so it is underneath your picture. Now, go to "image" and select Canvas size. Since 8 x 24 isn't a standard print size, pick a size that is. Say 15 x 24.

Now, both layers will be over a background (most likely transparent) that is the full 15 x 24 size. Select your white layer and resize it. (edit menu - transform-scale) to fill the full 15 x 24 size. Now, select the layer that has your picture on it and do any minor adjustments on it that might be needed to get it to fit within the 15 x 24 canvas. (use the same edit menu- transform-scale to resize your picture, holding down the shift key so you don't change the proportions of the image.

Basically, you'll have your picture on a white background with the background matching a standard picture size and your actual image the size you want it. Save a jpeg (which will flatten the image) and then you can order a print in the standard size and it will end up as a print with a white background. You'll have to matte it of course to fit your image, but this is a cheap way to get a custom print size from printers.


I would never recommend doing that for photos, graphics or text, coloured layers fine, but not for photos. Transform-scale is destructive, it will also cause pixelation very quickly.

If you want to make a 15x24 with a fill layer to prevent printer auto cropping there is a better way, isn't there always!

Open your image, go Image-Image Size, check the Constrain Proportions  and the Resample Image boxes, put in the resolution you want, 240 dpi is fine for prints, then put in the side that fits, for a 3:2 image you'd put the 15" side in and that would give you a 15x22.5 printed area. Click OK.

Then go to the canvas size and increase that to 15x24 press OK, job done. No need for layers or transforming.

Make sure you Save As, then the print file will be saved as a different file separate to your original.


11
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:45:31 PM »
Thank you jrista for your comprehensive and lushly illustrated and demo'd breakdown of your fantastic HDR image.  As I fancy shooting at night or indoor under subdued lighting I have been eager to incorporate hdr into my workflow but haven't been able to grasp the technique by reading up, you-tubing, kelbying, and ps-usering the subject.  Your verbosity, along with the gifs and annotated gifs have opened my eyes quite a bit more than before.  Thanks much...
You absolutely do not need HDR techniques for shooting "indoor under subdued lighting" and rarely for  "shooting at night" either. HDR is not about getting detail in a dark image, it is about getting detail when there is a big difference between the lightest parts of the image and the darkest.

12
As I said, my MkIII's (though they are 1Ds's) slow down when I put SD cards in them, the fastest rates I get with the various cards I actually own are when I just have Sandisk CF cards in the CF slot and nothing in the SD slot, every SD card I own is slower than the various CF cards I own.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:04:13 AM »
Hi privatebydesign.
I had read that in previous posts, makes you wonder why the products all have DPI so prominent in the menu?
DxO has the DPI setting in an expanded box above a collapsed re-sample box, took me ages to find the settings to resize an image! :o
Do as many people as the manufacturers think actually use these softwares to output to print?

Cheers, Graham.

:)
DPI does not affect jpeg file size. Number of pixels does, as does content (more detail bigger files), noise, iso (because of the noise), quality setting etc.

DPI doesn't just relate to print, it relates to what size you see your image on screen in some modes. It might be a legacy concept much of the time, but that is down to our misunderstanding of the idea rather than manufacturers being stuck in a previous time.

I use DPI as a key component to handling files non distructively on a daily basis.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:47:39 AM »
DPI does not affect jpeg file size. Number of pixels does, as does content (more detail bigger files), noise, iso (because of the noise), quality setting etc.
Makes sense, I have no excuse for my senility ;)

But I can understand the notion because pixel processing software like LR seems to make makes a large fuss about dpi settings, but it only matters for import into desktop publishing and is irrelevant for other print/screen purposes.

I don't think LR makes a large fuss over dpi, it is just a tag. But it is what gives you your print size unless you deliberately specify something different, and if you still have a version of PS that has the "Print View" option in the zoom settings and you have set your monitor up correctly then it gives you a pretty accurate WYSIWYG idea of your print. I use Print View all the time and that 100% is driven by dpi.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:28:31 AM »
I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results.
I had one back in the good old days of the B+W darkroom.... I kind of wish I had one now because this has gotten me very curious as to how my various cameras compare... I might have to order one :) (any recommendations?)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought of "stops" as an analog/perception scale and that it did not necessarily match up with a digital scale... perhaps part of the confusion here is that people are talking about two different things yet using the same terminology.

Whilst the Stouffer versions are the standard I know of, there is no reason decent results couldn't be got with a home printed version. With careful lighting and exposure I would think you could do very well.

Well I wouldn't get into a semantics argument here, it seems many have far more time than I do and that is all it takes to "win", but I think stops translates just as well to digital as analog, it is just much easier to read the values of the output now and they are finite, unlike the infinite variability of analog density. When we needed to know the density of negatives it was much more involved than moving a cursor over the relevant pixel  :)

Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the density of negatives? How accurate were the measurements?

I was cool (a lazy little S___) and held them up to the light and guessed! We had a densitometer but I resisted using it unless pushed to. It was primarily to gauge development times for emulsions (and subsequent paper grades for printing) and I always worked around negative density with paper grades, I horrified the purists when the variable contrast papers came out and I hogged the colour enlarger for my B&W printing. But the readings were very accurate (well consistent) and only took a few seconds to make. Saved a lot on test prints of the wrong grade paper when you did use it too.

Wow I'd forgotten all that!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147