July 29, 2014, 07:50:07 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 ... 139
1
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: Today at 04:30:21 PM »
Since the 50 f/1.4 replacement is rumored to be the f/1.8 mkIII IS, it's entirely plausible that the new 50L will be a 50 f/1.4 mkII IS.

If they followed decades of nomenclature that would make an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, no MkIII, nor, in time, would it become a MkI or a C for "classic". And an EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, also not a MkII, hopefully this would mean people never call the current EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a MkI or a "classic", I live in hope.

My favourite is the 1D, rather confusingly now often referred to as a 1Dc, meaning "classic" but changing its value from $100-200 to around $8,000-10,000, but what's in a name  :D

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: Today at 11:38:36 AM »
I don't know much about DO, but the optics leave a funny looking bokeh?  Does anyone have a picture showing the onion ring effect?


It is mainly specular highlights that cause the problem. I can imagine many shooting with it and loving it they don't shoot that kind of highlight, but if you regularly shoot with those kinds of highlights it is very distracting.

But it can be caused in more situations. Here is a very good example of how DO can impact a shot, the foreground flowers are not over exposed but are rendered into weird outlines which is exacerbated by the specular highlights on the water.


http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/

3
Lighting / Re: Flash Zoom - Difference in Stops?
« on: Today at 12:33:07 AM »
Can we actually assume that the flash zoom head is set to the focal length (i.e. the horizontal row labeled "Flash Coverage" in the chart)?

Yes we can.

4
Lighting / Re: Flash Zoom - Difference in Stops?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:38:04 PM »
The second number is the GN in feet, 28 meters equals 91.9 feet.

Take your GN in feet and divide it by your subject distance in feet to get your f stop. So if your subject is 10 feet away and you have the flash set to 24mm then you get an f stop of 91.9 feet/10 feet = f9.2. If your flash is set to 200mm then 196.9/10 = f19.7

5
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:38:45 PM »
I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" . It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me.

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:32:39 PM »
I used the 70-300 DO once, never again. I'd love to know how many 400 DO's they sell and if the people that buy them are legally blind.

7
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:50:27 PM »
As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

8
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:42:12 PM »
Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....


" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........

Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.

9
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:46:14 PM »
" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?

10
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:40:43 PM »
Thanks for the link and article:

"The RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.




The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D



I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12



Well if you need 20MP from your P&S, and if you think they are worth having, then have at it. But don't say and agree with stuff like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" when all it actually seems to lack in comparative images is resolution, and considering resolution is a conscious design decision, like I say, if you need a 20MP camera why look at 12MP cameras?

11
Software & Accessories / Re: RRS or Markins?
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:20:51 PM »
Just to follow up, I got my Acratech GP a few days ago.

Welcome to the club. I can't recommend it any more than I did, if I lost mine today I'd order another one immediately.

There are a couple of things I actually spoke to Scott at Acratech about, when the clamp is mounted on the bottom there should be a detent to stop the whole clamp rotating on the base, when it is the "right" way up it has positive locks, when reversed it doesn't, not a biggie but if you are cold and wet, or hot and sweaty you can move the clamp unintentionally, though this is not a dropping hazard. And the pan and clamp knobs come close to each other when it is inverted.

Mine doesn't look pristine anymore either!

12
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:06:42 PM »
The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D



I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:50:04 PM »
I suppose the newer cameras with a WB target on a colour wheel are much better than the older cameras that only allowed you to dial in WB on the Kelvin scale. On my 1Ds MkIII's when I put in a personally selected ºK value I get a zero tint value and no in camera way to change it. That's progress for ya.....  :)

Lightroom also displays the camera derived Tint value.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:18:20 PM »
I know WB is supposed to give you "true", even valued, white black and gray tones, but there is no doubt that in camera it doesn't, all my AWB tungsten shots have an orange colour, and I am happy with that...

AWB, like auto exposure, kinda seems to put you in the ball park most of the time, but it doesn't actually know what you are trying to do as a photographer.

Exactly.  Well, almost - orange really isn't in the ballpark with white, it's somewhere in the next town over.  I sometimes leave indoor shots a bit warmer than neutral, but I don't like them orange.

 :D Alright, maybe not orange, perhaps "warm", a few hundred degrees off for pure even tones.

But the tint issue in AWB is one I never really did get my head around, if WB just does blue to yellow, then tint, with green to magenta, is every bit as important, particularly for things like stadium gas lights and fluorescent lamps and the multitude of colours they now come in.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 02:41:56 PM »
As for the AWB result, what colour was the light? If it was tungsten then the Canon is a more accurate representation of the actual colour of the scene, the NIkon has removed the colour, take your pick.

Sorry, but it's auto white balance – the idea is to render a white/neutral object in the scene as white/neutral in the image, not to render it as 'the actual color of the scene'.  Under tungsten light, AWB on most Canon bodies will render a white object as orange.  That's a WB fail (even if it's by Canon's design - they should put that tweak into a Picture Style, not AWB).

I have found that to be the theory, but not the execution. Certainly all bodies seem to handle AWB differently, often the same body in the same situation will produce different WB levels in a sequence. Also, WB is only one part of the WB control, Tint is the other.

When I shoot tethered I can do an in camera custom WB and it looks good, if I then go into DPP whilst tethered I can re WB that image with the additional Tint control and it shifts, sometimes quite a lot.

I know WB is supposed to give you "true", even valued, white black and gray tones, but there is no doubt that in camera it doesn't, all my AWB tungsten shots have an orange colour, and I am happy with that, maybe it is just the  difference between the Tungsten temp and the actual colour if the bulbs I have used.

My first 1D actually had an exterior WB window that measured some ambient, it didn't rely on 100% TTL, I really liked the AWB on that camera but not so much since.

AWB, like auto exposure, kinda seems to put you in the ball park most of the time, but it doesn't actually know what you are trying to do as a photographer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 139