January 30, 2015, 10:51:40 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204
1
(...lots of blah...) you don't know if the OP is best advised getting a high MP camera if that is the 5D MkIII replacement, yet you are confident enough to tell them "it will be on the shelf at that time for sure"

You must have a lot of time on your hands... I stand by my wager - any takes?

Too bad you didn't out your money where your mouth was. Could have helped me finance my next camera.

Happy shooting!

If you believe the rumoured 50MP 5DS is a more appropriate camera for the OP than the also rumoured 5D MkIV late this year, then you are more of an idiot than I thought.

Why do you believe somebody moving up from a 400D and wants a general holiday camera would be best served by, by all rumours, a 50MP studio and landscape orientated camera that tops out at 6,400iso?

It sounds like he will get buyers remorse getting a 5D MkIII, but the actual replacement of that, the 5D MkIV, which will be a high end general purpose camera much more suited to the OP's desires, isn't even rumoured to be announced until late this year, well past his June trip and nowhere near "it will be on the shelf at that time for sure"

So, apart from the facts that you still don't know if the OP is best advised getting a high MP camera, or one that tops out at 6,400iso, you also don't know that the rumoured 5DS is the 5D MkIII replacement (indeed it seems it is not) and the fact that the actual 5D MkIV will not be announced in time for his trip let alone "on the shelf".

Now tell me again, where exactly is my comment incorrect?

Happy shooting!

2
Would you sell the 11-16mm for this??

No, because I don't have a crop camera.

3
Until the camera manufacturers start to display histograms based on what will be captured with raw, rather than jpg, we're all to some extent kidding ourselves if we think we're exposing precisely in the first place. I've seen a couple of work around solutions ("UniWB" for example), but they all invoke other tradeoffs I haven't wanted to accept.

I mostly shoot landscapes, so I don't really care if my exposures are "accurate" or not. I just want as much SNR as possible. I'll most likely end up tweaking colors and manipulating brightness levels in post anyway. So for me, ETTR is the way to go. But, I can't go too far to the right, because I don't know exactly where the real clipping point will be, as long as the histogram is calculated on jpg capture.

I wish Canon cared about this...

Maybe Canon know that shooting like you do, to get the maximum SNR, is not the best way to get the highest IQ.

4
Lenses / Re: Drop-in Filters for UWA
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:12:41 PM »
I live in Australia and I cannot find any info on gelatin filters
and what types or sizes are available. Can someone please
provide info or a link? I have a Sigma 12 - 24mm EX I.

Thanks

Get one of these http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45184-REG/Rosco_950SBCNG0103_Cinegel_Swatchbook.html or if you are worried about size, thought the rear element of the Sigma is small, get this version http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45185-REG/Rosco_950SBCNG0306_Large_3x5_Cinegel_Swatchbook.html

They both have a full range of colour correction gels, ie WB, and a set of ND grades too. They are optical quality but are fragile. I used to use them occasionally with my 16-35 f2.8 MkI. I use them for flash gels all the time.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2015, 12:51:41 PM »
The issue there is that you need to be very, very close to your subject for the flash to make any real contribution to the ambient light.  So this tends only to work for macros.

Lets see, a Move1200L/Para222 nets me f/16@Iso100@10m, about 3 stops over ambient at high noon when used with the LS lenses. With recharge times about in line with the frame rate of the back.
Not my definition of very close or macro.

I agree, I can get f16 at 100iso at 10' with a single $500 Einstein. What we don't get is short flash duration at that power, the Einstein is around 1/666 sec t1 duration so much faster than that and you are losing flash power anyway, the Broncolor is an even slower 1/375 sec t1 duration at full power.

In these situations, where the flash exposure becomes the shutter speed, we are still not gaining much because nothing puts out huge amounts of light fast enough. This will change over time, until we get true global shutters there is no inherent need for full power flashes to be short duration most of the time, when there is then the gear will be made, but it is going to cost! Or we need to use more smaller heads for faster t1 times.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The fish........

Below, midday Florida sun, f16, 100iso, 10'. 640Ws.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:56:10 AM »

It is common knowledge for those that choose to learn. I believe I got the main bits from Thom Hogan's site but that was all garnered from business reports, all three companies have to file financial reports, as do any other companies in that business unless they are privately held, which given the investment and market is extremely unlikely.

I do appreciate your even temperedness, but many of the laboured points you argue can be unemotionally settled very easily with simple research.
What about Leeson? They make a very nice 5HP stepper motor and I have several in use on jackscrews for controlling satellite dishes.

Ah, that is probably how Sony ended up with their competitive sensor manufacturing plant, they ordered some Leeson stepper motors from McMaster Carr   :)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:50:31 AM »
4k is 4 times the resolution of HD, doubling both axis of the lines.  Either way still missing the point.  Lets take the 400mm lens example.  I shoot with a 400mm lens in 4k and I can effectively get full 1080 with about four times the reach if I crop down, negating to some respects the need for a 1600mm lens.  Furthermore, lets say I want to shoot something like people on a pretty landscape.  I can do a single shot to get everything in frame AND I can crop down to a closer-up shot of one area or the people if desired when editing a project without having to make several separate shots if time or equipment or lighting conditions don't permit.  Then I can take the full frame shot and down sample to the same 1080 timeline and get a better image than having shot in native 1080. There are LOADS of advantages to 4k shooting and DSLR video cinematography folk desire them. Canon STARTED this movement with the 5D2.

No you miss the point, 4K is only useful in and of itself if you are outputting 4K, though there is a good argument for shooting 5K if you want to output 4K.

Shooting more than 1080 makes a lot of sense to output to 1080, but saying you need 4K to get good 1080 output is just plain wrong. 2-3K gives lots of headroom to output 1080.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:45:53 AM »
It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at. 

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

400%?  Where'd you get that number?  From full-HD it's 100% (factor of 2).  It's quite common for me to consume 40% in the process of post stabilization so 100% isn't crazy at all.

Idiot*.

FHD 1920x1080 = 2,073,600, 4K 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400

8,294,400/2,073,600 = 4.

4K is 400% the size of FHD.

Crop cameras have a multiplication factor of 1.6 (for Canon) but a FF sensor is 2.56 times the size of a crop camera's. Or, twice as long and twice as tall, for four times the area. Now before we get into an argument about factors and multiplication, which I am not interested in doing with you, it takes four FHD sensors to make one 4K sensor, if you crop a 4K image to 25% it's area you get the resolution of a FHD 1080 image.

* that was the very first word you typed to me in your first reply to a post of mine in the forum.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:25:39 AM »
It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at. 

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

10
Magiclangern provides a button to "expose to the right". Adjust exposure in postprocessing to fit your needs. Problem solved, case closed.

And how, exactly, do you do that? Because if you are using the 'Blacks', 'Shadows', 'Exposure', 'Highlights', or 'Whites' sliders you are not getting the tonality of the scene.

If you use tone curves on each colour channel seperately, if you are using the camera calibration panel etc then yu might be getting close.

You seem to be missing the point that 'simple' adjustments to an overexposed file do not get you back to the same tonality as a 'correctly' exposed file.

11
I think the tonality "issue" when trying to lower exposure of a overexposed sky is due to the fact that the closer we are to clipping all the channels, the harder it is for an individual channel to stick out and be visibly dominant. When we, in post, drag our sliders down, we are stuck with values that's perceived as closer to a "tinted light grey" (240 240 255), than a "subtle blue" (170 170 185).

How about that as a thought?

If it would be this, then the solution would be to check on per channel basis that the chosen area in photo is withing the 99+%...?  Instead of looking only at the luminosity values, that is.  Although I don't know exactly how the luminosity exposure diagram is formed, but based on my experience with Lightroom they are not the same.

I have had the colour swatches open in a PS file for a few days and played with them.

Here is the answer. (In my humble opinion!)

If the R,G and B value is the same for a given pixel then they fall on the same point of the gamma curve, so in any three channel luminance adjustment the three are all moved the same amount along the gamma curve, so the tonality remains constant. if the R,G and B values are different on any pixel (coloured) then they fall on different points on the gamma curve, this means that any adjustment to the three values via shadows, highlights, exposure etc will alter each value a different amount, the lower values will come down more than the higher values. This changes the tonality of the image.

The reason it is so prominent in the higher tones is because the differences along the gamma curve are at their biggest at the top of the exposure, midtones and darks are much closer together.

12
I don't think most RAW conversions to an output file is linear. Ther is some roll-off of the highlights (highlight shoulder) that reduces hightlight contrast for the brightest highlights. This can explain why reducing highlights in software does not maintain tonalities.

Linear RAW conversions look horrific! For the render to look close to lifelike a tone curve has to be applied, that is the gamma. Even our brain applies a 'gamma' curve to what we see,  that is why it is necessary to do that to a digital file that has a linear capture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction


13
Reviews / Re: Impressions from 7DMkII and Comparison to 7D
« on: January 29, 2015, 08:46:14 AM »
BTW, just in case nobody else has said it yet, Welcome to the forum!

I agree. Always nice to see new faces.

Welcome aboard JoFT.

14
Canon General / Re: Photographer Petitions Canon for Left Handed Camera
« on: January 29, 2015, 08:38:08 AM »
LOL.

Have you ever thought about playing a piano? How about making a left handed piano for you, Mr. YAMAHA please? Even if Steinway make one for you, will that make you a better piano player?

Have you ever heard of the pianist Paul Wittgenstein who lost his right arm during war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wittgenstein
Have you ever heard of composer Maurice Ravel who wrote his "Piano Concerto for the Left Hand" for him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_for_the_Left_Hand_%28Ravel%29

Everything is possible if you have the will and the resources. Look at all the ideas comming from this comunity.

Ignorance and the lack of empathy like shown by you is just without words  >:(

You are missing the point, Mr Wittgenstein played a regular piano with his left hand, he didn't expect somebody to make him a reversed piano, nobody is questioning his determination and perseverance, but the relevance of his story is not clear.


To be sure, there are several differing ideas within the thread, but then when aren't there!

First, a lady with only one working hand, her left, would like an easier camera to use. As has been demonstrated there are enough readily available solutions to negate the financial implications to manufacture a native one given the potential market. The market would be approximately half of the one handed people that have more than a passing interest in photography.

Second, left handed people in general, those that have two healthy working hands. Reading through the thread it seems most of those 'lefties' have been forced to adopt to life with certain devices that favour right handed people, though I particularly liked the comment that one left handed person left that said they liked 'right handed' cameras because for them the focus and zoom, which we all do with our left hand, is dominant. Would there be a good market for left handed cameras for these people, even though it is a completely different question than the OP's situation? I doubt it, given the model ranges and the seemingly modest market for other left handed supplies (is it all mail order?).

Third, those that like to take issue with people posting their opinions, which is funny because it is the entire point of fora dating back thousands of years. Look, this written form of communication is fraught with potential errors but people seem to search out what they perceive as insults or insensitivity when none is meant, for example, do people seriously think Benedict Cumberbatch is racist? But rather than engage in the actual conversation of 'is there intrinsic racism in the entertainment industry in the UK?' lets pick on the guy pointing it out for being a closet racist.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 29, 2015, 08:09:05 AM »
what so many people seem to forget is that Sony sensors work better at low ISO and canon sensors work best at high ISO. Nobody is best across the board. I think it would be a step backwards for the industry to just pick one.

The lead that the Sony sensor has at low ISO is much greater than the lead the Canon sensor has at high ISO. Furthermore the Sony sensor has a linear relationship between ISO and performance where the Canon sesnor does not.

Quote
Another point that needs to be made is that you can outsource the production of your design. It is very possible that Sony can produce a Canon design of sensor more economically than in house at Canon.

Or can produce designs that Canon cannot (due to fabrication process limitations.)

Canon make steppers, part of the machinery needed to make sensors, Sony don't.

Well in that case it means that Canon is behind in another area of its business (whoever is making the plant equipment that supplies Sony or the company that makes Sony's sensors.)

There are three companies in the world that make steppers, Canon, Nikon, and ASML a Dutch company. I believe they all make the same generation steppers, though Nikon are well off the boil, and Canon lost a lot of market share to ASML as well due to very restrictive and proprietary attitudes. ASML have carved a substantial portion of the market out for themselves because of business practices, not technology.

How is it that you know this?

It is common knowledge for those that choose to learn. I believe I got the main bits from Thom Hogan's site but that was all garnered from business reports, all three companies have to file financial reports, as do any other companies in that business unless they are privately held, which given the investment and market is extremely unlikely.

I do appreciate your even temperedness, but many of the laboured points you argue can be unemotionally settled very easily with simple research.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204