April 20, 2014, 02:40:41 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 - arbitrage

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:22:36 AM »
On topic,  any opinions on whether it is better to use the iPod SD adaptor vs a WiFi card?

The WiFi card would be one less step, but I think it would be rather slow by comparison, particularly with RAW (I'm assuming LR Mobile supports RAW).  I would like to try a WiFi card but I hear a real mix of good and bad about them.


I have much better luck with the Camera Connector Kit than either an Eye-Fi card or a Canon WFT.

I have an old Eye-fi Pro X2 8GB that was given to me on a shoot last year and I just got it setup this morning and I transferred both JGP and RAW to the 'Camera Roll' on the iPad, not withstanding speed of transfer, it works great.

That said, I went into LR Mobile, created a new collection and added the new photos to the collection. The RAW images were not visible to LR Mobile, only the JPG's.

Summary: RAW images in Camera Roll but not selectable for import into LR Mobile
Anyone else having this issue?

A bit of topic, another thing I noticed is that the images transferring from the Eye-fi card to the Camera Roll get renamed coming into the iPad - anyone else experience that?
EDIT: It seems this is a function of the iPad Camera Roll API: http://forums.eye.fi/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8715


Yes, I also can confirm that RAW images are not visible to LR Mobile.  Now after a day of playing with LR Mobile, I have concluded that it is next to useless for my workflow.  Others hopefully will find a way to make it useful for them.

The only use I have of it is to create a Collection in LR for my best photos and have that synced to the iPad to easily show people my photos on the go.

I had also considered using it after a days shooting and syncing up the shoot and then using the comfort of the iPad on the couch to sort and reject my photos.  However, there is no key wording function in LR mobile and I usually shoot 500-1000 pics a day (BIF) and reject about 80-90% so it would always take a long time to upload all of those images and really not be worth it in the end.  I also would have used it to maybe do my edits but since I can't do all the Detail edits or set colour space or lens corrections it means I'd have to revisit every file in LR to finish them off...not worth the time either for me.

As of now, LR Mobile is just a glorified portfolio app for me.  I hope others can find some use for it.  I'd be interested to know what workflow others envision for it as maybe I'm missing something.

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 08, 2014, 07:06:22 PM »
I just ran another test.  Created a new collection on my iPad in LR mobile and named it LR Mobile Test.  I added 6 photos from my iPads camera roll and copied 3 photos from the other collection I synced out of LR this morning.  It automatically synced this new collection into LR on my laptop and it showed up as a Collection Set (so top hierarchy) with the photos in it.  Now going to see where it actually placed the photos on my laptop's HD.

Next I will try to add some RAW files to the iPad via the camera connection kit and see what happens to them in LR and with syncing.

Another update:  So yes as noted below LR makes a top level collection set called "From LR Mobile" within that set is the collection I created called "LR mobile test".

Now I loaded some images from my camera into the iPad photo app from the camera connection kit.  I loaded some jpegs and some raw files.  The iPad can read the raw files as it usually can but when you open the LR app it doesn't see the raw files only the jpegs.  I then had to edit that file in the iPad photo app and then move it to its own new folder and then it showed up as available to import into LR mobile.  So not a good solution for RAW file management.

3
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:57:20 AM »
I've had a play with it very briefly.  I just happened to subscribe to CC last week when the 9.99 was available for people who don't own previous PS versions.  You can add from the iPads camera roll which means you can also use a camera connection kit and add to the camera roll and then into the LR Mobile app.  You have to go to the collections screen and then there is a settings button on the lower right of each collection thumbnail and you get the option there to add from the camera roll.

Adjustments are fast and you can do all the adjustments in the main basic area of LR but not the Detail or any of the others.  You can crop and you can do very quick flag and rejects by just swiping up or down respectively.  It immediately syncs back your changes to LR on your home computer if you are connected to internet.  You can tell it to use 3G or not if you have 3G iPad.
 
In LR on your computer you can only sync from your collections pane and only base level collections can be selected (you can't select an entire collection set in one click) also you can't select individual pictures to sync (at least so far I can't find a way) so it may make more sense to make a dedicated collection for syncing and then reorder back at home??  Sync is fairly slow, I did 180 photos and it took at least 15-20 mins to get them all up to the iPad.

First impressions:  somewhat useful for me...maybe....I will need to see if I can move files directly from memory card onto iPad and into LR but I can't see that working very well if you haven't already loaded the raws on your main computer/drives.  It would end up being just a jpeg that would get synced and wouldn't have any relation to the raw file that you may import later at home??

4
Hi, now that the D4s is a fact, what is to be expected by Canon?
We are living in a crazy age. ISO 409600. Looking forward to see some RAW samples...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d4s


Watch the DigitalRev review and you will see how useless the 409600 is (along with the 2 values beneath it).  The D4s is a nice camera, not sure if it is a great upgrade from a D4 but for some it will be.  Still I don't think it puts any pressure on a 1DX replacement.  The 1DX is still IMHO the best DLSR out there.  I think Canon are only pressured by the higher MP D800 but they've been under that pressure for 2 years now and it hasn't amounted to anything yet.  Canon is still the only company making any money in this industry so they still don't feel much pressure from the others......yet

5
Yes please post these documents.  I would be particularly interested in more info on the 1DX mirror box especially if it pertains to the original recall.  There has been so much misinformation put out there about the 1DX and the recall and it is hard to know what is true or not.  I'd like to know if Canon realizes the 1DX loves to cover itself in oils and other crap and if they see that as a problem or if it has any relation to the original recall.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X & EOS-1D C Cold Weather Autofocus Issues
« on: April 03, 2014, 08:34:37 PM »
I've used mine all winter in the Yukon Territory at -25C or so for hours on end.  Also lots of shooting at slightly milder -10 to -5C and mine has never shown this error.  I guess I'll just keep shooting and forget I ever read this ;D

EDIT: just read that this was a Jan 2013 memo.  I had thought it was from this January.  My 1DX is newer than that so no wonder I have no problems.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X, Dual Back Button AF
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:29:13 AM »
This is my favourite new feature of the new FW.  I had been fairly happy using AI Servo all the time and just releasing it for static or focus/recompose shots. However the one shot algorithms are more accurate and I recently was photographing perched birds in very low rainforest light and sometimes really needed that more accurate One shot focus with the confirmation beep and flash combined with spot focus mode to get accurate focus. I think in good even average light using the aiservo is fine but it was helpful in f 5.6, 1/60, ISO 20000 type light.

8
I own the three mentioned Canon lenses and I had ordered the Tamron to replace my 100-400 but then cancelled after reading about AF issues. Also I really don't use my 100-400 as the 300II and converters is portable enough for me. I've had the 600II since October 2012 and use it mainly for spring migration when the birds are skittish and far. Most often with the 2xTC attached. But I also use it bare and at 840 also when appropriate. I've had the 300II since Nov 2013 and have used it with both TCs and it is a phenomenal lens and I use it instead of my 100-400 now as a "portable" solution. I got the 200-400 just a month ago to take to Antarctica in November and I brought it to Borneo for birding and wildlife(orangutans). That is where I am typing this from now. I have found it very versatile for the mammals but wish I had my 600 for the small birds but there was no way I wanted to travel with the 600 through SE Asia. I have used the 2-4 with 1.4 external and had good success at 784mm or really at 800mm if you use the square root of 2 to get 1.4.  Only issue has been the low light of the jungle and needing the 1DX to save shots with ISOs from 6400-25600 being used in the deeper jungle!!!

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:57:31 PM »
3 for your consideration......
1) BBMPIF
2) BEIF
3) JBEIF

10
EOS Bodies / Re: sotchi - canon prototypes
« on: February 19, 2014, 07:41:39 AM »
I think the logo covering is all hype and not put into practice.  There were lots of stories about athletes having to cover over iPhones in the opening ceremonies (requested by Samsung who is a major sponsor) but in the end this was not enforced and actually ruled against by the IOC.  The iPhones, like the Canons reign supreme!! 

I'm going to keep a close watch today and see if I see any signs of taping over Canon or Nikon logos but I think Canon is a major sponsor anyways so don't think they will be taped over for that reason.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: sotchi - canon prototypes
« on: February 18, 2014, 10:46:48 AM »
Seems the only lens at Sochi is the 200-400...... ;D

12
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:16:46 PM »

he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).


Just to touch on this point.....your friend is wrong....I own the 100-400, 600II, 300II and now the 200-400.  The 300II with the 2.0TCIII and the 200-400 at 560 with internal engaged are both much sharper than the 100-400 and therefore much sharper than the new Tamron.  As far as actual centre of the frame (most used for wildlife shooting due to cropping all the time) the 300II + 2.0TCIII and the 200-400w1.4TC are on par with the bare 600II.  Tough to believe but true none the less.  The 200-400 may lag a little behind (and isn't quite 600mm) but the 300II and 2.0III is for sure on par. The 400f/2.8ISII and the 1.4TCIII would be at least equal to this also.

Here are two examples from the 300II and 2.0TCIII:

13
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:24:53 AM »
But how does this lens compare to the Sigma 18-35 f1.8? I know the L is full frame and the Sigma is not. But if both used on a Super35mm sensor, how do they compare?

I think if I was shooting a crop sensor and wanted the very best, the Sigma would be the way to go from all the testing I've seen.

14
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 05, 2014, 08:21:30 PM »
Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?
the 200-400 is actually a razor sharp 200-560mm f4-5.6 lens. I was thinking really hard about getting the 300 at the time I bought it. But today I don´t regret it. It gives you a flexibility that is unsurpassed. Because it is a zoom lens, I throw away much less image area due to less need for cropping. So in practical terms, I make up for the (very minor) IQ penalty. But for very fast action, the AF on the 300 is still the one to beat. It is still high on my wish list, but there is a limit to how many lenses I can justify having ... ::)

First off, thanks to those who left comments about the eagle and the junco.  I don't always handhold the 600II but it is fun to challenge myself especially framing a bird at 1200mm....that shot is almost FF with only about 10% of the upper right sky cropped out.

Well in my case the 200-400 is the next lens on my hit list.  But I'm happy I went for the 300II before it because I really wanted a lens that I could get up to 600 and hike with.  I can't hike with the 600II very far and the 200-400 also is just as heavy (although much more compact).  I got to handhold a 200-400 in AK this November shooting eagles and it felt very nice to hold, way easier than the bulky 600II that I already handhold a large portion of the time.

I'm planning a trip to Antarctica this next November and I'm debating if I should get the 200-400 for that trip along side or instead of the 300.  I won't be packing the 600II on that trip as it is not needed but having the flexibility to get up to 784mm with the 200-400 would be nice.  Most likely I will buy it before the trip next summer to test it out or rent it first if I'm smart ;D

But I do think the 300II and the 200-400 aren't direct competitors and both can be owned as I'm sure you've considered also!!

15
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 04, 2014, 09:47:12 AM »
OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo,  would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.
I do not see how the 800/5.6 can be an alternative to the 600 f4L IS II. Combined with the 1.4xIII the 600 is sharper than the 800. But if you can get the 800 for a good price ...

I totally agree....
600II pros:
lighter
more FL flexibility
more available AF points on 5D3 and 1DX
shorter MFD and better MM at 840mm
Equal or better?? IQ even with the 1.4TC than the 800 (this is splitting hairs but there is definitely no loss in IQ from what I have seen out there from the 800)
Equal AF even with the 1.4 or at least no appreciable or effective difference.

800 f/5/6 pros:
????????????????????????????????
Better price, maybe??

Pages: [1] 2 3 4