January 27, 2015, 03:56:01 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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
Lenses / Re: Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:37:42 PM »
Damn this thread!!  I watched Citizen Kane on DVD tonight and for the first time I was distracted by the purple fringing in a lot of scenes!  How the hell you get purple fringing in a black and white movie I don't know but I do know it wasn't shot with a Canon 85 1.2 ;D

Haha I notice it a lot on television. Ignorance is bliss! :)

2
Lenses / Re: Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii
« on: January 24, 2015, 06:04:12 AM »
I'll just point out a couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned thus far.

I dunno if it's obvious to everyone else, but the fringing is purple and green. Purple one side of the focal plane, green on the other.

As for Lightroom corrections, they work well but for two cases - where the fringing is very out of focus and on subjects that are purple and/or green to begin with. The intensity of the false colour diminishes the further from the plane of focus it is, but it's still noticeable sometimes, which requires a lower threshold for the defringing, which can lead to grey edges elsewhere. Grey edges are also a problem where there are parts of the image that are purple or green, as I say - so leaves can be particularly tricky.

As people have said, this lens excels for some uses. On portraits it's undoubtedly wonderful, and in low light it can do amazing things. But I wouldn't use it for e.g. flower photography - indeed I sold the 200mm f/2.8L because I found the fringing too problematic for this use (I suppose I should have gone for the 180L macro). The 85L is a bit of a prima donna - treat it well and it'll impress. But it's not for every situation.

Incidentally, one use I find this lens excellent for that might not be obvious is food photography. With a 12mm extension tube, it can work wonders (although the 100L macro is similarly good for this).

3
f/2.8 and image stabilised? Sounds pretty awesome. A tough choice between this and the new Canon. Will be interesting to see what the street price is.

4
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: January 22, 2015, 02:21:35 PM »
Woods are doubtless one of the most challenging environments - where dynamic range really is an issue (I find). Here are some of mine from the last couple of years. Various lenses, styles, and locations in England and Scotland.


Nice. I especially like the second one. Excellent lines.  :)

Very nice series, scyrene.

Thanks guys!

5
EOS-M / EOS M and birds
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:24:48 PM »
Hey all. I stupidly left my 5DIII battery charger in Scotland, and after the battery ran out, I fell back on the EOS-M. As it turned out, I got useful pics - although I had the camera set to s-jpeg so they're hardly worth sharing here. I found perched birds were fine - although I resorted to manual focus. Does anyone else have experience using this camera with a super telephoto lens for birds? I found a stonechat, gulls, and a buzzard were all fine as targets.

Thanks/apologies for any doubling up!

6
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:21:28 AM »
Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Focus has no bearing on the image quality - only the clarity with which subject of the image is captured. An out of focus bird at ISO 25,600 is just as noisy (image data wise) as an infocus bird at ISO 25,600. Focus cannot correct image quality issues.
It should be obvious though that lack of focus has a negative impact to IQ  ::)

Yes - I'm sorry, Dilbert, but that is a bizarre attitude. You believe certain things intrinsic to an image constitute *image quality* but others don't. There seems no rationale for which, except maybe the ones Canon doesn't do as well as other manufcaturers (e.g. the much discussed low ISO DR) - which is at best contingent, and at worst constitutes deliberate bias. If I gave a number of images to a random selection of people, or entered them into a competition, and they were out of focus (except in the rare event it is an obviously deliberate/artistic choice), they would be rejected as poor. Because images are expected to be in focus - and I'd argue most people would understand the concept of focus without being taught. A noise free image that is out of focus is pretty easy to create, but unlikely to please many people.

On the other hand, many non-photographers don't really notice noise up to a certain point, and even those with exacting standards will tolerate it to varying degrees.

Do you disagree?

7
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:09:59 AM »
Woods are doubtless one of the most challenging environments - where dynamic range really is an issue (I find). Here are some of mine from the last couple of years. Various lenses, styles, and locations in England and Scotland.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 21, 2015, 08:57:11 AM »
Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

Of course, anyone who really cares about IQ knows that every shot must be taken at base ISO with the camera on a tripod.  There's always time for CDAF or even manual focus, and you can use as long a shutter speed as you want. 

I guess some of us just don't really care about IQ. 

 ::) ::) ::)

Or they could always use a camera with such a small sensor that the whole scene is acceptably in focus - let's all switch to phone cams!

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:40:40 AM »
Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

That is part of it.

As has been pointed out before, but really shouldn't need to be, there are other aspects to image quality too. Like if the subject is in focus. Indeed, in many circumstances, that is as important as noise. I'm not the first to say, though I will repeat - moderate noise can be reduced by software, but a subject cannot be made to be in focus with any postprocessing technique if it was not so in the original image.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 20, 2015, 05:53:46 AM »
And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

So you're saying that if sensor A has measurably less noise and measurably more DR than sensor B then A isn't better than B from an objective point of view?

Look back - is that what I said? Not sure why I'm bothering, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I am saying that if sensor A and sensor B have the SAME noise and DR but B has more megapixels, then a person wanting more pixels will call B "better".

If sensor C has fewer pixels, but better DR, noise etc than D, then someone wanting better DR and noise will choose C.

You see, you've qualified *your* definition of "better" by talking about DR and noise. That's good. But those are not the only measure of a sensor. The discussion here is about a putative new Canon sensor - if it has the same noise and DR as the current Canon sensors, but more pixels, this will be like the first example I've given above. People wanting more DR and lower noise won't see the appeal, but people satisfied with current DR and noise but wanting more pixels will. Is that clear enough? You may not believe those people exist, but they do.

PS we of course all want every aspect to improve - and they may, it remains to be seen. But even if they don't, some people will like the new camera. I imagine you won't be satisfied whatever they come out with.

11
it's a Flickr blog, but their breakdown makes it look like Samsung's taking up a quickly growing market share at the expense of Canon, then Nikon. Pentax too, if you could even count them in to start with.

https://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/01/13/camera-ownership-on-flickr-2013-2014/

The first graphic is rather telling:



Samsung's market share is most certainly due to the popularity of the Galaxy phones, and not their DSLR's.  This graphic does do a good job showing the market penetration of phone cameras, but tells very little about the DSLR market.  Also, Flikr likely doesn't properly represent the DSLR market as it is but one of many photo sharing sites.  It also doesn't take into account the many people who strip EXIF from their photos

Good points!

12
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:38:23 AM »
What luck - this stonechat took off as I was photographing it :) 1000mm f/10.

Lovely, Scyrene!
It's always good when the birds cooperate and move in sync with the shutter. ;)

Thanks! Yes, it's all too rare :)

13
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:37:29 AM »
Finally a treecreeper that posed well! :) 1000mm f/10.

These are tricky. Mostly I find them in line with me and the tree trunks, leaving only the backside to focus on, and that is nearly impossible. You were smart and got a bit of the breast/belly to help out.

They are! Fast, well camouflaged with their back to you, and when easiest to focus on, not very well posed for a pic! This was just good fortune, it was facing sideways (from my point of view) for a split second :)

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: January 17, 2015, 03:09:19 PM »
What luck - this stonechat took off as I was photographing it :) 1000mm f/10.

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 17, 2015, 03:08:32 PM »
Finally a treecreeper that posed well! :) 1000mm f/10.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29