August 27, 2014, 05:11:40 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 - art_d

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 09:37:55 PM »
Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...
If you can care less, then why don't you ? ;)

As far as 16-bits....now that is something I could not care less about. Because 16 bits will not give you more DR. Just bigger files with the extra bits quantizing noise.

14 bits will do just fine.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 17, 2013, 09:14:30 PM »
I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

:)

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.
I agree the 1 series is about high volume work and reliability, easier and more comfortable to work with for daylong handheld shooting. I agree totally and completely. I don't understand where you think I've said something to the contrary?

Yes, I know that some MF shooters will shoot a thousand shots a day. I also know such shooters make up a relatively small portion of the market. When I say "high volume" I am typically refering to photojournalists, sports photogs, high end wedding shooters...people who generally will take speed and reliability over megapixel count.

But at the risk of getting hung up on semantics: 21mp is not really "high megapixel" anymore.

I've got a friend who is a high end wedding photographer. He's shot Nikon forever...he picked up a D800 and tried it out for a wedding. Loved the images but hated the big files and slower workflow. The benefits of a high res sensor might be noticeable in a fine art print...but not to his wedding clients. He gained no upside from the bigger sensor.

The point is that in general photographers who as a practical matter want more than 18-21 megapixels are more likely to be shooting low volume work. This being an internet forum I of course must explicitly spell out the disclaimer: not ALL cases...in GENERAL. We're talking in broad brush strokes here. Landscape photography, architecture photography, fine art, etc. These are the types of shooters who most frequently want more than 21mp. These are also the types of shooters who benefit less from the more robustly performing 1 series bodies.

(Nikon already has recognized this logic which is why their top performing, highest priced flagship camera is not their highest megapixel camera.)

3
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 16, 2013, 11:52:14 PM »
I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

:)

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

You mean like the 1Ds Mark III?  High frame rate and low MP's?
No. I don't mean like that.

In the context of the present day, Canon doesn't really have a high MP body. (Though Canon's present flagship high volume work camera, the 1DX, does have slightly fewer megapixels than its current 5 series body.)

But looking at Nikon: there is the high megapixel D800 which is roughly speaking at the level of a 5-series body, and the D4 which is their flagship high volume workhorse. The D800 is 36mp, the D4 is 16mp. This makes sense, because in general the high volume shooters using a D4 are not going to value a high megapixel sensor.

I would think a similar logic would apply to Canon. Why dump a big megapixel sensor into a 1 series body when the 1 series is built for high volume work?

4
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 15, 2013, 01:15:17 AM »
I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

:)

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

5
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 12, 2013, 10:33:58 PM »
I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

:)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 12, 2013, 10:28:07 PM »
16bit RAW image capture, not megapixels, would define progress in the DSLR market.

J
Well...not really. Not unless those 16 bits are actually used for something other than just quantizing noise. That's all the current 16 bit systems do. Those extra bits don't really carry useful data. In practical terms the only thing 16 bits provides over 14 bits is: 1) making the raw file unnecessarily larger; and 2) give marketing people stuff to talk about that really doesn't affect image quality.

7
Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm
« on: April 22, 2013, 04:24:51 PM »
I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm.  It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.

This is true...although also be aware that a TC will add a slight bit of barrel distortion. May not be an issue in most circumstances, but it can become evident in some architectural shots.

8
Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm
« on: April 22, 2013, 04:19:34 PM »
I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift.  I like the results,  but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks.   I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight  on the why.
A big draw is the ability to shift which lets you keep the camera level while composing shots, which keeps vertical lines running straight. This is useful anytime you have a vertical element in the composition (a building, a lampost, a tree, etc.) that you don't want to have appear like it's falling backward (which happens if you point the camera up) or forward (if you point the camera down).

For example:


This photo was made with a 17mm TS-E at maximum shift. If this had been a regular lens and the camera was kept level, the horizon would've been in the middle of the frame. Most of the bottom of the frame would've been filled with foreground and a good portion of the building would've been cut off at top. If the camera had been tilted back to capture the entire height of the building, the building would suffer from keystoning, with the vertical lines not running straight.

As to the question of 17 vs 24...that has a lot to do with shooting style. I find the 24 generally more practical in more circumstances because 17mm is kind of an exterme focal length. But if that's the kind of shooting you're into, it's a fantastic lens.

9
Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H
« on: April 17, 2013, 03:51:38 PM »
I'm with the OP on this one. Yes, prices fluctuate. However, I used to have a wedding anniversary that was the last week of January. I could get a dozen red roses for about $12.  Two weeks later, around Valentine's Day, those same roses were advertised for $18, "on sale" from their regular price of $22.  I called the florist out on it. She explained that as demand goes up, so does the price of their flowers. Understood, but it's deceptive to call the regular price $22, when I was buying them two weeks ago for $12!
It's simple pyschology. People are more inclined to buy something if they think they are getting a deal on it.

Remember how JCPenny's not too long ago decided to go to a strategy where they would offer low prices all the time, but wouldn't have sales? There were no more "fake prices" that were inflated so that markdowns seemed like deals . Supposedly this sort of clear and non-decpetive pricing strategy would be something that consumers would appreciate, right? Well, unfortunately, that non-deceptive pricing strategy failed miserably. Sales went down something like 20%.

It turns out that us consumers are (as a collective) not very smart. Marketing folks know this. That's why inflated prices + "discounts" = more sales.

I can't say I like the practice. But I understand why it goes on.

10
Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: April 10, 2013, 12:14:32 PM »
WHEN!!! It's now 2013, any more news on when? what month? I need these lenses now, and don't want to rent anymore, and don't want to buy, just to have the new one come out a week later.
Why not just buy them, and then sell them later when the new one comes out? Just consider it an extended rental period with an up-front deposit...

11
Lenses / Re: Lenses for carpets photography
« on: April 08, 2013, 04:28:52 PM »
hi thanks for your advice.i must tell you a little bit bit about the background of carpet photography.
we used to shoot all our carpets with canon efs 18-135 mm lens with a canon 600 d.cheap camera and cheap lens.
18mm was just enough to capture bigger carpets in its focus.as we used to climb a ladder and take photos.

now i want to upgrade to a higher gear ,i took some photography lessons ,i am not pro but understand the basics.

i will be helpful if you recommend 1 good lens to take all photos with a resonable amount of detail for ecommerce website.as we have 2000 carpets and every 3 month carpets changes ,i think it will be to costly and time consuming to keep changing lenses.if i have an option i will have one lens .macro shots can be dealt later.if you still think i need more than please dont hesitate advicing me ,i shall be thank ful to you.
please rememebr that 18 mm -135 mm lens did our jobin getting whole carpet in the camera  @ 18mm .
since i am going to buy mk 2 or mk 3 please advice me a good lens with similar focal length?
i have heard that to take good quality pictures i need higher f stops of aprreature to take everything in detail .if thats true do i need to invest in expensive lenses like f1.2 ,if i want to use larger appreature dont you think any lens with f4 will do ?
If you already have a workflow that you were using and you want to keep the same methods, and the only thing different is you are now using a full frame camera, then I would advise either a 24-70 or 24-105 lens would work fine for you. Remember that on a 600d, an 18mm lens is around 28mm on full frame. (In your case I think I would go for the Canon 24-105 which has image stabilization in the lens and could be quite useful for you. Also Tamron makes a 24-70 lens with image stabilization).

For your purposes, no, you do not need to invest in 1.2 lenses. F/4 is plenty. If you want everything to be in focus, yes, you will need to use higher aperture values.

Since you mention that you are displaying these photo on a website, and you are not printing these for a catalog, then I am wondering if you even need a full frame camera. It certainly will not hurt. But I am wondering, do you feel your current equipment is not providing you enough quality that you want to go to full frame? For web sized display, it might be hard to tell the difference.

12
Lenses / Re: Lenses for carpets photography
« on: April 08, 2013, 12:02:55 PM »
If you want to have lots of detail but are going to be shooting carpets that wide, my first instict would be that photo stitching would be a useful choice. There are several ways to do this. You can get a panorama head and almost any normal lens. Or you could get a TS-E lens. The 24TS-II is the best such lens out there and it will resolve tons of detail, and give you the option to flat stitch the photos. It also has pretty good close focusing distance and no barrel distortion to worry about.


13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: April 08, 2013, 11:48:43 AM »
Topaz DeNoise is a pretty useful tool that can help minimize banding. I will add the comment that it can make areas of the photo look smudgy and plasticky if overused, though. It can obliterate banding if you crank it up, but then you'll be left with lumpy/blotchy looking shadow areas. So, moderation is key. (Even in moderation, I find after trying to fix pattern noise with it, it's usually best to add grain back into the photo to help cover the plastic look.)

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: April 07, 2013, 08:05:00 PM »
Let's provide some more context to what you said:

If you were to provide just a weeee bit more context from that very same post, you might discover that I make the exact same point as the online source you found.

So what's yours? Point, I mean.

b&

That you are arguing AGAINST the value of using a camera with more DR. You've been arguing against it from the get-go, stating that you don't even need all the DR the 5D III has, let alone the D800. The only way we could interpret the print comment was that you were just making another argument against more DR, stating that since print has so little DR, having more couldn't possibly be valuable, because all the "extra" DR would just fall into "Zone 0-1", and thus just be "solid blacks".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you can compress dynamic range. If your camera has 14 stops, you can compress those 14 into the 8 stops of a computer screen, or even the 5 stops of a print. All it takes is a little tonemapping, assuming you have the DR to start with.
Yes. Exactly what jrista wrote.

To remind you, TrumpetPower, this was my point:
"If we accept that GND filters and exposure blending are useful to address dynamic range limitations, then we come to the inevitable conclusion that sensors that natively posses more dynamic range are useful."

This is the point you then tried to refute by saying you don't gain anything by using a camera with more dynamic range because everything has to get compressed down to the dynamic range of a print. And that is just flat out wrong.

I don't know if you actually read the rest of Mike Johnston's article that I linked to, but you and he certainly were not making the same point. I will quote again from that the article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/dynamic-range.html):

"So why, then, if people like higher contrast in the midtones, do photographers want devices with greater dynamic range?

The answer comes down to two things. The first is options. Creative options. Having more information in the file to start with simply gives you more creative and interpretive options for the end result...."

"....The second reason is that for those who love photography because of its power to show what the world looks like, adequate DR is a critical tool in the service of realism."


My impression is you have been arguing against that. If you have not, then we can be in agreement.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: April 07, 2013, 04:48:47 PM »
TrumpetPower, you seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse on this.

Art, your own link quite clearly states that the cameras capture significantly more dynamic range than you can output, and that the challenge is compressing the input into the range of the output

That's exactly what I've been writing from the beginning of this thread -- including in the very sentence you quoted of mine that you stated was complete bollocks.

Somebody's clearly got some reading comprehension issues going on here.

b&

Let's provide some more context to what you said:

Yes, there is a huge limitation with respect to dynamic range and photography. Absolutely monstrous.

But the cameras aren't the problem.

The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

You called it the "elephant in the room." You said "the cameras aren't the problem." You were basically trying to make the claim that more dynamic range in cameras doesn't matter because cameras already have more dynamic range than prints. Read the below again please. It explains why you are wrong. It tells you why cameras are the problem.


"A big source of confusion is the range of the display media, whether it's printing paper or a monitor or anything else. You'll constantly come across people saying that since a certain range is all you can display, then that's all the DR you can have, or can use, or whatever. Not so. Any subject brightness range can potentially be represented accurately and proportionately within a given display range—as long as you captured the brightness levels of the subject correctly relative to each other in the first place."

(Emphasis added this time around is mine).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6