Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 02:56:56 PM »

3) Civic has state of the art fuel efficient engine

I’m sure there’s an analogy in there somewhere between Civic owners who think something on their car is state of the art, and camera owners who frequent camera forums.

Pls don't be confused with power (aka muscle), torque or acceleration,. Most entry level cars these days (if not all) have advanced design and technology for basic engine fuel efficiency. You can ask Prof. Google if you want to know more...

2

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 02:04:27 PM »

  14 pages......
Let me try my way:
1) Honda civic is a great car
2) In heavy bumper to bumper traffic civic moves as fast as Ferrari
3) Civic has state of the art fuel efficient engine
3) Civic has more boot space than Ferrari
4) You can commute to work with civic happily without a hitch
5) Ferrari is traffic ticket magnet, civic gets by without attracting attention
Logical conclusion on lines of arguments here: I am proud owner of Civic and its far better car than Ferrari

Plenty of people were happy and have got by with even manual focusing or 5DII autofocus.......
 

3

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 13, 2013, 04:10:28 PM »

I find it interesting that one of the persons defending the moderators has a long history of belittling others on the forum with whom he disagrees. And, that's exactly the problem.

+1
Hey, if your insult is wrapped in sarcasm, its suppose to be OK....
Old adage: If you remove your pants, its obscenity; if I do it, its art!
Easy fellows - all of you 

4

Reviews / Re: Incapable of posting to the adorama thread money still not returned

« on: June 11, 2013, 07:51:46 PM »

My bank has been helpful, forthright and honest as far as I can tell. I was indeed barking up the right tree by placing blame on Adorama. My bank has earned my trust after years of banking with them. Adorama has proven their dishonesty and ineptitude.

You are confused between slick smooth-talking vs trust and honesty. Most people including you are stuck in warp of personal bias. The cold fact is:
1) If Adorama sales rep suggested you the wire transfer route, he should have held your finger through entire process by taking charge of situation and communicating better.
2) If things don't go according to plan, throwing tantrum like a baby usually does not help either the person or situation. There are bad apples in all organizations including B&H and Amazon. If you are not satisfied you can politely and firmly escalate the situation to the manager. I have got around a lot of incompetence this way. Something was definitely wrong in the way you were talking to them. And if your posts here are any indication, we have the answer. You would have got your toys faster if you had kept your cool and patience to resolve the issue with Adorama and your Bank. In my experience both Adorama and B&H are almost identical and I buy all my optics from them.

Finally, never trust the Bank. The people who work at retail branches are really not sharp but they are taught to speak well. Because they know that slick talking is important to get trust of suckers like you!!!

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:18:44 PM »

Some further discussion on the faked 2013 world press photo of the year......

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop

I don't want to prolong the life of this thread. Just wanted to clear the tarnished name of poor photographer!
Before you rush to judge, there is always more to than meets your eye.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/14/183983184/photographer-defends-prize-winning-photo-of-gaza-funeral

I just happened to see this by chance and remembered a post here. Most of the time we never bother to dig deeper before passing the muck around....

6

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 12:58:36 PM »

You have the zoom lens, buy the focal length that you find yourself using. 
 

Personally, I'd get a 85mm and 135mm, two focal lengths you do not have now, and the classic portrait  focal lengths for 35mm cameras for the past 60 or 70 years.  Even 50mm is a bit wide for portraits, but will do.

+1
35 mm is least useful for kids (I hardly remember ever using it), irrespective of what it blows out and where.
50 mm still finds a decent use. I would go with 85/135, since you have a zoom. 50 f/1.8 is pretty good on 5DIII. It's so cheap that you can decide for yourself if you like this FL. I have got some good tips from CR but can't fathom why 50 f/1.4 or push & pull zooms get bad rap here (something to do with trolling). To me it's the best general purpose lens with good IQ. And, despite endless posts about why 50 f/1.2 is designed to provide good bokeh by compromising sharpness, people still believe that it's a flaw of the lens. Myths, biases, and myths...So, my bias is to skip 35 and buy/try 50/85/135 to figure out your bias. I have all FLs and my order of usage for kids is
1. 50 mm
2. 135 mm
3. 85 mm
And it includes indoor as well as outdoor use

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please share your camera settings

« on: April 12, 2013, 05:42:28 PM »

Ken Rockwell claims that he doesn't need to shoot RAW and he said if you know what you are doing JPEG is fine. He also said the smallest size JPEG is good enough.

well I think I know what I'm doing but I need RAW. Anyway, my real question is
1. what size of RAW and JPEG do you normally use?
2. do you use camera NR at all? or do you use LR?
3. what settings would you advise against and for?

> "he doesn't need to shoot RAW"
Fair enough. Everyone has different needs!
I have some photos that were unusable as in camera JPEG and turned out decent processed from RAW (maybe he would say I don't know what I am doing).
But,
unless you are lunatic as hell,
I know what I am doing well,
super busy shooting children who run around and yell,
the greatest and only, Ken Rockwell.

modern cameras allows you best of both worlds. Recording RAW as well as JPEG!!!

> "if you know what you are doing JPEG is fine"
Right answer is it depends on the shooting conditions and histogram. Does he know what he is doing?

> "smallest size JPEG is good enough"
Again it depends? Good enough for what? For iphone?

Answers to your question:
1) RAW on CF card, Med-Low JPEG on SDHC card for quick review (SDHC goes into my laptop or ipad (with adaptor) for instant review).
2) Photoshop only for printing
3) See #1, you can record Med-High JPEG on SDHC card for quick web uploading if you prefer.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Charge new LP-E6 batter over night?

« on: April 10, 2013, 06:17:15 PM »

As a rule of thumb, you should never allow Li-Ion batteries like the LP-E6 to drain completely. Lithium Ion cells have improved longevity if you constantly top them up, or in other words re-charge them when they reduce to about 15-20% charge. Allowing the batteries to be used up completely - squeezing that last shot out of them - will reduce the number of complete recharge cycles that you'll get out of them.

I'm curious if Canon makes the camera shut off at a certain voltage, above the trigger point for the protection circuit in the LiIon.  Seems like it would be easy and allow you to run the battery until the camera shuts off.

I don't fully buy into this hype about topping off all the time.  Yes, read plenty of articles on it, most of them regurgitation of some points made in a article on battery university.  I remember some stats on recharge cycles vs percentage of discharge, and of course the 5% or 10% discharge had many more recharge cycles...  but nobody points out that you only get to use 10% of your battery.  It better have a lot more recharge cycles, at least 10X just to break even, and more to make it worth my while.

I usually pull my batteries out when I get the low battery warning, if I have a spare handy.  If I don't I won't hesitate to ride it until it turns off.   Maybe if you burn through a battery a day, 5+ days a week I can see how it'll add up.  But LiIon batteries start degrading the moment their built, most specs I've seen give them somewhere between a 2 and 5 year lifespan.  1000 recharge cycles, 5 years - 200 a year.  Whatever, beats popping them into the charger every night after a small shoot.

I bought a new DELL laptop in 2006 and used it out and about (mainly at cafes and coffee shops) with free WiFi as broadband was not available where I lived at that time. The Li-Ion battery lasted <3 months. It cost me 117 euros (about $150) for a replacement battery, but I learnt my lesson and plugged the AC into the laptop after using for an hour or so - that 2nd battery still works today 7 years on. Leaving a Lithium Ion battery go to zero repeatedly = buying a lot more replacement batteries. I have 5 LP-E6 batteries for more than 2 years and health = 3-Bars on all of them, despite heavy HD video usage (once for 9 hours continuously with my 7D).

As others have said, keep them partly charged at all times and they'll last for years.

-1
There is a saying that "half knowledge is worse that no knowledge"
If using your battery till your camera/laptop dies was so bad, there will be some note in the product manual (not every corporation is evil trying to sell as many batteries as possible). What you are talking about is called deep discharge. If you store the depleted Li-Ion battery for long term (months), it may discharge below threshold and open built in safety circuit that would brick the battery. So its absolutely safe to use the battery till your camera is dead if you are going to put it back in charger immediately or soon enough.
However, since the charge cycle is additive (meaning discharging the battery to 50% and recharging to twice would count as 1 cycle instead of 2) you can recharge it whenever you want without worrying about depleting cycles. Now here is a catch - After 30 cycles or so, repeated partial discharge could create a digital memory leading to faulty power gauge. So still the best practice would be to let them deplete to near complete discharge (not deep discharge) i.e. using till camera is dead but charge them back immediately. Always store them at full charge or at least 50% or more.
Single data point statement aka blog wisdom: Have used all Li-Ion batteries this was and my batteries always outlast the device or live way past stated optimal cycles (One laptop battery lasted record 5+ years with good amount of use).

9

Lenses / Re: Is there any chance this is legit?

« on: April 09, 2013, 02:45:21 PM »

I wanted so badly to believe that this is a sweet old man with too much money and not enough sense and was just looking to give this lens a nice home

The broken English and little bits of photo jargon is what drew me in, but alas, I just can't see anyone throwing 10K out the window, even if they were a billionaire.

Actually, esp. billionaire. Its safe to say that in general generosity is inversely proportional to wealth. And even generous wealthy exceptions like Warren buffet and Bill gates wont throw it out distributing Canon 800 mm f/5.6's on Craigslist. 

10

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?

« on: April 04, 2013, 05:37:38 PM »

@comsense:

Incredible, you actually believe that a machine might provide less biased information compared to a human being. How can this be? 

Do you believe that machines are created by some sort of greater and completely flawless beings or have you already realized that machines tend to be man-made and as such bring in their own flaws and bias based on how a machine has been designed? 

I am not trying to get into creation of universe. Its simply that human brain works with lot of associations and information filling and past experience shapes the future perception/action. They are huge advantages (critical to learning and adaptability) which unfortunately comes at a cost (like anything else). So no matter how objective you claim to be, your experience and association shapes your views and analysis. 
Machine on the other hand would measure what you make it to measure without feelings or likings. Machine does not change measurements depending on whether Nikon or Canon made it. Of course all machines have errors and range/constraints where measurements are reliable (and they do break down). Ironically most of the blames instruments get are because of poor experimental design and non-optimal use, both of which are human errors.
Before someone throws a pebble into water, attempts are being made to model computing machines that work like human brain, i.e., adaptable neural network with associative powers.
If you are still scratching your head:
For a input = output situation
With machines -
a given 'Input' will give you same 'Output' every time till the machine fails (in workable constrains of machine)
with brain -
'Output' can change hardware such that same 'Input' next time could have different 'Output'....

11

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?

« on: April 03, 2013, 02:59:20 PM »

...we really need OBJECTIVE reviews to know what to expect from a lens before buying.

Do we?  I suspect most such decisions are based on features and price.  Plus, everyone has bias.  The best you can probably do is read several reviews and synthesize a conclusion.

Well said. Bias is inherent to human brain function. Only way without bias is letting machine do it. That's why good technical data from well designed setup is valuable (TDP, Photozone, DxO, LensRentals; more the better). You can look at it and make up your mind with your own bias. If you want no technical data and self contradictory but peppy talk, well you have 6 Rockwell fans here.....

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: f/22 and diffraction

« on: March 11, 2013, 10:39:17 PM »

There are some actual examples at Photozone.  Most lenses are find at f/16, the resolution is highest at F/5.6 but drops 21% in the center by f/16.  It would drop a little more at F/22.
 
This is a 17mm TS-E on a 5D MK II
 
 

I think the more relevant question to ask from these MTF charts is whether it still has an acceptable levels of sharpness at f/16 or f/22. %ages matter less in 'bigger picture' even after assuming linear correlation between variables and final pictures....

Acceptable for what??  The resolution is given on the chart, and no matter what it is, it might not be acceptable to some photographers.
Photozone used to put a vague term like excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor on the charts. but that was another undefined term.  The photographer needs to decide what is acceptable to him for his use.
 
Is 2700 LW/PH on a 5D MK II  good enough?  2200??  Note, those values only pertain to the one camera model.
It is interesting to note that the resolution at f/16 is pretty much the same for all lenses on a 5D MK II.  The diffraction appears to be the limiting factor, not the lens resolution.  Since many landscape shooters use f/16, it is acceptable to most, but I'm certain its not for all..

That's the whole point! While what is acceptable may be very subjective, if you know what works for you, you can use MTF as a guide to decide which lens-camera combination is better suited for the job (provided there are no other real world variable). While MTF comparison of f/11/22 vs f/1.2 is not so relevant for someone who wants to shoot at f11/22 most of the time, it is valuable to know how various lens perform at this f stop.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: f/22 and diffraction

« on: March 11, 2013, 03:46:29 PM »

There are some actual examples at Photozone.  Most lenses are find at f/16, the resolution is highest at F/5.6 but drops 21% in the center by f/16.  It would drop a little more at F/22.
 
This is a 17mm TS-E on a 5D MK II
 
 

I think the more relevant question to ask from these MTF charts is whether it still has an acceptable levels of sharpness at f/16 or f/22. %ages matter less in 'bigger picture' even after assuming linear correlation between variables and final pictures....

14

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?

« on: February 26, 2013, 02:17:44 PM »

This one not so easy, but could be spotted from a group of tents know as K-ville.


SV5D0426 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Another clue - this was a Devil of a shot to take with all that Blue sky....

Durham.
Its not a geography lesson; its common sense lesson - and for you too.
If you click on photos they take you to your flicker a/c where previous photo is in folder named 'monticello visit' and this one in 'Duke Blue Devil', Duke being in Durham.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 26, 2013, 11:04:22 AM »

Don't be patronising. Many of my colleagues are Nobel Laureates and they don't talk condescendingly like that.

I'm impressed :-> ... but I wasn't patronizing, actually I did some work for you and found the links you requested but am missing a "thank you" so far.

The fact that the ml website doesn't advertise dev versions is really not a bug but a feature: a simple Google search for "magic lantern nightly" turns up the link I posted as the first result, and if that's not enough then the general user crowd with a "service, please!" approach are meant to use the official releases as it needs some willingness to invest work to use bleeding edge builds.

It's like the novice at the do-it-yourself machine shop asking where the on / off switch is on the four-ton hydraulic press. If you have to ask, it's not for you.

Thanks for verifying, English is not my first language and I never quite know how it comes across. Btw unfortunately ml really has teeth as the devs have bricked several (sponsored) cameras, but they usually manage to recover them. somehow.

As English is not your native language, let me explain the nuances that make the second sentence patronising. The word "pretty" is one problem. "Pretty" in that context is a pejorative word meaning that it is tarted up to appeal to the simple minded. The word "clear" would be acceptable, implying that the current description is obscure. A second is "(that includes you as far as I can see)" because it personalises the comment and also shows you making an assumption about a particular individual, which may well be unwarranted.

The first sentence may sound witty to you, but to others it smacks of arrogance. So, both sentences combined sound unpleasant to a native speaker.

Its pretty clear that you are being oversensitive. Humor off. s/he did not mean to offend you. Just warn in a straightforward way. Also, what do you interpret your reference to Nobel Laureate colleagues as?. I have some and so would many others here. Like normal people some of the Nobel Laureates are very humble but some are incredibly arrogant. And similar are colleagues without Nobel Prize.