February 27, 2015, 08:59:27 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.

Topics - Apop

Pages: [1] 2
So a bit dreamy today and thinking about the future
Not in the near future, but it could be closer then I think ( the point where it might be worth switching(for me) has just arrived)  Btw (It's meant for sports/wildlife rather than portrait shooters!!!!)

When blackmagic announced the 4k production camera I got a feeling this could be the beginning of the end.

A 1dx is one of the best sports cameras around , giving 18mpix images.
The still images of the blackmagic 4k are 8mpix, RAW, now when you keep in mind that it has a 1.7 crop factor and apply this to the original image of the 1dx  you are left with a 6.2mp image.
No doubt the raw file from the 1dx will look a lot better (but we're dreaming, and not thinking about iso etc)

The black magic shoots 24 fps, 8mp RAW photos without filling the buffer.
It does not have the auto focus system,  but still I have read many photographers say 8mp is more than enough for them! ;)

Sure with increasing processing power and cheaper memory etc, one could argue that photo cameras will always have an edge in resolution over the video cameras.
But to what point will it be useful?

When we arrive at a point where the resolution will be so great that the glass cannot cope with it, or that the ''need'' is no longer there ( Imagine in 10 years, 200-300 MP photos, it's great off course, but 8k (7680×4320 = 33,177,600 pixels) @ 120 FPS  ( 8.4 gigabyte/second uncompressed )
I can also live with 24 fps, which should be around 1.6-1.7 gigabyte/second
Currently read speed max out @ 500MB/s for ssd disks?

Will be much more useful to me than a 300mp camera which can do 10fps with mirror box.
(750mb/photo @ 10fps = 7.5 gigabyte/second)
Not sure how they are going to keep the cf format alive

Btw if Computer speed or storage is an issues, you can always delete 99.99999% of the footage and keep the 1 second with 24 frames which has the picture/moment located that you need :P

Impractical atm? yes, but in 5-10-15 years? who knows .... DSLR's need to reinvent the CF card, and Maybe lose that mirror :(

So why not film everything in raw ? and enjoy the photos it also takes while doing so :P

What do you think?

EOS Bodies / Canon 70d vs d7100 Buffer
« on: September 04, 2013, 05:43:25 PM »
Hey all, I just found a video on the 70d's buffer
With 95mb/sec it supposedly does 22 shots before slow down, which I think is pretty nice !
I am quite happy to see that they didn't limit the buffer ...

( see 3 minute 58 to see the fast card)

A video on the Nikon

In 3 seconds you get approximately 50% more shots (21)70d vs (14ish) d7100

I do wonder why there seems to be such a big difference between these cameras, which supposed to compete with each other.
Normally canon gets accused for protecting the next camera in the line, Now it seems nikon is protecting the yet to be released d400?.

Hope either one presents the d400/7dII soon, the good buffer on the 70d makes me wonder if the 7dII could have 30-35+ raw buffer!

The recently reignited debate about sensors performance and Nikon's superiority have led me to post this to make the canon users feel better!

If you shoot sports/wildlife you might want to take consecutive shots, FPS is important.
If you shoot raw, buffer may be an issue  .

Here is 3 seconds of action

3 seconds of action

d800 : 12 shots
d7100: 14 shots(at best, the buffer is terrible)
d600 :  16 shots
6d     : 14 shots (AF might be an issue)
5dIII: 18 shots
7d   : 24 shots
1d4 : 30 shots (if you want to buy, it must be second hand)
d4  :  30 shots (high price)
1dx : 36 shots (high price )

The only affordable nikon ( so excluding 5-6K$ cameras like d4) that has a decent enough frame rate and buffer IMO is the d600. Well the d600 lacks the AF system that the d7100 and d800 have..., it's autofocus is far inferior to those....

In the canon segment, I think the 7d, 5dIII and 1d4 are all wonderful alternatives (the 70d should have 16 shot buffer, so you might get 19-21 shots in 3 seconds).

The 5d3 focus system is better than that of the d600, the 1d4 focus system is also better.
I am not sure if the 7d/70d focus system trumps the d600.

All in all you have a lot more choice for sports/wildlife on the canon side!

Lenses / Canon tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses (Comparison)
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:27:49 AM »
Lately there might be a few canon users that feel sad because of being confronted with owning inferior sensors.

I thought it could be fun to use the life work of The Digital Picture to compare some crops of canon and nikon lenses (with or without teleconverter) , to cheer those folks up!!!

You can have the best sensor out there, but if your lens is inferior, you may end up with equal or lesser shots!

******--First up canon 70-200 IS II and nikon 70-200 vrII
both @ f2.8 where it matters, im sure from f4 onward they are quite equal.


Now the first thing people who want more reach and own either of these lenses is to put the latest 2.0 TC's on (version 3 in both cases).

Wide open


Hmmm, looks like canon is sharper and less CA

******---- Next up is a tele that people might want to have because of speed and versatility with tc's
300 f2.8


Now with 1.4 converter

and 2.0 converter


Again, the canon sharper and less ca?

*****--- People with more money in their pocket might want a 500 f4

1.4 converter


******--- People that love little birdies ( and are body builders in nikon's case) 600mm f4

1.4 converter


Also to take into consideration is the weight.
nikon 600 f4 : 5.1kg
nikon 500 f4 :3.88kg
nikon3002.8: 2.92kg
Canon 600 f4: 3.92kg
canon 500 f4: 3.19kg
canon 3002.8:2.35kg

Nikon users might say Tele lens sharpness is close and the differences aren't big.
Unless TDP cheated on the crops, it looks like quite a reasonable difference , ESPECIALLY with TC's

Nikon users might say it doesn't matter , but thats like canon users saying more DR isn't useful.
Nikon users might argue they are strong , and don't care about the extra weight, but it means you can carry other things....!

I am unaware about AF speed on the different lenses, It is probably close as well....

Feel free to add some more comparisons!, if you look carefully (to the nikon users) you might be able to find a Nikon lens that is actually sharper than the Canon equivalent !

Lighting / Wildlife Photography , To flash or not?
« on: August 28, 2013, 01:29:27 PM »
Do you use flashes for wildlife photography? ,

Personally I am still not sure if I should purchase a flash, during the day it can be really handy, but at night I wonder if I disturb the animals?, even the ones who can 'handle' it.

What are your thoughts on the use of flash?

Btw, what is the max shutter speed you can use?, if the flash sync speed is 1/200th, does this mean you can only use up to 1/200th of a second shutter speed with flash?, or is that for when the flash is not attached to the camera but triggered wireless ?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / canon 6d or 7d ?
« on: August 28, 2013, 01:26:42 PM »
Hey all, what would you think as a backup camera, the 6d or 7d.
Does anyone know if the GPS in the 6d works on remote locations (gps devices can sometimes struggle getting alocation).

Most reviews I could find were kind of bashing the 6d autofocus performance.
I am only interested in It's center point performance, if it's capable of focussing with decent speed and accuracy and able to track subjects when I keep the point in them.

Any thoughts on the combo's would be much appreciated,

Goal: wildlife
Primary body : 1dmkiv in case of the 6d, or 5dIII in case of the 7d
lenses : 70-200  / 300
tc's     : 1.4/2.0

Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 120-300 OS S
« on: July 10, 2013, 03:41:59 AM »
Hey, I stumbled across the new crops on thedigital picture

It looks a lot better than the older OS version


However, I do wonder if maybe TheDigitaPicture had a bad copy of the older version? or that he possibly had a bad copy ?, Midframe to corner the new S version looks really really good compared to the older one

at 3.2 the difference is even bigger

Actually the new Sports version @ f3.2 looks about as good as the canon 300 f2.8 IS @ f2.8

Which is quite an accomplishment for a zoom .....

With teleconverters(1.4) its also looks good , if you stop down 1 stop

The older version with TC's looks a bit better in the center when shot wide open, but again mid frame and corners the new version looks really really good.
That it almost matches the old 300 f2.8 IS really makes me crave for this lens, and as soon as the price drops a bit I will hopefully add it.

I had been thinking about possibly going for the 200-400 1.4 , but this new information has confirmed that I might be better (and even less expensive) off with the 120-300(with sometimes 1.4converter) from sigma and the 300 2.8(sometimes 1.4/2.0 converter) from canon, on two different bodies.

Which gives a lot of versatility as well, and when used correctly could give equal or better results than the 200-400.

Some of my thinking based on the crops

@300mm f4 (sigma / canon 200-400)

@300mm 2.8 and f4 ( canon/canon)

@420 f4 /400mm canon 200-400

@420 5.6 sigma, 400 f4 200-400

@600mm 6.3 (3002.8) , 560mm 6.3(200/400)

If the budget was lower and only 1 lens possible, the Sigma still looks pretty good, the only thing where it really misses is @ 600mm, The results don't look promising.

Already had such a thing in my mind when I saw the price of the 200-400, but as I like to shoot wildlife, it is such an appealing lens , hopefully I can stay strong and stay away from it :p

Budget wise, the 200-400 is 11K here, got the 3002.8 IS II for 4800, if the 120-300 price drops to 3k,
That would still be over 3k under the price of a 200-400 and gives 120-300 2.8 , 420 f4 - 600 6.3, which is also quite versatile, the thing to train for is F1 style 'tire changes ', get those converters changed rapidly when needed.

I am curious if there are any people who have purchased the 120-300 S already and could post some samples of it?, do your findings back the digitalpicture crops up ?

EOS Bodies / Canon Press event on may 31st
« on: May 10, 2013, 03:47:35 PM »

would be nice if it is the 70d announcement!

Hey ,
How come that it seems that canon lenses (seems to) play a lot better with Tc's?

for example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

or: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=654&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0




It looks to consistent to be a flaw from the digital picture, also the nikon lenses without teleconverter look plenty sharp., also photographylife lens comparisons seems to confirm that the nikons are affected more by teleconverters ( in reviews i compare the crops form 300+1.4 to a 400 and the difference seems a lot more pronounced than in canon crops)

Just interested to an explanation, because it seems that the bare lenses perform really good.

Lenses / Canon 500 F4 IS vs Canon 300 f2.8 IS II
« on: May 01, 2013, 05:45:00 AM »
Hi all,

Sorry to bother you with another ''comparison'', but i have a few questions regarding these lenses

At the moment i have the 500 f4 IS and 1.4 converter , but have a chance to sell it and get the 300 f2.8 IS II for the same price.

Some concerns i have are :

The 500 f4 is a little bit heavy ( even tho i have no problems handholding it for several hours when walking around looking for birds), It has 2 stops IS , and utilizes only 1 cross type sensor on my 1dmkiv , with or without the converter.

The 300 f2.8 IS II with 1.4 converter is quite a bit shorter than the 500(420vs500, means 41.7% more pixels on target with the 500mm lens), but  it looks to be sharper center and mid frame than the bare 500 @ f4


Also, it can use all 39 cross type sensors on my 1dmkiv , so the autofocus accuracy should be a little bit better when tracking? ( The speed is probably too close to tell ), also it has 4 stops of IS which combined with the lower weight and smaller size should make it easier to keep my focus point on target and maybe resulting in more 'keepers'

The 500 with 1.4 converter and the 300 with 2xIII converter, the 500 will have 36%more pixels on target and probably slightly faster AF, IQ seems to be on par, with maybe a slight edge to the 300 f2.8


At 910mm equivalent i am having a pretty hard time getting a high keeper rate when shooting BIF handheld, the trade off in weight and better IS vs less auto focus speed and maybe slight loss in IQ could be worth it if the keeper rates vastly improves.

Main goal is for safaris , it's hard to judge what focal length is ideal, a 500 can be great if you need to keep your distance when following cheetahs on a hunt, but when following dogs on a hunt it becomes useless (Atleast i cannot keep 650mm equivalent on target when sitting in a car going 40ish km/h) , Birds are everywhere and most of the time too far or too small, so having a lot of FL can help
Although I seem to be a bit focal length obsessed , in 10 years all the safari picture i have will be indistinguishable for i only have ''headshots'' and not enough pictures of animals in their surroundings.

You never know what you will see , it comes down to luck most of the time...(having a good guide and tracker can help), the only guarantee are birds hehe

Is there anyone that has experience with the 1mkiv comparing 1cross type vs 39? ( most of the time I like to use only the center point(with expansion sometimes) , and just when i completely lost the target use the normal focus to re aquire, normal focus set to af-on, center point to *

Other than the digital picture crops, any people who have used the old 500 and new 300 that can quantify some of the things on paper? ( AF speed, the difference when looking in the viewfinder )

A 650d or potentially 7d/7dmk2 will be the second body i will use, with the 70-200 (112-320 equivalent)
With the option to use 1.4/2 converters on the lenses and switch bodies between them

Lenses / Stolen lens database?
« on: April 14, 2013, 08:50:59 AM »
Hey all, Is there a place where i can check if a lens is stolen (given that i can get my hands on the serial number).

There is a 400 f2.8 IS II up for sale, a little ''too cheap'' imo.

New it costs 10800 here and its being sold for 6000 (without receipt or hard case), looking to be in good condition when looking at the photos.

I tried to google about a stolen 400 f2.8 IS II but nothing shows up.

It's a bit fishy.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D MKIII vs 7D (70-200 2.8)
« on: April 03, 2013, 06:06:21 AM »
Hi, i was wondering if someone did or can make the following comparison, either real life or theoretical :

Canon 5dmkIII with 70-200 , crop the image to 2x equivalent (leaving about a 5.5mp picture)


Canon 7d with 70-200, cropped 1.25x equivalent (leaving about a 11.5mp picture)

This should provide the same object size for both setups
At ISO's up to 1000 is what i am interested in

How would noise compare when you view it on a +-5.2 mp screen(macbook pro retina) ( almost pixel to pixel for the 5d3 image)

Alternative how would the 5d3 noise compare to 7d when cropped to same fov? ( again up to iso 1000)
(8.7 mp 5d3 against 18mp 7d)

Lenses / Callibrating lenses
« on: March 30, 2013, 02:29:52 PM »

Have any of you ever sent a lens to canon?, to callibrate / clean it ?
Did you also send your body to them with the lens?

I am interested in this because i have a lens that is several years old, and also purchased a second hand body.
Everything seems to be working fine, but i wonder if i can send or bring the equipment to a service center to have it checked out?

I have tried to google it in my native language but didn't find any specific steps,
Any of you know what to do? ( I am from the Netherlands btw).

Thanks in advance for help/advice on this subject

Pages: [1] 2