Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:09:09 PM »

Has anyone given any thought to my throwaway idea about "Faking" a fast synch speed by taking a 1/1000 sec sample of a 1/200 exposure.   Now granted it would do nothing for those using a strobe to fill in foreground illumination when shooting outdoors and other advanced fill flash work, but I could be an interesting tool for wedding/event photographers.

If you think about it it is sort of HDR in reverse, but for I think this would have to be something done within the camera and not something I think you can do post processing.

There might be other uses for this type of function, what we are doing is to take 4 samples of sensor output during a 1/200 second when flash us used (and 1/200 sec is the max synch speed).   I think that combining a number of "sub samples" like this of a series of shots might allow all sorts of interesting effects.

Does anyone have any opinions?

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?

« on: September 24, 2012, 03:52:07 PM »

Correct me if I am wrong....... (famous last words)

This is not necessarily something intrinsic to DSLRs but is a fundamental issue with a focal plane shutter, and applies to Digital or Film.

I will try and explain although a Google search (substitute your favorite search) will I am sure turn up a more lucid explanation.

Most handheld DSLRs (maybe with the exception of the Leica S) still use a focal plane shutter which allows light to hit the sensor by opening a (first) curtain, and then at the end of the exposure shutting a (second curtain).  Due to mechanichal factors (materials strength, inertia etc.) there is a maximum period of time when the WHOLE area of the imager is exposed to light at the same time.  Above that period of time (or shutter speed) the second curtain follows the first curtain so that (in effect) the light (of the exposure) scans across the imager.

Focal plane shutters that ran horizontally across the image plane (Leica M style) which used a treated cloth material for each shutter curtain were limited to a maximum synch speed of around 1/50 or 1/60 second.  I recall talking to Leica folks in the 80s when I was in the business and their view at the time was that that speed was the best trade off between consistent accuracy, durability, and quietness.  At the time Vertical run focal plane shutters (and remember because of the rectangular nature of the 35mm frame, the vertical shutter blades had 2/3 of the distance to travel) eventually crept up to 1/125 second and stayed there until the 90s when IIRC they hit about 1/200sec

The shortest amount of time when the WHOLE imager area can be exposed at once is therefore the highest flash synch speed. in the mid 80s some companies (Olympus comes to mind) came up with an innovative way to get around this by pulse firing a strobe (at obviously reduced power) so that strobe light would be evenly distributed across the film at higher shutter speeds than was normal at the time.

This limitation is one of the reasons why medium format camera systems (where the size of the shutter would be greater, and thus maximum synch speed lower) tended to use a leaf shutter.  The leaf shutter rather like the lens aperture has concentric blades and can close and open fully, thus at any speed you can always get flash synch (although I cannot recall ever seeing anything higher than 1/800 sec).

The advantage of the aster shutter speed beyond freezing action (or the inverse, preventing camera shake) was to control the amount of ambient light in the composition.  e.g. if you want to darken the background when using a strobe.

The whole point of this long winded explanation is that I suspect that since maximum sync speeds in focal plane shutters have not got much above 1/250 sec. in the last 20 years there is probably a major physical limitation to doing so.  I am willing to bet if camera company X came out with a camera that allowed the use of all strobes at 1/1000 sec just about every wedding photographer would buy it!

The question I have is if it is theoretically possible to do this  by using a slower shutter speed like 1/250 sec and "faking it" by taking a 1/1000 sec sample of the image created during the 1/250 second exposure.  I see that you would lose two stop of illumination overall but it appears that between 100 and 800 ISO most modern imagers have sufficient latitude?

Lastly, why, if you can get 1/250 on full frame can you not get higher on a crop sensor, surely the shutter run distance is shorter, and so the synch speed should be higher?

3

Lenses / ZEISS vs Nikon, a cute story - Canon comes into it......eventually

« on: May 03, 2012, 06:25:57 PM »

Clearing out some old stuff, I came across a bunch of 8x10s I made in the late 80s when I worked in the Photo Retail trade.  It reminded me clearly exactly why I left that particular career.

We had a customer who wanted a comparison set of shots done on a Contax RTSII wish Zeiss T* Glass and a Nikon F3 with specific Nikon Lenses. 

My records show Zeiss 25/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 180/2.8  and Nikon 24/2 35/2 50/1.4 85/1.4 and 180/2.8 ED-IF (All AIS).

I did the B&W shots on Ilford PAN F processed in ID-11 and then made the 8x10 on Ilforbrome (I remember it being the last time I used a non RC Paper).

I also shot a roll of Kodachrome 25 and then sent these out and had Cibachromes made of them.

It was an insane job because there were about 100 8x10s of each lens (Edge, Center, Full Frame, wide open, one stop down, two stops, four stops).

I don't recall how much it cost the customer but the color lab work cost quite a few thousand and I remember thinking that even I could do better Cibachromes than the lab who did it.


What was interesting ( I felt ) that for all the big talk of various vendors and photographers I could not SEE a definitively better lens optic for optic.

I managed to (sneak) some Leica glass into the tests, and there I did see some difference wide open on about two lenses, mostly with better contrast.  I also  took a selection of second tier Nikon lenses (or rather older cheaper designs) and even then  I can see (and my notes tell me, that the only real discernible difference was their wide open performance at the edge (and some minor barrel distortion issues with the 24/3.5).

Anyhow this project took about two weeks and the customer was quite happy to pay a huge amount of money.  He explained to me that he was a plastic surgeon and time was money (never forgot that one).

Anyway he took away all the 8x10s and my notes, gave me a $100 buck tip and said he would consider what he would buy.

My boss who was the definition of an assh**e kept complaining that he had not bought anything, and we had had to use all this expensive new equipment.  Even when I showed him that he had made money on the deal.

Since I thought the guy was nuts and having me on when he asked me how much it would cost to find out the best camera system to buy I calculated a price that covered all the photo processing costs plus 20%.  Then figured out it would take me 30 hours in time - and I was close - took what I was paid per hour and multiplied by three, and as a final kicker added 66% of the selling price of the equipment - this was the normal way of figuring out what to pay for mint equipment in a store in NY at the time.  I remember quoting the guy this ridiculous figure, somewhere near $10,000, and he pulled out an AMEX.   I remember having to persuade my manager to let me do this and showing him the figures (and knowing he liked me, coz I could answer those tricky questions that some customers had, about things like depth of field) he told me he would get me the the equipment as long as I would ask my girlfriend if I could use her darkroom for the Black and Whites).  When I twigged that this way he had figured that there was a lot of extra money to be made that I had missed so I got my girlfriend a new Rodenstock enlarging lens as part of the deal).   He argued with me a long time about that afterwards because I had only met my girlfriend by selling her a Leica lens in the store.

Anyway we did not see the Surgeon for a month, and my boss (the SOB who owned the company) would complain every week when I got paid how much money he had  "lost" forgetting the thousands he actually made.

Now this was just before Canon introduced the EOS system, and about four weeks later in comes the customer with an EOS brochure.  After passing the time of day and generally setting the world to rights, I made the offhand comment about more testing?

He said not he had not really had enough time to do justice to the pictures and analysis and then gave me am order for two EOS-620s and one of every lens canon first introduced and four flashes.  For the next year or so every time Canon introduced a new L lens he would be in with his AMEX.  The ting I found amazing is he insisted on paying MSRP (unheard of in New York) as he explained some complex issue with how his accountant wanted to depreciate it (I never had the guts to ask him what a 300/2.8L had to do with plastic surgery).

Anyway, after giving me this huge order (it was a lot of stuff and it was all at MSRP) he gave me his AMEX to pay for it all.
I mentioned that some of what he wanted would not be available yet, and he just said to messenger it over to his office when it did, and charge a messenger fee to his Amex when we did this... (Just getting this one past my manager was fun)

I thing we were well into five figures here.  I thought nothing more of it, he was a nice guy and a pleasure to deal with, and I went back to selling Minolta Maxxum's and Nikon F3s (not forgetting all those filters).   

At the end of the week I was told to go see the boss and got a 15minute pasting on how no good and totally useless I was.  Not only had I lost him all that money on all that fancy equipment (which I sold in the ensuing six weeks as demonstrator equipment at almost regular price meaning that the good Dr has already paid him 2/3 of its selling price).  Well he then harangued me on why I took an AMEX on a huge order (AMex used to charge about 1.5% more as a processing fee).  I think I lost it then and started screaming back at him and sprawling on his wall with a magic marker the actual figures calculating how much money I had made the SOB.

After five minutes I stopped and realized what I had done but I was so A N G R Y at the abuse for making this SOB money (I was young, foolish, and just like photography.......  SO glaring at me he said I suppose you want me to say thank you, I glared back and said NO I just want a ***** raise.

Silence........ Nobody swore at this guy or usually argued back at him....

He picked up the phone hit an extension and said "how much is ***** making........, OK well give him 25% more, but only after you have deducted $500 for redecorating".  I smiled and said thank you.........

As ever a postscript....

My girl friend at the time was doing photography at FIT and was doing a project taking pictures of people in Big Warehouse Stores, trying to capture the loneliness of modern retail or some such.....  A few days later she came back from college and gave me a beautiful 4x5 B&W which she had shot with Her Leica M4-P and 90/1.4 Summilux on pushed Tri-X.  What can I say, she had a rich Grandmother!  Anyway it showed my boss buying a Gallon of cheap pain on sale at $3 at a Pergament (that will date me).  I should have married her for that picture alone, because I slipped it into and envelope with a Note....... I think this picture is worth $497).

I never had that $500 deducted.

Oh to be young and look innocent!

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / T3i vs 40D - No I am Serious

« on: April 03, 2012, 11:46:47 AM »

I am weighing up the pros and cons of upgrading my bodies, namely a 40D to a T3i, whilst I can still recover some monetary value from the 40D

Leaving aside what I would like, but cannot afford............. Never has a 5Diii and a bag of Canon L Primes disappeared so fast!

I am looking for a body which will give me larger Raw Files with without a huge increase in noise.  (I pull them with DXO in a Mac).  In addition better low light sensitivity would be a plus.

Although I realize that with the T3i I will lose ergonomically (losing rear control dial) and the interchangeable screen (I use the Grid screen to aid composition) by the numbers it looks as if the T3i has a newer generation imager and image processor and also does not suffer from the noise issues of the 50D.

Whilst I would love the rugged construction that the 40D has, being brutally honest, only my ego can justify this build quality.

Does anyone have any opinions based on using the T3i for stills not Video (real world results as opposed to conjecture)

Thanks

_________________________________________________________________________
EOS 40D, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 DC, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 II, Canon 40-250/4-5.6 IS,
Sigma 75-300/4-5.6 APO (Gathering Dust) 580EX-II, Nissin Di866,Di622, Canon G10
Weston Euromaster (when I can't believe Camera's Meter)
Oh, and a bunch of Joe Demb's Flash Diffusers

5

Street & City / Re: The Old City

« on: July 25, 2011, 02:39:40 PM »

I gotta say that the last picture is the most amazing image I have seen in a long time.  You took a truly marvelous picture.

The dramatic sky has the power of B & W and yet you have managed to use the color in the center of the picture top draw the eye in without distracting it.

I do not envy you the weather but you have a great eye for composition

6

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?

« on: July 25, 2011, 02:35:03 PM »

No, I am quite happy with my G10 for when I don't want to crack around a couple of bodies and lots of glass.

I think that if you look at the rate at which Panasonic (especially) has advanced the usability of their EVILs what I describe will be here in two years.

Yes all of these EVILs have new lens systems, even Micro 4/3 was an update to the original 4/3 format.  If canon were to do an EVIL then their lenses might be cheaper as the Canon Brand is worth something in the market place and they stand a good chance of selling better than other EVILs just because of Brand recognition.  The positive thing I see is that this patent application appears to deal with using existing lenses with dull functionality on a new system.

As to quality............

Well there is objective quality (no pun intended) but most people tend to argue about subjective quality.  I wonder how often photographers (Amateur and Pro - and lets remember the Amateur market is far larger than the pro market) ever really push their equipment to the very edge of performance.

The only instance that comes to mind easily is low light shooting.........

The point I am making is that all of us (Pros and Amateurs) tend to buy above our needs. (There are lots of valid reasons for doing so).  But a Canon Evil of 2012 may well give the same quality (maybe lower resolution and fewer fps) as a 7D of 2010 simple because of the improvements in imager technology and especially in camera processing.

I recently looked at some image files I shot with a Kodak DCS-420 using Nikon ED glass in the mid 90s and compared it to some image files shot with a Panasonic Pocket (2010 bottom of the line).

Their is a night and day difference in quality.  The Imagers have maybe gone through 5 or 6 generations but still use the same basic technology the ASICs and DSPs that do the in camera post processing (noise removal, compensating for bayer mask etc) etc etc have developed at a far greater rate.  Look at the power of the typical PC mid 90s and look today.

7

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?

« on: July 21, 2011, 09:03:21 AM »

The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just  a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR.  Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better.  So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

My point is ergonomic rather than economic although ultimately economics come into it.   Most EVILs with any zoom are not as ergonomically ideal as DSLRs.  The major selling point from the manufacturers pint of view ids that they are more "approachable" by the average user looking for greater quality, thus (the thought goes) we will create demand for another product.  My observation is that in reality they are less approachable as they are less ergonomic when configured as most would like to use them, and in fact are no cheaper in reality.

With a fixed focal length lens they become very akin to a pocketable Rangefinder.

Going off at a tangent for a moment, we also need to think about how retake pictures.  Since for an EVIL to be really compact the viewfinder paradigm needs to be ditched.  Looking at the latest crop (Olympus PEN 3 family. Panasonic 3 etc)  they are getting there by using touch screens but the interfaces are still too slow and the displays not of sufficiently high resolution.  When we can get a high resolution LCD at around 300ppi (Apple "Retina" style) and a generations faster processor then all sorts of interface improvements are possible and I am sure will come. (This technology is probably a year or so away looking at developments in Sartphones and Tablets)

Imaging a fast touch display that let you zoom with a multi-touch movement (a la Apple iPad/iPhone) and then let you pick hyper focal point or let you choose the depth of field by touching a beginning and ending position or conversely let you swipe the area you wanted out of focus etc.  This type of interface makes the EVIL a compelling tool.  It is not there yet but it is coming.

One thing is sure the speed of development of fast low power processors )Moores "Law") is greater than developments in either optical Imaging or optical design.  So (and some will cringe) we will see the ability for the camera to compensate for the inherent limitations in Optical Design and Imager Technology in real time (today we like to pull a raw image and make the adjustments ourselves, but this is a counter intuitive workflow, especially if one wants to capture the essential moment in time a la Cartier Bresson). 

If one looks closer at current Imager Technology and the Bayer Mask it becomes apparent that this is a highly developed "Kludge".  Something more like the Foveon idea makes more sense as it will produce less noise per color channel. I think that the only reason that it has not taken off is that more engineers are focussed of creating workarounds for the limitations of the Bayer Mask.   

This harks back to the old school fight between Leica and Zeiss, of contrast vs. resolution.  For the mass market the Zeiss school of thought won because with the technology of the time higher resolution (compensating for loss due to dispersion)  won out over higher contrast (compensating for loss due to diffraction).

Ultimately change is inevitable just as the bulk of the Canon AE-1P + 35-135 Zoom customers of 25 years ago is now likely to by a $200-#250 Digicam.  It is the mid market that drives oct technology improvements - economies of scale.

__________________________
Art is in the Brain of the Beholder!

8

Canon General / Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?

« on: July 20, 2011, 06:25:09 PM »

This is quite an ingenious device when you consider what it could let you do......

Mount EF lenses on another body with a smaller back focus and retain all the AF and other cool functionality.

This could imply an EVIL which would not shut out existing EF lens owners (If Canon were to price the adapter reasonably, and few manufacturers have ever priced any life extending adapter cheaply - even Pentax charged an arm and a leg for the M42 to K-Mount Adapter originally - but I date myself).

The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

The assumption seams to be that EVIL makes DSLRs more approachable for the budding enthusiast.  But that is someone who likely has always had a zoom lens on their point and shoot camera.  Add a zoom lens and the cut small body becomes ungainly, add another lens as well and the economics do not stack up well to the entry level or intermediate level DSLR.
Even the most gadget minded amongst us realize that if it is ungainly, it is not going to get used much.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

With the exception of Micro 4/3 there is not a lot of glass around for EVILs.  Even if you include Micro 4/3 good lenses appear to be more expensive for anything that is not mainstream (Canon/Nikon and maybe one or two others).

That is just supply and demand economics.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

__________________________
Art is in the Brain of the beholder!

9

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway

« on: July 20, 2011, 05:59:35 PM »

I am all for creativity.....but, (tongue in cheek) has anyone else noticed the irony of what we will be putting on our expensive high resolution cameras.... the ones we agonized over buying so that we could get the very last drop of imaging quality.

__________________________
Art is in the brain of the beholder!!