December 21, 2014, 02:40:55 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.


Messages - tcmatthews

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
I use mostly NiMH rechargeable batteries.  But on occasion have used Lithium batteries.  First of all NiMH are normally very stable.  Nearly bullet proof.  You can charge one backwards and it will not explode.  (They actual will charge backwards but I would not do that.)  When they over heat they release Hydrogen and there life is shortened.  When the quick charger says they are bad I charge them in a old slow NiCad charger.  No problems.  NiMH can have fast cycle  time (high current out) with out damage.

Lithium batteries over heat with fast cycle time.  Cannot support has fast cycle times and overheat more easily than NiMH, NiCad and alkaline batteries.  Many types of Lithium batteries have a problem with thermal runaway.  (Once a certain internal temperature is reached the battery continue to heat-up until they explode and/or catch fire.  If this happens water will not put it out only accelerate the reaction.)

The typical flash circuit is not one that a Lithium battery is well suited for.  (I read a Lithium battery package warning that warned against using in a camera flash.)

The Speedlite internal circuits are designed to protect itself from thermal problems. It is also likely designed to charge as fast as possible.   All other batteries will get hot but not be an issue.  If the circuit was designed for Lithium batteries it would by necessity slow down flash cycle time.  Only Lithium have rapid heating issues at high current draw(created by the flash cycle time) and can enter thermal runaway.

Lithium have much higher storage density than NiMH.  As long as you are not cycling the flash fast they could save weight and last a long time.

2
Lenses / Re: DANGIT! I rented the 85 1.2ii
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:16:48 PM »
A little off topic but If you really have to have one now.  Apparently some Best Buys are now carrying the Canon 85 1.2 L and the Canon 50 1.2 L in store.   I was a little shocked about that today.  I was in there to checkout the 7D II but they had sold the display. 
 

3
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:52:21 PM »
remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.

You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.

That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.

I bough the 6D to be a low light camera.  I do not care if it has the ISO performance of the 7D II.  I want a very weak to non-existent AA filter High MP camera for landscape.  I would like an articulating screen because I to most Landscape on a tripod in live view.  It is very helpful be able to adjust the.   screen to a better viewing angle.

Yes tiny pixels = miserable ISO performance. 

I really do not see them replacing the 5D III for 2 more years.  As an event camera what is wrong with the 5D III?  I really do not see anything.

4
Lenses / Re: Buying a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:32:25 PM »
If I only had $500 to spend on a used possibly broken 24-70mm f2.8f I would buy the Tamron 28-75f2.8 for less. If I had $1000 to buy a used Canon 24-70f2.8f L I would buy the Tamron 24-70 VC for a little more.

I would either save for a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II or buy the Tamron 24-70 VC.  Both are better than a mark I 24-7f2.8 L according to everything I have seen and read.  The Mark II is simply better by all accounts.  The Tamron 24-70 VC, is at least as sharp (probably more) and offers IS. 

5
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:50:36 PM »
Considering their current pricing: I estimate 4500-6000$.

$6000 = D810 + 2 Nikkors, and that will be what most user choose.

If it is that expensive I am likely to by the rumored Sony A9 or future A7r II.  I doubt the A9 will cost much more than a A7r.  Assuming they put IBS and include a Electronic First Curtain on the shutter. 

I fully expect Canon to price it around 3000-3500.  The current 5D III will likely have a permanent price drop to $2799.00.   The new camera can take its price point.  Unless Canon hits it out of the park I am likely to by an A9 anyway.  It can replace my Nex6 as a travel cam. 
 

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:30:38 PM »
Hi -- 

New member and not super techie, so please be nice.  Also, I am a Tony/Chelsea fan, -- they are nice, goofy and earnest, IMHO,  so again, please be nice.  That said, I do get very confused by Tony's explanations.  Here's why -- I think -- prior to digital phtotgraphy, using a 35 mm camera meant that light got to film causing a photochemical reaction which produced a picture.  So, all the math was based on a constant.  Now, there are ff digital cameras, which are "true" 35 mm equivalents and crop sensor cameras, which are camera with sensors that are smaller than 35 mm by varying degrees.  In addition, the medium is not film, so instead of a photochemical reaction, the cameras are taking in information communicated by light and reacting electronically. 

Since both ff and crop sensors are pocessing the same light and then electronically converting that to an image, I don't understand his comments about the same amount of light getting to the sensor.  In other words, if person A is using a ff to take a picture of statue 1 with a field of view of X and person B is using a crop to take a picture of statue 1 and adjusts his position to have the same field of view of X and both are using the same lens and the same focal length, isn't everything the same?  Both cameras are working to take the same eaxact picture, with the same light coming to the sensor.  The only difference I can think of is that if both camera's are 20 MP then the FF pixells are going to be larger.  So, I get confused about his "sensor light collecting" statements, because it seems to me that this would only be relevant if the argument was about comparing a 35 mm film camera to a smaller sized film camera.  It seems to me that the argument with ff versus crop has to do with how a 20 MP ff processes the electronic information versus a 20 MP crop, not about the light getting to the sensor. 

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

Chip

Tony went a little off the reservation when it came to ISO. A full frame sensor only gathers more light because it has a larger area.  Crop cameras are not providing more amplification to get the same brightness because they are smaller.  More than likely the 7d and 5d II provide close to the same amplification per pixel.  ISO performance(noise) is largely a function of the efficiency and size of the image pixels. 

His ISO noise math only works out because all the cameras used have close to the same amount of pixels.  It is true when comparing film cameras.  But it brakes down completely in digital where pixel pitch takes over. 
Perhaps I just made his point that ISO is a bad measurement for digital.  But personally I think that constant exposure behavior between camera formats is more important.   

For an Ideal lens (constant intensity across the image circle)  the intensity of light hitting a full frame, APC or m43 will be the same.  This will lead to the same ISO, same shutter speed etc.   Light intensity effects ISO.  Full frame cameras have a larger Area and typically have larger pixels.  Therefore it collects more total light because of its larger area.  To give a crop or m43 the same total light you have to raise the light intensity. 

It seems to me that the argument with ff versus crop has to do with how a 20 MP ff processes the electronic information versus a 20 MP crop, not about the light getting to the sensor. 

Pretty much.  Furthermore an argument about light hitting the sensor is a bit of an over simplification.  Not really helpful without a discussion of pixel pitch. 

7
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:38:40 PM »
My first Canon DSLR  Rebel XS I read the manual and bought a book aftermarket manual that when into greater detail on featurs.  60D messed with the Camera I think I skimmed the manual once to go over some of the new features.  6D I don't know where the manual is.  It is probably in the box.  Dads NEX 5n skimmed the manual set up camera through in camera help.  Nex 6 no idea where the manual is probably in box turned off in camera help it was annoying me.   EOS M became annoyed had to read the manual to find out how to get it out of idiot mode. I could not even find the menu with out manual.

Olympus OMD EM-5 played with camera settings became confused.  Read manual became more confused.  When in doubt Google.  Found several good guides online covering the settings. 

8
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 11, 2014, 08:51:13 PM »
maybe I'm missing something... what are y'all doing that needs this much power? i use a Mac mini i7 8gb ram and it works great. cost me about as much as the processer and mobo posted. i use a 7D and work with LR and CS6 open at same time. working on a psd file at 135mb with 4 or 5 open and i still have no noticeable slow spots.

You aren't missing anything. Processing of 2D images isn't really that processor intensive. The average 3D video game consumes vastly more processing and GPU power. Support for fast storage solutions and high quality Displays are more important than fast processors. The modern Mac OSX uses memory very efficiently. I can edit on my laptop with 8gb's ram using Bridge, Photoshop and Lightroom simultaneously with no noticeable lag and very little memory pressure reported in Activity Monitor. Video support in Mac mini's isn't great but they are great little computers. Wish I had one.

Windows handles Ram much different than Linux or Mac OSX.  It keeps separate kernel processes space for each of the threads.  The processor has 8 threads.  If you start up a browser in windows 7 on that computer it will say that it is using ~2.7 gigs of RAM.   Mac OSX keeps a single memory space for the kernel.   In piratical terms Windows OS is using 8 times the RAM of Mac OSX for a 8 thread system.  Yosemite may have changed this resent releases of OSX seem to be using more RAM.

I have a very similar computer I built last year.  It is the previous CPU Gen computer 16gb's of ram has proven to be more than enough.  But I might drop in another 16gb's or RAM next year.  I am thinking of buying a SATA card setting up a VM running Linux to act as a NAS/file server.  I doubt that I would notice it slow down at all even without the extra 16gb's of RAM. 

To put things in perspective about cost.   I have been building my desktops for a long time.  I already had most of the components.  It cost me less than a i7 Mac min. 

9
Technical Support / Re: How to remove a filter that is bent.
« on: December 11, 2014, 07:46:32 PM »
If the glass is still in the filter tape it up.  Try not to apply downward pressure if it is cracked.  The main goal at this point is to prevent glass from filter from coming in contact with the front element.  It will also help keep the front element together if it is broken during any repair attempt.   

If you do not have a filter wrench a rubber bands can help increase grip.  Or one of the kitchen jar lid removal pad can help.   

It sounds like it is to bent for a filter wrench.  After taping try to bend it back into shape with needle nose pliers.  I will admit this is farthest I have ever had to go.   In my case it worked.  If this does not work you have a discussion to make.  Take it somewhere, buy special tools (spreaders etc).  Or pull out a hack saw and attempt an emergency field repair. 

If you go slow you can cut groves in the filter around the bend.   This should make it easier to true up the filter or as a last ditch effort break the bent section of the filter ring out.  If the filter tread on the lens is also bent breaking out the filter ring may be the only option. 

Personally if you need to bring out a hack saw and are even a little bit squeamish about it take the lens in.  There is a reason it is considered an emergency field repair.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:06:15 PM »
Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.

Respectfully disagree, Johan.  Canon isn't really losing folks to mirrorless nearly as much as they are losing folks to Sony sensors -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.

Consider:  one of the Sony a7 bodies with an adaptor is probably the cheapest way to get a "better" sensor for FF work without having to flip all your glass.  Landscapers are the ones willing to give this a try first, as they need AF far less than most photographers and LV can get them by.

But we continue to hear of everyone leaving Canon for a host of reasons, principally due to the sensors, and secondarily due to their avoiding any significant commitment to mirrorless.

Canon will eventually commit large dollars to mirrorless and make a proper go of it -- with APS-C, not FF.  (I don't see a 4th mount happening.  But they'll pony up an EVF, offer DPAF, and (please) offer a greater variety of small, native EF-M lenses and people will buy it.

The big wild card is when.  I've heard a thousand forum-dwelling photography enthusiasts that claim that Canon is falling so far behind and that everyone is leaving them, but I haven't seen a speck of sales data that shows that Sony / Fuji / etc. are converting large numbers of DSLR users from them.  If that starts to happen, Canon will deploy more competitive products in that segment.

- A

+1

Really agree with this. I do not see a FF mirrorless with a new mount from Canon any time soon. They will develop the M platform. Fuji and Olympus are showing you don't need a FF sensor to do mirrorless/compact systems right.

And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.

Personally I think if they were going to do a Mirrorless Rebel I think it would be better to keep the grip and the back about the same.  Add a EVF where the OVF is.  Then make the main body thinner put a M mount on it.  It would be about the same size as current Rebels use EOS M lens.  If they create a packages with the converter to the EF-S/EF mount. 


11
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 29, 2014, 12:44:26 PM »


As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested :P
Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.
I'm older.... I know better.... and I am still hauling around a cedar-canvas canoe and the pelican case from hell... I guess I missed out on the wisdom that comes with age :)
I'm older too ... I still hawl a 50 pound backpack with me, on long hikes in the mountains, including the 1DX/600mm and tripod. I believe I would have to be tied to a wheel chair or something similar, before I'd give up the ergonomics of a good SLR and my long whites. I have just held an A7r for the first time and to me, the view finder and ergonimics were total turn-offs.

Yay! That gives me hope :)

Will you stop miss quoting me already.  :)   scyrene  said that.  I am more than happy to sacrifice some ergonomics  for a lighter package.  As for shot per battery.  Never really an issue even with mirror-less.  I not shooting birds or sports for current mirror-less.  So 200-300 shots is more than enough for most people.  You  can break you back or hire a mule if you want. 

For me the size of a 1D is an ergonomic turn off.  It is simple to large for my short fat fingers.  So for each their own.

Haha sorry to include you in the endless nested quotes. There's room for both types of gear. That's one reason I got an EOS-M, for social events where a DSLR is too big. But for birding, it's hard to part with the big stuff.
I do not relay mind being in endless nested quotes but Sportsgal501 hacked up the quotes.  I kept seeing your comment attributed to me over and over again.  That is a little annoying. 

12
Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 29, 2014, 10:25:03 AM »
Just about every computer, camera, monitor, etc bought in the US is treated about the same before it goes to retail. If not worst.   For a short time I worked a Comp USA.  DHL delivered TVs in the back of a pickup.  If it was raining the delivery guy may put a tarp on it or he may not. 

I would not worry about it unless the box is crushed, opened, etc.  If it does not work send it back.  I usually have more trouble with FedEx.  UPS consistently shows up 5:00pm or latter.  Fedex can show up anytime. 

13
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 29, 2014, 10:08:22 AM »


As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested :P
Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.
I'm older.... I know better.... and I am still hauling around a cedar-canvas canoe and the pelican case from hell... I guess I missed out on the wisdom that comes with age :)
I'm older too ... I still hawl a 50 pound backpack with me, on long hikes in the mountains, including the 1DX/600mm and tripod. I believe I would have to be tied to a wheel chair or something similar, before I'd give up the ergonomics of a good SLR and my long whites. I have just held an A7r for the first time and to me, the view finder and ergonimics were total turn-offs.

Yay! That gives me hope :)

Will you stop miss quoting me already.  :)   scyrene  said that.  I am more than happy to sacrifice some ergonomics  for a lighter package.  As for shot per battery.  Never really an issue even with mirror-less.  I not shooting birds or sports for current mirror-less.  So 200-300 shots is more than enough for most people.  You  can break you back or hire a mule if you want. 

For me the size of a 1D is an ergonomic turn off.  It is simple to large for my short fat fingers.  So for each their own.

14
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 09:24:33 PM »
Tokina 11-16 is the way I'd go. Sharp lens that gives you a decent range for wide-angle. And its the only lens that works at f/2.8, which if you ever decide to get into night photography, is the difference between getting useable shots and not (the 10-18 starts a full stop slower, and even the 2/3 stop of the 10-22 makes a difference).

My sense is that the 10-22, 10-18, Tokina 11-16 are all about equal in sharpness in standard landscape apertures (f/5.6-f/11). But, only the Tokina can do f/2.8.

Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice lens, but, I think you'll find going from 18mm to 10-11mm opens up your repertoire more than going from 18mm f/3.5 to 18mm f/1.8 does.

The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is the only crop ultra-wide zoom that has ever had a wow factor to it for me.   If I was still  shooting primarily crop I would buy one to replace my drowned Sigma. I actually know someone who used to shoot with it on a 7D as a secondary to his 5DII with 70-200mm.  I asked him why he did not have a full frame wide angel. He told me that it was better than all the full frame ultra-wide he had tried.  (17-40,3 copies 15-35f2.8 I and 15-35 f2.8 II)  The mark 15-35f2.8L II was marginally better but not enough to justify buying a full set of 82mm filters. 

 All of the other 10-2xmm zooms are about the same.   I just bought the new Canon 10-18mm STM to on my old rebel or EOS M while kayaking.  It was cheep but I think my old Sigma was sharper once you learned its quirks.   I have not really used it enough to know for sure if I like it. 

For landscape I would use the Sigma between 15-20mm.  I actual preferred to us it over my EFs 15-85mm because of the distortion of the 15-85 at the wide end.   You cannot go wrong with the 15-85 it is a very good lens for crop.  But I do no know if it is wow. 

It has been said that the Sigma 18-35 can replace every prime in its range for crop.  It may be the better buy if you do not want to go ultra-wide.  I should note that before I bought a ultra-wide and really learned how to use it I was not interested in ultra-wide lens.

15
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 26, 2014, 07:05:07 PM »
This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts.   The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing.   It is not so interesting if you are Canon.  They seem to be doing their own thing. ...
As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested :P
Speak for yourself as you get older your old bones and limps are not going to be too fond of lugging heavy DSLR's around, whether it be on your neck, on your shoulders (Black Rapid) or in a backpack. But Advil and Aleve will be happy as two peas in a pod.  :o

Had to fix this because I do not like Giant 1D sized DSLR. ;)

I prefer smaller cameras like the 60D and 6D at the largest.  But even they are a little large when traveling light.  There is room for improvement in ergonomics in the Canon Rebel line cameras can be both small and ergonomic. Current Rebels are just to roundish. The EOS M would have been much better if it was a little longer.  The battery was turned sideways (or made lager) and turned into a grip. 

I think that cameras are best when they can balance out with the lens. It is ridiculous to expect good ergonomics with a giant lens and a tiny camera.  That said cameras like the Nex 6 are great with prime lens no longer than 135mm-200mm. 

The supper-telephoto lens user is always going to want something larger.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13