August 28, 2014, 03:13:34 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 - mackguyver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 182
« on: August 26, 2014, 08:12:35 PM »
Check out this thread I started a while back:

Autofocus at f/8 and Beyond

The answer is no. Two 7.4V still output 7.4V as they are wired in parallel not combined to be 14.8V.  The 1D X battery is 11.1V in comparison giving 1/3 higher voltage.  The grip gives you a lot better balance with the heavy 85L and is great for shooting twice as long and in the portrait orientation, of course.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:59:46 AM »
Decided to bite the bullet and have ordered the 6D, 24-105 and 16-35 f4. I should have delivery in a couple of days and am looking forward to playing with my new toys.
Congrats and I think you'll love your new gear.  I haven't used the well-regarded 6D or 24-105 lenses, but I can tell you that the new 16-35 is a fantastic lens and will really show you the benefits of a FF sensor.

Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:05:59 AM »
maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
Thanks for the link.  My GAS just shifted to another state.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it ;)
I'm afraid to touch one  :o ;)

Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:54:36 PM »
Got the little guy from Aden Camera (in Canada) today.  It's a nice little lens to join my M lineup and I'm excited to use it on some upcoming trips.  I wish it were a hair wider, but 18mm is still way wider than any compact camera!

Yep and it's not as visible at web resolution, but is painfully obvious on screen and it prints :(

I'd even double-check that, I recently viewed some of my old shots on a small lcd (played back to the camera) and immediately saw which shots had a front- or backfocus from the eyes. Probably people who aren't really looking for it won't actively notice, but even at web size if can make a difference as to said "brilliance" factor. In your example shot my view is drawn away from the eyes to the nose because there's so much detail there while the ears are clearly out of focus.
I agree and fortunately it wasn't a great shot anyways, but it's still painful to miss the focus like that.  I've noticed that the phase detect face detection in the 1D X seems to work on animals as well, but apparently not on the ellipses for side-facing eyes like these.  Predators with front-facing eyes seem to be detected if large enough in the I guess an enhanced version of that may be the ultimate solution...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:55:27 PM »
FYI, if you put both RAW & JPEG files in a single directory and sort your files by date, it should make identifying the JPEGs you need to delete easier.  Some apps like DPP & Zoombrowser, I think, allow you to view RAW+JPG as a single file, which may be a way to identify which files are just JPEGs.  I would move them to another folder before deleting, just to be sure, though.

Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:47:54 PM »
As you've both posted, it is a percentage, but it's related to the amount of compression, not the resulting file size.  At 100%, it's nearly uncompressed and quite large.  As you increase compression (lower percent), the algorithm throws away more and more data and in essence becomes more efficient leading to a psuedo-logarithmic reduction of file size.  Here's plenty more if you want to geek out:

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:56:31 PM »
Heh, another reason to hope Canon extracts their head from their ass at some point and makes a high DR, high MP camera WITH an AA seems no one else is going to.
I'm sure they will, it's just a matter of when, and the 7D II is most likely not going to be that camera.

The problem with missing the eyes is that the shot loses the brilliance, though this is often only realizable when comparing one in-focus and one slightly out of focus shot side by side. And selecting such a deep dof that nose and eyes are in focus - even if iso noise is no problem - kills the "3d" look.
Yep and it's not as visible at web resolution, but is painfully obvious on screen and it prints :(

Right, and since this usually isn't the case I came up with the "wrong afma" idea. Problem here is that you really have to do a lot of trial & error, pref. on a known distance, and I don't have the enthusiasm to do this right now ... that's why I was hoping someone else already did it :-p
As I said before, it would be nice, but wildlife shoot, at least to me, is about trying to be prepared for the right situation at the right time.  Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.  I have hundreds and hundreds of photos where my exposure compensation was too high or too low, my shutter speed or aperture wrong, ISO too high, wrong lens, etc., etc., etc. because I was shooting something else and then the shot suddenly appeared for a brief moment.  These could have been good, great, or even amazing photos, if only I had the right camera/lens combination or settings.  Instead they are out of focus, over or underexposed, motion blurred, too tight or far away, etc.  Like fishermen, I have too many tales of "the one that got away" as we say here in the U.S.

You do the best you can and try to use settings that you can change quickly, zoom lenses or two bodies, etc., but in many cases, you have just a second or even less to get the shot.  Sometimes you get lucky and you're in the right place, right time, with the right gear set to the right settings, with good light.  Those are the shots I live for as few as they are.  Fortunately for me, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots!

mackguyver, good illustration.  I'm interested in your thoughts on what is happening when spot focus is apparently too broad to allow one to nail the eyes.  Would you say it's more the closer or the sharper edged object or does the shape ever enter into the equation.  Camera dependent of course, but Canon probably has algorithm similarities on say their center points.  How much of a difference does cross, double cross points make?  Is there any sense of round glossy objets (eyes) being given priority.  Tough questions?

And one never knows if the focus has wandered off target. ;)

Jack, this was user error, pure and simple.  I'd have to look at my settings to confirm, but I the deer were moving fast through heavy brush and I'm pretty sure I was using AI Servo (61-points) with preselected (cross-only) point in my 1D X.  I obviously misplaced it on the nose.  If I had more time, I would have hit it with the AE lock button, which I have set to One Shot, center point, spot AF and done a focus-recompose.  The standard AF sensor in the 1D X / 5DIII is too big to get an accurate lock on those beady eyes, at least in my experience.  Unfortunately the deer only paused for a moment before darting back into the cover of the undergrowth.

Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 01:07:46 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!
Nice examples!  The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!

I had to post this one from my last shoot - LOL - the nose is perfectly in focus, but the eyes and eyelashes, well let's just say I missed...

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:55:28 AM »
As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.

Still, I don't see substantial differences between D800 and D800E paired images after proper sharpening is applied. 

Personally, I see moiré in bird feathers often enough despite the AA filter on my 1D X, not having an AA filter would be highly detrimental for me.
Come on Neuro, you know that you can see the difference at optimal aperture, welded to a 200lb tripod, in a studio, with lights cranked up - well at least at 200% magnification it's there and might be seen in massive prints ;)

Personally, I was hoping for more from the D800E, but even on Nikon's D800/E website page, it's hard to see much difference in the rocks & moss.

Also, I have the same issue with my feathers in photos and appreciate the moire filter in DxO which I just used this weekend. It works quite well and is there thanks to the D800E, though I wonder how well it works on D800E files.

Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:50:20 AM »
Just to add one thing - the 300 f/2.8 IS II is awesome for portraits if you have the room, but it's not exactly the first choice for me.  It's big, heavy, and conspicuous (sort of like the 200L), but does deliver great results.  I prefer the 85L (which is my first choice for posed portraits), but Canon makes so many fine portrait lenses that it's hard to choose for sure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 182