July 26, 2014, 03:12:54 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 - DominoDude

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Canon General / Re: Exif data, does it help, do you need it shown?
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:38:26 PM »
*agrees with Marsu42 & mackguyver*

Awareness is the key. What can people learn from what I "give away", and what do I want them to know? A bit of obfuscation and some sane bowdlerisation can come in handy at times. ;)
Learned a lot from shooting data I've found in others works; it has made me try settings I wouldn't consider in the first place. In the end we all want to improve and help others grow their skill sets.

Side note: Obfuscation can go wrong too. I've learned that sneaking around near places where the military temporarily stores ammunition, in a ghillie suit, can lead to some awkward situations until it is very obvious that I'm there to shoot birds with a camera and nothing else.

2
Canon General / Re: Exif data, does it help, do you need it shown?
« on: July 24, 2014, 10:15:51 AM »
It's not like the Universe will collapse if it's not included, but it is nice to know a little about some shots at times. I tend to make sure that body and lens info can be found, and ©. Also Shutter time, aperture, and ISO.

I don't add GPS coordinates to EXIF, but, most of the time, I post the images on services that have one way or another to link the photo to a map, and then I try to be precise with pinpointing my shooting coordinates for everything but rare birds and my own home - I don't want icky visitors at either of those places...

3
Quote from: surapon link=topic=21684.msg414487#msg414487

I love my Gitzo  G1325  Mountaineer MK II,  with RRS BH-55 and Wimberly Gimbal Head , Gitzo 1321 Levelling Head, for 6-8 years---With out problem. Yes, After I use in every times, I will clean and preserve the fiberglass legs with ARMORALL  to protect this big / Awesome Tripods.

carbon.. not fiberglas.

im not a big fan of armorall.

i have a friend who has a very expensive carbon bike and he told me he would never use armorall on it. he use a wax.

i have protected the legs with lenscoat leg wraps.
and i clean the legs with water.

thought i would be interested to know if a wax would help.
i think it´s to protect the carbon from sunlight (UV).

Sorry for deviating away from original topic, but from what I've heard/learned from people who use fishing rods made out of carbon fibres, is that the carbon fibres have no problem with the UV-part of the light. The epoxy resins that are used to bind the structured layers are susceptible to UV-light and will age and get brittle. It's essential that the carbon fibre legs of tripods/monopods are lacquered with something that gives a substantial block of the UV-light.

4
Dear "J,"
...
 It is not you...it's him.

The best response possible! *gives a solid hifive to Mark G., that is anything but unfocused*

5
One thing you should check for is checking out getting a good strap for your camera!

Very sorry to hear about your accident.  That must stynk.

Hope everything works out, but for next time, strap that puppy!

Thanks! Yeah, I have a strap attached (Canons original). The problem was that I balanced the camera on the lens hood on a rock - done that before without problems - and was stretching down into my backpack to take out another lens to use. The rock was solid enough and didn't wobble, but the surface was anything but even and the camera/lens combo balanced nicely for a few seconds. I was stupid enough to think that having the backpack tucked near my camera on one side and my legs on the other would be enough to catch any movement before it got ugly... I was utterly wrong.

6
Thanks to all of you for support and useful ideas!

My insurance didn't cover it, so I'll have to wait to get things serviced/repaired until I get a job someday. I haven't had the possibility to set things up on a tripod and do test shots. When I was out trying some test shots with other lens combinations I got the feeling that there was something not entirely correct about the focusing and the overall sharpness I got out of it. Could be a mind trick, could be that things has been nudged out of original placing internally in the body.

Might be that I have to pull out the old 50D and shoot with that and the other lenses until I can afford to get everything checked and fixed. Oh, if I only were a millionaire...

7
I was out on a trip yesterday, and was standing in/at a waterfall and decided my 400/5.6L was not the proper lens to have on. Found a solid stone and made the camera balance on the lens hood, backed it up with my backpack and my leg. It didn't take more than a few seconds before the camera decided it wanted to try close-ups of some of the stones and the water - all on its own...

Lets just say that I didn't let it lay there for all that many seconds. I'm slow, but my reactions were triggered by the bouncing sound against the rock and I, probably, had my fingers on the body as soon as my expensive package stopped skidding in the mud.

Apart from brushing off all visible and easily removable sand/mud and water drops from the body and lens, what should I look out for now?

I did shoot a few frames with another lens soon afterwards, and the body seemed ok (I haven't taken the card out of the camera yet or tried downloading anything). When I got home I figured the best thing to do was to just have everything dry up, so that I can clean it properly and inspect it in a day or so.

What I have noticed is that there are scratches on the body and some colour is missing in those scratches, some finer sand particles are in between the metal and plastic on the hotshoe and near the flash. The 400/5.6L have a clearly visible dent almost as wide as a finger and it's a millimeter or two deep. The lens hood can be slid over it, and it locks (almost) as before, some wiggling and odd sound can be heard while doing so. It feels like I can do a full twist of the focus ring, and no extra noises could be heard, nor did I feel that it was stiffer to move than usual. I haven't had the nerve to try and rattle the lens - far too afraid it will make noises that equals repairs that I can't afford.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:28:32 PM »
An APS-C sensor, around 24 MP, with improved high ISO performance and (I´m almost afraid to say it) improved DR would make an interesting start. If it came in a house with as close to pro body sealing as possible, improved fps and, most importantly to me, an AF system like we have in the 5DIII/1DX, it would make a Very interesting camera. The ultimate bonus would be if it (on top of the above) also could AF at f/8.0 (AF at 1920mm!!)

...

+1 and +drool

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:20:39 PM »
I concede - tripods are useful.


Mighty nice Robin, Alan! Did he come with a quick release-plate? Or do you have to screw him into the ballhead? http://canonrumors.com/forum/Smileys/default/tongue.gif

10
Photography Technique / Re: Help, I've lost my mojo!
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:18:41 PM »
Hi all. I'm ashamed to be mentioning this but I really need some helpful advice please...

I've considered myself a decent landscape photographer for many years, the subject has always excited me and I've always been able to pull a good shot out of the bag even when scenery and conditions don't play- ball.

For a year or so now I've found myself photographing less and less. I think the passion's still in there but I tend to be at home kicking myself when a cracking sunset develops, rather than be out in it with the camera. Recently I have managed to get out but found myself wandering about unable to find inspiration and going home later without taking a single shot. I feel like I've lost my inspiration, lost my ability to see and imagine. I do live on a small island so photography can become repetitive, but it never stopped me before.

I wondered if anyone here had been through this before? A total lack of inspiration and if so, how you managed to get through it? I can't believe being such an experienced photographer I'm asking this but it does concern me and any advice would be greatly appreciated.

thank you.

I feel your pain, but there's nothing to be ashamed of. In all long term progress, there's bound to be plateaus, and smaller dips.

   Back in the days when I shot film, I could often find and see the beauty in nature when I was out, and I managed to make something out of it too on the film. Nowadays, I have far better gear, but I often lack the ability to "see" and I haste through a scene, telling myself I'll go back some other day and redo it in a better, proper way. For me it's that I've lost the ability to be here, now. Imagination is crippled, and much of the hope I once had is gone. I'm halfway through life, and currently unemployed (2 years without income sucks donkey...), living in a place that is far from as inviting as I hoped it should be.

   What I do? I try to do things in a slightly different way. Visit the places, where I shoot, at other times of day. Walking the opposite way to what I usually do, and so on. I try to find inspiration in books that I read (plain novels), music I listen to. I refuse to give in. One day it will come back, and in the mean time I go about shooting birds.

Faith in oneself. Patience, and an ability to forgive that not all shots are 100% perfect.

11
Software & Accessories / Re: 1DX screen protector
« on: June 18, 2014, 07:41:13 PM »
I'm looking for 1DX screen protector. Thin and high quality will be great. Have any good suggestion guys?

I like XO skin. They no longer in business.

Thanks
Dylan
I've never used one and have never found one necessary.  The screen on my 5DII had a few slight scratches on it after 2 years of hard use, but my other bodies have never really shown any wear.  Maybe I'm a bit more gentle with my gear than others, but how many of you guys use screen protectors?

Never used any screen protector. I prefer to smear my greasy nose directly onto the rear LCD, and I wipe it off with just about anything at hand. I've seen protectors on phones and others cameras, but those always look like hell - scratches, or bubbles in the plastic, or in some way obtrusive. Mine is fine, though often with a smeared upper left corner.

12
Is anybody using DDP as their primary image adjustment tool?   How does it compare to Lightroom?
thanks

I use it as my primary (and only) tool for all post processing. Can't compare it to anything, since I haven't been able to afford any other SW. It will have to do.
---

What I'm hoping for with these new releases are a more logical workflow, and better consistency in the layout and grouping of functions. An upgrade checker that works would also be kind of nice. The SW also must be compatible with older bodies like my 7D. It has to be a temporary thing that the new releases, that are available right now, are "crippled" to a few bodies.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: June 15, 2014, 05:21:35 PM »
--8< --Snip!--8<--

What your talking about is a photomultiplier. That is actually a very different concept still, and is neither similar to the multi-bucket pixels nor DPAF. :P

Photomultipliers do use mult-stage amplifiers to significantly amplify extremely low signals by a significant magnitude, without requiring ultra-specialized amplifiers that can do so without frying themselves. But that's just a more complicated means of amplifying a weak signal. It doesn't actually improve the signal strength itself, so it can neither reduce noise, nor support something like HDR.

The multi-bucket pixel concept in that paper effectively embeds analog memory into the pixel. Global shutter sensors already do this, but they only have a single memory (when the exposure is done, every pixel's charge is immediately pushed to it's memory at once, the pixels are reset, then the memory can be read out in the background while the next exposure occurs.) Multi-bucket memory allows charge to be pushed to memory more than once, which expands the dynamic range by N times. At the point of read, the charge stored in each bucket is then binned as the pixels are read out.

That is significantly different than a photomultiplier, as instead of amplifying the signal (which also amplifies the noise, and does not actually improve the quality of the signal itself), it allows longer exposures combined with multiple "memory pushes" to literally enhance the quality of the signal itself WITHOUT amplification. THAT....that is what is so intriguing about the multibucket concept. ;)

*nods* Yeah, I see what you mean. I think I lost myself slightly and had trouble finding a good way to formulate myself in English (not my primary lingo). I, certainly, do agree that the multi-bucket looks very interesting and promising, and hopefully it will boil down to some useful technology that can be used by many parties.

14
Lenses / Re: Filter for Tamron 150-600?
« on: June 12, 2014, 06:24:13 PM »
I prefer Melitta or Folgers filters. Disposable, and inexpensive. they have some vignetting though  ;)

Haha I, too, use Melitta filters. My coffee brews through it, and at least that removes the vignetting on my eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if it added a rather rough vignetting if applied on a Tamron 150-600 though... :)

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: June 12, 2014, 02:03:54 PM »
Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/gordon-multibucket-jssc12.pdf

That concept seems really interesting!
I've had thoughts about why no one seem to have adopted something similar to a logarithmic amplifier. That was something I saw in certain radar equipment, where one typically sent out a few kW, and expected to get signal back that were only some fW (10-15W). However, you couldn't be sure on the returning signals strength, so the receivers had to cope with signals that were several magnitudes greater - without frying the entire array of discrete components/transistors/tubes.

In short, that "problem" were solved with stages of amplifiers that, when saturated, automatically opened up for the next stage to take care of the signal handling without ever hitting any ceilings, or frying any components.

In sensors you would've the problem of miniaturising this concept and making some 20 million photon receivers behave identical, but all that counts in the end is counting photons. Every pixel is there for the sole purpose of counting the number of photons that hits it (preferably coming in from the lens). And you don't want to fill your buckets.
Since most of us take our shots in temperatures above 0K, we always have to deal with thermal noise. A logarithmic approach to handling our combinations of signal + noise wouldn't be bad.


Sorry for sidestepping the original idea of this thread.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5