August 02, 2014, 04:14:10 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 - 9VIII

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
Reviews / Re: Pentax 645z Review
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:52:08 PM »
A question to the more scientifically competent than I:
So, DSLRs have bigger lenses than rangefinders or other mirrorless cameras because there is a bigger distance between the end of the lens' flange and the sensor. Would it be possible for Canon or Nikon to make a mirrorless medium format camera that could use their existing stock of 35mm equivalent DSLR lenses?

Lens size really has nothing to do with the size of the sensor behind it, it's all about light gathering. Flange distance can make a difference in that if you need a focal length shorter than the flange distance you need a retrofocusing lens design, which adds a lot of elements, otherwise it makes no difference.

The EF mount has a 54mm internal diameter, the Nikon F mount has a 44mm external diameter (the whole thing fits inside the EF mount. I can't imagine sticking a supertelephoto lens on something that small).
Nikon is basically SOL, but Canon, in theory, could use their existing mount with a sensor the same size as the Leica S, and just 1mm short of the Pentax 645.
Those lenses would still work with 35mm bodies, and as long as you don't mind cropping I see no reason an EF lens wouldn't work on a 35mm+ mirrorless EF mount  (I still hate calling these "medium format", they never would have been called that in the film days).
And from a 35mm point of view, that would give us well more than the space needed for a "square" sensor that never needs to be held in "portrait" orientation.

2
Reviews / Re: Pentax 645z Review
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:28:01 PM »
I'm just waiting for the first mirror medium format. If full frame mirror less can be two thirds the weight of a full frame, then the result could be excellent IQ from a body weighing only 1kg

Yup, if Canon put out a 645 mirrorless at the same weight and cost as their regular pro-am lineup, all it would take is one good pancake and a decent macro lens (and hopefully a TS) for me to adopt it...
Assuming prices wouldn't be horribly inflated either.

Practically speaking, I assume we won't have an economical option larger than 35mm until they figure out how to make a digital 4x5.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 29, 2014, 03:54:49 PM »
I've been thinking roughly the same thing for a while now. It looks to me like "back in the day" you were multiplying surface area several times to differentiate between effective formats, and here the camera companies are now trying to get everyone excited about a 70% increase in sensor size.
If you're constantly on the bleeding edge, fine, you'll be picking up whatever incremental increases happen to come along. If you're looking for something worth investing in, I wouldn't bother replacing all my glass just for "almost a stop" of extra light gathering. 35mm will be standard for a long, long time.
When they start making IMAX sized sensors, a 4X jump, that will have my attention.

As for APS-C vs. FF, the "good enough" argument is still valid, however, I have a hard time investing in an APS-C specific system just from a value perspective. The Fuji 56f1.2 is a fantastic lens, but you're getting the 35mm equivalent of... "drum-role" The Canon 85f1.8 (actually not even, anyway)
...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
That should be a loosely similar comparison.
So instead of an X-T1 and a 56f1.2 for $2,300, you could get equivalent results with a 6D and the cheapest lens Canon makes for about $1,600 (depending on your bargain hunting skills).

Now, this only works because 35mm has been standard for so long, you have decades of infrastructure built around that exact thing. If 645 were in the same situation (you could buy $100 lenses that gave better performance than $1,000 lenses on 35mm, and the body cost almost the same) I would be quite happy to invest in a 645 body. But that's not the situation, and probably never will be.

4
And it still doesn't get you light at the right angle. From everything I've seen the RT speedlight itself is the next big step, always have two with you and just stick them wherever needed, no worries.
I'm really, really, really hoping that every body released from here on has the transmitter for those built in.

5
Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 06:08:15 AM »
Rather than spending $600 on stands and soft boxes, I bought two of these (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/887751-REG/impact_ff_sa4_4_socket_fluorescent_fixture.html), one of these (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/386544-REG/Impact_DLS_L_Digital_Light_Shed.html), two trouble lights from the hardware store that I just tape to random things, and Cheetos bags for reflectors, so far I just stick them to the side of my light shed with tape or magnets.
I think my budget ended up at about $150, though I still need to get some tubing for a proper frame to house the lights and reflectors in one unit.

6
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:40:49 PM »
I should also note that the 90mm TS is not an "L" lens.
I'm really hoping for a 135mm tilt shift, I already tried to buy the 90mm last winter and supposedly the dealer ordered one but I haven't heard from them since.

7
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM »
I'd still  like to see them best Nikon's 12-24.
14-24?

Good catch.

I have to say, you might just want to go and get the Nikon 14-24 if you want the Nikon 14-24.
Canon's 14mm prime is competitive compared to the Nikon Zoom, and Canon seems fairly set on the 16-35 zoom range. The Nikon 14-24 is already cheaper than the Canon prime as well, and if you're going to get both the prime and zoom from Canon it would probably cost just as much as the zoom lens and a cheap D600 from Nikon.

8
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: July 28, 2014, 02:20:07 AM »
Think again. After alimony and child support... This guy will be spending nights gluing these pieces back together...


After seeing the parts in a bin, and then reading that comment, this is all I could think about.

http://www.starwarsuncut.com/empire/360
(I don't know anything about the project on the website, this is just the only clip I could find)

9
Now you just need to photoshop the clouds from the first image (short exposure) into the second one (long exposure).

10
If I had a particular sport photographer that I respected/wanted to emulate, I may be curious and would be interested in his TECHNIQUE, but I'm not going drop my system to buy what he has.

Except that's exactly how most people think, or at least the marketers do, otherwise product placement in advertising wouldn't be worth so much.

I guess another angle is just mind share, if someone knows nothing about cameras and all they've ever seen anyone use is Canon, everything else is just going to seem foreign to them.
That's actually largely how I came to use Canon stuff vs. anything else.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:10:17 PM »
Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....

Could I suggest the following layout.....

Add C1-5, and I'd be happy. :D
Even better!

Yes! (but make it six, just in case)
Such a thing might even take the steam out of my desire for a Fuji.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:50:54 AM »
Congrats to Nikon for another world class sensor.

You mean Sonikon?

Maybe once both of them have sunk enough they'll merge and we'll actually get decent lenses for Sony cameras (best of both worlds).

13
Lenses / Re: Going native at 400mm
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:50:04 PM »
Honestly if you have the 100-400L I would not upgrade right now, at this point we're nearly just a month away from what may be the biggest Canon press event in years.

Ignoring the possibilities of the near future, and considering the mentioned uses, I think the 300f2.8L would be best. Anything else is such a slim upgrade I can't see it being worthwhile.

14
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 04:21:54 PM »
You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match

We're talking about two different things.
I'm just saying that the computer can tell you what you are looking at in that moment, what flavour of light is coming out of the screen, which is what many people seem to debate. I'm not debating the accuracy of the image capture system.

15
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:33:58 AM »
On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)

Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

So your point is that the colour of an object will change depending on circumstances. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of colour (whatever colour you see at any given moment can be measured).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35