December 18, 2014, 01:27:02 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 - hgraf

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Landscape / Re: Railway odds and ends...
« on: November 15, 2014, 10:30:38 PM »

Technical Support / Re: Canon 600D, Sandisk and Corrupted MOV files
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:09:05 PM »
Thank you everyone for your support  :D

I found a nice application that tests the speed of the SD card you want to test, I tried with the fake SanDisk and the maximum writing speed was 16 Mb/s! So that explains why the video were corrupted!

Actually, while contributing perhaps to the problem, it's likely not the main cause.

"fake" cards often compromise in two ways (assuming they work at all): speed and capacity.

It's very common for say a 16GB "fake" card to actually be a 2GB die, rigged in such a way that the OS THINKS it's a 16GB card (very easy to do if you've got access to the firmware for the cards controller, it simply responds that is has more sectors then it actually does).

The result is a card that "works", until you fill it beyond a certain limit. After that the card will continue to report it's writing data, but any read back will be zero.

I believe this is why ONE of your files was partially recoverable, part of that file was written to space that existed, the other part was written to space that doesn't, resulting in a partial recovery. The other files were exclusively written to space that doesn't exist, so they are unfortunately go forever.

It's a very insidious way of doing things because the cards appear to function completely normally, as the file system is written to problems get more and more common.

802.11a is dog slow, but uses the 5 GHz band.  802.11b and g are faster, but use 2.4 GHz which is full of interference from microwaves, cordless phone, etc.   

This is a VERY common misconception: 802.11a is actually the same speed as 802.11g. In fact, in many ways, 802.11g IS 802.11a, just specified to run at the 2.4GHz band instead of the 5GHz band.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 13, 2014, 01:28:46 PM »
I do have one more question, if you'll bear with me: does ISO performance really depend solely on the total area and Q.E. of the sensor?  If there really nothing (or only a small amount) to be gained due to better noise reduction algorithms?  I know that Canon advertises the DIGIC model in their bodies, so I had thought that going from the DIGIC 3 to the 5+ might be of some help at low light -- or is that all just marketing hoopla?

If you are shooting RAW then what the DIGIC does with your image from the point of PP is pretty much moot. When you shoot RAW your RAW converter is doing all that work. Lightroom/Aperture will almost always be better at getting what you want since you have nearly infinite control. DIGIC bakes things into the JPG based on a very small range of selections.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 13, 2014, 01:24:34 PM »
Let me start by explaining my situation:  I'm relatively new to photography (have been using a DSLR for about 2 years) and primarily shoot my kids at their various activities and outdoor/nature scenes (with a preference for individual plants or animals rather than landscapes). 

My current equipment consists of a Rebel XS with 18-55 EF-S kit lens, 50mm 1/8, 80-200 2.8 L, and 430 EX II flash.  For well over 90% of what I want to do, this is just fine, and has provided some shots that I'll treasure for the rest of my life (most of the shots I miss are due to me, not the gear).  But remaining few % is irritating!  Most of my problems are in low light (indoor event for the kids where flash isn't allowed or I'm too far away to use it) where I could benefit from better high ISO performance than the Rebel can offer.  The other issue is catching the "key moment" when action is occurring, where the Rebel's frame rate isn't up to the task (I shoot RAW since I don't think the JPEGs from the Rebel are particularly good, and that reduces the frame rate to about 1-2Hz).

I'm aware that a 5D III would fix all my problems.  But that's expensive, made more so by the need for a replacement for my EF-S lens.  So I'd like opinions on the more budget-friendly options, in order:

7D or 70D: these are fast enough, but do they do well enough in low light?  I'll define "well enough" as having at least the same image quality at ISO 3200 as the Rebel does at 800.

6D: fixes the low-light issues, but is the frame rate fast enough to have a decent shot at capturing action?

I'd appreciate any advice on this.  Should I go for one of the above options, or just bide my time and save up for the 5D III?

If you want ISO3200 to look like ISO800 on your Rebel, there is no APS-C option out there. The 7D and 70D are "better" then the XS in ISO performance, but not 2 stops, I'd say 1 stop is pushing it.

I still shoot with my XS, so I've very familiar with what it can do.

To battle low light then you have 2 options: get a full frame camera or get a faster lens. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 will do the latter, so that's an option. So are primes.

As for frame rate, first off try a faster SD card, that might get you a little more speed with the XS. But if you really want frame rate you'll have to go for either the 7D, 70D or 5DIII.

As for going full frame and replacing your 18-55, you don't need to go L, or even IS. There are many cheaper full frame regular zoom options that don't break the bank, especially on the used market. Yes, they won't have the amazing sharpness of L glass, but if you're up at 3200ISO it's not going to make that much difference anyways. There is always the 24-105L which is often sold grey box for really good prices.

Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 04:13:51 PM »
Actually, when I bought the lens, I was initially directed to Canon's 50% off sale regarding the 55-25 non STM lens.  Then I found the 70-300 also at 50% off.  So, the 55-250 was $119 and the 70-300 was $259 (plus tax).  I read reviews of both back and forth and the reviews tend to be mixed as to what is better, but in the end I opted for the 70-300 primarily because of FF compatibility. 

Do you have a FF camera? If not, why does FF compatibility matter?

Is it because you MIGHT get FF eventually?

I see this opinion alot. People avoid EF-S lenses because they "might" go full frame one day. As a result, they are paying more for a lens that's heavier and bigger then it needs to be.

Lenses (ESPECIALLY Canon/Nikon lenses) simply don't depreciate in value very much (beyond the new-used transition).

Consider your case, you mention the 55-250 was $120, and the 70-300 was $260. Say you bought the 55-250 instead. Have you checked used prices for the 55-250? It's about $100-120. So, you could sell that lens today, and at worst be back $20-$30.

Yes, selling EF-S lenses when you buy a FF camera (if you ever do) might be a bit of a hassle, and if the future hassle is enough to warrant buying FF lenses so be it.

Personally, I don't see it. I buy the lens that's most appropriate for the body I have today. I don't buy something purely because I MIGHT get gear in the future that isn't compatible.

Note I'm NOT saying to AVOID FF glass. I owned the nifty 50 before I ever needed a full frame lens, mostly due to it's insane cheapest and it's wide aperture. If FF glass serves a need not available in the APS-C space (say a tilt shift lens) then by all mean go for a FF lens.


Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 11:22:12 AM »
Looking for constructive feedback.

Camera is a 60D with a 70-300 IS non L @ 300 mm.

1/1000, ISO 400, F8.0.

When I zoom in to 100%, the deer are soft and grainy.

First look: the image is back focused. You can see it in the grass, the front limit of "in focus" appears to just be on the edge of the deer, it's clear to me that the central focus point was slightly behind the deer.

Note that this might NOT have anything to do with your technique, it could be that your lens on that body back focuses slightly. Of course, it's also possible that your camera focused on the shrubs behind the deer. When in a rush these things can happen.

As for the softness otherwise, I don't know that lens too well, so I don't know what it's typical sweet spot is at that focal length. I know with my 55-250IS it sharpens alot going from 5.6-8, and sharpens a little more at 11, so for my lens I try to shoot at 11 whenever I can. In your case I think you could have got away with shooting at 1/500 f11 and might have gotten a slightly sharper shot (ignoring focus issues).

I'd recommend putting your camera on a tripod and shooting something with good contrast at various apertures and focal lengths to find the sweet spot for your particular lens.

The grain/noise you see has to do with the ISO. Frankly, I'm surprised at ISO400 you get that much noise on a 60D? Did you pull the shadows up a bit? In any case, carefully apply some noise reduction in LR to clear it up, I don't think it'll impact the image too much.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 17, 2014, 09:07:26 AM »

Shot with a Hasselblad H4D-40.  That is the shot before editing.  The final shot was given some mood, and the bits of orange tape were cloned out:

If your response is that the scene could have just as easily been shot with a Canon 5D3, while true, that misses the point.

What is the point? I don't really see anything in that shot which couldn't have been captured with a full frame or even APS-C sensor? Is the "look" the point?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:52:51 AM »
Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way?  It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones, so the only thing left to do will be to go bigger.  Is the Leica S2 system so much bigger than 35mm format?

But is the answer "big cameras"? There is a very simple fact with big cameras: they are physically big!!

The question should be: 10 years from now, will the market and consumer interest for Medium Format be any bigger then today? Will it be big enough to warrant Canon's entry?

Without a question, medium format sensors will come down in price. but price isn't everything. Consider the average buyer of say a 5D MKIII today: would they choose a medium format camera if the price were the same?

Perhaps, but enough to sustain the market? Perhaps not.

Here's a question: in the film days, why wasn't there a mad rush to formats bigger then 35mm? In fact I'd say there was a mad rush AWAY from medium format once 35mm came into being.

There is no way around the physical size issues of anything bigger then 35mm. The bodies are bigger, the lenses are longer/heavier/bigger.

It seems the market has choose 35mm as the perfect compromise between quality and size. This has been the case for MUCH longer then digital cameras have been on the scene.

I'll check back in 10 years... :)

Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: March 10, 2014, 04:07:28 PM »
Santander - Spain with 40D and Sigma 120-400

28 por Tiyo. 63, en Flickr][/img]

14 por Tiyo. 63, en Flickr [/img]

Love it!

Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:57:09 PM »
My bulldog, and a train the snow, both shot with Delta3200:

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:55:28 PM »
Here is another 6D image converted to Tri-X in Nik Silver Efex. Nothing remarkable about these three old ladies walking towards the mosque on busy Longstreet, except that it was made at 20 000 ISO. No noise reduction applied plus a 100% cropto show grain and sharpness....quite remarkable I think.

Very cool! In the digital world, I have had situations where I had to push the ISO so high that there was quite a bit of noise, too much for a colour image, but convert it to B&W and all of a sudden the image looked "good"!

Even so, ISO20000? That's an amazingly non-obtrusive amount of noise. That 6D is mighty impressive!

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:52:51 PM »
Real Tri-X from a 1989 trip to the Canadian Rockies. (Maybe not profound shots but they do give the feel.)   Scanned with a Plustek Optifilm 7400.

Profound to me. Amazing shots!

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:02:53 AM »
I'm not one for the "packs" that transform digital photos to something nostalgic. I've tried a few and always end up with: why am I doing is, if I want that look, I'll shoot with that product!

As for the concerns about setting up a darkroom: don't set one up. You don't need a darkroom if you're OK with a hybrid flow (not everybody is) and limiting yourself to roll film. A changing bag is the only dark you need to transfer the film to the tank. After that the only thing that needs to stay dark is your developing tank. Once the negatives are done you scan them in and go from there.

Yes, purists might lament the fact I'm not making prints the analog way, I'm personally OK with that.

I recently took the plunge and started shooting and developing B&W film. I couldn't believe HOW easy it is to get going, and how ADDICTIVE it is once you've got the infrastructure (less the $100).

My journey, so far:

Have even gone the pinhole route, is this another form of GAS? :)

Back to Tri-X, here are a couple shot with Tri-X 400:

Ironically I find my personal feel is more on the extreme ends. I love T-Max. Many say T-Max has a very "digital" look. I also LOVE Delta3200. It's raw graininess can make an OK shot really pop out. Plus shooting with film in VERY dark situations just feels different.

IMHO go for reel B&W film shooting, you won't regret it.

Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:16:23 AM »
I've found that sometimes some posters get caught up in their GAS so much they loose sight of what's really important.

We're talking about a honeymoon. It's a time where all the stress of getting married is gone, and you finally have some time alone with the man/women you want to spend the rest of your life with.

The result?

People suggesting that this is a great opportunity to buy a $1500 lens (really? Happiest days of your life and you're talking about purchasing gear?).

People suggesting that the OP brings $10k+ worth of gear with them.

This isn't a gig. This isn't a job. It's a honeymoon. Seriously? What is the most important element of a honeymoon? The ultimate "quality" of the pictures you take? Is that what's most important? Modern P&S and other "cheaper" options take GREAT photos. You DON'T NEED $10k+ worth of gear to take great shots. I've taken many amazing shots with the cheapest gear. One of my all time favourite shots was done with a $150 waterproof P&S.

Lets also consider some of the practical elements here: your new bride suggests you go down to the beach and swim a bit in the ocean. She puts on an amazing bikini, and her sunglasses and holds her hand out to you. What do you do with your $10k+ worth of gear?

  • Take it with you? No, since you can't leave it on the beach (it will get stolen) you'd have to have it on you all the time
  • Leave it in the room safe? No, won't fit (at least not all of it)
  • Leave it in the room? No, it will get stolen.
  • Insure it so if it gets stolen you can get the money back? No, since why did you bring your gear if you expected it to be stolen?
  • Leave it with the front desk? Probably your only option.

So, instead of taking her hand and running down to the beach you're going instead to pack as much of it in your room safe as you can, or walk down to the front desk and hope it doesn't go missing there?

Just my opinion. I LOVE photography, and I have absolutely ZERO regrets with the minimal amount of gear I brought on my honeymoon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8