July 31, 2014, 08:42:37 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 - dilbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 181
1
I hope they bring back the f/1.0 - just sharper!

+1...without focus shift. Sharp from wide open to f2.8

Sharp ... you mean like how the Sigma 50/1.4 Art is sharp? Or sharp as in how the 50/1.2L is sharp?

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:40 PM »
About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.

The process of developing film is standardised - C36 is "the process" that is used to develop colour film and it is the same process the world over. The only quality impact is the amount of dust that finds its way inside the machine and then causes "spots" on your prints. Differences in paper won't impact whether the print is dark or light due to under/over exposure.

Umm...this is plain and simply not true. I'm not sure where C36 came from. To my knowledge, today, there are two primary forms of color film processing: C-41 and E6.

Just put it down to my memory not being 100% and that I didn't google the process whilst posting (i.e. C-41 was what I meant, I just got the number wrong.)

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that the process for developing 35mm colour film that is used in SLRs is the same the world over, in every shop that still develops photographs from negatives.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:33:36 PM »
SHOCKED... Surely the T6i must be looking on the Horizon...

My bet is that this is being held up for the 7D replacement and it too will have the new sensor tech (or at least it should!) but will be delayed some number of months (maybe announce next Feb-Apr) so that it doesn't cut into 7D replacement sales for those looking for more megapixels and better IQ (assuming that the new sensor delivers both of those.)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:00:24 PM »
It'll be interesting to see what Canon do for a big range zoom lens for full frame and how it performs in terms of image quality.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:38:43 PM »
About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.


That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.


The process of developing film is standardised - C36 is "the process" that is used to develop colour film and it is the same process the world over. The only quality impact is the amount of dust that finds its way inside the machine and then causes "spots" on your prints. Differences in paper won't impact whether the print is dark or light due to under/over exposure.

Quote
How were the camera's calibrated. Did you verify that the mechanical shutter of the film camera was correct? Film cameras are notorious for the shutter speeds being off. Was it the same lens on both cameras?


Why don't you give it a try yourself?

Buy yourself a cheap Canon EOS camera, something like this:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/ele/4552124495.html

and use the same lens on both cameras with the same shutter and aperture. If you've only got an APS-C camera with EF-S lenses then this might be a bit more difficult/expensive as film cameras are all full frame.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 06:03:38 PM »
...
Those who feel trapped or who suffer from sensor envy are more likely the minority who are enthusiasts, and these days it's fairly easy for them to avoid Canon's evil plot (if that's what it is) by buying a mirrorless camera with a Sony sensor and using their Canon lenses on that....

Yah, I'm seriously thinking of going that path.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:46:21 PM »
...
Then I am told "you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again" despite that ISO400 would have required a shutter speed of 1 1/3 seconds, and then told "Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing".
...

About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:06:29 PM »
What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:00:14 PM »
That's the 'I don't want to shoot what you shoot, so why should you?' non-argument. Shooting under cloudy conditions is one example - not the only one (in dense woodland is another I've given). Shooting in overcast conditions can actually be more visually appealing, depending on a lot of things - it's lower contrast (we don't all like high contrast all the time) and the colours are generally less tinted (the light being whiter than direct sunlight, especially at the ends of the day). That's obviously my opinion, but your statement is just as subjective. Basically, we don't all have the same tastes, so if some of us want cameras to do something better for what we want, who are you to call it invalid?

Can't argue with that!

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:30:03 AM »
Can we please desist with the snark and ad hominem

As much as I disagree with many of zzz's arguments (not his personal experiences), he's trying to be sincere and honest.  Let's not treat him like a troll.

Yes, indeed, afterall I am the troll here. :-P

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:09:19 AM »
...
From an artitistic standpoint, photos from several years ago have merit.  Pick up an old magazine, and look at the technical quality of the ad photos...do you think images with that level of technical quality are acceptable today?

If you want to take that point of view, find any photograph from the National Geographic from (say) 1950 to 2000 that wouldn't be considered acceptable today.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:04:37 AM »
My Dad was a police photographer. He did not have the option of saying "let's keep the debris and bodies all over the highway until a bright sunny day comes along". Sometimes you have to shoot NOW! with what you have under the conditions you are dealt... and you have to make do with the equipment you have. Setting up studio lighting is not always an option either.....

Whenever I see police photographers on the news, they always have massive flashes attached to their cameras.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:48:26 AM »
12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot.
OK.... I accept that I have a low skill level. Now tell me what I should have done here. This is the unedited jpg out of the camera, and yes, I do shoot in RAW....

ISO12800, F1.4, 1/25th of a second, in a venue where flash or other lighting is not permitted. What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?

If you were being paid to do the shoot then ask for the lighting level to be increased to facilitate your work.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:45:09 AM »
...
I'm sure people took some great shots of birds on film John, I've seen them in books when I was as kiddy windy.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

The main difference here is that the BBC and National Geographic photographers aren't idiots that think ISO12800 is going to make up for shooting when the conditions favour the photographer. They're also patient in that they wait for the weather to give them the light they need or plan their photography so that the odds are in their favour.

I don't pretend to understand why neuro thinks it is a good idea or useful to shoot flying birds in cloudy conditions (or worse) but it sounds to me like he's confined his shooting to a corner where nobody can produce  a better camera system for what he does than the one he owns (or so he thinks.)

Why would anyone want to shoot birds flying when it is cloudy I don't know. Any colours that might be in/on the birds are going to be greatly subdued and unless you're shooting B&W, isn't the goal to get good colour?

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 03:24:35 AM »

There is this constant hi iso issue. When i shoot on my D800 at 1600 ISO and then size that image to 22 meg, or 3000 pixels for an 8x12 print, it's the equal of my 5D Mk3, and superior to my 5D Mk2.

Would it matter if I shot at hi ISO's a lot anyway? The D800 lacks in hi iso DR to the Mk3 by maybe a quarter to half a stop max.

Apparently that is massive to these forum and worth lauding every time the subject comes up, but over 2 stops advantage at 100 ISO (and almost 3 with the D810) isn't worth it?

That's the kind of inconstant debating I'm referring to. Giving more weight to a small Canon advantage, and less weight to a larger Nikon advantage.

You are doing what so many people do here, taking things out of context. Is a half stop DR advantage worth anything?

Half a stop, maybe not. 2 stops? Definitely. That can make a difference between needing to use HDR to get the result you want and being able to do it with one image. So what difference would that make? The time (and thus cost) associated with producing images with the requisite level of detail in highlights and shadows.

If it takes me 1 hour to produce the image that I want with the detail that I want using a single shot and 2 hours to do the same image using HDR then the lower DR camera halves my output and thus income that I can earn from it. (I'm using 1 and 2 hours here figuratively.) And at ISOs less than 800, Nikon's latest cameras deliver that ability to save time and thus money.

So what do you do, take the f!!!!!g comment out of context, that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!.

If it takes you an hour to make an HDR you need to go on an Adobe course, even with a slow computer it takes 3-4 minutes to make a genuine 32 bit file with more than twice the DR of the Sony sensor in PS.

Well you've up'd the ante on me taking a quote out of context with ignoring my comment about the 1 or 2 hours being figurative :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 181