October 22, 2014, 11:30:39 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172
1
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: Today at 10:07:09 AM »
My YN-E3-RT arrived with a set of batteries in it, which were dead, I don't leave batteries in it anymore, not least because I hardly ever use it, but I have had mine drain Eneloops too, though I have never been 100% certain I hadn't inadvertently left the power switch on, I trusted to my stupidity, maybe I shouldn't have :-)

2
No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.
You're right!  :-[
Thanks for correcting me. (Damn! I did it right at the 600 mm and then screwed it up)
Makes it even worse for the MFT system.   :-X

True, and it makes that ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0 at $2,299 a FF equivalent of the 70-200 f4 at a much more modest $1,299. Why do people keep saying crop camera lenses are much better value! Compare for exactly the same photo and they are often not.

Neuro and I have often used the example of the 24-105 f4 IS on FF vs the 17-55 f2.8 IS on APS-C, they are very close equivalents in IQ as well as focal length and apertures, and the FF lens can be had for a few hundred dollars less.

3
Crop sensors don't require all that glass.
In principle you are right if you leave the DOF point away, but I have to correct you in some terms.

Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"?  In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8
That's wrong as you do not take the size of the sensor into account.
If you want to gather similar amount of light and want to achive the same DOF on FF
a 600mm f/5.6 would be the equivalent.

To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0

If you compare those two, the Canon is lighter, cheaper and even smaller.
Of course, you can take at MFT the new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:2.8 PRO.
This will be lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 70-200 but for the tradeoff of DOF and absolute light gathering on the same area (!) of the sensor.

And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.
...
Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics ...
Of course f2.8 is physically always f2.8 but your comparison here is wrong.
And of course you can take wonderful pictures with MFT.
And I am not a FF fanatic. Indeed and I am very interested in Olympus MFT system (as you probably can imagine by my knowledge about the lenses).
But your argument is physically only correct when you agree in the tradeoff of losing shallow DOF and absolute light gathering.
This you can only compensate by using lenses with bigger apertures and therefore losing the size/weight/price advantage.

No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.

Nothing touches the 135 format for selective DOF control if that is important to you, further, iso takes a two stop crop factor hit when talking equivalence too.



    100mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 100, on a mFT (4/3) camera,

    Gets an equivalent shot on a FF camera as 

    200mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

4
Lighting / Re: Is this dangerous when using the 600ex rt´s?
« on: October 19, 2014, 07:51:20 PM »
It's no problem leaving HSS as default.
Your flash works much harder during HSS, and produces less light while doing so.

So there are at least two problems:  1) the increased power consumption will wear down your batteries faster, and 2) the increased power consumption will heat up your flashes faster.

They would only be an issue if you were constantly shooting above sync speed. Even when HSS is selected it doesn't actually come into effect until you do go over that magic figure, so keeping your flash in HSS just means you don't need to push another button when you get there.

There is nothing wrong and you will cause no additional wear, heat or any other issues if you keep your flash in HSS.

5
Lenses / Re: 50 f/1.2L problems applicable to 85 f/1.2L?
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:10:05 PM »
Why did Canon stop making an f/1 50?

There are a few ideas out there, who knows what is true.

It isn't actually a good lens, the way people moan about the 1.2 is nothing compared to the f1.0.

They only made a couple of production runs of it and stockpiled the lenses, this is not an uncommon thing, but it took years and years as the sales numbers were so low.

It is a very expensive lens to make, not least because it sold so few, compared to an Otus, it isn't expensive, but that isn't the cost base enough Canon users move in to warrant continuing with it.

Canon made it as a loss leading 'look at we can do' type of headlining technology that is outdated.

The glass used needed now illegal amounts of lead to be used in production and a redesign was too expensive.

6
Technical Support / Re: Canon 24mm TS-E Mark II Tilt Knob Replacement
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:19:55 PM »
John,

Stop using it, don't attach it to your camera.

I believe the shaft has fallen inside the lens and is causing more damage. I just took the knob off my 17 TS-E, and I am pretty sure they are the same. The shaft has a gudgeon pin type arrangement, if you take that out the shaft drops down into the lens, which means you probaby only need the knob, washers and screw from the outside, the rest should be on the inside.

Here is a close up of mine.

7
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:55:51 PM »
I know this may be a stretch but how likely would it be for the bodies that Scott tested to not be like the bodies that will be released? I forget the key words that were used something like AS Tested...how likely Canon could/would give him a couple of bodies that have cleaner out put than the ones that come off the production line?

Zero.

In fact the preproduction versions output is not normally not as good as the final production versions. They will keep playing with the code until the last possible minute, which is why a 'first' version is often FW 1.+.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:07:56 PM »
I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side  ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment is...by a wide margin...the best it has ever been.

But that isn't what my original crops, or the gif show. They are 100% and >100% crops and there is nothing in it.

9
Technical Support / Re: Canon 24mm TS-E Mark II Tilt Knob Replacement
« on: October 17, 2014, 05:57:17 PM »
John,

Can you post a picture? Has the shaft gone or just the external knob?

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo YN600EX-RT now available for $186
« on: October 17, 2014, 05:10:12 PM »
How well does the Canon's AF assist work? :)

Point taken, but as it turned out Yn's af assist performance in real world use is 100% up on par with the Canon :-p

The 600-EX-RT AF assist works very very well, obviously the joke was on the ST-E3-RT AF assist being non existent, but we are onto the YN-600-RT now, and I am sure the assist on that will not be anywhere near as good as the Canon version.

Most of you know what I think of the YN-E3-RT, if anybody wants mine drop me a PM!

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 04:45:10 PM »
Your copies look very soft to me, compared to mine. Do the curve layer makes the images soft?
Comparing soft images makes no sense to me...

That is because I resized the gif, here it is unresized, I guarantee nobody would get it right now without guessing even at 100% and above.

P.S. The 'sharper' one is the 1D MkIV with a fraction of sharpening.......

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 03:11:21 PM »
Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?
I have both the 7D and 1D4, and they are same generation sensors.
I have done several tests between these body's, and in my opinion the reach advantage for 7D is quite clear.
Especially using sharp lenses.
Here is 100% Crop from 7D vs upscaled Crop from 1D4, both iso 800:

So you would have no problems picking out which of these two frames in the gif of your two images came from which camera?

All I did was apply a curves layer to even up the lighting a bit, no sharpening or other forms of optimisation.

I think your evidence actually supports the other side of the argument, if you didn'y know the colour and contrast of each frame, ie they were shot better, I doubt anybody could tell the difference, and these are at 100% and >100%, at normal reproduction sizes I doubt if ever.

13
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

That fluttering light thing?

Is that it?

I wouldn't know, I don't have either but both of them would be important things to me.

I don't have either, either, and won't be getting either. But I am surprised that those two things are the only things that anyone can think of.

Whilst I won't belittle those two features for those that do need them, I can't help but feel most of us don't!

14
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

That fluttering light thing?

Is that it?

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:54:53 PM »
And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference." 
The discussions in many of the FF vs APS-C threads could lead one to believe that the FF is always superior so I'm thinking "not much difference" is pretty good.

The general response is that in focal length-limited scenarios, the crop sensor is better.  It can be, if you're FL-limited and at low ISO and printing larger than 16x24"/A2. 

Or cropping heavily.  Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.  I often find that I don't have enough pixels left after cropping my 20D.  That's why the full-frame options don't interest me for this - none of them would give me more pixels left on the target than my 20D does, and some like the 1Dx would give me fewer pixels.  The 7D II will give me 2.5 times more pixels left than my 20D does for the same cropping.

agreed!

Using the same lens, an individual FF pixel is of better quality than an individual crop pixel, but in focal length limited scenarios there are more crop pixels on target. The quality difference between the two sizes also depends heavily on the lens used. On a very sharp lens, the difference is lower, but on a poor lens the difference per pixel can be striking...

My tests earlier between a 60D and a 5D2 showed that with a poor lens (Sigma 120-400) that there was no reach advantage for crop, yet when used with a 70-200 or a 100L there was definitely an improvement in reach.

Which one is better depends on your needs and your glass.... there is no universal answer.

My crops are upressed to the same size and shot with one of the sharpest lenses Canon make at an optimal aperture. Over 50% of the pixels in the FF crop are 'made up', yet they still give very little away to the crop cameras native pixels.

Hey, at least we are talking about the sales pitch now rather than just buying into it............

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172