December 20, 2014, 07:02:42 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 - dcm

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
My smartphone has only replaced my P&S (S110) for some uses so far.  It get's more use as a flashlight than a camera.

Gave it to my wife to upgrade her P&S since she doesn't shoot with my other cameras.  She goes to it when here phone won't cut it, like a photo of a hawk in the tree out back or flower closeups at the botanic gardens.  She is an artist and does botanic illustrations - she'd rather draw the flowers than shoot them.  She'd also just as soon use watercolors to paint a scene as take a photograph.

For me the order this year is M, 6D, iPhone or MILC, SLR, smartphone.  No P&S anymore.  I've been using the M more than I expected, it's also help replace my P&S.  The M is pretty easy to carry around on the off chance that I might want to take a photo, even with an extra lens.  The 6D is close behind in usage and still what I use when I go out to shoot.  The phone lags quite a bit, really just for the unexpected opportunities when I didn't have the M around.

Photography Technique / Re: EC - adds or subtracts light?
« on: December 18, 2014, 07:40:23 PM »
Perhaps an example from my film days will help.  Here's the exposure compensation dial on my trusty old A1 in the photo below to help illustrate.  Note it is on the ASA/ISO dial because that is what it directly affects.  The exposure compenstation 1/4,1/2,1,2,4 affects how the camera meters the scene as a delta from the current ISO of 400 at EC=1 as in the middle image.  The EC numbers refer to the amount of light relative to 1 that will be metered, not the number of stops.  So a 4 (+2 stops) in the top image means to meter like the camera was loaded with ISO 100 to overexpose while a 1/4 (-2 stops) in the bottom image means to meter like the camera was loaded with ISO 1600 to underexpose.

How this affected the camera depended on the mode you are using.  In P it would follow the program up or down, possibly changing both the shutter speed and aperture.  In Av it would change the shutter speed to compensate while in Tv it would change the aperture to compensate.  In manual it had no affect on either shutter or aperture, you controlled them both and ISO was fixed.

DSLRs operate similarly, EC affects the metering of the scene which determines the settings.  But in recent DSLRs you can set the aperture and shutter manually, then let the camera vary the ISO to obtain the correct exposure.  Exposure compensation doesn't change either the aperture or shutter in this case, it just modifies the ISO that will be selected to control exposure thereby underexposing or overexposing the image. 

Hope this helps.

Technical Support / Re: Happy ending...
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:18:07 PM »
Guess I should have waited.  I picked up the ColorMunki recently.  Did a nice, quick job of calibration on my displays that support ADC.  Sit back for 5 minutes and its done.  It will be interesting to see how well the automatic adjustment for ambient light works.

Calibration for me is problematic since I am color deficient (protanopia - red weakness).  I consult family members for a final check sometimes. 

You can choose No Correction as the default in Optics Pro, in addition to those included or your own custom correction profile.  I think its in the preferences (at work now so I don't have it in front of me).

EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 13, 2014, 07:55:38 PM »
It's no waste, particularly if you might get a FF body down the road.  Glass lasts a long time, bodies change faster.  I never used the kit lens on my T2i or purchased any EF-S lenses for it.  I purchased L glass to go with it and and kept adding to the collection.  The 24-105L was my first L and it got a lot of use.  Three years later I purchased a 6D.  Some lenses that are soft around the edge might even benefit from a crop sensor ;-)

I later decided to go the M route for my crop sensor and added some EF-M lenses for it.  I occasionally mount some L glass on it.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?
« on: December 12, 2014, 10:05:17 PM »
Using this logic, I could use the argument that Bamboo is stronger than steel and therefore we should build all of our buildings out of it.  Having real world experience with a product sometimes outweighs the math used.  (ever see that you can mathematically prove that a helicopter cannot fly, yet I see them all the time). 

You are aware, aren't you, that in some places in Asia, bamboo is still used in preference to steel for scaffolding around buildings.

What I'd like to see is someone make a collapsing tripod using bamboo! Might need a bit of reinforcing and/or sealing but .... hmm! Maybe the legs would be too thick to make sense?

The bamboo could be spliced and bend over hot steam so you're able to give it any form you want. Maybe a bamboo tripod would be an idea worth pursuing …


I don't see why it couldn't be done.  A local shop makes bicycles using bamboo.

Canon Store shows the lens in stock with free overnight shipping through the end of December.  It's tempting...  could put a dent in the bonus.

EOS-M / Re: External (but not shotgun) Microphone for EOS M
« on: December 12, 2014, 02:45:07 AM »
For me this is like choosing between taking a wide angle or telephoto lens for your video.  Audio has a similar issue.  Do you want to record a wide/stereo or a narrow/directional sound field.  Or both? 

It also depends on your prior videocam experience.  Have you used external mics before?  I got my first Sony Handycam when they came out around 1985 after shooting with larger VHS contraptions before that.  I appreciate good sound and still have wireless lavalier mics from that period.

Today I use the Rode Stereo VideoMic Pro and the Shure VP83F Lenshopper on my 6D and M.  I looked at the cheaper solutions, but figured I should get something I'd be happy with in the future.  Both are self powered and each has their uses.  The Rode is great when you want to capture a wide sound field in stereo, such as filming at a church, sports or other large venue.  But it also picks up the videographer and others near camera pretty well.  I prefer the Shure to capture a narrow field in front of me, such as people talking.  It doesn't pick up side and back noise as much.  The Shure has multiple versions.  Mine will record to an internal MicroSD card so I don't need an external recorder and can use it as a second, directional sound source at a different location, with or without a camera.

On vacation I might want either.    If I could only take one, I'm not sure...  If I wanted to duplicate the handycam experience using the M, I'd probably take the Rode.  I have mounted the M/Rode combination on my roof rack with a superclamp to capture drives in the mountains.    I highly recommend wind protection (dead cat) if you shoot video outdoors, particularly moving.

Most important, practice with the mic before you leave.  Get the settings down pat (both camera and mic) or you'll end up with some audioless video.  It is not as automatic as it was with the videocams.

From the article - "When it came time to the formality of writing up a contract, the groom (a lawyer) kept making changes after changes, with more and more verbose demonstrations of his command of legalese with every revision.

Finally, his contract had become so one-sided and confusing that Nelson wouldn’t sign it. For the event, he charged a mere $3,800 not including airfare or hotel. As he and the bride were friends, he just went with a verbal, but not written contract. There wasn’t enough time to argue forever over it.

The outcome was pretty predictable.  I have walked/run away from these types of situations in my real life (non-photo) job on multiple occasions.  I had a good lawyer tell me that the contract is what you do when everything else goes wrong - its the worst case scenario and you should always strive to do better.  And the problem wasn't just with the lawyers.   If you cannot agree on a contract, price, or simple terms & conditions, the rest will often go worse.   People like this don't understand your value so these jobs never end well.

I did have a client I walked away from come back and agree to my terms.  I was a referral with glowing recommendations.  He balked at the price and didn't think I could help.  A year later we contracted up to 5 days, I finished in 3. I was the most expensive consultant he had ever hired and he said it was the best money he ever spent.  He was also !@#$% upset that I didn't convince him to do it a year earlier.  He estimated his losses at hundreds of times what I cost him and a year or more delay in the market.  I told him I did everything I could to convince him and asked him what would have convinced him the first time.  He thought I should have offered to work for free and let him pay me what he thought it was worth afterwards.  He really wasn't ready for help at the time. 

Moral: know your value and walk away when the client doesn't see it. 

Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:12:31 PM »
It's a Canon so most of the menu system, button labelling is always familiar but I still read the manual and refer to it from time to time just to make sure I'm getting the most out of it.

The problem with the Canon (and probably all other) manuals is that they try to be accessible to everyone, including instructions on how to turn on the camera. If they'd split it up into a part "advanced settings, faq and this is what people usually miss" part, I'd rtfm more often.

The bodies often have two manuals: a basic instruction manual for the newbies and a full instruction manual with all the details.  Unfortunately the full instruction manual just includes all the newbie stuff interspersed as well.  Makes it easier to produce, but does not tailor it to the advanced users.

I only use the pdfs since they are text searchable - usually makes finding an answer pretty quick so I don't mind not having a separate advanced section.  But it would shorten skimming the document before I buy since I seldom need to look at the newbie stuff.

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600?
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:34:46 AM »
The Canon converters don't work with the Tamron.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 06:53:46 PM »
BTW: the patent also includes some other variations: a pair of 55-250mm f/4.7-6.5 and a 55-300mm f/4.7-6.5 that are closer to the 4" length of the 55-200mm when closed and 6"-7" extended. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:57:57 PM »
Agree that f/7.2 isn't great, especially for APS-C.  The retracted lens is 6" long, not bad for a zoom that goes to 400mm. 

I wonder if this will be sold in the US?

The retracted EF-M 55-200 is 4" long and f/6.3 at 200 so this would be quite a feat.  Appears they kept the size down to fit with the style of the M, this could be real interesting if its a similar price.  As others have noted, you really can't handhold this on the current body anymore than you can with any other long lens.  Hopefully this is the harbinger of a new body with some type of view finder and better autofocus capabilities.

Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:36:19 PM »
Missing option:  I usually skip the marketing literature and skim the manual before I buy so I know what I'm really getting - helps to minimize surprises and lets me study anything that I haven't encountered before.  It usually one of the last things I do before I purchase, just to be sure.  After that I only crack it open if I can't figure it out by playing or need some nitty gritty technical detail.  I do keep a copy of key manual pdfs on my phone, tablet, and desktop to refer to, just in case.  I seem to use them more to lookup stuff for other folks than for myself.  Good products usually don't require much use of the reference material. But I'm an engineer building software products for the past 35 years so my expectations may be a bit different than others.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 09, 2014, 09:18:05 PM »
Trying to imagine BIF with this lens on an M  :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20