December 19, 2014, 12:41:25 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 - takesome1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 04:35:33 PM »
Slightly off topic but is the new Nikkor 80-400G really as bad at 400mm as TDP is showing?  Those results seems completely unacceptable for a nearly $3K lens.


Yes, but since you will be using a Nikon body the improved Dynamic Range will be such a benefit that you will never notice. At least I have read threads on this forum that would lead me to believe DR is the only thing that really does matter.

2


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! :P (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.

It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.

+1

I have a startling inability to walk on water so zooming with my feet rarely works.....

Obviously you need a duck boat with a blind on it. The old FF with a boat blind vs the crop on the bank debate.

Then there is the opposite question, how do the animals react when you have to get up and run away from them because you are framed to close with a crop body.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:32:24 AM »
Landscape AND Studio body?

It would have the same pixel density as the 7D2/70D and thus places the same requirements on holding the camera still, lens quality in the centre, etc.

Are those two cameras landscape/studio bodies?

It is not the number of pixels that will make it a Landscape and Studio body, it will because it is Full Frame.

I thought holding the camera still with a tripod and having a quality lens go hand in hand with Landscape photography. This doesn't sound like an issue to me.

4
Lenses / Re: 400mm DO II
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:43:55 PM »
Most are waiting.

I wouldn't call what Bryan did a review of the preproduction version, he starts out giving you his expectations.
He also said he had a very short time with the lens.

Most lenses Bryan will post the basics and specs of the review before the lens arrives then updates it once he receives it.
At the bottom of the page he says" Can't wait for this lens to arrive!"
I am waiting to see his review once he receives it.
It looks like it will be a really good lens.

5
Lenses / Re: How Accurate are Canon MTF Charts?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:18:06 PM »
First keep in mind you should only be comparing Canon MTF with Canon MTF.

What I have noticed in the past is that it gives me an indication to what I might expect.
If the MTF chart appears about the same or better than a different lens it will perform the same or better.

Looking at the 100-400mm II it is very comparable to the 70-200mm II at their longest length, of course different focal lengths but it would be my guess they will perform very similar.

The 400mm F/4 MTF isn't as good as the 500mm F/4 but it isn't that far behind. Compare it to the 200-400mm F/4 and it looks better than it. I think we will see good things out of the new 400mm DO II.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise - maybe it's good?
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:21:42 PM »
If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.

I wasn't trying to pass off my crappy pics as anything other than what they are.  I mostly lurk here and there are endless discussions of noise in the pics.  I can see the noise as well as anyone but sometimes it seems like people can't see the picture for the noise.

Like that crappy pic.  Yeah, it's noisy, but I love that picture.  I'd much rather have that picture, noise and all, than not have it.

The guy who I suspect might agree is Dustin Abbott, in reading his review of the canon 35mm vs the Sigma, he seems to be looking at the picture more than the technical stuff.

I wasn't referring to your pic, but noisy pics in general.

Since this is an equipment site many of the opinions you will hear on any given picture will be bias toward the IQ of the pic generated by the camera rather than composition.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise - maybe it's good?
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:19:07 AM »
If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: All I Want For Christmas...
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:14:21 PM »
And since I'm on a rant here, to those who think they somehow sound erudite by using the term "price point," stop it -- unless you're discussing a marketing plan or strategy. The price you're going to pay for an item is only a "price point" to the marketing organization. To you, the buyer, it's just the price.

To whom are you referring to? Nobody in the entire thread, except you, used the word price point, unless they since edited it.  Though I see no issue with someone using the term to describe the general price that a product would be sold for.  It may not be strictly correct, but I find it less offensive than unnecessarily working in words like erudite.

"Erudite - having or showing great knowledge or learning."

This is our word of the day.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: All I Want For Christmas...
« on: December 15, 2014, 04:35:11 PM »

To the folks who have nothing better to say than to suggest the OP is a "troll," try a little harder.

Sorry, in the holiday spirit and see a thread titled "All I want for Christmas...."

I look at it and think joy, we get to post our lists.

Click on it and it is the OP comparing a Nikon that is 100% what he wants to a Canon body.

Talk about a bait and switch with the title of the thread.

We could ask Santa for world peace, but how about just a year without threads degrading into a DR debate.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: All I Want For Christmas...
« on: December 15, 2014, 11:40:59 AM »
Ho Ho Ho

Could it be that one of Santa's Elf's is a Nikon troll.

11

The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

The statement is a bit skewed. I like these kind of statements because they are half based in reality and enough outside that only pieces of it can be disputed.

However

You need to check how this idea works out in the real world. The distance you need to get closer is no where near 2x as close.

More like 20% closer, maybe a bit more. I have already shot a few test shots on this one with the 7D II.
This is one real world test I have been thinking about doing a bit more. Shoot a test shot with FF at say 30' and then 6 shots at 3' intervals till I am at the same framing 1.6x out. I have already done comparisons at about 1.4x to 1.6 and the FF had much better resolution. It might be a good way to see how much benefit the crop factor really is.

In the concept you offer camera shake is a smaller part of the resolution equation.

12
Canon General / Re: Sensor life
« on: December 14, 2014, 10:07:30 AM »
Hello.
Is there something like 'sensor hours' before it goes bad? After a certain amount of clicks the shutter mechanism needs to be replaced but how about sensor?
Before video I am not sure if this mattered but now with so much video being shot on DSLR does the sensor go bad after a certain usage?
thx for any input!

About five minutes of life pointed toward the sun at high noon in video mode would be my estimate.

I would be interested to know also, but I bet it depends quite a bit on the conditions you are shooting in.

13


Try metering side by side and see if what you say is true. I am getting a 1/3 to 2/3 stop light advantage with the 5D II and 1D IV.


 I've had a t1i, 7D, 5DII and 5DIII and if I take the same shot at exactly the same aperture, SS and ISO they will all be different by 1/3-2/3 stop.  Nothing to do with crop and everything to do with how the amplification in-camera is done and how they mark the ISO values.  In fact 7D was 2/3 stop darker than t1i at all ISO's above 100.  Ti1 ISO 100 was not a full stop darker than at 200 - only 1/3 stop, so that was a little weird. 

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figured Canon did that so that when tested at a particular ISO the 7D would look better than the rebels and previous  15MP 'older' and people would think the sensor was better (I think that actually happened too).  Of course no-one noticed that the testers had to use a lower SS by 1/3-2/3 stop.   OF course if you actually shot at the same exposure the results were essentially identical.

So the theory might be that Canon is doing this to give us a false perception of high ISO noise improvement?
I like conspiracy theories and that is easy to buy.

Of course either way we loose that 1/3 to 2/3 stop whether it be with altered ISO numbers or in camera exposure values.

14
The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop  is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.



Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.



When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give.  They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution.  Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution.  So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before.  Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution.  That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be.  I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible.  Then, my images really improved.  I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea.  I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length.  That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.
 
You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference.  With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage.  I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.

 I started to mention the D800 example, I remember when it was released and the discussions on camera stabilization.
The point made to the OP and the discussion in this thread is that for the full benefit of the crop camera and it's pixel density you have to remove vibration.

On the extreme that would be a mirror up, time delayed shot with your hand not on the camera on very sturdy tripod legs and a head. Shoot in dead calm on a solid surface also. But the crop benefit is usually debated as a focal length limited option. For wild animals time delay and mirror up are rarely going to happen. Big lenses are heavy so you have to exhaust every method to stay stable. Shutter speed is one of these things and it is lowered sooner on a crop than a FF.

For me I see the resolution advantage of the crop body as a sliding scale starting high with the tripod as described above and disappearing hand held as light goes away. Whether someone sees a benefit from it will be determined by what, when and how they are shooting.

15
The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop  is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.



Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.


There isn't any difference here. Either you maximize your camera system's potential, or not. You either hold the lens as steady as possible, or not. No one thinks about the size of a pixel or the relative differences in pixel sizes in the field...they simply think: "Keep it stable."


Camera shake is a small part of it, it can be increased by other factors. You loose some light with the crop. Add to this you have to shoot at lower ISO than FF because of noise. To compensate for this you may be shooting at slower shutter speeds.


Conversely, you have to shoot at a higher ISO and a narrower aperture with FF to get the same depth of field. I have been shooting at 1200mm f/8+ for most of the week, to fill the frame with small birds. That results in an incredibly thin DoF. Shooting at 1200mm f/8 roughly normalizes the 5D III FoV, normalizes the DoF, normalizes the amount of light at the sensor, normalizes the amount of noise with an APS-C. If were talking equivalence here, let's truly be equivalent. For all my efforts at 1200mm on FF, I still get even sharper results with a 7D and a 500/4 (which should be expected...at f/8+ I'm getting diffraction limited...at f/4, the 7D is at a perfectly ideal aperture for maximum sharpness).

APS-C has an advantage when it comes to DoF and getting pixels on subject. Yes, it's when your reach limited...but that is most often the case when your not a pro with tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, or the ability to spend every day of the weak learning how to get extremely close to your subjects.

Maximizing your equipment is knowing your equipment. The crop has limitations and it has benefits.

You shoot at faster shutter speeds to overcome camera shake. You can use a flash. If you are shooting in ample light with a fast enough shutter speed then camera shake isn't much of an issue. My 500mm I prefer 1/1000, at 1/500 I can still get fair wildlife pics off the monopod. Go less it starts getting difficult. Light starts to drop close to sunset, my ISO limit is set at 1/1600 on the 7D II and I will push to 1/3200 on FF. Camera gets pushed there to get the speed I need. Same is true of aperture, it goes to F /4. So normalizing for DOF in low light conditions just doesn't happen, you take what you get.

Of course as I said YMMV, if a persons longest lens is 300mm they would notice  camera shake and loss of light even less. With focal length limited situations one should analyze how much they usually crop. If you have more pictures that are properly framed than need to be cropped then the benefit of FF on the majority of your pics may be greater than benefit you receive on your cropped photos.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28