August 28, 2014, 11:20:02 AM

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 - candc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D replacement: What is a "fine-detail" sensor
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:44:08 PM »
It means that it is not a coarse detail sensor, like my apple Quicktake with 320x240 pixels of 8 bit colour.

(I suggest that anyone complaining about Canon sensors go back to that technology)
from wikipedia

The Apple QuickTake (codenamed Venus, Mars, Neptune)

Time Magazine profiled QuickTake as ‘the first consumer digital camera’ and ranked it among its ’100 greatest and most influential gadgets from 1923 to the present' list

we've come a long way in 20 years

Technical Support / Re: DPP "transfer to photoshop"
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:21:15 PM »
Hmmmm, seems you are right. I have used that feature in the past but had both the 32 and 64 bit versions of cs6 installed at the time. I recently had to reformat and I just have the 64 bit version installed. I just tried it and get the same error. There is no option in preferences to point dpp to the correct Photoshop.exe?

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:51:14 PM »
Oh c,mon  admins, you have to admit that was a pretty awesome T-shirt?

I would wait til the 7dii comes out, Avoid the 2x converters. The thing about them is that you have to stop down one stop and then your at f/8 the 1.4xiii will work really well with your 70-200 and you can shoot f/4. I have the sigma 120-300 sport. On a crop body it gets you the equivelant of 192- 480 and its  2.8. It works great with the canon 1.4xiii.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:40:15 PM »
I use dxo myself and like it because its fast and the lens modules are great for making automatic corrections to lenses that need it, especially distortion and chromatic aberrations.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:08:06 PM »
Raw is better if you want to make adjustments to white balance or boost the shadows/cut the highlights. That sort of thing because you are not making corrctions to an image that has already had adjustments and compression applied. The camera itself makes a raw to jpeg conversion which is the same as DPP. Shooting raw does not automatically give better results but gives you more flexibility and if a better raw converter comes along then you can still work with your old files but if you have jpegs then everything is "baked in".

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:34:08 AM »
i am looking forward to the 7dii. i have a 70d and think its really good but there are some things i don't like. its a bit too small for my liking, i assume the 7dii will be bigger, 6d or 40d size? the af system can be inaccurate in low light with certain lenses, the 7dii af sounds like a big improvement. i think the 70d iq is great for most situations but would like more dr and high iso performance. at some point canon should be able to implement some kind of dual iso feature with the dual pixel sensors, be nice to see it in this camera

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:59:46 PM »

That is a good point. I did that comparison to see how the 6d + 16-35 f/4 stacked up against the 70d + sigma 8-16. Maybe I will check the 16-35 and the sigma 18-35 (works at long end on ff) on both cameras. I know that the sigma 18-35 is sharper than the 16-35 on a crop body but I haven't compared either lens on both bodies at equivelant focal lengths.

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:27:45 PM »
The 6d and 70d have the exact same resolution (5472x3648) I used the 16-35 at 16mm and the 8-16 at 10mm that's the same fov for both, taken from the same spot.

FYI the 70d shot is on the left. The 6d shots on the right is a bit sharper and has more contrast. The sigma lens on the left  has a warmer yellowish tone compared to the canon but all in all they are more similar than I was expecting.

In low light its pretty easy to see the difference but for shots like this they both look great.

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:20:52 AM »
 the current ff sensors perform better at high iso and you get a wider (uncropped) view using the same lenses.  if you are wanting shallow dof then its easier to get with ff. i posted the images below on another thread. it is the 6d + 16-35 f/4 (16mm) and 70d + sigma 8-16 (10mm). in good light like this they look about the same.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:01:16 PM »
here is a one shot hdr b&w with the new lens

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:58:16 PM »
1. Old Chevy half-ton being used as advertising prop by towing company
2. Farm fields and fence

nice one of the truck

Reviews / Re: Quebec City and the new Tamron 28-300 VC as a Travel Lens
« on: August 18, 2014, 08:47:35 PM »
I think I might get this lens as a take along/do it all canoe tripping and hiking lens on the 6d. Have you tried it on a crop camera? I wonder how it compares IQ wise compared to the 16-300? I know it has less range on the wide side but I would prefer it if the IQ is better on a crop body as well.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 7D mkII?
« on: August 16, 2014, 04:59:54 PM »
i have a 6d and a 70d, in good light there is not much iq difference. the 6d is of course much better at high iso. paired with the new 16-35is you have the ability to shoot landscapes at small apertures in low light. if you are normally shooting in good light it doesn't matter much. below is a comparison between the 6d + 16-35 f/4 (16mm) and the 70d + sigma 8-16 (10mm) i have taken about 100 comparison shots just to see what the difference is and in good light you have to look really close to see anything and then sometimes it's not clear. don't get caught up thinking there is some massive iq difference between the formats that just jumps off the screen at you.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 12:54:42 PM »
if you are trying to consolidate and streamline your gear and go ff then i would skip the 24-105. the fl gap in between the 16-35 and 70-300 is not a big deal and you have a 50 already. i am also interested in the new tamron 28-300 for a do it all lens, dustin abott says its pretty good.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34