March 06, 2015, 06:07:24 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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
1
Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 27, 2015, 06:12:55 AM »
so if you are shooting at f/3.5 to f/5.6... you probably will never miss having your target in focus...
Give that a try with the 800 f/5.6 and see how it works out ;).  Here's a shot from at least 50 yards away at f/5.6 with the 800mm:


Ha, yes! Even at f/10, with 1000mm the depth of field is usually pretty thin.

2
8k video is the exciting thing for still shooters I think. That's 33mpx stills at 30fps.

At 1/30sec per frame, how many are going to be sharp? Motion blur is fine in video, but rarely for stills. As many have said in the past, using a faster exposure per frame leads to unappealing (juddery?) video. You can't have your cake and eat it in this case.

3
I genuinely think I will upgrade - I can get a fair amount trading in my 5D3 towards the price. For my purposes, the 5Ds seems to offer the best next step. I'm happy with the framerate* and autofocus of my current camera (and these seem about the same in the new models), but I want to be able to crop more - I can't get much more focal length, so more resolution seems the only way to go. I don't want the 5Dsr as feathers can cause a lot of moire.

*I usually shoot in 'silent' mode, so I'm not even using the 5D3's maximum capabilities.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:21:35 AM »
So the original quote was:
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

Now pixel densities have been increasing for years. And yet high ISO hasn't got worse (has it?). Clearly there is more going on here. "It's physics" isn't good enough, sorry. I think Privatebydesign's point of comparing like with like is relevant - especially as each generation of cameras has managed to increase pixel counts *and* high ISO performance (as a general trend, I guess there will be exceptions). So when we are discussing a future camera, which presumably has a more modern sensor than past models, why should we not expect this trend to continue?

Otherwise, those seeking the best low light performance would always use the oldest, lowest-resolution sensors.

I'm just trying to understand reality, I don't have an axe to grind. Surely something as seemingly basic as this can be settled objectively one way or another?

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:11:38 AM »
Every time there is a megapixel advance some people claim "no one needs that many pixels etc. etc. etc."; they said this at 3 mp, 5mp, 10mp etc.  More pixels is always better if you don't have to give up anything (not sure yet what the 5ds will require us yield).

ISO 6,400 limit with expansion to ISO 12,800 (same as the pocketable S120 with 1/1.7" sensor, by the way).
I suspect that the quality will not be the same  ::) ::) ::)

Right - which is why the 5DS should go much higher, not the same.

At that level though, can't you effectively increase the ISO in pp? There's not much difference (if any?) between doing it in camera at the boost settings or after the fact, is there? That's the impression I get from similar discussions I've seen.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:04:37 PM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Someday someone needs to explain to me why this myth persists after a decade of things going the other way despite similar basic sensor performance (QE).

Because when your small pixel drowns in a sea of noise a large pixel will still be getting a signal. It is simple physics.

Way to advance an argument: "I'm right, you're wrong". I think both could do with an added [citation needed].

How about a test?

Pixels that would give you a 208MP full-frame sensor on the left, a 13MP full-frame sensor on the right.  Same ISO, same f-stop, same shutter speed, same lighting, same focal length, both processed from raw using the same settings on the same converter.



Ah I know you've posted supporting evidence before, so I respect your view more. However, I've seen both sides argued by seemingly respectable parties, and since I'm no technical whizz, I'm still left confused.

Personally, I'd rather have more MP, as I can downsize if I want, or crop if needed. Better of both worlds.

7
Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 23, 2015, 10:18:21 AM »
I probably delete half my shots before uploading to the computer. Then maybe another 1/3-1/2 on the first run through. I'll review them after a while, weeks maybe, and again after a year say. Ultimately, it's hard to say but maybe 20%.

But it varies a lot. I'll keep more of a subject that is uncommon - a bird species I've only seen once, or don't expect to see again, or a one-off event - and conversely if I'm short of memory card or hard drive space, I might be more ruthless.

Memory is cheap, though, so I tend to be lenient. Only out of focus shots, missed subjects, really badly exposed (thankfully rare now), etc are certain to be deleted. That's why I prefer to do it several times - after a year, I have a much better idea if a shot is worth keeping indefinitely.

Incidentally, I only upload to Flickr (which I consider my 'shop window', so only the best/most interesting goes there) 1 in several hundred shots, and I get more picky as time goes on.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 09:03:57 AM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Someday someone needs to explain to me why this myth persists after a decade of things going the other way despite similar basic sensor performance (QE).

Because when your small pixel drowns in a sea of noise a large pixel will still be getting a signal. It is simple physics.

Way to advance an argument: "I'm right, you're wrong". I think both could do with an added [citation needed].

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:09:13 PM »
A jackdaw in the sunshine. Bigger version on my Flickr.

10
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:32:25 AM »
Thanks guys. Those owls are amazing btw! :)

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 10:25:42 AM »
A red-throated diver (loon) that turned up locally this week. 5D3+500L+2xIII (handheld).

12
Lenses / Re: New Unique Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:49:51 AM »
First Ef-m macro!

This would be good. The 100L + EOS-M is a good combination but an M-sized macro lens would be even better for portability.

13
Lenses / Re: New Unique Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:48:54 AM »
My 15mm f2.8 fisheye with MFD of 15cm can focus as close as a macro.
Yes, but can you get 1:1 magnification? :)

Not sure how serious you are, but isn't a fisheye macro oxymoronic? 'True' macro implies 1:1 magnification of the subject at the sensor, but a fisheye has the widest field of view of any lens type. How could you have both simultaneously? My gut feeling is it's physically impossible, but I'm not an engineer.

14
Lenses / Re: New Unique Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:43:21 AM »
My guess is a 70-200 f/4 Zoom with 5 stop IS, and maybe DO technology to shorten and lighten it a bit. 1:1 or a little better at all focal lengths and para focal so focus does't change as you zoom.

It's worth remembering that the rated IS drops considerably at macro distances. The 100L has 4-stop IS only at non-macro distances. By 1:1 it's officially 2 stops (as per TDP).

15
EOS-M / Re: Official: Canon EOS M3 and It's Not Coming To North America
« on: February 06, 2015, 11:10:35 AM »
Buy it on eBay. Why the whining? Everything is available everywhere =)  BTW, the M1 is just fine. I love my M1.  The focus speed is not a problem at all.  And the resulting photos are great.



I think most EOS M users will agree, for the (eventual) price and weight, it offers excellent image quality.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32