October 24, 2014, 06:30:41 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 ... 21
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:46:33 PM »
I also see no reason to record 4K today.

So I can stabilize in post, crop, downsample, and still have 1080p left.

This is a legitimate response, but this camera is aimed at people using professional-style rigs, no? So stabilisation isn't really an issue.
Sure it's not an issue ... If you are that one professional on earth who gets everything perfect the first time, even in fast moving ENG or doco environments. For the rest of us not-yet-perfect videographers ... every bit of tech helps

Again, that's a legitimate point. But people saying it's a killer issue... I mean, at some point, you're always going to have to make up for equipment limitations with better technique. We all want ever better technology, but I don't understand the rancour towards specific targets, e.g. non-4k cameras.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:42:46 PM »
I also see no reason to record 4K today.

So I can stabilize in post, crop, downsample, and still have 1080p left.

This is a legitimate response, but this camera is aimed at people using professional-style rigs, no? So stabilisation isn't really an issue.

For fast objects, it always is, even with a fluid head, optical IS, and electronic stabilization.

So, genuine question: how did people manage until 4k started coming out a year or two ago? I don't recall footage looking really wobbly.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:32:54 AM »
I also see no reason to record 4K today.

So I can stabilize in post, crop, downsample, and still have 1080p left.

This is a legitimate response, but this camera is aimed at people using professional-style rigs, no? So stabilisation isn't really an issue.

4
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 12, 2014, 03:36:04 PM »
Not the best kingfisher by a long chalk, but my personal best, and a demonstration that stacked teleconverters can yield okay results. 500+2xIII+2xII=2000mm (handheld, manual focus). Thankfully they stay still!

5
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 12, 2014, 03:34:27 PM »
Making use of a Tamron 200-500mm lens, thing is a tank to carry. Equipped to a 6d and set up a spot with lots of seed, got the opportunity to photograph these guys squabbling over it.

Lovely :) Great behaviour, and the background is sublime.

6
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: October 12, 2014, 03:31:11 PM »
A mute swan overflew me today, had to have a go. 700mm, f/5.6, 1/4000, ISO 640.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:52:44 PM »
One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV.  Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

It depends on what your shooting. As I said, my primary use case for 1200mm is not full body birds...it's bird headshots. The distance doesn't increase, only the amount of detail you are resolving on a smaller area of your subject. Similarly, when it comes to the smaller shorebirds, like a Least Sandpiper. Were I could get away with using 840mm for larger ones, 1200mm is useful for smaller ones. Again, distance does not increase.

Therefor, atmospheric effects are not an issue. The primary issue is getting pixels on target, for a subject that is filling a good portion of the frame. The 7D II will put more pixels (and hopefully BETTER pixels, at least than any other crop camera) on a bird headshot at 840mm f/5.6 than the 5D III at 1200mm f/8. I'd expect the IQ to INCREASE with the 7D II, assuming Canon isn't just playing games, and their high ISO has really improved by about a stop.

Don't forget songbirds! Little sparrow-sized passerines need a lot of focal length, even at moderate distances. It's rare they'll let you get close - especially the best-looking ones (in my experience).

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 27, 2014, 02:32:09 PM »
I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me.  I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality...  and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

If you buy that £100k 1200mm f/5.6 and stick a 1.4x on, you can get 1680 f/8! :D

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:16:39 PM »
Guys you miss the point.

It´s not only HERE... it´s all over the web.

Canon now stands for old sensors and boring camera releases.

No matter how much of that is true, it affects the brand image.

Canon is now company to joke about.
Making Paris Hilton like BAGS for girls, to carry a SD100?   :-X

5 years to include an 1D X AF system into the 7D MK2?

The only real innovation these days is in mirrorless cameras.
here you can really see faster AF, better EVF, lighter, smaller with any new generation.

DSLRs are a pretty mature technology. If mirrorless is advancing faster, it's because they are newer, and still finding their way. DSLRs *don't* need to change fundamentally every year, because in many ways they already work well.

Choose whatever analogy you like. Mobile phones have advanced massively in a generation; home phones much less so. Because one has been around a lot longer than the other. And because one already does what it needs to do.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:33:50 PM »
Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social media@!!!).  It's rather preachy, like religion.

This is pretty much how I feel. It seems to have got worse over the last few months. Like, if only they shout enough, we'll see the light. How can we not? It's so blindingly obvious! But it's just not a priority for me. I don't like being called a fanboy or an apologist by association just because I'm not upset about the same thing some other people are.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:48:31 AM »
Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing? 

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work.  To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them.  But, that's me. 

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS.   PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera.  The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me.  The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.

Haha that's an interesting point. I do also like to use cameras to capture things that the eye cannot; macro, wide aperture work, long exposures, astrophotography. I suppose what I meant was (and should have been clearer about) on average, a raw image coming out of the camera needs work if it is to have the colour balance and (dare I use the term) dynamic range that my eyes saw. I recognise that it's still an approximation, an artificial concept. But SOOC images are further from the eye (in my experience) than further processed ones.

Incidentally, on the subject of things like blurry water - well our eyes can't take single snapshots, so in that sense all still images are unlike what we see. A short exposure freezing the water would be just as artificial.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 03:04:23 PM »
Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing? 

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work.  To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them.  But, that's me. 

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS.   PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera.  The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me.  The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 01:40:05 PM »
Who are these higher resolution customers, one might ask? I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio. By the time Canon bring their product to the table, there will not be much room left on it! Unless they improve the dynamic range on a product aimed for landscape pros all those extra megapixels will be as useful as a chocolate teapot. :-) For studio photographers I see the costs dropping for MF though not to the same extent as it is a small market but maybe enough to attract more people who would otherwise have bought this Canon higher megapixel. The only reason I can think of for Canon not improving their sensors is the profit margin. Building a new fabrication plant would impact on their profits and share price something they don't want to do until they absolutely have too, they may never build one and instead in the future just buy in sensors as they foresee that there is no future profit to be made in a declining market.

I don't know how representative I am, but as a wildlife enthusiast I'd like more megapixels to help with cropping. Even with very long lenses you can't always get close enough.

14
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 01:38:55 PM »
I'd vote for the 35 f/2 IS. It's the lens I covet most (excluding crazily expensive ones). Supposedly excellent image quality, and although you're losing a stop of aperture, you're gaining ~4 in IS, which in lots of situations will help. But that's just me :)

15
Sometimes I wonder why Canon and Nikon refuse to make something in the same league as the Otus?

Is it because:

  • They Don't know how to / they lack the expertise
  • They want to milk as much profit from cheap and fast moving (sales-wise) lenses

I'm certain there are pro-users in the market (especially in the FF line-up) who can understand, appreciate and differentiate really good optical quality.


Anyway thank you guys for sharing about Schneider Kreuznach. I'm in my 20s and i really have no clue about the company's presence

Correct me / educate me if i am mistaken. But the 70~200 f2.8L IS II is the only lens that is decently sharp edge to edge wide open etc.

I'm quite certain, they could fabricate lens at Otus performance. The problem lies in the smallness of potential market. Why waste R&D funds for some niche product. The would also need to incorporate AF, since majority of their customers would dislike omission of it.

There are plenty lenses in Canon lineup "decently sharp" (as you put it yourself) edge to edge. As you mentioned 70-200/2.8 II, there is also 24-70/2.8 II, 100L macro, 135L, TS 17 and TS 24 as well (the latter is actually supersharp).

Not to mention the super telephoto lenses. They are very sharp wide open.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21