January 28, 2015, 01:14:25 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 - noisejammer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Post Processing / Re: Is Coma Fixable in Post for Astrophotography?
« on: January 21, 2015, 10:31:24 AM »
Does the point spread function vary across the image? Or does the function completely describe the aberrations across the lens?
Coma is a radial aberration so the psf varies radially. Richardson-Lucy deconvolution was developed to allow correction for this. Since stars are essentially point sources, it's quite easy to determine the psf over the entire field.
If memory serves, it was originally a software kludge that allowed the space telescope to be used while COSTAR was being developed.

Post Processing / Re: Is Coma Fixable in Post for Astrophotography?
« on: January 20, 2015, 10:56:42 PM »
Yes, but with some difficulty. I suggest you look at the Richardson-Lucy transform. You will find implementations in MaxIm and AstroArt - perhaps in others too.

I use a this ... http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/streetwalker-harddrive-backpack.aspx . It's more than sufficient for my 1D4 + 5D2, 70-200/2.8, several smaller lenses and a decent sized laptop. You can remove some (or all) of the compartments as needed and there's a waterproof cover that keeps things reasonably dry.

If you're worried that the airline may gripe about the weight of your bag, wear a jacket with multiple pockets. If they get overly fussy, hang your camera around your neck and unload the bag until they let you keep it. Once you're on board the plane, you can reload the bag.

I also subscribe to the idea of taking a sling bag along for my camera except that mine travels empty in my checked luggage.

A choice of two, take images and stitch like crazy...

1. Hartblei 80/2.8 super rotator
2. Zeiss ZE or ZF.2 50/2 Makro

Both are superbly sharp and easily out-resolve my 5D2. The Hartblei also offers tilt-shift capability.

Lenses / Re: Comparison: Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 vs Canon 50mm f/1.8
« on: December 29, 2014, 12:59:49 PM »
<p>PetaPixel has posted a comparison between the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and the obvious clone the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8. </p>

These lenses have different optical designs (from the comparison on Petapixel, the YN is clearly better), they have different irises (the YN is better) and they have different price points (again, the YN is better.) Apart from both fitting on the EF mount, I don't see there's any cloning involved at all.

Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:05:17 PM »
Those who play first, curse later - have you ever tried to set up a 1-series without rtfm... :D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most ridiculous camera ever?
« on: October 31, 2014, 05:53:32 PM »
...and people are scared of Magic Lantern brikking their cameras...

Man, I thought the Df was hideous but this really wins the 2013 fugly prize. :)

Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 07, 2014, 09:16:55 PM »
Oh give me a break! You really can't think that "youtube" comments are representative of anything other than the opinions of the handful of individuals who comment – who, for that matter, could very well be Sony employees for all you know.
At least one of the comments did not come from a Sony employee.
In any case, why would Sony employees see value in getting Canon to make better products?

Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:19:20 AM »
No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.
Nonsense! Canon's only incentive (like all the others) is maximising shareholder value. Innovation and product improvement are happy side effects of this. Innovation helps when you are trying to attract new customers (which is why there's such a turnover of models at the bottom end of the market.) It may help to secure brand loyalty when customers go from one lens to (say) four. After that, the customer is locked in and you give them the minimum that will prevent them from walking away in disgust.

The slow turnover at the top end is a result of the manufacturers knowing their market - if users find change between models significant, the captive user may upgrade. If not, they will probably sit on their hands and wait for the next model before reconsidering. This is a difficult field to play in. If a disruptive model comes along - say the A7 series - you may suddenly find a number of high end customers changing brands at very low immediate cost.

But the more system unique equipment a photographer owns, especially if expensive, the less likely they will switch to another system....

Of course, the camera manufacturers might not like this freedom.  Locking in customers is a good business practice. You don't make money by making it easy for your customers to go elsewhere.  8)
Yay.... at least one other person gets it!

Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:26:48 AM »
Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.
No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.
Contracts end and have to be re-negotiated, companies sell off divisions, the buying companies may and very often do have a very different vision, it’s not nonsense. ‘Ransom’ isn't exactly the best word though.
Of course contracts can end and they can be re-negotiated. On the other hand, they can be set up to protect both parties. For example, an option can be sold on a specified product to be delivered at a specified price on a specified date and with a specified performance. You can agree to terms that will be acceptable if either party cannot fulfill their part of the deal. The important part about contracts is you can't break the laws of physics and you can't break the laws of of a country. Everything else can be negotiable.
Competition makes everyone better and can only benefit consumers. There are always better ideas and our money helps move technology forward.
I'm not convinced this is either true or applicable. It certainly works when the item or service is fungible but it's complete bs if one source has access to technology that excludes the others from catching up. It's also bs if circumstances prevent the customer from changing supplier.

The camera market finds both circumstances. Firstly, technology is heavily protected through patent law and second, users cannot migrate because their lens "investment" constrains them to using a single source for camera bodies. Now, if third parties - say Sony - would start offering EF or F.2 mount cameras, everything really could change.

Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 21, 2014, 11:35:16 AM »
I think I see both sides of the argument. I think both are bogus.

I'm unconvinced that innovation would being stifled - whether Sony was the single source or not, I assume they would want to sell more sensors. This means their customers need to offer better imaging performance which - to the extent that the sensor dominates things - means the sensors need to develop.

Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.

There is risk because Sony could close their fab plant... Struggling companies do not close or sell business units that make money. If it's a profit centre, it is safe. This feeds back into my first point - to continue making money, Sony needs to continue selling sensors which means more innovation.

On the different "look" offered by various cameras - I think this is bogus too. Most on the forum will know how to change the colour mapping. (If not, download Lightroom and move the sliders around or look for a preset.) Secondly, a lot of Canon's "warm look" arises from the lenses. If you switch to Zeiss glass, suddenly your images are quite cool.

I like the Canon ergonomics, I do not like the Nikon's. I have lots of EF mount lenses and none with an F.2 mount. I have adapters that let me use legacy lenses on my Canon camera but they would not work on a Nikon. You might say I'm locked in... and I really would like to have a Canon camera with a sensor similar to that in the D810.

Judging from the published performance of the 7D2, Canon is still doing its own thing. That's ok too. Their business is selling cameras not making me happy....

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D II specs appear at Snapsort
« on: July 21, 2014, 12:30:47 PM »
There's a line that says "Announced March 2013".

That makes it _so_ authoritative.  ::)

I've tried with an Epson V750... it's a real p.i.t.a. Here are two alternatives that will work

An easy way would be to purchase an old Olympus OM slide copying jig. This would cost you around $500-ish, take the photos and then resell it. You can also decide whether to copy at 1:1 or crop the image (I think it supported 4:1 but my memory is vague.) It works best if you slide mount your images.

Another alternative would be to do the same with a Nikon Coolscan 4000 or 5000. These cost more (~$800 and ~$1200 respectively) but are easier to resell. If you do this make sure you have the SA-21 attachment and a film holder.

Black & White / Re: Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
« on: July 01, 2014, 01:11:09 PM »
I grabbed this while riding the ferry from Toronto Island. It's a 3-shot composite. 5D2 & Zeiss ZE 50/2.
Toronto Waterfront by NoiseJammer, on Flickr

That has to be a first here.... someone who's not interested in image quality. :D

I've used the EF 40/2.8 on a 5D2 - I was impressed.

Compact - provided an electronic viewfinder is ok, you could also try the Fuji X-E2 which has the same sensor but is a lot more compact. I have one and the image quality is comparable with my 5D2... so maybe not quite as good as a 6D but close. If you add the XR 27/2.8, the combination will fit in a jacket pocket.

Since you enjoy shooting at 80mm lens (or maybe 80mm equivalent), one of the OM lenses would be about as compact as you might find. I have the 85/2 and 50/1.8 - neither is particularly startling as lenses go but you did say image quality was secondary.  ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12