October 01, 2014, 04:36:35 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 - Redreflex

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 06, 2012, 11:50:52 PM »
I need to win so I can die happy.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D Outed by B&H Photo [CR0]
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:21:16 PM »
Definite hoax.

Mfr # are the same for the '3D' and Canon projector listed below it.

3
Ebay - got a great deal there on an RRS plate for more than 70% off the retail price of a use item (1dm2 L plate).

Craigslist (USA) is also useful, but I know that doesn't help you.

4
Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: June 13, 2012, 01:19:13 AM »
70-200 f/2.8L IS (i.e. mark I) for US$950 last year. Sold for US$1450 less than a year later.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:49:43 PM »
I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.

Most likely, but the d800 still amazes...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

(In full disclosure, I am a Canon shooter and own a 5D3.  But, I must admit the d800 is pretty fascinating with respect to its DR)

Dynamic range of the human eye is something like 18 to 24 stops, depending on lighting conditions etc. The latest 2012  camera range don't even come close to 18 stops of DR.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« on: May 04, 2012, 05:54:57 PM »
I think we are still far off from the point where the camera sees detail in the shadow that the eye can't.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: One area the 5D3 beats the D800...
« on: April 20, 2012, 12:37:01 PM »
Other than price?

8
You can also view it if you use Aperture on a Mac, at least on the 5dm2 anyway.

9
The price?

+1

Looks like $3500.00

Lol.

Question is not "what is the groundbreaking...", but "will there be a groundbreaking..."

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 23, 2012, 02:28:18 AM »
In 2009, 2-3 months before I even thought about buying a DLSR (P&S prior), I went to the annual exhibition for the National Geographic Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition at the Natural History Museum in London. Didn't occur to me at the time, but when I decided to go down the DSLR route, I recalled about 70% of the photos on display were taken with a Canon, as opposed to Nikon.

Simple as that!

11
Contests / Re: Contest Winners Announcement
« on: January 17, 2012, 02:15:20 AM »
Congrats!

Very curious - where was the winning shot taken?

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives
« on: November 10, 2011, 11:40:24 AM »
Dont see much use in the sliding clips on the strap really

The clip is there to restrict where the camera slides along the strap.  A taller person might want to move the clip 'down' so the camera hangs lower.  I do sometimes move it depending on what's hanging - with a standard zoom and if I'm walking around without kids in tow, I set it higher so the camera hangs at the side of my hip.  But with a white zoom or with kids along, I prefer it lower so the camera hangs at the small of my back - a little further to reach, but better balance for the big zoom, and less in the way if I need to grab one of my daughters.

And if you need to lean forward to do something that isn't related to using your camera, you can slide the clip most proximal to your chest down to the hip position alongside the distal clip - now you've got your camera locked in position between the 2 clips. The body is not going to slide (maybe still swing a little depending on what you're doing) along the length of the strap unexpectedly since the hip position would no longer be the most dependent position from which the camera would naturally want to hang.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives
« on: November 08, 2011, 03:09:18 PM »
ordered the black rapid rs7 anyway, mainly because the sun sniper is bulky

I've tried the sun sniper but prefer my black rapid RS sport - I find it's very handy to have the 2 clips on the strap to limit the travel of the camera along it to suit your needs, whether it's to limit posterior travel of the camera, or to lock the camera at a specific position.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Bokeh difference - full frame vs crop??
« on: October 27, 2011, 10:04:21 AM »
There will be a difference in the depth of field, if you frame the shots identically the FF sensor will give a shallower DoF, by a factor of 1.6 when comparing FF to APS-C.  So, the APS-C will give a depth of field equivalent to setting the aperture on the FF camera 1.3 stops narrower (because stops are a base-2 log scale, and the base-2 log of 1.6 = 1.3).

That makes sense. In other words for the same aperture setting and framing, FF will always have 1.3 stops shallower depth of field. That's significant!

As a side note, this isn't bokeh.  Technically, bokeh is the quality of the OOF blur, and is a property of the lens and the elements in the picture.  A crop sensor affects the quantity of OOF blur. 

Well, ok, that's a simplification, since a crop sensor can affect bokeh with some lenses - in some cases, vignetting results in OOF blur spots at the edge of the frame that have a cat's eye shape, which is less pleasing than a round shape, and to the extent that using an EF lens on a crop body reduces vignetting, it will result in rounder OOF blur spots, which would be considered better bokeh.

Hope that helps...

Thanks - I did allude to a difference between bokeh and DOF. Vignetting can be corrected somewhat with post-processing.... closer to the centre of the image, what sort of real difference in QUALITY of bokeh are we talking about?

Hope that helps...
Indeed!

15
EOS Bodies / Bokeh difference - full frame vs crop??
« on: October 26, 2011, 09:12:21 PM »
I recall reading somewhere on this forum some comment about how a FF sensor would inherently have better bokeh (or was it shallow depth of field) as compared with a crop. I can no longer find it, and I have since read conflicting opinions elsewhere.

Thus, if an image is captured at the same aperture and full frame equivalent focal lengths on both types of cameras with the same lens, would there be a difference in bokeh and/or depth of field with the 2 different camera types?

If so, is it a theoretical or real difference, and why? Any sample comparison images would be very helpful!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6