February 28, 2015, 10:01:02 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 - Blaze

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 02:37:52 PM »
I not talking about AF issues in general (of course it is not perfect), but about focus shift at close focusing distance while shooting at ie. f3,5 or f4.0. It just cant be a body problem as at f 1.4 there is not problem at all. Stopping down the lens has completely no influence on AF as it being stopped down while pressing shutter, not all the time. As I said, seven different 50 1.4 from different supplies, not at the same time,  adjusted when necessary  with AFMA at 1.4. All of them behave in the same way. In my opinion it just can't be body failure (it hits a 1.4). How is that possible that no one experienced it?

It's not just you. I only have one copy of the lens, but the AF shifting really is a problem. It's pretty soft wide open too. Even though I like the 50mm focal length, I find myself reaching for my 85mm f/1.2 L II instead almost every time.

Lenses / Re: A New Zoom Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:56:35 PM »
Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a macro zoom lens.   ;)

what is the zoom range?  65 to 330?

The 65mm is really a misnomer with that lens:

From that link (read more, of course):  "Canon lists the focal length for this lens as 65mm. It is, but disregard this number for all intents and purposes. Think 1x to 5x magnification. Think 1:1 to 5:1. This lens starts where typical macro lenses stop."

It's a nutty 5:1 macro magnification.  You'd use it to shoot flies' eyeballs, circuit board details, human hairs, etc.  DOF is comically small from what I've read, and it really pushes you to need macro focusing rails, meticulously groom your lighting, stack your focus, all that.  I won't touch that kind of specialized/'engineered' photography with a ten foot pole, but some folks love it.

- A

I have that lens and it's not quite as nutty as you make it seem. It's definitely a challenge, but you can do quite well even without focusing rails and focus stacking.

For those interested in macro shooting with the MP-E 65mm, I highly recommend reading LordV's hints and tips: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807056

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 06:04:55 PM »
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 03:22:39 AM »

About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.

As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.

I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I had the understanding that the "native" ISO involved boosting the analog gain, where as the "expanded" ISO increased the gain after the analog to digital conversion. If this is correct, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that another stop or two (or even more depending on how much DR you're willing to sacrifice--it's just a multiplication factor) of expanded ISO capability could be added via a "simple" firmware update. Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: NAB 2013: Canon USA, All About 4K
« on: April 09, 2013, 12:36:00 PM »
The size of screen you’d need to see the difference between 4K and 1080P in your home would eliminate most potential customers. Think of it like a 1080P vs 720P 32″ television, there’s just no discernible difference when viewing 1080P content.

1080p vs. 720p is a big difference even on a 32" display. Heck, it's discernible on phones that are under 5". If you can't tell the difference, then you're probably too far away from the screen.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 02:53:30 PM »
No that's the wrong way of looking at it.
The 6D is pitched as an 'entry level' or first time FF body.
The 7D line is the 'high end' Crop body.


Counting my pennies...

so the 6d is 'entry level'   yet the 7d 2 is high end.

doesnt want to make me buy the 6d anymore! :(

Yes. The 6D is an entry level full frame camera whereas the 7D is a premium crop camera.

That doesn't mean that the 7D is necessarily the better choice. The FF sensor makes a huge difference. Because of its much larger (and newer) sensor, the 6D will produce much cleaner images with better color and dynamic range especially in low light situations.

The 6D can't match the AF, build quality, and speed of the 7D but you shouldn't expect it to. It's aimed at people who want the benefits of a FF sensor but who don't need / don't want to pay for those extra features. If you need those features, that's where the 5D3 and 1DX come in, but the 6D offers pretty much the same image quality for a much lower price.

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 10:33:17 AM »
Hmmm. How about a 35mm f/1.2 L IS that's excellent wide open? (Bonus points for making it a pancake.)

That and a 24-120 f/2.8 IS. I don't care how much it weighs.

Animal Kingdom / Re: A day at Disney's Animal Kingdom - Orlando
« on: October 14, 2012, 07:08:25 PM »
I walked around Animal Kingdom all day back in May this year with a 7D (with grip) + 70-200 L IS II + 2x III extender and never got stopped by any Disney employees.

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:09:39 PM »

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

The article you linked to disagrees with you. The author claims that the sensor is not demosaiced, but rather that color four each pixel is computed from 2x2 RGGB blocks of photodetectors.

Relevant quote: " Thus, we can see that perhaps what happens to the Raw data on its way to the sRaw format does  not, rigorously, involve either demosaicing or downsampling."

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 21, 2012, 03:57:18 PM »

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.


Very true. Technology is rapidly changing. First the OVF will be replaced by EVF. Then Full Frame will be replaced by APS-C. APS-C won't stick around too long before it is replaced by ... Time marches on, it's been a long time since PJs shot news and sports with 4x5 cameras.

I can definitely see mirrored cameras disappearing, but I don't think FF is going anywhere. For fast action low light situations even a theoretical APS-C sensor with perfect quantum efficiency is going to be limited by physics. Photon shot noise is an inherent limitation and the only way to combat it is to gather more light (use faster glass, bigger sensors, or longer exposure times).

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 02:42:21 PM »
I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

But that's just image quality again. Boost the ISO by a stop or two and you get pretty much the same shot as on full frame, just with more noise. Now, downsample that frame to 1024x768, to post on the Web or send in an email, and the noise vanishes.

Would you be satisfied with the image quality? Obviously not. But 99 44/100% of Rebel owners would be thrilled with it, and that's why we're not going to see a full-frame mirrorless.


That works if you still have an extra stop or two of ISO available and don't care about losing a significant amount of dynamic range (it's not just a difference in noise). But then DR is "just image quality" as well, I suppose.

As far as what to expect, it really boils down to who the mirrorless is marketed towards. If they target the Rebel buying populous (and that's where the profit is to be made), it would indeed be silly to put a FF sensor in it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2012, 09:16:17 PM »

Mirrorless - Replaces G-series PowerShots and all Rebels, 3 - 5 models total

I doubt that will be happening soon. Not until there is a huge breakthrough in EVF technology (in both performance and cost). The optical view finder on the Rebel beats any existing EVF anytime.

I agree with you that we're ages away from an EVF that can even pretend to compete with the real thing, even the dark and dinky ones on a Rebel.

However, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of Rebel owners already mostly use live view anyway. Note, that's the majority of those who own Rebels, and certainly not the majority of Rebel owners who read Canon Rumors -- those are two entirely distinct sets of people.

But the EVF problem is yet another reason why there'll never be a full-frame mirrorless Canon camera. The only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers. The only reason for mirrorless is to make something you can slip in the opposite pocket from your cellphone. If you're really making 24" x 36" and bigger prints, fitting your camera in your pocket is the least of your photographic challenges.



I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 12, 2012, 09:08:29 PM »
If it helps, you guys should go to the MacRumors forum and watch all the dudes tear their hair out because Apple hasn't seriously updated their i-Macs or Mac Book Pros for years.  Talk about long waits.  :(

Didn't Apple just announce a new MacBook Pro with an amazing new "retina display" yesterday?
If if had another USB port or two and came with Windows 7, I'd probably buy one.

I'm excited about The Hobbit being in 48 fps. The standard 24 fps rate drives me nuts. The judder during panning is particularly unpleasant.

It definitely feels different watching video at 60 fps versus 24 fps or 30 fps. It's smoother and sometimes looks almost "too real" for cinema. I'm guessing 48 fps will look odd for a little while before the brain adapts to a new frame rate.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII
« on: April 15, 2012, 04:08:09 AM »

Pushing my 5D3 to 6400 still scares the crap out of me.  I just need to post process a few more weddings with it to build my confidence :)  Oh, and LR 4.1 OFFICIAL release will be a big deciding factor as well.  And as of this year, I am DONE with DVD's.  Now Digital Negatives (if they buy them) are delivered on these:


With custom labeling for the client.  Auto slideshow built in as well.  I hate DL DVD's with a passion!

As far as more MP.  I don't see clients ordering anything much bigger than 20x30.  So no real need for more MP unless you plan to do a lot of cropping.  I would prefer Canon go to a SQUARE sensor next round with a slight MP increase. see this:


I don't know about square sensors... I like the 2:3 aspect ratio.

I don't know if I would use flash drives for clients... cost is about 17x higher. And they are so small the client would lose it easily. Plus, the DVD has a larger area for custom printing/engraving.

How/where do you do your custom labeling?

I think square sensors would be awesome. I'm a fan of the 4x5 aspect ratio.

Compared to the cost of a shoot, a USB drive really isn't that expensive and a lot of computers don't even have optical drives these days.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5