Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center

« on: May 15, 2013, 04:13:20 AM »

You do realize that the AF point itself is not (1) pixel.. It is an array of many pixels in that given area, however during autofocus the camera can determine best focus based on the contrast in an area of just a few pixels depending on the actual subject/scene.

Basically what I mean is lets say under each focus point there is a grid of 100 pixels - and when focus is achieved under the selected focus point it happens to be on the right side of the 10x10 grid of pixels - then attempting to place a marker that represents the square/dot seen in the viewfinder precisely over the actual focus point in an image it is going to be off to the right of the super-imposed point in the viewfinder.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon SL1 sensor a step back?

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:48:36 AM »

Your joking right?

First off, the sensor isn't any different than any other 18mp body.. Same tech, same processor.
What you are seeing is a difference of metering and/or exposure of the scene. The SL1 clearly shows to be brighter (by compensation, meter, or gain) than the 7D or D7100. The other two bodies will show less noticeable noise in the shadows of those shots because the shadows are darker...duh. The exposure of the scene needed to be balanced across each body if they are going to 'compare' the results.

Secondly, why the hell is this guy comparing the cheapest Canon 18mp body ($799 with 18-55IS/STM) with the highest-end crop bodies from Canon and Nikon??? Then expecting it to be some improvement over, or better performance than those models.. Really??? (*T3i was $799 body only when released)

Thirdly, why are you giving any validation to this guys review to begin with when they apparently do not know the impact under/over exposure has on shadow noise. This is some website that is supposedly teaching about 'photography' yet at the same time is giving advice about what camera you should consider an upgrade to when you already have last years model... Sorry, if anyone is 'needing' to upgrade their camera body every time each new model comes out you are not interested in photography, and certainly do not need to be worried about a microscopic difference between this/that model.

Purely from a tech-gadget perspective: No, this cheapest 18mp body is not an upgrade from Canon's most expensive 18mp body, nor is it a cost alternative to Nikon's most expensive APS-C body.. Shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

(@Robboesan) Nikon has had one (1) new sensor since the 2010 16mp D7000, and that is the 24mp that was only recently announced in a couple of bodies. Nikon is not introducing a new sensor because they are concerned with providing the public the best technology for digital photography. If Nikon did not feel they were under marketing pressure from consumers who are more interested in the social tag their equipment might provide, they would not have released a new sensor at all. The 16mp sensor in the D7000 and D5100 is far superior to the new 'film-grain' 24mp by a far margin, so without the marketing pressure of being a whole (2) megapixels behind Canon they would have milked the 16mp sensor for an eternity just like their APS-C 12mp sensor.
(Really, grain?.. Re-introducing a negative artifact of the film era as something beneficial is appalling. Grain is something digital photography moved beyond in the early years of the technology. Marketing high megapixel induced 'film-like grain' at ISO/400 just to sell high megapixel cameras is absurd.)

3

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM »

Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.

Look, there are probably two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own. Everyone else just wants to be part of a social discussion and complain about what each new model should have had, needs to have, doesn't have, etc etc.. The reality is that consumers themselves are responsible for what new models do not have because the manufacturers feel they have to instantly gratify the squeaky wheels in order to be successful. If people would simply use what they have until it stops working then the manufacturers would only release a new body in each tier maybe every three/four years. Then when they did it would actually be the latest and greatest and would hold you for the rest of its life, certainly until technology advances to the point a new model is even warranted. (Megapixels are not technology in a photographic context, sorry.)

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..
2) Spend your money on the only piece/s of equipment that will ever improve your photography - lenses.. If you have anything left over and just have to spend it on something, take a class or attend a symposium to learn how to be a better photographer.

4

Street & City / Re: How to not get beat up when photographing public places?

« on: March 17, 2013, 08:33:04 PM »

I know it sounds like social interaction 101, but:
Smile, wave, gesture to the camera, say hello, ask how the person is doing, depending on the subject or scene perhaps even ask in advance.

I have found the least objectionable approach is to make sure you do not project yourself on the street in an act of 'surveillance', you should instead look for a place to sit for a little bit, at least stop, engage someone while you continue to observe what is going on around you.

(You will still encounter those who maybe do not like the way they look, do not want someone to know they were where ever it was you saw them, etc.. nothing you can do with that.)

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Own a 5D3 - need a backup...

« on: March 17, 2013, 12:33:06 AM »

Skip the 50D, get a 40D if you aren't needing a current body.. Regardless of the spec sheets the 50D cannot match its older sibling. The micro adjustment for different lenses is nice to have in the 50D, but honestly I have not put a lens on my 40D that has needed any adjustment.

6

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?

« on: March 17, 2013, 12:11:45 AM »

(OP) If you are not making large prints, like posters, you aren't gaining anything with the D800..
I have seen/made gallery prints taken with everything from 5D, D700 to 5DmkII and D800, and unless you are talking about the finest detail that can't quite be reproduced by upscaling a 21/24mp image for poster prints you aren't going to be able to tell any significant difference in the output other than the difference created through post-processing.
If you just want to have that marginal detail whether you print big or not, like just in case you have/want to print big, then pick up something with higher mp...
I mean at the upper end of landscape photography, MF bodies, its not like everyone who shoots MF no longer owns or uses a DSLR. No capable mechanic only owns/uses one wrench...
O.o

Also remember that it is the accurate capture and reproduction of light and color that resolves detail, not mp.. but mp do give you a digitally larger image file.

(Note to Nikon trolls - your teenage Penthouse forum fantasy tales are boring.)

7

Canon General / Re: Which eye do you shoot with?

« on: March 14, 2013, 08:33:12 PM »

Technically both, as I do not close my other eye - but in typical posture and situation it is my right eye at the viewfinder..
=)

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range vs. Exposure Range, and why the difference matters

« on: March 14, 2013, 08:32:26 AM »

(hjulenissen)
The grain I referred to is what Nikon is doing in their latest bodies. (Just an aggravation jab as I was hoping to upgrade my D700 with video.. heh) However even Nikon knows that with current tech you cannot add more mp and higher ISO without introducing more noise. Not saying it won't happen as tech advances, but it is the reality atm. Nikons approach is to pull out color noise, desaturate it, redigitize it, and redistribute it as 'grain' which they have spent the past few years trying to convince everyone is ok because it gives that 'film' look.. One of the first evolutions of digital was the absence of grain (at one ISO setting or another) to reintroduce it again to cover high gain noise is not a move forward I care to see. Does not matter whether you agree (no offense) it is what they are doing.
*Well they have been doing it for a while actually, just showing up more now with their higher mp bodies*

I did not assert the focus on shadow recovery as a claim, but you don't have to spend but 5-seconds online anywhere to see how many people focus on little else, especially if they are a Nikon user or hate Canon for some reason and making it the bases of comparison in superiority.

I agree with you regarding 'magic' in your images, my reference was to shadow exposure - not color.

Not sure what anthropomorphic qualities you read into my comment, but the sensor does indeed 'know' what the manufacturer wants it to be sensitive to. Canon has traditionally focused on protecting highlights, as did the industry in general for years, and Nikon on shadows.. For some reason today all the rage is about shadow recovery.. /shrug

Just used cropping as the most relevant example, that again 5-seconds online, you can see what most are using all those mp for..

As for DxO, I am sorry but you are completely wrong. DxO clearly states how their testing is done, at what stage the data is derived, and emphasizes that as the reason their data analysis is empirical - which it is, technically, because they are testing the hardware itself not how the manufacturer implements the hardware. The consumer however gets the manufacturers flavor of the data..

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range vs. Exposure Range, and why the difference matters

« on: March 14, 2013, 07:26:39 AM »

I have to agree with many that this is getting old, but not because it doesn't matter, not because there is no difference between the terms, and not because Nikon does or does not have greater DR at the expense of unnecessary grain, but because there are people out there arguing from the point of view that being able to remove shadows from an image that had shadows is what everyone in photography is concerned about… When I look at a scene it is the very existence of shadows, high contrast, etc that made me want to capture the shot - I have absolutely no intentions of sitting down at the computer and bringing the shadows up so they are any different than what I saw and what made me want to take the picture to begin with.

The real difference between the two bodies most frequently referred to in this thread (5DmkIII/D800) is the irrelevant rating from DxO vs field use. This is because DxO evaluates and scores the image data before it is processed by each manufacturers noise reduction, demosaicing algorithms, and color/tone balancing. It is image data that the user of the camera does not have access to - therefore is not transferable to the field. There are examples shown by other supposedly in-depth equipment review services that the D800 really only has maybe one stop over the 5DmkIII and that is at the shadow range, and no higher in highlights (where it really counts the majority of the time). So unless you literally intend to overexpose shadows in all your shots, you gain nothing except digital resolution for cropping - maybe - as long as you stay under ~400 ISO..

What I find interesting in regard to raking DR versus exposure leeway and arguing who makes the better compact body full frame camera (maybe because I am not the sort to get rid of my shadows) is a lot of testing shown online. Evaluation being done where a specific scene is shot with both cameras and then over exposed beyond usability just to show what detail and noise might exists in some previously shadowed parts of the image.

I find this interesting for two reasons. First, is what possible use that has in any way when the image itself is not even usable at +3EV - and secondly, because in every one of those two image comparisons the 5DmkIII is already showing more detail in the shadows (before) they started playing with exposure. I mean if the 5DmkIII is already able to show more detail in an area the D800 shows black, then you would not have to overexpose the 5DmkIII image as much because you can already see into the shadows. To accurately evaluate that 'test' you would have first bring up the exposure of the D800 to match what is already visible in the 5DmkIII, then bump both up some arbitrary amount - that would end up being say 3 stop for the 5DmkIII and a total of say 4.5 stops for the D800 - at which point the D800 noise would look identical… So before/without any editing, the 5DmkIII looks to show more information in the shadows whether it provides one extra stop of shadow exposure or not.

10

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: February 21, 2013, 10:13:46 PM »

If you research the primary cons for any premium lens, regardless of brand, you will see 'size' 'weight' and 'cost'..
How well received do you think a 70-200mm with an 6" objective lens, ~6lb heft, and ~$5,000 price tag would be??

11

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?

« on: February 18, 2013, 02:06:53 AM »

About a year into the digital age a photographer friend (who had been patiently waiting to see if the film to digital change would allow Canon to provide some kind of support for FD lenses) decided to not only change brands (Nikon), but dump his equipment in such a way to express his utter distaste for Canon abandoning its loyal customers...

I picked up the three lenses he was holding on to:
FD 50mm f/1.2
FD 85mm f/1.2
FD 300mm f/2.8

All for $465.
It was all the money I had access to at the time, and he felt the sell would rightly spite Canon.. O.o
heh

12

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 18, 2013, 01:28:20 AM »

Give me a description of the type shot you are looking to create.

Literally: subject, ideal texture/color/pattern for the foreground/background etc...

13

Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!

« on: February 18, 2013, 01:08:56 AM »

Seeing as you are wanting to upgrade your body, and taking into consideration your shooting style, I would also dump the 60D an 10-22 for obvious reasons - keep everything else. I would suggest putting the difference between the 6D and 5DmkIII towards one or more of those lens purchases.

I would not worry too much about the AF on the 6D. Primarily because I did not see anything in your gallery that would require even fast focusing, much less worrying about cross-type/tracking border points. I have used a 5DmkII since the day it was available, and its AF system is merely serviceable when it is on - and unfortunately pure crap the rest of the time. (Coming from manual focus days though it is not that big of a deal for me.) The 6D may only have two more AF points but make no mistake it is a different creature, not a recycled AF, it is an improvement in every way - quite accurate and quick at the corners on the one I rented. Unless you need higher fps and best quality video, I do not see the point in spending the extra on the 5DmkIII - though it is a fabulous body in its own right.
(The recommendation of the 6D and savings is also because you mentioned the 1DmkIV being something you have considered adding later for its speed and durability.)

I propose a little deeper consideration of some factors in your specific transition in regard to new lens acquisition and upgrade. In going from the 60D to some current full frame body you will find your lenses perform a little differently (exposure, dof, and fov) so I would break your list into two sections. One being lenses you may want to get at the same time or as soon as you can to meet a demand not currently served - and the other section is lenses that you wait to see how your current lenses perform.

In the 'get now' section:
16-35mm (L)
100 Macro (L)
50mm/1.4 (but only because of build and higher blade count aperture)
85mm/1.2 (L)

As you mentioned not being a fan of standard zooms (24-70mm) I would get the 85mm instead of the 135mm. 85mm is still a premier portrait range, and that specific lens is just insane. Your 70-200 can/will cover the same range as the 135mm for everything else.

In the 'wait and see' section:
70-200mm/2.8

I think you will find new life in the 70-200mm/4 on the likes of a 6D or 5DmkIII. I would wait to see what you get regarding aperture and exposure compared to your current body. You will also be getting closer to your subject to achieve the same 60D framing and will notice that you get different dof at f/4 than you were getting before.

I would not worry about the 24mm/1.4 at all because you are likely to find the 16-35mm serves that same purpose just fine.
As you stated you were not able to completely justify the 24mmTS I would skip that range completely as a separate lens and just use the 16-35mm until you find that justification.

Oh - and pick up a wireless commander or master capable flash unit to go with your 430 as the 6D has no remote capability.

14

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 17, 2013, 10:52:35 PM »

As for an actual lens solution for what I believe you are describing, the effect at least (regardless of aperture range), I would suggest checking out Lensbaby : http://lensbaby.com/lenses

;=)

15

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?

« on: February 17, 2013, 05:07:56 PM »

It is technically 'possible' - taking into consideration elements diameter and overall massiveness of the lens..
The reason you do not see it is because it is not 'necessary'.

The sensor/film is being provided more light by a wide angle lens to begin with, so it is not necessary from an exposure stand point.

Wide angle lenses have a greatly distorted depth of field by the laws of physics, this would not be changed by a wide aperture. You would simply end up with little more than a small 'area' of the image in focus with the remainder falling out of focus so rapidly that every image would look like impaired vision - it is one of the primary reasons t/s lenses were invented.

From a creative stand point, you can achieve the same thin dof 'effect' with a wide angle lens by simply getting as close as you can to your subject. The effect would be the same on the background elements of the image whether at f/1.8 or f/2.8, the difference being essentially imperceptible.

I think the misconception in desiring such a lens is the expectation that one would get the same flatness of the focal plane at 14mm as seen in 35mm or 50mm - there is a big difference in the curvature of perspective between 35mm and 14mm. The focal plane would wrap around the sides to the extent that nothing would appear in focus except the single point that you were actually looking at - similar to your own eye.