October 21, 2014, 06:44:11 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 - EdB

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.

2
Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]"

This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.

Jon_D have you ever seen in your live a 200mm 2.8 full-frame lense? Maybe there is a reason why they are so big and or do you think they just make it so big and expensive for fun.

Do your homework in basic photography unerstanding before harassing other people on this forum. Thanks

An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.

35mm lenses are big because the sensor is big, reduce the size of the sensor and you can reduce the size of the lens.

3
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 03:29:42 PM »


No, delivery on November 31.

31st? I guess this is nothing to get excited about.

4
mmmm....beer...

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:06:16 PM »
DR is overrated.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:00:13 PM »
I didn't read through this whole thread but there is no way I'd capture images like this back in the film days. They don't mean anything to anyone but me and my friends but without high ISO they aren't happening when lit by firelight.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:16:10 PM »
Here is an article from Michael Reichmann, it is quite old, from 2008, that fit right in with this discussion. Like his photography or not, he knows what he is talking about.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


9
Reviews / Re: Pentax 645z Review
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:40:22 PM »
A question to the more scientifically competent than I:
So, DSLRs have bigger lenses than rangefinders or other mirrorless cameras because there is a bigger distance between the end of the lens' flange and the sensor. Would it be possible for Canon or Nikon to make a mirrorless medium format camera that could use their existing stock of 35mm equivalent DSLR lenses?

They could but it wouldn't be worth it. 35mm lenses wouldn't have an image circle big enough to cover a MF sensor.

10
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 17, 2014, 09:43:33 PM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

Dull and lifeless.

The French will be so glad to hear you describe their capital city in that way.

This has nothing to do with where an image was taken, it's the depiction of it. That shot has no soul.

A photographer cannot capture what isn't there, so if there is no soul in that photograph then there is no soul in Paris.

Wow, that's really pathetic. Is that the best you have?

Well why don't you show me how it is done? After all, you've been shooting for 40 years so after that much time behind a camera, every click of your button must be gold.

Doesn't matter how long someone shoots, no one ever makes great photography with every click. Check your PMs.

11
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 15, 2014, 03:06:34 AM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

Dull and lifeless.

The French will be so glad to hear you describe their capital city in that way.

This has nothing to do with where an image was taken, it's the depiction of it. That shot has no soul.

A photographer cannot capture what isn't there, so if there is no soul in that photograph then there is no soul in Paris.

Wow, that's really pathetic. Is that the best you have?

12
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 15, 2014, 02:08:45 AM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

Dull and lifeless.

The French will be so glad to hear you describe their capital city in that way.

This has nothing to do with where an image was taken, it's the depiction of it. That shot has no soul.

Slophoto, love your blown highlights.

13
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 15, 2014, 01:11:38 AM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

Dull and lifeless.

14
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 6D and the 24-105
« on: June 08, 2014, 12:55:22 AM »
...

15
Camera Body Gallery / 6D and the 24-105
« on: June 08, 2014, 12:54:36 AM »
These are from a live pour of metal artists.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5