July 30, 2014, 08:27:46 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 898
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 03:06:14 PM »
... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro.  Are you a pro?  Are you??

I am a pro..... just not a photography pro...

You caught me in an edit…  :)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 02:50:41 PM »
... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro who earns his living from photography.  Are you a pro?  Are you??


Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC. However knowing Canon's marketing policies, it's almost definitely not going to happen.

A 'digital TC'?  Nope.  Canon has very nice optical TCs they'll happily sell you for a few hundred bucks.  It's likely Canon will put f/8 AF into the 7DII, the better to induce people to buy a TC to go with their 100-400L... 

EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: Today at 01:50:52 PM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

No, I actually understand your needs, would be happy to have this program in machines, but why in the world should this be in Manual mode? Manual is called manual, because it actually IS manual. I´d add your needs to some other program. Messing it all with EC + auto ISO is really wicked to want in manual mode.

And why not remove the metering indicator and focus confirmation in M mode while we're at it, eh? Hey why not have it disable ALL electronics while in M mode after all it should be pure manual, right??  :P

This is very low. You're making it extreme. I just want it to work as manual program. The metering is there to show what camera thinks of the scene. Not what you have to do. With manual mode and even other modes I rely more on histogram than on exposure meter. Automatic is not manual any more. It deserves to fall under program mode.

Wicked?   :o

Simple solution for you – don't set the ISO to Auto. It's not like that's mandatory.  Since Auto ISO is available in the other modes, why not M?  Or perhaps do away with Auto ISO...like the good old days of interchangeable sensors, a different one for every ISO and WB, and a limited number of exposures per sensor.  What was that called again?   ;)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 01:35:49 PM »
"What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

The one answer you got for your first question – get a camera with better high ISO performance, is one reasonable answer (even if only renting to meet an occasional need).  With a current Canon FF body you could shoot at ISO 25600 and still have less noise, allowing you an extra stop to 'spend' on shutter speed or DoF.  Depending on your RAW conversion software (I know you said that was SOOC JPG, but you also shoot RAW), with the 60D you could have underexposed by a stop or so, pushed in post, and used the best available NR tools (DxO PRIME, for example), and that might have been better, but might not.

As to your second question, the answer is bias - if you think more DR at low ISO is important to you (especially if you spent a lot of money to get it), but you don't shoot at high ISO, then more DR is critical for your professional photography, but less noise and more DR at very high ISO is a technological crutch for unskilled amatur pichur takers like us.

Hey neuroanatomist, do you handhold your 600mm f/4 L II IS?

Reasonably often, yes.  I walk/hike with the lens carried on a BR strap, and shoot as I walk.  I usually have a monopod clipped to my belt, so if I'm going to be stationary for a while I'll use that to support the lens.  That sort of thing is primarily spring/summer/fall.  In winter, when I'm shooting raptors, I usually pick a spot and set up the tripod and gimbal head.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 11:47:22 AM »
Would I for performances? Yes, and I have, but 12800 as a requirement to get good shots? Are you kidding me?

A requirement, for all performance photography?  Who suggested that?  Don Haines posted a shot, and asked what you would do to avoid using ISO 12800 under those conditions.  So, as the expert, highly compensated photographer you claim to be, what would you have done in 1.33 EV of lighting at f/1.4, with your shutter speed already down to 1/25 s?   Your pithy answer?  "Learn how to do a job right... Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing."  Nice.  Helpful, too.

I still haven't seen your work, your site

Is one mouse click really so challenging?  That's a pretty sad excuse.

I have a job to do, and I'lll get back to it.

Where have I read that before?

All the best.

Same to you.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 11:33:08 AM »
That's the 'I don't want to shoot what you shoot, so why should you?' non-argument. Shooting under cloudy conditions is one example - not the only one (in dense woodland is another I've given). Shooting in overcast conditions can actually be more visually appealing, depending on a lot of things - it's lower contrast (we don't all like high contrast all the time) and the colours are generally less tinted (the light being whiter than direct sunlight, especially at the ends of the day). That's obviously my opinion, but your statement is just as subjective. Basically, we don't all have the same tastes, so if some of us want cameras to do something better for what we want, who are you to call it invalid?

Does anyone shoot flying birds in cloudy conditions besides me?  A few other photographers, apparently, and some in more interesting locations than places to which I can drag my three kids.  But, they shoot for NatGeo, so what do they know?   ::)

Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L.  Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use.  The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel.  When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?   :o  ;)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 11:04:19 AM »
If I were shooting that same venue today, I would be shooting at ISO 25600 and 1/100th of a second. Once again, my choice of ISO does not make me a bad photographer, but my ignoring the tools available to me would.

To break my voluntarily silence, I'll bite.

The skill of shooting musical performance (my daughter is a professional dancer) in low light, is to shoot on the beat.

Cars don't stop for you, dancers and musicians etc do.

A dancer, a violinist, etc, stops on a beat, on a stroke, and it's a moment. Not long, but long enough to catch.

That's when you shoot, and it doesn't take some astronomical ISO to do it. it helps, but that's not the point.

Lol, sorry but silence would have served you better.

Did you actually look at the shot of the violinist?  The performer's face was reasonably free of motion blur, meaning she wasn't actively moving, which would certainly have been evident at 1/25 s.  There's a little motion blur on the bow, which I think adds to the shot by showing the action of playing the instrument.  So...the shot was well-timed.  The light was just really, really dim (~1.33 EV, if you want to put a number on it).  Please explain again how better technique can overcome dim light?  You say you don't go above ISO 1600...so, you'd have shot that violinist in that setting with a 1/3 s exposure?  How would that have worked out, do you think?

By the way, I know many people in a variety of fields who are very well compensated for what they do...and suck at it. 

Will the EF-S lens have weather sealing?  I'm concerned about it getting water inside from the 'big splash'.  I believe we'll see a 7DII.  Nothing other than a bona fide Canon press release will make me believe in an updated 100-400L.   8)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 09:20:56 AM »
You can only do so much with a flash. I suggest you go outside on a rainy night and try illuminating a couple hundred meters of roadway...

And he shot from 1950 to 1985.... I think that predates digital photography.

And predates 12800 ISO, completely negating your whole point.

He seems to have done his job fine without studio lights and 12800 ISO cameras.

What was your point exactly?

I hear the smell of rotting herring can be distracting, making it difficult to focus one's mind on a concept. I believe his point was that, unlike the BBC/NatGeo documentaries where the film crew can spend weeks on location waiting for ideal conditions (or recreate the natural environment and shoot on a sound stage, as was revealed a while back), sometimes you have to do your best in suboptimal conditions.  I'm sure the result was often grainy and dark, but it was the best possible under those conditions.  The difference is that today's 'best possible under the conditions' is a lot better.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 09:05:55 AM »
Oh my, what on earth did people do to take photographs before these cameras were capable of 12800 ISO?

We have over a century of photography that is useless as nothing could go to such a high ISO.

Thank the lord for the last 2 years of technology or our world would go on un-photographed.

More tiny red herrings.  Thank the Lord for the internet and Google.  How did anyone do research and learn new information before the technological tools of today?  Well, they went to a library, used a card catalog with the Dewey decimal system, and hoped the library had the relevant book.  Sure, it worked.  But it could take several hours (or days, if the book had to be transferred from another library) to get the relevant information that we can find in a couple of minutes today.  As a result, the average person can learn more, and learn it faster, and kids today know a lot more (fact knowledge, which is different than experience) than adults did when photography was young. 

From an artitistic standpoint, photos from several years ago have merit.  Pick up an old magazine, and look at the technical quality of the ad photos...do you think images with that level of technical quality are acceptable today?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 08:56:30 AM »
320 ISO, and this bike was moving very fast

ISO? 100 funnily enough

Decent example shots.  Your subjects are pretty large and let you approach relatively close.  I wonder if that makes a difference?   I like the dirt bike shot.  It must have been a really dark day for dirt biking, what with the clear blue sky and the sun on the bike and all.  Your shutter speed of 1/320 s was several stops slower than needed to freeze bird wing motion, too.  Guess what?  I don't shoot at ISO 12800 on sunny days. 

The racing shots are less impressive, at least from a framing standpoint. Or maybe you were going for a Luke Skywalker landspeeder look in the first one?  It wasn't dawn or twilight at the racetrack, was it?  Again a shutter speed on the slow side, since you were panning and showing wheel motion, which is usually desirable in racing shots.  I sometimes use shutter speeds as slow as 1/1250 s to leave some motion in the wingtips of large birds, or as slow as 1/2000 s for small birds.  Freezing wing motion means 1/2500 s to 1/30000 s (the latter being achievable with a feeder setup and several Speedlites at minimum power). 

Like I said, decent example shots...even if they don't illustrate anything truly relevant to the discussion.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

That red herring should have been thrown back, it's not big enough to make a meal.  Surely you understand that video is generally intended to show smooth motion, and shutter speeds used to freeze fast motion are entirely different? 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 06:06:03 AM »
I've given you respect here, aside from commenting that you seem to show a different attitude when discussing DXO and DR.

I complimented you repeatedly in my original post...

I've complimented DxO repeatedly for their Measurements, and I use their software for RAW conversions.  I certainly do have a different attitude toward their Scores, which I find biased and misleading for the reasons I've already stated. 

My attitude toward DR is that low ISO DR is not the be-all-end-all aspect of IQ for most people.  There are some individuals for whom it is, and they should choose cameras other than Canon.  I do take issue when those individuals use that one aspect of IQ to bash Canon as a whole.  That is as silly as it would be for me going to NikonRumors Forums and posting repeatedly that Nikon isn't a good system because they lack a handholdable 600/4.

I may or may not get dragged into a further debate with you on the other issues you chose to invent from my posts, but at this moment, with a shoot imminent, I'm not leaning towards it, I have to say.

Go shoot.  You're skilled at it, and it's more fun than debating.  I am curious, though...how many of your clients notice a difference in your output between your sessions before vs. after you switched gear? 

Ok Neuro (if that is your real name), let’s begin again.

My name is Dean, as zigzagzoe isn't actually a name, which I'm sure is a huge surprise to you :-)

My shoot is over and my last post was a little short, both in content and manners, so take it with a pinch of salt.

I'm John, it's early morning in Boston and I've got a busy day ahead, so this will be short and to be taken with a pinch of salt.  I'm a research scientist (as stated in my TDP profile link in my signature).  I have extensive experience in optics, microscopy (including designing and building multiphoton microscopes) and in digital image analysis.

I don’t shoot in the dark, I don’t see the point, others can do that if they want, but 1600 is my practical limit. If you need 12800, then either get some lights, a faster lens, or better clients :-)

Why do you assume needing ISO 12800 means it's dark?  Your clients are slow, right?  Flying birds are fast, even on cloudy winter days or at dawn/dusk, artificial light isn't optimal (and not feasible in many cases), I'm not aware of any 600mm lenses faster than f/4 (and certainly not ones that can be carried on a long hike through a marsh), and birds are great clients in that they never criticize your work, although admittedly they don't pay very well (at least here, maybe there's a burgeoning market for bird droppings in Oz  ;) ).

ISO 12800 is also needed with my fast-moving kids in poorly lit gymnasiums.  Flash isn't permitted, I'm often using an f/2 lens, and they're great clients because even though they do criticize the work, they pay in smiles, hugs and joy which are worth far more than money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 898