September 16, 2014, 11:48:36 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 51
346
Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 18, 2012, 12:21:38 AM »
What does this mean: "Oh, and doesn't Canon have some kind of strong signing of an image that it comes from a person/camera? Maybe he should look into that, since it probably would help with chain of custody kind of thing for any evidence." Strong signing?
Canon offers a Data Security Kit for some cameras, although a quick google suggests it's been cracked.
Each jurisdiction will have its own standard operating procedure for handling and post processing of photographs (whether taken by a police officer, the general public or CCTV security cameras).  As long as the steps are followed, the photos will be admitted as evidence.  If there are claims that the photo has been tampered with, the officer that took the photo will usually be required to testify that it is the photo they took.  In the case of UV and IR forensic photographs, they might also have to explain any steps they've taken.  The jury will weigh up the credibility of the police officer in coming to their verdict.  In itself, nothing hard, but photographic evidence is obviously very damaging to a defendent, so they'll argue any way possible to have it excluded.  The data security kit makes it a little harder to raise objections as it is one less step to overcome.  (Yes - I watch a lot of CSI and Law & Order)
 
If you friend wants something discreet, try a micro four thirds camera with a 100-300 lens.  The Nikon V1 with a 70-300 would also be pretty competent in daylight - That gives you about 810mm in real lens talk. 

347
If you're just doing a few scans and its not 100% crucial to get the best possible scan, I'd stick with a cheaper scanner such as the 9000F or Epson V600.  I've never used the 5mpx ones you've mentioned, but I know they're cheap so why not give them a go?  But if you're going to be doing a lot of scanning, I'd encourage you to get to the next step up or outsource it.  Scanning is a very tedious and time consuming activity.  I couldn't think of anything worse then spending a lot of time scanning negatives and not being happy with the results.

For what it worth, I do a lot of scanning and use a Canon 9950F (Hey...we're a Canon family!).  This works well and was good for its time, but this model was discontinued years ago.  Because I need to scan in many different formats, if I was shopping today, I'd look at the Epson V700 / Epson V750.  For 35mm I typically scan at 2400dpi.  At 2400dpi, on the best quality settings, it takes me just over an hour to scan 30 colour images.  Its less than half that time for B & W.  Higher dpi leads to much bigger file sizes and slower scans. 

If you get into it and you budget permits it, a quality dedicated film scanner is the best way to go.  The quality of scans, ease of use and capabilities (eg scanning more slides in one go, scanning a while uncut roll of film, slide holders, different film sizes) improve as you spend more.  You occasionally see used Nikon and Minolta film scanners sell for reasonable prices on eBay. 

348
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:57:46 PM »
You can currently pick up a Nikon D600 Digital Camera with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and other accessories for $1996.  If you take the normal sale price of the lens ($597) and accessories ($174) away, you could say that the underlying price of the camera is $1225.

Getting very close to your $1,000 mark.

349
Landscape / Geminid Meteor Shower Suggestions
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:27:01 AM »
Any good tips for photographing meteor showers?

350
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod: Carry-On or Check-In
« on: December 13, 2012, 11:21:04 PM »
Check-in.  But I'm typically carrying a laptop, camera, lenses and other breakables in my carry-on and am already often pushing weight limits.  I figure if a tripod can't handle the stress of being thrown around with the other carry-on luggage, maybe its not the right tripod for me.  As mentioned above, lost luggage is a concern, especially if you need it ASAP upon arrival.  Otherwise, I'm sure you'd have appropriate insurance?

351
EOS Bodies / Re: 6d aus release?
« on: December 13, 2012, 04:59:50 AM »
Maybe shop around a bit more.  In Brisbane, the CameraPro and Photocontinental websites are both suggesting that it is in stock and ready to ship.

352
Canon General / Re: What real Pros shoot...
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:22:49 PM »
The lack of 1Ds models stands out.  Another indicator that photojournalists are required to double up as videographers, too.

353
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?
« on: December 11, 2012, 01:11:48 AM »
Maybe it works on a subconscious level.  The 50 f/1.8 isn't a bad lens.  In fact, its quite good.  But being the cheapest lens in the arsenal, peer pressure might stop people from using it as often as they should.  But, afer giving it the "L" treatment, people might use it more and capture better photos.  And the red ring does look cool.

354
Without some revolutionary new thinking, maybe we're approaching the point where sensors are as good as they are going to get.   When I look at the 1Dx, 5Diii, D800 etc I'm left wondering if the sensors are lacking anything that a typical user could want. Maybe future cameras will just rely on increased processing speed and power, AF improvements and enhanced connectivity.  If this is the case, then there is less incentive for users to update cameras and we might go back to 3 to 4 year life cycles across all models.

355
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5Diii today...
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:45:26 AM »
Plus if I get a 6D I'll just get the piss ripped out of me by "pro's" tottering around with their 5Diii's  ;)

Congratulations on your purchase!  I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.

Not that I'm overly persuaded by peer pressure, but I've been considering the 6D vs 5Diii, too.  Its a tough call.  Realistically, I'd be happy with either.  I'm leaning towards the 5Diii as it seems to be a camera that I'd be happy to own for a very long time.  Whereas if I went with the 6D, it will only be because its cheaper. I'd probably always regret not buying a 5Diii and would worry about what I'm missing out on.  Wifi, GPS etc will be handy but aren't deal makers for me.  For me, the question is $800 vs 3 to 4 years increased happiness.

But then, I'm in no rush.  Maybe I'll sit back and wait for the sub $1000 FF that everyone's talking about.

356
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:11:50 PM »
Results: I was wrong. The Canon film Rebel was wider at 35mm with the EF lens than the 7D was at 35mm with the EF-S lens. How embarrassing. At least I learned something.

Darn - Was just about to pipe in with a possible explanation.  The 7D has 100% viewfinder coverage and magnification.  A lot of cheaper film cameras had less - generally around 90% with only 70% magnification.  This might have explained why they might have been perceived as similar.

But on thinking about it further, the 7D magnification would be based on the cropped image size, not a 35mm image size.  Maybe they wouldn't be similar at all.  I can understand why people find it confusing.

357
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's roadmap
« on: December 04, 2012, 12:41:33 AM »
I want my 4D camera.  My photos look so flat and lifeless in just two dimensions.  Luckily, I have a HTC Evo 3D which adds a third dimension and gives my photos a little more depth.  But it is still lacking something.  I don't know...maybe a sense of time?  C'mon Canon.  Time to get your act together and offer at least 4 Dimensions.

358
Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?
« on: December 03, 2012, 04:37:03 AM »
I've had a 40 f/2.8 for a little over a month.  I'm liking it a lot.  Its on sale for $149.  I've also got a 50 f/1.8.  Although they both sell for a similar price, I'd lean towards the 40mm.  It focuses more smoothly (in AI Servo mode, the 50mm seems to jump all over the place).  Its also quieter and makes less of an annoying "ZZZZZZZ" sound.  Although IQ wise, its hard to say if one is significantly better than the other, the 40mm is a nicer lens to use.

Oh, and it looks cooler too.  Except they should have designed it to take a 58mm lens cap and filters - 52mm filters just don't look right.  Luckily this issue doesn't affect image quality.

359
Canon General / Re: Is it worth it...for me?
« on: December 02, 2012, 04:32:04 AM »
You'll generally find that if you are shooting wide open and using the centre focus point and recomposing, then you will have more back focusing issues.  At f/1.2 there is only a very thin plane of sharpness.  Moving the camera moves this plane and causes backfocusing problems.  As you stop down and use smaller apertures, the area of sharpness increases and focusing problems become less noticeable.

I'm not really suggesting lenses before bodies.  It comes down to priorities, which issues you are trying to address, which capabilities you are trying to gain etc etc. There's rarely a right answer.  Usually its all trial and error.  I can guarantee that, like everyone, you will make some decisions or buy some gear that you'll later regret.  Its all part of the fun.

Also, I think EchoLocation above meant camera bodies lose value faster than lenses.  If you buy an "L" lens, it won't drop too much in value over the short to medium term.  If you buy the wrong one, you can sell it second hand and shouldn't be out of pocket by too much.  However, camera bodies will decrease in value faster.  A lot of my lenses have very steady prices.  Why have money sitting in the bank not earning any interest, when you could have that money invested in lenses that you can use?  Most people wouldn't be any worse off.  (Disclaimer: Please don't take my investment advice.  In fact, don't even take my advice not to take my advice.]

I don't know if most people AF with the centre point only.  I do occassionally as I know the centre point works well and I have my cameras set up so that at the press of a button I'm back at the centre point.  But that's a personal choice and I find it works well for me when shooting sports and other fast moving subjects.  I then crop later if needed.  But I try to use the AF closest to what I want to focus on when I can.  The thing that annoys me is that while my cameras have 45 AF points, they're all crammed into the centre of the frame.  I'm just waiting for Canon to release a camera with a very wide array of AF points and I'll be jumping on it.

360
Canon General / Re: Is it worth it...for me?
« on: December 02, 2012, 02:53:08 AM »
Buying new camera gear is rarely a logical decision.  For instance, any real gain from using a 5D3 over a t3i is incremental and not readily apparent to a lot of non-photography people.  If you go looking for the impovements in shadows, background blur, higher ISOs etc, you will see them.  But while you wax lyrically about these improvements and how they make your photos better, your family and friends will stand there with glazed eyes and just say "yes...they are nice photos".  But it is nice using top quality gear and the 5D3 will excel in low light and indoors.

Both the 50 and 85 are great lenses.  Which one to go for might be easier to decide once you've worked out if you are sticking with the t3i.  A quick glance through some of you photos suggests some are taken with a 17-55?  That's a nice lens.  And it looks like you use it a lot at 55mm.  Do you regularly wish for a longer focal length?  If not and you like the 50mm focal range, then the 50mm with the t3i and 85 with the 5D3 would seem the way to go.  Just note that while these lenses will be great in low light and for portraits, neither is widely regarded as a sports lens.  But that's ok - another excuse to go shopping....

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 51