March 04, 2015, 11:05:30 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 - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 23
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:31:46 PM »
the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?

It will appeal to sports / wildlife also, based on the specs.

I still recall a comment made by Thom Hogan and others. If you can't take a decent shot with the current cameras available from Canon and Nikon, then it's not the camera at fault. It seems that a lot of people are expecting huge changes for a camera with a designated target market that does not require those things.

It won't need huge DR, as has been discussed elsewhere. And even if the sensor does not improve order of magnitude, will it not still take good pictures and therefore sell? Why has the 7D sold so well, and what in the MK II will not re-enforce it?

Canon does not let customers talk with their technicians, so that is no surprise.  The tech should have got your note though, something is wrong.

They do in the UK - I always get to talk to the technicians. I've even had a long discussion in their reception where there was definitely an incompatibility between the 600 MK II I had purchased (from Canada) and the 1DX - it never focused correctly at infinity but CPS could not find a problem. v2.0.3 of the firmware fixed it.

I agree with the advice to write to them formally, and I would be interested to hear if / how they reply.

For me, sharing experiences like this, especially using Focal to check lenses, is what makes Canon Rumors useful. I'm sorry for your problems, R1-7D, thank you for posting.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:44:59 AM »
March 2012 the MK III shipped, so Q1 next year is definitely a possibility unless Canon want to grab the Xmas sales. I'd doubt they would go out of stock however in August unless there's a lot to clear...

If the sensor is that much better on the 7D MK II, eclipsing the MK III and 1DX, then I can see launches in the first half of next year. Bearing in mind how much money Canon make from the MK III and the rumoured release of a new FF nikon at Photokina which I think will directly compete with the MK III (not like the D810), then I think Canon releasing a replacement in 2015 is not so far fetched....

Photography Technique / Re: 46 Photography eBooks You Can Have for Free
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:38:30 AM »
Thanks for posting, just grabbing some of them now. I definitely know Darwin Wiggett so I'm sure there'll be some good reads. Thank you

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 03:56:27 PM »
I expect to try the TP Link TL-MR3040 soon to see how it compares. Only $40.
This is what I use on my 60D.  Works great.  The DSLR Controller app is better than Canon's app and the range on the TP Link is excellent.  I get 30 or so feet -- maybe a bit more -- depending on the environment.  For the money, it can't be beat.

I'm hoping the IQ will significantly increase over what APS-C has to offer now.  If not, I may save my money for a full-frame.
Hi, could you tell me more about how this works please? USB connection from Camera
to TPLink then via the LAN to a Tablet running DSLR Controller?

I am using DSLR Controller from my Tablet direct USB to my 5D, and have played with DSLR Controller
on my smartphone viw WIFI to the Tablet and then USB to the Camera.

Cheers Brain

See this link

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:47:53 AM »
what has wifi to do with higher megapixels and framerate?

give it 802.11ac.  :)

If WiFi means polycarbonate top plate like 6D, they probably sacrificed it for the sake of ultimate build. Also, if you would ever need WiFi, you can always buy Canon WiFi module (for extraorbitant price that is :P).

yes.. but that has nothing to do with MP and framerate as i wrote. ;)

No it only does indirectly. Pro body and therefore Pro spec in terms of MP and frame rate. Downside of pro spec (other than price)? No build in wifi...

Reviews / Re: Pentax 645z Review
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:54:18 AM »

Here's the first proper review (I've seen) of the "affordable" Medium Format camera.

They like it, and so do I...
Luminous Landscape has also reviewed it and offer a different conclusion. You have to take into account that Michael Reichmann used to use medium format but based on his age (gear weight) and the increase in quality from high MP dslr and mirror less, then he questions whether medium format has the compelling advantage it used to enjoy.

That being said, Michael still uses a phase one I believe, but less than he used to.

Ultimately it depends on what you want to use it for and where. Certainly the Pentax makes the best bridge in functionality between dslr and MF,  and if money were no object then a MF camera plus lenses would indeed be appealing. Alas I don't make money from my photography, so the £12k I figure it would cost for a body and lenses would be a large investment and for me I think a high MP dslr (Canon preferred) or as an interim maybe a Sony (still put off by lossy compression on their raw files but at least I can use Canon glass) will be a better and cheaper investment.

Either way, Pentax encroaching on 1D / D4s territory is good for us. Be interested to see if Sony are allowed to launch their own medium format into the market - I figure that would undercut Pentax by a couple of grand....

only 3, not fair  ;D ;D

1. Orbit the earth
2. Submersilble like James Cameron to the ocean depths, but not as claustrophobically small  :P
3. One Way Trip to Mars ? Ok, Amazon Rain Forest

If this list were longer.... I'd add the poles, trip over Alaska by plane (remote regions), Orcas in Alaska, Great White in South Africa, Northern Lights (anywhere!), Brazil, Spitsbergen (polar bears), S. Argentina, Bolivian Salt Flats, Yellowstone, Yosemite and Tetons in Winter, Galapagos, Peru, Japan in winter, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, India (tigers), Bhutan, Tibet, Lapland, Ice Hotel, Husky Driving to remote Scandanavia, Ngorogoro crater, Borneo, New Zealand (N&S Islands), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Great Barrier Reef, Myanmar, Iceland (summer & winter), Lotofen Islands (winter), Northern Norway (winter), Norwegian Fjords, Australian outback, Petra/Jordan, Holy Land/Israel, Poland, Moscow/Russia, Lithuania, Siberia, temples in Iran/Iraq, Eastern Turkey, Southern Italy, Dolomites, Tallin/Estonia, Budapest, Silk Road, East Java, Malaysia, S.Ireland, Hebrides, Costa Rica, Kgalagadi Park S.Africa, Botswana (okavanga delta), Egypt (pyramids), Rwanda (Gorillas), Chimps in Tanzania, Sardine Run in S. Africa, Venice, Vienna, St Petersburg, Mongolia, Iguazu Falls, Madagascar, South Korea, Lisbon, Sri Lanka.

Canon General / Re: Carry on restrictions on South African Airways
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:32:23 PM »
Sir, not you!  As I followed your questions and reasoning you made it clear you wonted to follow the airlines regs.

The ones with all the other suggestions and ideas!  As far as I can see nobody questioned the consequences for any other passenger due to their suggestions and ideas. 

I still claim, if you have to much carryon, stow your stuff under the seat in front of you.  I seriously want to be able to stow my single carryon in the overhead compartment.
I would be happy to pay a sensible excess for bringing on my camera equipment as hand luggage but the reality is that the airlines do not offer any viable solution. Putting expensive kit into the hold is not a solution as discussed. Where possible I fly BA, AA and those airlines who have a sensible hand luggage policy (1 bag, if you can lift it and it meets the size limits, we're fine). Alas those airlines don't fly everywhere so I use alternatives.

In terms of overhead locker use - I've clearly flown on different flights to you where people shove suitcases in the overhead lockers along with coats, duty free goods etc. my laptop sits with me during flights and I put my camera bag in the overhead. It complies with size regulation. I would happily put it under the seat except the standard seat dimensions cannot accommodate such hand luggage...

Canon General / Re: Carry on restrictions on South African Airways
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:35:17 PM »
One practical suggestion is to wear a vest with several large (and empty) pockets. If your bag is overweight, slip a lens or two into the vest. Airlines do not care how much YOU weigh.

I've used the same technique with Air Namibia and SAA, and indeed other airlines, but to be honest I've never needed them, even with a LowePro Photo Trekker. If you're comfortable, even wearing the slr till you get on the plane and then placing it back in the bag... I've put batteries in pockets or coats, hand held the coat or indeed used a photographers vest. To date, the only issue I ever had was an internal Zambia flight in a tiny 20 seater plane. The bag would not fit in an overhead nor under the seat, so it went in captains luggage :)

When I did a flight over the dunes in Namibia, I shot mostly with the 24-70 but that was based on the landscape. I was lucky to have a second body and had a 70-300 but that's a lot more difficult to get good shots based on speed of flight, jerkiness of ride etc.

For a couple of helicopter flights (Vic falls and rockies in Canada), I used the 16-35 and 70-200 (single body), so I swapped lenses during the flight...

It does depend on your style of photography, but if I could only have 1 lens it out of your list it would be the 24-70.

Few other tips

  • Be sure to use Tv or auto-iso, as you need to have approx. 1/1000th of a second speed to ensure you don't blur the shots (of course this depends on what direction you are shooting in relative to the plane).
  • As mentioned - windows cleanliness and reflection, again of course watching out for the sun as well (glare).
  • Check out the plane before and decide the best seating position - normally at the back or at the front, otherwise you will get the wings in a lot of shots
  • Scout out the location before and see if there are particular areas - maybe even use google maps to give you the birds-eye view for planning if you can influence the pilot.

Photography Technique / Re: Getting photos home from overseas
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:45:03 AM »
if you want to avoid your laptop, you could consider a pair of hyperdrives for copying from your memory cards to the sata drives. I've not used the latest generation, but have used them where a laptop is not practical.

I'm not clear however on why you want to get the data home each day if you have 2 copies with you? Are you concerned over theft or something?

And is the use of cloud storage a no-no based on access to wifi during your trip or concerns over security?

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 04:52:19 PM »
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.  I'm looking forward to Christmas too.  The only difference is I know Christmas is coming.....this year.
;D ;D ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 02:32:24 AM »

Re A7R -

Scroll down to "How do they Perform?"

I believe that only applies to their 11-bit "RAW" encoding. That would be something akin to Canon's sRAW and mRAW, not necessarily in encoding, but in lossyness. Neither are actually RAW files, they encode data in a specific way. In Canon's case, the m/sRAW formats are YCb'Cr' formats, or Luminance + Chrominance Blue-Yellow + Chrominance Red-Green. The Y or Luminance channels is stored full resolution, however the Cb and Cr channels are stored "sparse". In Canon's case, all of the stored values are still 14-bit precision, but they do store lower chrominance data. Canon's images would be superior to Sony's, in both that they store more information in total, as well as with a greater bit depth...however both will suffer from the same limitation: The information is not actually RAW, which severely limits your editing latitude.

Generally speaking, the fact that these formats store lower resolution color information doesn't matter all that much. Because of the way our brains process information, if done carefully, a lower resolution chrominance is "missed" in favor of a higher level of detail. YCbCr formats have been around for a long time, since the dawn of color TV even. The Luminance channel was extracted and sent in full detail, while the blue/yellow and red/green channels were sent separately, in a more highly compressed format. This actually allowed color information to be piggybacked on the same signal that "black and white" TV channels were sent on, making it possible for B&W TVs to pick up the same signal as Color TVs.

If you have paid any attention to Canon's video features, you've already heard of similar video compression techniques. You may have heard of 4:1:1, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. Those numbers refer to the Y, Cb, and Cr channel encoding. A 4:1:1 encoding has full luminance and 1/4 Cb & Cr channels. A 4:2:2 encoding has full luminance and 1/2 Cb and Cr channels.  As you might expect, a 4:4:4 encoding use the same sampling rate for all three channels, and is effectively "full resolution". A standard RAW image is also technically a 4:4:4 R'G'B' image.

Jrista - did not appreciate that for mRaw/sRaw so thank you. My understanding on Sony is however, that their 11 bit RAW is their standard raw. I'm not sure if you read the whole article, but Tom is talking about deficiencies as a result, and he's comparing it to the D800. There's a further link embedded

which I believe confirms that they do the same on all their RAW encoding.

Don't get me wrong, I think many people would not notice it or can work around it - Fred Miranda has been positive in his review and he's a canon user - in fact I think there's a whole forum on his site discussing it in detail. To me it just seems somewhat self-defeating - you have a sensor with better DR than your competitors but you then impair the output with your compression scheme which "fails" when you have scene with higher DR.

Maybe I misinterpreted the information...

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2014, 06:52:15 PM »
Glancing at his gear wish list, it looks like he's more into action than astro. An A7R is 2500 less in the budget (camera + EF adapter). Personally I would love one for portrait and landscape work, but I can not justify the expense. I suspect I'd get more use from that tamron 150-600 and a new tripod.

So, while I'd like an A7r for my landscape photography, it is actually one of the worst possible choices for astrophotography. I do landscapes sometimes, wildlife and birds most of the time, and astrophotography every time there is a clear night.

I was looking at the A7R with adapter for landscapes, but then I read on Thom Hogan's site that Sony uses lossy compression on their RAWs (unless I misread him), and you can't switch it off!

Why would they do that?   :( :(

On that basis, it may have amazing DR but then it surely will just smudge out some of the detail for err, actually I'm not sure for what benefit...

Hmm, I hadn't heard of that. If they do, it's foolish, and you really no longer have a RAW image. I am a bit skeptical of doesn't seem logical, but who knows.

Had a look at that astro link - it's a whole new language there  :) If I understood correctly, then it's a 2000mm lens? And optically is it better than your 600mm lens with a 1.4x and 2.x attached? Just curious as to the benefits. Thanks.

Reflecting light tends to produce superior spots at the sensor plane in comparison to refracting light. Reflecting light can warp star diffraction spots due to coma and astigmatism, but that's about it. Refracting light, on the other hand, suffers from all forms of optical aberrations...which also includes chromatic aberrations, spherical aberration, etc. The RC, or Ritchey-Chretien, telescope design is one of the more superior designs. It's the same design used in all the major earth-bound telescopes...the huge ones, up to 10 meters in size. It tends to produce superior results, although it does suffer from some coma and astigmatism in the corners.

There is a better telescope design than even the RC, called a CDK or Corrected Dall-Kirkham. The CDK uses a mirror and built in corrector to get one of the best spot shapes, center to corner, of any telescope design I've ever seen. PlaneWave makes CDK scopes, but they are pretty pricey. From what I've read and seen, a CDK is about the best telescope design in the world today.

As good as my lens is, and it is very good with a very flat field corner to corner, it is no RC and certainly no CDK. If I throw on teleconverters, that gets me more focal length (which is not necessarily the best thing...a LOT of nebula are even larger than I can fit in my field with the 600mm, let alone a 2000mm scope), but  it also increases the optical aberrations. For galaxies, clusters, and getting close up on parts of nebula, a longer, better scope like the Astro-Tech 10" RC is better. The larger aperture, ten inches vs. six inches, also means I can resolve smaller magnitude stars, galaxies, and other details. Most scopes work with focal reducers, so while it is 2000mm natively, I can use a 0.63x reducer to make it an f/5 1260mm telescope. That is relatively fast with a moderately wide field. For planetary work, I can also throw on a 2x or 3x barlow lens, and get a 400mm f/16 or 6000mm f/24 scope, which is much better for planetary imaging (f-ratio doesn't usually matter for planetary, as you image planets by taking videos with thousands of frames for anywhere from a couple minutes to as long as a half hour...then filter, register, and stack the best frames of the video, which is basically performing a superresolution integration...that eliminates blurring from seeing, and effectively allows you to image well beyond the diffraction limit.)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

Re A7R -

Scroll down to "How do they Perform?"

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 23