October 22, 2014, 02:34:27 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 - RickSpringfield

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Confusion about Macro Photography
« on: April 16, 2013, 08:40:02 AM »
Why is it that Macro Photography is all about taking a picture of something which is amazingly small and Macro Economics is about large scale hugemongous economies.  Shouldn't Macro Photography mean that you are taking gigantic pano's in Dubai?

Very confusing!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 07, 2013, 09:42:16 PM »
I'm hoping for a new 1D something or other so that the price of the 1DX gets cut in half :)

Hilarious stuff, I love Canon Rumours, great way to finish off the day down here in Asia Land, having a good laugh. it would be even more Hilarious to find out that the chap that started this Post, uses a D800 or a D4, or a Box Brownie.

No such luck ... I shoot Canon :)

The first thing your 'casual observer' would notice is the 2x higher price of the 1D X, and then assume (correctly) that the 1D X is the superior camera.  But how relevant is that?  Is your average 'casual observer' going to plunk down $7K, or even $3K, on a camera?  Generally, such a decision involves some research. Such research might turn up a list like this:
Quote from: TDP

I think what's hard to grasp is why the 5D&6D have a bigger sensor than a 1DX; and the 7D is faster than a 5D; and the 6D has more connectivity features than a 5D or 1DX.

Maybe its just my quirky way of thinking ... but it would make more sense to me if the 7D was as it is today; the 6D (yes FPS too) was the 7D + FF sensor and connectivity; the 5D was the 6D + better/bigger sensor and low light; 1DX was the 5D + grip, processors, better sensor, FPS etc.

And of course those aren't all the bells and whistles that you could improve from one to the next, but you get the idea.  You start with a model and each model gets all the features of the prior + better stuff.

Thats what I meant by casual observer ... because to me you just sorta expect a natural flow.  I'm certain that isn't unique to Canon or really camera's at all and lots of brands dont exactly stair step up the line.

This post is what I would call "a pointless exercise in futility"...

Easy Grumpy. Smile, it's Easter :)

Clearly, clearly, clearly, and well documented, the 1DX has the best sensor Canon offers.  It doesn't have the highest resolution, but it has the best performing sensor.

I think what is confusing is that a casual observer could not pick out the best Canon on stats alone.  I mean, if I were at the local electronics mega dealer and a 5D3 were sitting there boasting more mega pixels and a lower price and hyping its low lights capability and the only sacrifice was clicks per second ...... why would I spend double that?  I mean I know from reading here and other places the image quality is outstanding on a 1DX.  You can see that by what is posted.  But on paper it seems like the 1DX loses to the 5D3 except for an extra processor to get the FPS up.

***Is the 1DX really the Flagship Stills Camera?***

I ask this question because, as I sit here typing, I am thinking ... is there a camera which is uncompromising in image quality, features, and performance?  When I read in the forums and search online I find TONS of critisizm about Canon bodies, Canon lenses, and the company.  Yet, I have Canon, I've always had Canon.  Ever since Andre Agessi said I should.

So, I throw this question out there.  Does Canon make a body that is just flat out great?  IQ is NASA good?  Features like Voltron.  Performs like a river dancer?  I ask because it seems like every body has some level of compromise.  I mean if I look at every option (except for sensor) just on paper, their lineup should go 1DX, 7D, 5D3, 6D.  But if I look just at sensor it seems like it should be 5D3, 6D, 1Dx, 7D.  If I look at build then 1DX, 5D3, 7D, (everything else).

There just doesnt seem to be one camera in Canon's lineup which is 'The Best Camera Ever'.

Maybe that is the point, because ambiguity = moola for Canon. 

Agessi said the Rebel was best.  Then his hair fell out.  Karma???

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: White residue on 1DX top dial?
« on: March 30, 2013, 09:07:53 AM »
My 1DX is exhibiting some sort of white residue buildup on the top dial, but it stays clean on the ridges where I touch it the most.

Perhaps its the same thing that happened with the T4i's:
Phenomenon The front rubber grips of some EOS REBEL T4i units produced in certain lots between May 31st through June 27th, 2012 may turn white after a short period of time. We have determined after inquiry with the rubber manufacturer and analysis, that the white substance is zinc bis (N,N’-dimethyldithiocarbamate).

Hit up the link below for full disclosure:

Sensor area is the only fair comparison for sharpness and detail, MP are a comparative distraction and causes so much confusion.

Confusion ........... CHECK!

I have a question for you though because you seem wicked technical, but I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to dumb down the answer for me as much as possible.

I used to have a Canon ELPH 230 or 320 or something.  Its been a while but this was years ago.  When I would download images from this into Photoshop and looked at the 'Image Size' or 'File Info' it would say like 180px per inch or something like that.  Where as now it seems everything is 72ppi.  Is this kinda what you are talking about.  Was that a better camera than my DSLR strictly in terms of pixels or something?

Thats a concept that has boggled me.  I wonder if that is why my images arent tack sharp.  Maybe it was just easier to get crispy pics before with the little camera because of the pixels?  Anyway ... hoping you can shed some light on the subject.

This is unsharpened OOC from a camera with no AA filter over the sensor, and two 100% crops from different areas of the photo. My two-week-old baby girl and my 100-year-old camera :D  she's such a good helper.

I have to know ... what camera?

What was your AF point in this image (if you used AF)?

It was the face of the plier part.  I used AI Focus, and I didnt use the Live 10x for everyshot I took but I did try a few times to do that.  Hard to recompose when I did that tho.

Ok, here is another go.  This time taking into account some recommendations from the crew here:

200 Shutter
100 ISO
10 Second Timer (not cable release)
Canon 430ex II through a diffusion umbrella positioned 3.5' away at a 45 degree angle high right at 2 o clock

not hard with a good FF and good glass
- Amazing shot.

This is what I am chasing.  I watch the KelbyTraining stuff and see these photos they have on their card after a shoot and my jaw hits the floor.  I mean, comparing just sharpness to sharpness its night and day different.

Is it the Full Frame?  I mean is that the real key here?  If you spend 5k you get an amazing image, but if you spend 2k you get really good, but not amazing?

This was shot handheld with a G10 P&S, but I used flash to give me some contrast. Look at the light, your image has very low contrast.
  - Now I am totally DEPRESSED!

So, lets see if I get this right.  Try my test again.  Use a Flash, Use F8 and a High Shutter like 1/500 and lock it off on the tripod and it should be amazing by comparison.

Is there anything in camera I should be doing?  Because of video when I shoot Jpeg I shoot typically ProLost settings.  But I can use a different Pic profile or maybe just neutral.  I would think neutral would be good if the image was truly sharp.

Here is an example of what I am talking about.  I took this the other day and you can see its not tack sharp.  Yet it was locked off, continuous light but good light, and the 24-105.  So, I am fuzzy on how this looks so fuzzy.  To me it just looks softer than it should.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Chasing Tack Sharp ... Just can't get there
« on: March 20, 2013, 09:32:05 AM »
So, a friend and I have been on this quest to shoot a photo like we have seen online countless times or in video training etc.  Its where you take a picture of a person and even when you zoom into it at 200% the clarity of the image and sharpness is just off the charts.

We have tried everything to replicate this level of sharpness and just cant.  Locked off on tripods, cable release, etc. Its just not working.

Are we expecting too much out of our gear?  We are both rocking Canon APS-C (7D, 60D) with good glass 100mm F2, 50 1.4, Zeiss 35mm F2, 25-105 F4.  It just feels like we are missing something somewhere because our expectations are to take pictures like scott kelby or joel grimes or someone where the sharpness even zoomed in is amazing without a bunch of post processing.


Check out my Flickr page if you'd like to see some shots taken during my trip to Disney World.

Holy Toledo!  Those are the shots I want when I go!

Ok folks ... new question.  Should I buy a FF before I go if I want these or is it all about the glass and the talent?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5