November 22, 2014, 06:56:03 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13
Reviews / Re: Review - PocketWizard PlusX
« on: November 13, 2013, 01:23:32 PM »
I use PWs exclusively for their reliability.

The only thing that I am unhappy with is the lack of a metal foot. I like the locking feature but even with care the feet break occasionally. The Yongnuo triggers do have metal feet but no lock so are not what I want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: November 11, 2013, 08:52:00 PM »
as from a technical standpoint I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one. Personally, I am hoping the classic slap-happy, noisy DSLR lasts for another 50 years...after which point I'll probably be dead, and will no longer care.  :P ;D
I agree that for the applications you cite an EVF would not be the solution. However I think that we are not likely to see the abandonment of EVFs but rather further improvement.
Perfection is not really necessary to be able to achieve 98% of what a photographer needs to know before pressing the shutter.
I have been photographing a series of jobs over the last week where I dearly would have loved to pre-chimp my shots.
I was in a variety of fast moving situations with varying light brightness and color temp that necessitated rapid shooting and chimping to ensure that the exposure was ok.For the most part I was doing well but I would have realized a whole lot less PP had I gotten closer in camera.

I acknowledge the shortcomings but like RF finders, EVFs have their uses.

Lenses / Re: The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...
« on: November 09, 2013, 01:26:50 PM »
Another vote for the 24-105.

I am often at the 105 length. I am also often in low light situations shooting candid groups.
I used to think that f4 was a real drawback but I found that even at f4 the DOF was insufficient for good images of multiple subjects.

F 2.8 would help with focus and image isolation but as that is not the goal of my work I can pass on it.
Available darkness needs high ISO and a still camera.

I do a lot hand held but I also use it on a tripod where I get extremely sharp results.
I am happy about the price drops as it allows me to get a great price on a backup of this critical tool.

Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: November 05, 2013, 03:18:21 PM »
Got it today.
A few quick tests in the studio reveal that my copy is plenty sharp but the real challenge is accurate focus.
Ironically using Live View on a camera stand was not a sharp as guessing at the focus while hand held.

Also, I noticed that the exposure through LV is not at all accurate even though the camera is set to exposure simulation.

Small bother as I plan on being on the tripod anyway.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 11:59:17 AM »
While the camera really seems to annoy some here, I am sure it will attract a fair amount of interest but the price may put off a few.
The real issue here is Nikon is trying to cash in on the retro craze that is not just limited to cameras. They just may be overplaying their hand and hoping to collect the funds of hobbyists they hear on the internet bemoaning the loss of simplicity and directness of old style SLRs.
Sadly, they were not listening to their comments indicating how cheap they were.

Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: November 03, 2013, 08:16:22 PM »
Just ordered one this morning. I notice the price walks around a bit but I was happy to get it for $339.
I had thought about the Canon 14 but the performance is underwhelming for the money.
I am planning on using for architecture. (Yeah, I head all the criticism about the distortion). I am not too worried about that and if it happens o fall short on that it should sit be great for landscape.


HDD are generally pretty difficult to kill with magnets. You need it either seriously close (in contact with the disk, in which case it's dead from the scraping anyway) or seriously powerful. There's a reason de-gaussers that will kill a HDD are floor/desk standing.

You mean that Walt and Jesse's magnet idea in "Breaking Bad" wouldn't work? It was on TV it must be true. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:06:20 PM »

Sony's SLT is very different from the Canon film pellicle mirror cameras.

Canon had a semi-translucent mirror to direct half the light to a viewfinder, and the other half to the film - the upshot is no mirror slap, so higher frame rates are possible and also a more stable camera, and also no viewfinder blackout. The downsides are a darker viewfinder and less light hitting the film.

Sony use the same type of mirror to redirect half the light to a dedicated AF chip, and the other half to the sensor - there is no OVF. So its basically a mirrorless camera in a big body and only half the light sensitivity it should have. A mirrorless camera with on-chip PDAF is much more sensible if you're going to dispense with the OVF - which is precisely what the A7 and A7r are all about.

This new Canon patent is almost a digital version of the film based Canon pellicle mirrored cameras, but with one major difference - the mirror has variable reflectance/transmission. If it could approach 100% reflection while composing, you've got pretty much a conventional bright viewfinder, and if it could electronically switch almost instantly to almost 100% transmission, pretty much all the light can hit the sensor for the shot.

Much higher frame rates, much shorter shutter lag, and no vibration due to mirror slap could be on the cards.

IIRC Sony claims only a 1/3 stop of light lost by the mirror. Apparently only a enough light to work the PDAF. The bigger issue for some was the ghosting and random artifacts that occur in some lighting situations.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images
« on: October 31, 2013, 08:27:47 PM »
Maybe its harder to make a 24-105 than it looks. ;)

Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 31, 2013, 01:00:45 AM »
Ever since English has been spoken and written people have been complaining about its misuse.
I used to be one of those people but I yield to the understanding that it WILL change whether I like it or not.

Just think how much it has changed since Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address. The people of that day would be both amazed and despairing of how the language had changed. Not to mention being astonished that we wasted time taking pictures of our food and our cats.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 11:09:09 AM »

It's niche in term of how many cameras Canon will sell, and how much profit Canon will make from it.

Absolutely correct. Canon has a huge line that has a ton of sales volume.
Canon got sidetracked in the MP race a while ago precisely because the were responding to their customer demands for better video and low light performance. Nikon continued chasing the MP numbers because they did not sense a cost -effective battle in the video arena.

The manufacturers only chase so many rabbits.

Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 21, 2013, 04:49:45 PM »
As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).

True.  Also, the wider the aperture, the more issues there are with the oblique light angles not being collected by the microlenses, and that issue worsens as the pixel pitch gets smaller.  Current cameras lose up to a full stop of light int he f/1.2-f/1.4 range, and some cameras clandestinely boost the ISO of fast primes by up to half a stop to compensate.

I will add that this is precisely the argument Olympus used in the development of the 4/3 system. They argued that by creating a lens system tailored to the unique properties of a sensor that IQ could be maximized. Thus the 4/3 lenses were not too much smaller that we may have been led to believe.
I also suspect that a number of FE lenses may be old formulas in new barrels to save time and money in getting lenses to market.

Technical Support / Re: 5D Mark 3 Fail?
« on: October 21, 2013, 04:44:19 PM »
Thanks for posting this.
I will look into this ASAP as I have noticed a few odd quirks in my flash exposures but have been too busy with the event to track it down.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7 or A7R pre-order list
« on: October 18, 2013, 01:02:51 AM »
short register distance with class-leading FF sensor = nice compact back for whatever you want to put in front of it.  Smart thinking Sony!
This could be the sort of modular imaging tool that appeals to gear/tech geeks in a big way.  And the price point is practical enough.
I'm mildly excited by this product, it's really cool!  And useful for more than typical photo-video applications... microscopy for example.. astrophotography?

No pre-order for me, but I'll definitely keep it in mind for some goofy project to justify getting one.

How about a Rhino-cam?

Distortion may drive you crazy but I have no problems with it as LR corrects for it automatically.

I use the 100 macro in the studio along with the 85 1.8. Both are razor sharp for portrait /fashion.
I also use the 70-200 2.8L v1 and it is also super sharp.

The zoom has tremendous versatility (and weight) and has only a slight disadvantage in ultimate sharpness compared to the primes. The contrast is lower especially wide open. but a little bump in post solves the problem.

The most cost-effective mix IMO would be the 70-200 2.9LII and a Sigma 50.
This would not overlap FL. If you need the macro get the 100L as it also works well as a portrait lens.

The 135 f2 is supposed to be legendarily sharp but if you are not using it wide open all the time you are carrying a lot of weight and expense without any real benefit.

You say you want to get MF setup? If you are having trouble affording the Canon lenses you are going to be in tears trying to buy MF gear unless it is used film equipment and then you will be in tears finding processing and scanning to fit your budget and meet your quality demands.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13