July 31, 2014, 11:58:33 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 39
181
EOS Bodies / Re: Change from T3i to 70d, or invest in a new lens?
« on: December 24, 2013, 04:06:48 AM »
If your just shooting with kit lenses on a rebel, I would really recommend going for a Sony RX10.  If your traveling around a lot, it's perfect!  No need to change lenses and a constant F/2.8 lens.

Constant f2.8, yes, but due to it's smaller sensor it's not better in low light or DoF options than an f3.5-5.6 lens on APS-C throughout the zoom range. Take a look at this comparison to the 18-135 lens from dpreview:

182
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
« on: December 22, 2013, 03:53:44 PM »
I had a play with one of these on a 5D3 the other day, and came to the conclusion that it's the same focal length at both ends.


What do I mean?


Well, I looked at the edges when it was at 8mm and in fish-eye mode, and then while at 15mm and the same area was covered i.e. a table was at the edge of the frame regardless.




Nice lens, but the fish-eye end just seems a bit of a gimmick.
8mm and 15mm are quite different focal lengths. However, it provides the same 180' FoV at all zoom settings - when measured corner to corner. Left to right, at 15mm it's a little shy of 180', and top to bottom it's a long way short of 180'. At 8mm you get 180' in every angle. This is the result of zooming that circular projection up to fill the rectangular frame - something has to be missing.

If you don't need all 180' in every direction (such as pointed directly up to get an interesting sky with the horizon all the way around the edge of the projection), then you'd just as we'll zoom in until the sensor is fully covered.

183
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« on: December 22, 2013, 02:51:43 PM »
Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.

Even if all the video crap in DSLSr would really be "for free" (which it is not) I still would like to have a choice. And no, I am not interested in agrossly overpriced, useless UI retro Nikon DSLR (Df) but much more so in a a 5D IVs ... "video-free" in a Sony A7 sized body. :-)
I'm trying to think of anything that goes into making a good video DSLR that makes it either more expensive or inferior as a stills camera compared to a stills only model.

From a hardware point of view, things are different. It's bought us sensors which can run for longer before they overheat; this is good for long exposures too. It's come hand in hand with live view; this is great for landscape and macro. It's bought us live view AF and flip out screens; ok, not much use for me in stills, but grabbing overhead shots are now more likely to work out. It's bought some manufacturers (and Canon with ML) peaking; great again for landscape and macro. And it's also bought us in some cases (5D3, but not 6D, 1D X or 70D) sensors which offer perfect down sampling to video resolutions; for photography, the 5D3's sensor is a big step up over the 5D2, even if some people are jealous of the D800's resolution or it's DR. It's bought us STM lenses; no match for USM, but a step up over the buzzy micro motors. A hybrid EVF could assist with photography if manual focusing, and for checking exposure/DR.

Software costs money to develop. But once developed, it's essentially free to manufacture. So while including video increases the development costs of the software, the additional sales it generates potentially lowers the cost of the camera.

Additional video tax is avoided by crippling the video recording time to under 30 minutes.

So are photographers really held back by video enabled DSLR's?

edit: It's also helping drive forward the data throughput of sensors, camera processing and storage; all of this development done partly by Canon and partly by other companies (ARM, SanDisk etc) gives more headroom for the MP/FPS compromise on top end stills cameras.

184
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2013, 01:36:25 PM »
So it would be a mirrorless camera?
Hybrid viewfinder.  To me that means switchable between electronic and optical. Optical can be either a rangefinder style or SLR style.

I'd guess it's a DSLR.

185
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3: is shutter dying?
« on: December 20, 2013, 01:46:40 PM »
This is a common problem when using fast shutter speeds under fluorescent lighting. You are using. Shutter speed that is higher than the cycle time for fluorescent lighting which is probably resulting in the odd color casts. Drop down to below 1/60 sec and you should be just fine.
+1.  This is the exact problem.  The solution is to use 1/60th or slower, or use flash as your main light source.  Or convert to black & white.
If you have to use a fast shutter speed under such lighting, or you have photos you've already taken but have to recover, there is another solution: the white balance will be out from the top of the frame to the bottom (side to side in portrait). Set the WB correct in post for one side, and then apply a graduated filter with adjustments needed for the other WB. With a bit of trial and error (and combining it with possible exposure compensation) it can produce results which are spot on.

ps - this usually first becomes a problem not at the shutter speed to match the frequency of the lights, but at a shutter speed beyond the flash sync speed - at such shutter speeds, the first curtain is still moving when the second curtain is on its way, so you get a slit of light moving down the sensor. If by chance during that time the colour temperature changes from the light source, it'll show up. Slow down the shutter speed so the entire sensor is exposed as one, and the problem will be almost completely gone no matter what happens with the light source.

186
Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 19, 2013, 06:26:54 PM »
If you're talking about low light pictures of non-moving subjects, IS as found on the 18-55 STM and the 15-85 will give you more low ISO options than the larger f/2.8 aperture of the 40 shorty. However, if you're planning on taking low light photos of moving subjects, aperture size is everything. However, as weight is a major factor here, bumping up the ISO weighs less than hauling around a second lens.

If it was me, I'd be tempted to treat a shorter zoom range lens as a reason for doing extra exercise in getting myself to the perfect position as opposed to just zooming with an 18-270 from wherever I happen to be.

I'd partner the SL1 with an 18-55 STM.

187
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:20:21 PM »
This could be a great replacement for my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 now that I'm on full frame.

I was about mention the Tokina, it only has 5mm of zoom so 4mm isn't completely insane. The f2 is though, and in a great way  ;D
Its all about the zoom ratio, not the zoom difference in mm. A 200-400 lens spans a 200mm zoom range, yet its only a 2x zoom. Compare that to a 24-105; 81mm zoom range, yet it's 4.4x.

The Tokina 11-16 has a 1.45x zoom range, compared to a more conventional 10-22 or 16-35 at 2.2x. This rumoured Sigma has about half the Tokina's zoom range at 1.25x, which can't provide a dramatic framing difference however you look at it.

188
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 11:05:18 AM »
Really?

I put this one down as either misinterpreted info, or wishful thinking. All previous fast zooms have not outdone primes in terms of max aperture in their equivalent range. Take 24-70/2.8's or 70-200/2.8's - plenty of faster primes covering those ranges.

The 18-35/1.8 from Sigma is a crop camera lens, covering an equivalent of 29-56/2.9 on full frame - direct equivalents are the FF 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses, which outdo it. Nothing fast exists around the 18mm mark, so it is very impressive for crop. But when compared to a FF system, just like a 24-70/2.8, its nothing special compared to FF/fast primes.

How is it possible to make a lens a whole stop faster than any prime in its range, and also make it a zoom? I know its a limited range zoom, but really?

189
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 18, 2013, 07:17:55 PM »
Manila Bay. The pollution creates vivid sunset colours, and also really dims the sun when it's on the horizon to be much dimmer than the sky above - hence the lack of reflection.

190
Software & Accessories / Re: My New and Improve GIOTTOS Blower-for sefety
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:35:03 PM »
It's more than just the good folk here at CR who find your posts interesting:

http://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/photographer-blower-confiscated-tsa-fly-like-missile/#more-127270

191
EOS Bodies / Re: Do you have a 4K display?
« on: December 18, 2013, 08:08:28 AM »
If I were to get married today I would insist on my ceremony being recorded in 4K resolution.

I am currently using a 3K resolution (2560x1440p) display to type this post and I look forward to picking up a 4K resolution display when computer displays drop below $1000. Ideally it be 31.5-inch or wider. The Sharp PN-K321 today sells for $3,299.

As for 4K UHDTVs I see myself picking one up when there is downloadable content is available in 4K or there is data storage format that supersedes 2K resolution Blu-ray Disc.

Another possible condition of my getting a 4K UHDTV is when Sony & Microsoft releases their "slim model" of the PS4 & Xbox One in say 4-6 years.

I am one of the few guys who arent really interested in getting a video console this soon. During the last video console wars I waited until the first price cut to get one. Reason being the 1st year of a video console's life the games tend to be half baked.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/02/24-inch-4k-display-from-dell-priced-at-1399-28-inch-4k-model-coming-at-under-1000/

192
Lenses / Re: Should I choose the 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:26:05 AM »
From what I know, the f4 IS version is a really great lens. If f4 is all you'll ever need (and f5.6 or f8 with a 1.4x and 2x TC), then it'll do for you.

However, the 2.8 IS version II is simply stunning. There are only two problems with it - it's price (only you know if you can afford it), and it's weight. I'd suggest finding one in a shop and use it for a bit to see if it's the sort of weight you could use.

Whenever I've got my camera with me, mine is either mounted to the body or in the bag. I wouldn't dream of going out shooting without it.

193
EOS Bodies / Re: In defence of the 100D
« on: December 16, 2013, 03:48:47 PM »
I've been going back and forth about a 2nd body to my 5DMkiii. A used 50D, used 600D etc. But I lean more and more towards the 100D. Small and handy and will be more than good enough. Another purpose for me would  be time lapse. I assume I can connect an intervalometer to it.
It has a standard E3 connector for a wired remote shutter release, so you have plenty of choices for intervalometers out there.

194
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 16, 2013, 09:47:00 AM »
Dear Canon:

With regard to 'development announcement's: Please Don't.

Take a note (as should the entire electronics industry) from Apple's playbook and aim for week-1 availability.

We're tired of hearing about nice things that we're not allowed to play with.

Thanks.
You're forgetting about the Mac Pro.

195
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 150-600mm Sample Images
« on: December 14, 2013, 01:47:00 PM »
These are the sample images from Tamron's site.

http://www.tamron.com.hk/A011/

I thought this one looked very good for a 600mm zoom.  Certainly much better than 400mm + TC.
http://www.tamron.com.hk/A011/Fukuda_14.tif


Just brought that image (TIF) into Lightroom and looked at it @ 100%.  It is stopped down a stop from wide open (f/9), but even so it looks pretty sharp.  Individual hairs are resolved quite well.  Even better, the transition zone looks good (and that was a real weakness for their 70-300 VC).

f6.3 to f9 is only one stop. Not much of a stop down, and its already getting pretty close to diffraction. Presuming wide open can't yield these results, there's not much room to maneuver while maintaining performance with this lens. Still, that shot does look impressive, but no clues as to how much PP was applied, or what lens was really used. Just look at Nokia's promotional material for examples of how not everything is as it seems:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos-also-include-fakes

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 39