August 28, 2014, 07:40:09 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 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 41
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: July 30, 2013, 11:18:15 AM »
For most of my commercial work, speed is of the essence. As a result I typically need to know the exposure is sorted out for me - composition and timing is far more important than having the satisfaction of knowing I tweaked every last little setting on the camera to technically pull it off.

When I need to control DoF (events such as weddings), I shoot Av, and tweak the ISO to suit to keep the shutter speed the right ball park as is needed. When I need to control shutter speed (such as sports), Tv. Same thing, keep an eye on aperture and tweak the ISO when needed. I also freely use exposure compensation to suit. Only when shooting with a flash do I use M.

To improve my speed and control, from time to time I would really like even more automation - the ability to use M, select the aperture and shutter speed for the task in hand, and have auto ISO with exposure compensation at the same time. That way when shooting action shots (or anything really), I can finely control DoF and motion blur, and know the exposure will be worked out for me, with my desired compensation dialled in. To make that work fast it would require three control dials, so the current Canon bodies couldn't handle it even with a firmware update...

If you want to use the same applications as you do on a PC, your only option is one that runs Windows — like the Microsoft Surface Pro. iPads, Android tablets like the Nexus 7 etc etc won't run Windows software.

Graphics, performance and RAM won't be of a concern on any modern Windows tablet unless you want to do full-blown Lightroom editing on them.
If you want to run native Windows 8 apps on a tablet, make sure you don't get a Windows RT tablet. Also Canon don't make a WiFi remote application for any version of Windows - you'll need iOS or Android for that.

Lenses / Re: Buy 50mm f1.2L now or wait for the II?
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:05:35 PM »
OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?
Focal length for portrait very much depends on how tight you want to crop - head and shoulders, upper body, or whole body. So your best bet is to experiment and find out what you're most happy with.

Your crop camera, 50 and 85 will give you a good idea of what an 85L and 135L's focal lengths are like on FF. (your 50 acts like an 80, and your 85 acts like a 136) - so try them out, and then bear in mind how long you'll be using the lens on your crop camera before buying a 5D3.

The 85 is a middle ground between the 50 and 135, so its probably best not to get all three - you'll probably not end up carrying all three around, and even if you did, you'll no doubt not use all three in one session.

If you want to go with a 24 and 50, the 135 could be best. If you're happy with just two primes, 35 and 85 could be the way to go.

EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 26, 2013, 05:24:02 PM »
I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.
If the lens on that list has USM, it says USM. The 100/2.8 Macro is listed as EF100mm f/2.8 Macro, with no USM mentioned. So it looks like its this 100mm macro which is not fully compatible:

The current non-L 100mm macro should be fine:

Quote from: Canon
All of Canon’s current range of EF and EF-S lenses are compatible with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF system.

It's expensive because of the combination of carbon fibre constuction and exceptionally high profit margins.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dpreview tested the 100D
« on: July 26, 2013, 05:57:19 AM »
I believe all the image quality advancements made from one version of DIGIC to the next only affect jpegs - raw should still be simply what comes off the sensor, unaltered. And while the sensor in the 100D has on-chip PDAF, it is largely the same 18MP sensor as found in the 60D/7D.

EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 25, 2013, 04:23:38 PM »
I'd have thought a full frame camera with a 'very high frame rate' would be a 1D X replacement. It's a bit early for that, and 75+MP at 12fps or so is a bigger jump in throughput than you'd expect from one generation to the next.

Unless very high frame rate means more than 3 FPS? 4 possibly?

Even it's foveon, the raw file will still contain every single one of those pixels, so were talking about the same amount of data as a 75+MP bayer sensor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - How much will it cost?
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:26:42 PM »
describe the 7dmk2 please, so we know what we are talking about and price
Faster, stronger, and enough DR to make you hang out in Nikon forums mentioning DR every time someone posts about anything.

Or to put it another way, no-one knows. Its all speculation at this point. But I'm hoping for the DR bit, if for no reason other than a bit less shadow noise in this forum.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 25, 2013, 06:19:54 AM »
I don't think that the 70D will be far better than the 60D. The better Chiptechnology will loose a lot of it's capabilities to the fact that the resolution is higher and the pixels are even smaller because the PhaseDetection-AF is next to the Lightsensor. On the papers from Canon the Pixels are about 50% of the former ones... I think we can be lucky if the 70D has a little bit more IQ than the 60D or 700D.
The 'PhaseDetection-AF' and the 'Lightsensor' are one and the same thing in the dual pixel AF. Under each microlens, instead on one 'Lightsensor', there are two. For AF, the two are read individually to detect phase. For making an image, the two are combined to recreate what a normal sized 'Lightsensor' under the microlens would see.

1Ds mark IV

Finally someone gets the idea of multi for highlights and one for shadows or even a third one for mid tones...
Instant Dynamic Range heaven!
I can't wait for a camera that sees what my eyes see...
Canon has to beat everyone else.
Progress in technology has been made with the dual pixel AF on the 70D.
multiple sensors is the way to go.
200 years later cameras haven't changed much, only in the past 15 years.
I can't wait for the future!  :D
More likely to be foveon-like than high DR, so a genuine 25MP output. This looks like the patent which is mentioned from May 2013:

Lenses / Re: More Canon Pancakes ?
« on: July 22, 2013, 01:16:16 PM »
What is the shortest focal lenght they can make into a pancake for full frame? Could it have the same image quality as the 40mm? Thanks.
Focal length of a pancake lens is much closer related to the flange distance of the mount than the sensor size. Pancake lenses, due to their size, are typically very simple optical designs with no retrofocus elements. Therefore going shorter in focal length than where the elements can be placed from the sensor is difficult without making the lens bigger.

EF-M has a flange distance of 18mm, so a 22mm pancake lens is theoretically not the most compact design they can ultimately design. Anything longer than 22mm and the barrel gets longer. EF and EF-S both share a 44mm flange distance. So it looks like the 40mm pancake pokes into the mount a small amount - going much shorter in focal length will likely foul the mirror. Having said that, EF-S mount lenses have more rear clearance due to the smaller mirror in crop cameras, so it would be possible to create a shorter EF-S pancake lens.

A 28mm true pancake lens is theoretically only possible for a camera with a flange distance of 30mm or less - so this makes it look like a mirrorless lens, if it wasn't for the fact that the 28mm pancake is the least pancake like of the four listed in this patent (35% longer than the 45mm pancake).

The image height in the patent doesn't make sense - 21.64mm (if the translation of what that figure represents is correct). FF has a height of 24mm, and Canon crop has a height of 14.9mm. This is in a strange in-between zone - even bigger than the 18.6mm image height of APS-H.

And one final note which throws even more uncertainty into this - these patents were filed in December 2011, and the 40mm pancake was announced in June 2012. The specs of that lens seem to match the 40mm lens in this patent - length, focal length, aperture, number of elements and groups. Are these other three just designs which won't ever see the light of day?

Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: July 22, 2013, 09:14:43 AM »
Where is the best place you would recommend to buy the U2413 from?

Buying from Dell direct is always a good option, however PC Buy It seem to always have great prices. I bought my monitor from them, and have no complaints.

Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: July 21, 2013, 06:37:41 PM »
Thank you all very much for your replies!
I have been doing some research and TFT central was very useful. There are some possibilities:
Asus PA248QJ or Asus PA248Q (Not sure what the difference between the two are)
Dell UltraSharp U2412M (The cheaper option)
Dell UltraSharp U2413 (The more expensive option)
I am now leaning towards the Dell UltraSharp U2413 but what worries me is what I read on TFT Central about calibrating the monitor: “you can ONLY use the X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter. Other devices are NOT compatible at all”. This would cost me another £160

Do I need to calibrate my monitor straight away as Dell say they calibrate the monitor for you? Or is it something I should get later on?
It looks like that is the only option if you want to make use of this new-to-Dell feature of hardware calibration. If you're happy with the inferior (and normal for Dell monitors) software calibration, you're not locked down.

If you do opt for such a wide gamut display, no matter how accurate it comes out of the factory, I'd strongly recommend calibrating - otherwise windows (I presume that's what you're using?) will display normal sRGB content using all the vividness of the display - the exact opposite of accuracy. Also bear in mind your graphics card/OS might skew the results too, and monitors do drift, requiring recalibration from time to time.

I guess DFM should be able to give you more clarity on this matter.

Wouldn't make me upgrade. But the mkIII should have had USB3/Thunderbolt port for faster tethering / image downloads! Not sure why USB3 didn't make it.
USB 3 is rare to find on cameras because image downloads from current CF cards don't warrant anything more than USB 2.

Current CF cards top out at about 100 megabit/second. Thunderbolt 2 runs up 20 Gb/s. USB 3 runs up to 5 Gb/s. The antiquated USB 2 system runs at 10% of that speed, 480Mb/s - still about 5 times faster than current high end CF cards.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 41