November 22, 2014, 11:35:55 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 74
886
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 27, 2012, 05:22:13 PM »
Could this image be true???

Seems highly plausible. It looks like a combination of 7D design and 5D logo.

And the missing popup flash button suggest it is a model without inbuilt flash.

Perhaps this is it :)
Agreed.  This is definitely plausible.  This could be in keeping with the Kenyan prototype keeping the 7D styling/layout.
The other thing that is interesting is the 5 hole microphone port.  I think all existing cameras with video have a 4 hole port.  Could be wrong, but this is definitely plausible.
There's going to be 7 on the 7D MkII, they might have problems with the 70D though, especially with the weather sealing :P. As for the 650D, it's going to look like someone took a shotgun to it.

887
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 27, 2012, 04:08:31 AM »
I have to admit, that I haven't run into problems with pattern noise on either my 7D or 5D MKII, but then I probably don't push the ISO high enough and don't push it in PP either. I tend to keep the both at ISO 1600 or below, although I have pushed the 5D MkII to ISO 6400 on a couple of occasions. Also, when I do shoot at higher ISO, the contrast is lower, so the need for DR is reduced, plus I tend to overexpose slightly, shooting for the highlights, but exposing for the shadows, as much as possible. In addition, when I am in those conditions, I'm not looking for detail in the shadows, as it isn't part of the subject generally. Shooting style plays a large role in the amount of noise visible, as does individual cameras, as they are all different. Despite not seeing banding in my current cameras, I did see it in my old 40D at ISO 1600, which was pushing its limits. That was one thing that I liked about the 7D, as not only did it give cleaner images, the quality of the noise was different.

888
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:42:36 PM »

You should take a look at the videos on this page:

http://testcams.com/blog/2011/05/03/nikon-dx-vs-canon-aps-c-dynamic-range/


A number of things come to mind when watching those videos. He concentrated almost entirely on shadow areas, with very little comment on the highlight areas. DR isn't just about shadow detail, but also highlight detail. Also, it was as much about processing as actual output. Also, they aren't exactly real world images (after all, I don't photograph many beds, with light shining thorugh the window). It was quite disconcerting the way he kept swapping sides, with Canon on the left at the start, then Nikon and back to Canon. Finally, although he didn't show the unprocessed images in detail, the Canon camera was around 1/3rd to 2/3rd stop underexposed in comparison to the Nikon, by my eyes, which will increase noise anyway. No camera (even the same model) will have a guaranteed exposure level for the same ISO, aperture and shutterspeed, due to normal variation. For example, my 7D underexposes by 2/3rd of a stop compared to my 5D MkII, if the same settings are used. To make a true comparison, you would need to compensate for all variations and examine both the highlights and shadows without processing, before trying to extract as much detail as possible. so that you would have before and after results. Without that, testing isn't valid.
It's all pretty moot anyway though, as until anyone sees the results from the 1D X (and the new 5D), nobody can say whether or not the Sony sensors extract more DR, as at the moment, the comparisons are between different sensor generations, with 2+ years difference in release. A more relevant comparison would be between the 5d MkII and D700 or the 7D and D300s. Even the 1D MkIV is now over two years old.

889
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 02:54:19 PM »
I've said before, that lab tests are pretty meaningless, unless they reflect the real world, after all, as photographers, we are judged by what we achieve, not by what could be theoretically achieved.

But they do! Have you seen what a heavily pulled D7000/D3x ISO 100 shots looks like compared to one from 50D or 5D2?
While I've seen the D3, I haven't seen results from those cameras, but have any real comparisons been made? I'm talking about side by side comparisons in the real world, so that as many variables as possible can be ruled out. We can't judge comparisons, if we don't know the conditions at the time of taking. Simple comparisons of unrelated images is simply unscientific and less meaningful than lab tests under artificial conditions (where you can of course control things at least). I'm not saying that there aren't differences, but it's very easy to jump to conclusions. It's very rare, that reviews make direct side by side comparisons, taking near identical shots. Even when you do make comparisons though, Nikon and Canon cameras seem to have different compromises, aiming for more latitude at opposite ends of the spectrum. I've seen too many cases when I was doing research, of papers that put a spin on something that wasn't actually true, when looked at in detail or repeated.

Quote
Flake mentioned the use of HDR and grad filters. As a landscape photographer, I know that even with an extra stop of DR, there is no way that I could capture most scenes without using grad filters, unless I make some compromises. In fact, photography is all about making compromises, that is what sets the greats apart from the merely good.

Quote
But once you are into nearly 3 stops of usably better DR then it does start to make much more a difference in what things you can capture or not.

Three stops is obviously a different matter, but that is a huge jump, in excess of 30%, so is it realistic?

Quote
It's not much use having an extra stop of DR, if your meduim of choice can't show it. I suspect that you'd need an expensive Spectraview type monitor to see any differences.

Not at all. In fact most of them are IPS and don't even have very huge contrast ratio compared to some cheap SPVA screens. But it makes a big difference either way.

And seriously if Canon had 3 usable stops better DR like it did back when, compared to Nikon, would all of you still be finding every excuse in the world why we don't need it and who cares??

Why would anyone, most of all a Canon user, NOT want Canon to fix this up???
I care because I have Canon equipment.
[/quote]
I didn't say that I wouldn't want more DR, quite frankly, any photographer would always be looking for improvements, whatever they are. However, the type of photography I do would probably benefit more from other improvements, such as improved ISO sensitivity (i.e. cleaner). I can already compensate mostly for shortcomings in DR, but noise at higher ISO isn't as easy and if I want to shoot wildlife around dusk, that is a priority for me. Also, some were offering film as having more DR than Canon's sensors, which certainly isn't the case for slide film and is debatable for negative film. If we want improvements, then we have to be realistic in what we compare it too.

890
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 02:34:29 PM »
The human eye is a precision instrument, it will detect meaningful differences if they exist. If it can't detect them, then they are irrelevant, no matter what tests tell you. It's not much use having an extra stop of DR, if your meduim of choice can't show it. I suspect that you'd need an expensive Spectraview type monitor to see any differences.
See the above video and you'll understand why you're thinking too quickly. The human eye has MASSIVE dynamic range. We can see out of a window and still see every detail in the dark room we're in. When taking a photograph out of a window, the result is that the room will be severely underexposed. We need to push up its exposure in post-processing to recover any detail in the underexposed area. Just simply overexposing shadows will show you a difference in dynamic range, which by the way is a real-life-situation thing, as that's extremely common in postprocessing images. The fact that cameras lack this dynamic range is the whole reason why HDR photography exists.
Cameras are still very far from having the dynamic range or sensitivity of the human eye.
I'm not disagreeing that the human eye has much higher DR than any camera, simply that current displays and paper aren't able to match it. If the increases in a sensor's DR isn't replicated in the medium we choose to see the image, then the advantages are limited. HDR compresses the dynamic range, but consumer displays are unable to see the range, until it is tonemapped, which is one of the reasons it looks so unnatural in many cases. Even the use of grad filters can make a scene look unnatural, simply because of the smaller difference between the highlights and shadows (although it isn't compressed in the same way).

891
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: ND Filter for video - how to use?
« on: February 26, 2012, 06:21:31 AM »
Your white balance is off because the 10-stop ND filter has a warming effect (my B+W 77mm and Schneider 82mm 10-stoppers do).

That doesn't sound very "neutral" at all! Do all 10-stoppers have that problem? And if so, why?
I haven't used them, but I think it is one of the pitfalls of the high stop ND filters. I've certainly come across similar reports with the Lee Big Stopper.

892
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 06:17:07 AM »
I've said before, that lab tests are pretty meaningless, unless they reflect the real world, after all, as photographers, we are judged by what we achieve, not by what could be theoretically achieved. At work, we use analysers and I remember a number of years ago, I was working through a tender specification. The company supplying the analyser in question quoted a figure of 105 samples/hour throughput. When challenged, they said in reality, it averaged around 90 samples/hour. In reality, it is actually closer to 70-75/hour. It is very rare that any electrical or mechanical goods achieve theoretical values and the variation between reality and theory, is highly variable. Often, it is the equipment with the higher theoretical range, that is furthest from reality.
Flake mentioned the use of HDR and grad filters. As a landscape photographer, I know that even with an extra stop of DR, there is no way that I could capture most scenes without using grad filters, unless I make some compromises. In fact, photography is all about making compromises, that is what sets the greats apart from the merely good. If you could simply point a camera at a scene and get perfect results, then everyone would be doing it. The true masters, know how to manipulate the available light, to get near perfect results. Sometimes, you actually want blown areas for added effect, if you have a massive dynamic range that captures everything, how would you achieve that? Don't get me wrong, I would welcome more dynamic range, especially for wildlife, but I think we also have to be realistic and not accept suggested facts and lab tests too readily. The only sure way to make an accurate comparison, would be to shoot the same scene, with the same exposure value, at the same time, then look at the differences. The human eye is a precision instrument, it will detect meaningful differences if they exist. If it can't detect them, then they are irrelevant, no matter what tests tell you. It's not much use having an extra stop of DR, if your meduim of choice can't show it. I suspect that you'd need an expensive Spectraview type monitor to see any differences. Different papers will also have different DR, some papers have a higher DMax than others, allowing them to show more shadow detail.
A few years ago, I decided to have a play with slide film, as I'd never shot with it before, having only used negative film in the past. I did some digging at the time and was reading that slide film had a DR of around 5-6 stops, compared to 10-11 for negative film. My results with slide film clearly showed less DR than I could get with digital.
I did a bit more digging just now. The figures for slide film ranged between 5-6 and 7-8 stops, while negative film was consistently in the 10-11 stop range. I also came across this article, which looked at comparisons between digital and film, both theporetically and in practice. There are some flaws in the testing, as it involves scanning of the film images, which does increase noise and probably some other effects, but it does show that it isn't as clear cut as it is sometimes made out to be.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/

893
Landscape / Re: Snowy pictures
« on: February 23, 2012, 06:07:38 PM »
A weird hobby of mine :)
You'd never get shots like that in Britain, as the railways grind to a halt in more than a few inches of the white stuff :P.

894
Landscape / Re: McArthur-Burney Falls - first time shooting waterfall
« on: February 23, 2012, 06:06:07 PM »
Composition is always going to be a matter of taste and often experimentation too, trying different focal lengths to see what works for you, so I won't comment on that, particularly as it was something you were trying for the first time. It's always good to step outside your comfort zone every now and again. I think you've got a good balance with the shutterspeed, although again, it's worth experimenting, as not everyone likes a misty or cotton wool effect and for some shots you need some texture. For me though, it is at least a stop underexposed, if not two. When you have water movement, it is important that the water is near white (unless there is colouring in the water, for example in peaty areas), although you have to be careful not to blow the highlights in the fastest moving areas. As a learning experience, try increasing the exposure, so that you can get a better idea the next time youj try it. You may need to play around with apertures and even ISO to get it near enough right in camera.

895
Lenses / Re: New Lenses Coming [CR3]
« on: February 23, 2012, 05:47:58 PM »
how many pictures of birds and wildlife do you need to sell to pay off a lens like that - not even including profit?
It depends on how many unique images you can licence for $5000 :P.

896
EOS Bodies / Re: March 2, 2012 The Day for an Announcement?
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:58:44 PM »
but.... but.... ?

Haha, I know.  Well, I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too.

I tell ya I did my best to forewarn her how expensive camera gear is and being with a photographer can take it's toll... I dont think she fully understood until well after the nuptials ahaha.  Oh well it's worth it in the end, or at least when i'm not trying to buy more gear haha.
P'raps you should have written it into the pre-nup :P.

haha hindsight is 20/20 my friend haha. From what I hear from a lot of pro's, it really IS difficult being a photographers spouse...  especially a pro photogs spouse.  oh the price we pay for love  8)
Mind you, hearing some of the people at work, you'd think they want to escape their husbands at times :P. I think that wives (or the relatively few husbands) of pros do need to have a certain amount of acceptance though and not everyone is able to do that. Probably in some cases, there is a certain element of guilt felt by the photographer too, which some may also not be able to handle. It's the same for a lot of jobs, lorry drivers come immediately to mind. Now I'm getting a bit deep though :P.

897
EOS Bodies / Re: March 2, 2012 The Day for an Announcement?
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:33:23 PM »
but.... but.... ?

Haha, I know.  Well, I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too.

I tell ya I did my best to forewarn her how expensive camera gear is and being with a photographer can take it's toll... I dont think she fully understood until well after the nuptials ahaha.  Oh well it's worth it in the end, or at least when i'm not trying to buy more gear haha.
P'raps you should have written it into the pre-nup :P.

898
EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: NDAs expiring on the 2nd of March
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:30:59 PM »
I'm hoping for 20-somethinig MP ... the Nikon camp is currently in a dither because Nikon is saying that need to use it with a tripod nearly all the time! lolz

And what of the 7D? 60d? 50d? Nobody ever uses them hand-held? Hah, they all have higher photosite density than the D800!

Shutter speeds are going to be lower on a D800 at similar ISO's and similar DOF's to crop bodies though arent they?

One other thing: the DOF on a crop body, even at the same f-stop, will be greater than on a FF body, so I would assume this helps minimise the effects of high photosite density and make the image appear sharper, simply because more of it is in focus.
Only if the field of view is identical. If taken from the same spot with the same setup (and therefore a different field of view), then the full frame actually has greater DoF.

899
Lenses / Re: Problems with 50 f1.4 & 135 f2.0 on 1.6x crop sensors
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:27:27 PM »
Oh yeah, in the process I got an Error 40!! I was trying to get the ma set and taking a shot, then zooming in on the image...zoomed in and the screen went black! Error 40 on the top screen. Turned it off. Back on...nothing doing. Dropped the battery, put it back in, all is well. What's up with that? Havent had an error in a Canon body since my 20D back in 05!

Here's a list of error codes, error 40 is related to power source problems.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/eos_error_msgs.shtml

900
I find the easiest way to add pictures, is from Flickr, using the share, then selecting the bulletin board code.


Grey Seal Curiosity by Kernuak, on Flickr


Spyhopping Dolphin Calf by Kernuak, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 74