September 02, 2014, 12:36:27 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 - mackguyver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 184
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 30, 2014, 07:27:38 PM »
I returned to an old favorite place this morning called South Swamp, almost 3 years to the day of my last visit and I'm happy with the results:

That's a great shot, looks  menacing.
Thanks, it's a really interesting and yes, menacing place.  Nothing too scary today other than some deer & biting flies, though :)

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 30, 2014, 05:08:29 PM »
I returned to an old favorite place this morning called South Swamp, almost 3 years to the day of my last visit and I'm happy with the results:

EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:05:28 PM »
OMG, the levels of philosophical BS predicting the detriment of creativity brought on by better tools is amazing.

art is the product of the artist and their tools, expanding either one increases the possibilities.
That was actually my point.  I was just exaggerating it to the nth degree because so many people act like the tools are all that matter.  My point was not that technology is bad, just that in solving real (or perceived) problems, you can't overcome genuine problems (i.e. lack of creativity) that interfere with taking good photographs. 

EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:17:40 PM »
Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.
I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions.  Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care.  It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me.  Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR.  I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.

On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo. 

EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:55:09 PM »
Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

No they wouldn't, they would look like the recent field of sunflowers that has been posted a lot here recently.

Ansel Adams made some of the most captivating and atmospheric studies of the American scenery ever with 11 stops of recordable DR (but boy he took his understanding of those 11 stops to a level few here can appreciate), people like Galen Rowell did the same thing around the world in colour with little more than 6 stops of DR. Sensor performance, even though it is the new kicking bag, equals or surpasses even negative film for DR, iso and resolution. DR is as much a red herring as megapixels were once we arrived at levels that vastly outstripped most of our needs.

Sure there are areas where performance increases can be made, and they will be, but throwing our toys out of the pram at every opportunity because we only see limitations rather than possibilities is pathetic, a true first world "problem". We have "more" than anybody else ever has in the history of photography, yet here all many seem to do is bitch it isn't enough.

I am a working pro, my output from seven year old cameras is the best I have ever made in 35 years of doing this.
It's my imaginary sensor so I can say the photos look like anything I want -- but I understand and just found the sunflowers GIF you were talking about (I think).  I'm not saying that DR is meaningless, but like you say, these aren't real problems.  We have amazing tools these days and between the digital sensors, multiple exposures, sharp lenses, and PhotoShop, there's really no excuse for taking poor photos.

I've been going through my work lately as I prepare for this year's NANPA Showcase photo competition (the only one I do), it's amazing how little difference I see in my old Rebel XSi/T2i photos vs. my newest work with the 5DIII and 1D X.  That's exactly why I bought good glass and waited to upgrade my bodies...and why I'll probably have the same two bodies in 5 years... 

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:12:31 PM »
Spider Monkey - shot earlier today.

EF400+1.4x III, f4, ISO250, 1/1000.
That should be your new avatar - that monkey sure looks Menac[ing] to me!  Cool photo - hope you didn't get bit!

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:09:22 PM »
RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.

Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.
If you are fixing your photos in're doing it wrong.  If you are using post to make good photos even better on the other're doing it right.

Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:05:22 PM »
I note you use a 1DX, given it's iso capabilities, I would suggest turning off the IS as auto-focus and tracking will be even faster - if that's possible! Since January I have used IS on one of my lenses only once and then it was only to stabilize the image in the viewfinder, even with my Canon 800 F5.6 I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help most of the time with the 1DX.
Mode 3 on the new lenses accomplishes essentially the same thing.

bdunbar79, congrats on the new lens.  I'm sure your back & arms will thank you for the upgrade.  Also, I'd upgrade your extenders to Mk III if you haven't already.  They are faster to focus and use AFMA with the Mk II lenses.  The IQ improvement in the 1.4x is nice in terms of CA, but bigger in the 2x in terms of sharpness and contrast.

Rusty, that is amazing, and it's nice to hear about good customer service for once.

EOS Bodies / The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:00:49 PM »
So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor.  It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?

Why?  Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality.  Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat.  The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness. 

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

same thing with 1D-X and 1D-C

I guess the F3 FM upgrade had the same law issues that Canon's CEO or president (don't remember each one) once talked about.

when asked about a paid firmware to make 1D-X reach 1D-C or at least extend its capabilities closer to 1D-C. He told that its not going to happen because of how many different laws of many different countries would approach such selling and they could have tax problems or make a big effort to avoid them
I thought Canon had also said that there were some differences in terms of sensor cooling.  Maybe not enough to justify the difference, but one hopes they aren't identical other than the badge & firmware. 

I think it's cool this guy hacked the Sony, though!

they said about cooling indeed, but we are talking about 4 thousand dollar worth of heat sinks and better performance wires and components. Since the weight difference of both cameras is about 150g, lets assume 1D-X already have 150g of heat sink, even if 1D-C had 300g of pure silver heat sink, it would cost only about 300 dollars of passive cooling.

while I was writing this, I've found the article about 1D's I told about.

I know anyone can write anything on web, but we know that its not about 4,000 of aditional hardware. Like RustyTheGeek said, its about business and the costs are also based on the benefits customers will have from the equipment
....if they used platinum for the heat sink ;)

The real issue is that the 1D X is an expensive stills camera while the 1D C (Blackmagic exluded) is a relatively inexpensive 4k video camera.  Price and components frequently have little to with each other.  Just take a look at the iPhone - which is estimated to cost around $199-220 to make, but sells for $649-849 without a contract.

Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:11:19 PM »

such drama, above and below!  dig this b&w very much.  Love clouds and moody b/w like this
Thanks petach.  I'm planning to enter a photo contest (there's one I enter each year) and was digging through my old shots and found this one.  I tweaked it a bit last night, but it's fun to find some old gems :)

Sony is not going to sell you a product that they think will die while still under warranty...
Then why have the last 3 products I've bought from them done just that - whether it was a 90-day, 1-year or 3-year warranty.  Wait, they died just days after the warranty was up - making me a tad perturbed.  I know you're kidding, but I'm not.  I've given up on expecting quality from Sony, which is sad given that they used to be famous for it.
My Olympus E-510 died on the day after the warranty expired.... To be fair, they fixed it for free....
Now that's service and I'm happy to hear that.  Panasonic also has great service from my experience and as an example - another hobby of mine is home theater - I used to be a movie theatre projectionist.  I bought a Sony Blu-ray player when it first came out.  It was a POS and Sony released a new model less than a year later and essentially stopped supporting my model.  On the other hand, I have an old Panasonic DVD player (and new Blu-ray as well) and was shocked about a year ago to see that they had just released a firmware update for the 7-year-old DVD player!  They did the same with my Lumix LX-5 camera as well.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:28:00 AM »
I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.

I have had Sigma about a year now, and AF works perfectly at least on my 6D. I secretly hope there to be some AF issues, then it would be very easy to justify the switch  ;D
Anyway, I'm getting closer and closer..
That's good to hear and it doesn't seem like too many people have reported issues with the Sigma.  I have the Canon 24L II which many people on here say has lousy AF and I have yet to have any issues, so I think it's luck of the draw sometimes with any lens.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:15:50 AM »
I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 184