Messages

1

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: Today at 02:21:51 PM »

200 F2 or the 300 f2.8 ii. I used to think about the 400 f2.8 ii but it is a $5000 premium over the 300mm for which I can buy a nice APS-C body and get same reach or use a 1.4x to get to 400mm (granted the 400mm will go even further) but the price difference is just huge between the two.

If I had to choose between the 200mm and 300mm, I'd go with the 300mm since I already own a 70-200 f2.8.

The 300 2.8ii seems to be one of the sharpest and best performing primes out there in a reasonable size that I can fit into my backpack. It has great micro contrast and amazing sharpness and is very usable with 1.4x and 2x TC's.

2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »

As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision  ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.

+1

Times are changing. What was doctoring in the past is post processing now. The workflow has changed for the better...

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:54:39 AM »

You missed the point.  It's in the amplification process.  If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush.  Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support.  No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras.  The reason is the same.  Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question.  High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it?  The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?

Unless someone can show me a photo of the DAC or op-amp used to amplify the signal is different in the 5d3 vs 1dx, I am not buying the different amp theory... but I can understand larger pixels will have less noise to begin with, but to me that is a function of ISO at the end of the day. If Both bodies shoot at lets say 160 ISO (fix ISO and vary shutter speed only) for both bodies, I suspect the noise levels will be similar in the RAW files... will they not?

4

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:18:56 AM »

Messing around last night.  5DIII, 100 2.8L Macro, MR14 ring flash, 2 extension tubes.

That is so cool! How did you make it stay? Every time I approach one it walks up the tree

Check out the "bokeh portion"  it's just having too much of a good time to be startled by a lens barrelling down on him. 

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:11:24 AM »

one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance

Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.

But I'd love to know the actual real reason.

You underestimate Canon's desire to cripple lessor bodies to protect higher margin products... After how ML unearthed the RAW video performance from the 5d3 that Canon crippled via firmware... this belief has only gained strength. I have no evidence for this specific case, but so seems to be the general trend. Canon will not let you have the best of breed by paying half price.

While I can understand the desire to increase margin rates, they should not be done at the expense of absolute margin numbers. Meaning, what made the 5d2 such a huge success? It was a value proposition. It gave a lot more for the price point than other products (including Canon's) provided on a per dollar basis. And while Canon can think the 5d2 stole some of 1Ds3's sales, why are they ignoring the massive cash stream that the 5d2 generated? The 5D2 did a heck of a lot more to win people over to Canon than the 1Ds3 ever did... in the long term, the halo related benefits continue to give Canon additional revenue despite the 5D2 not being sold anymore...  I digress.

Coming back to the topic, my vote goes to coding magic of the RAW files...

6

Landscape / Re: Jippieeee! It's spring! Post your first spring pictures here.

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:44:27 AM »

Any feedback is welcome.  I'm still new to this whole photography thing.

Great Shot, love the colors.

 

7

Landscape / Re: Jippieeee! It's spring! Post your first spring pictures here.

« on: May 16, 2013, 03:22:24 PM »

Here's one from me.

8

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:46:26 AM »

...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..

Yeah, that makes sense.  I'm sure VW and Chrysler are just as worried about the marketing nightmare of internal competition from their Porsche and Mercedes subsidiaries.  Just like the 100-400 vs. 200-400, there's bound to be a lot of overlap in the customer base.

Off topic, but Mercedes never was a subsidiary of Chrysler. Daimler bought 92% of Chrysler's shares (I believe in 2003?) and then the company was named DaimlerChrysler, but they split in 2007. Daimler (and Mercedes as well as it is only a brand of Daimler) are now completely separated from Chrysler, just as they used to be before 2003.

Besides of that, I completely agree with your opinion.

I worked there in 1998 and it was DaimlerChrysler. Jurgen Shcrempp was the Head boy form the EU.... They might have been bought a year or two earlier.

9

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 29, 2013, 09:56:45 AM »

I'll go on record... here: 

Canon will price it higher than the Nikkor equivalent... 

I would not be surprised if the initial price is in the $3500 region....

Hopefully once they have a production surplus, then 2500 might be feasible in a couple of years.

10

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: April 27, 2013, 10:04:50 AM »

Shot about 30 minutes before sunrise.  Canon 5D Mark III and 24-70 2.8L II lens, on a tripod, using mirror lockup, a remote shutter release and 5-shot bracketed exposure.  Initial tone mapping done with Photomatix Pro.

One of the most inviting HDr's I have seen in a while. Great taste!

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 12:33:40 PM »

Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.

There are a couple of reasons why a single frame from 1080p won't look as good as a 2mp still, and I'm pretty sure a lack of resolution doesn't come into it.

First of all, the video will be compressed very differently from a jpeg - its not just lossy compression of areas of the image, but between frames too. Secondly, when set optimally, the shutter speeds will be very different between the two. Typically with moving subjects, in a photo you'll want them free of motion blur - in a video, to avoid that stuttering effect, a slow shutter speed is needed (because of the slow frame rate) to allow motion to flow from one frame to the next.

The two really can't be compared, but if video ever gets to the point that NHK were on about - 120fps, higher shutter speeds on each individual frame will be optimal, further narrowing the difference between video and stills. However, current broadcast TV is 25 or 30 fps, so no optimally recorded 1080p broadcast TV will be able to freeze frame to create a still image as good as an optimally taken 2mp photo.

Thanks for the explanation.

What would be the comparison of a static scene (disregarding motion).

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 09:44:32 AM »

Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 08:37:55 AM »

The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent  2mp still?  If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....

14

Abstract / Re: Bursting Balloons

« on: April 25, 2013, 11:13:52 AM »

Good Work.

I like #3, you can see the pellet at the corner of the frame. 

15

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:13:11 AM »

I just purchased this lens last week and can't believe how sharp it is! What a amazing lens! Here is a picture I took with it last weekend of a painted turtle in a wildlife refuge I was hiking in.

Glad you know your Turtles... for if it were a snapping Turtle, it would have showed your 100mm, how sharp "it" is.