« on: August 29, 2014, 10:49:43 AM »
While it is a very cool video, not sure what the 7D2 has to do with it, other than simply trying to sucker people in and/or start a fight.
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.
I just add noise using Photoshop's "Add Noise" filter. That adds noise with a pixel-level frequency...or, in other words, per-pixel noise. It's a VERY minimal amount, you have to squint to see it, as it really isn't supposed to be obvious, and as such, is effectively meaningless in the midtones through highlights/whites.
The general point of this is to smooth out the harsh transitions that usually occur in the shadows due to low bit depth and quantization error during ADC. If you examine lifted shadows, from any camera (including, and maybe even particularly, a D800 or other camera with a Sony Exmor), you will very often notice a bit of posterization. Adding a very light amount of noise breaks that up, which helps improve gradient transitions and such in the shadows. It can also help artificially enhance detail that may otherwise look like smooth blobs due to noise reduction algorithms (this can especially be a problem if you did any noise reduction with masking, so you could apply NR more heavily in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights).
Insurance is a casino game between you and the insurance company in which the odds are stacked in their favour. Many years ago, I was given the advice that you insure yourself only against events that happen very rarely and are too expensive for you to cover. If you can afford to replace your gear, then don't insure it because the insurance companies have the odds stacked in their favour - they make a profit because on average the insurance premiums cost more than the cost of repairs and losses.
So I take it that you don't insure your house or car either? Of course insurance companies are out to make a profit, they can't provide that service for free! The model is for them to spread the risk over many in hopes of reducing their risks and keeping the premiums lower for everyone in the group. That's just how it works.
If his house is not too expensive for him to replace with pocket change, he would be ahead to not insure it. I stop insuring my cars, except for liability once they are a few years old, its a losing bet. I once had a homeowners insurance loss of about $5,000. This was after paying insurance for 40 years with no losses. The insurance company cancelled my policy. I lost a lot of $$ on that, If I'd have invested that insurance $$$ in the bank for 40 years, I could buy a new house. Of course, by mortgage company would not allow that.
Life insurance is the same story. Bet a insurance company that you will die, and you will most likely lose. They know the odds, and always win.
Many larger companies are self insured, or only purchase insurance for catastrophic losses, they know the cost well.
There really are not many lens options that fit your needs. For outdoor sports 55-250 STM seems unbeatable for its size.
Canon 70-300DO is very compact when at 70mm, but the price is absurd for the mediocre image quality.
500mm mirror lens with manual focus only would be torture to track movements.
Canon 135L is great, if the object distance is adequate.
Canon 100mm F2 is also very good for sports in the proper distance.
I will not recommend anything like 18-200 (any manufacturer), 18-270, Tamron 28-300, since all of them are below the very good 55-250 STM.
Think what you will about the Lumix camera (and others like it), but in the end it gets the job done. Isn't that the whole point?
Getting the job done is the point. That said, it would help if the OP had indicated what 'the job' is...a 'sporting event' is not very descriptive.
Okay, I'm having a really difficult time getting past the whole concept here.
The OP is planning to go to one sporting event, and wants to buy a lens based on the length of its barrel, without any consideration as to what other lenses he already owns or would like to own and what he ordinarily shoots.
The problem is that sporting events usually need a fast shutter speed, and the light is not all that bright. Combine that with the poor low light performance of APS-C, and its poor for that use.
A FF body with at least a f/4 lens is head and shoulders better.
A Canon 135mm f/2L might be a good choice for a crop or FF.
Agreed - if low light is an issue then going with a FF body is the way to go. I just thought I'd mention the EF-S 55-250 as food for thought, as the OP hasn't said what the lighting conditions are likely to be. For example it's if it's an open air stadium and the players will be in bright sunlight, the 55-250 might work. I took some photos at the Australian Open tennis in January and the conditions were exactly like that. I was shooting with a 6D and an f/4 lens, but from the lighting point of view a crop body and the 55-250 would have been fine.
Yeah but concert hall have those rules for IP reasons mostly, this is a sport event...as long as he doesn't bring a broacasting unit he should be fine
Thanks for the work you put in!That would just be cruel! I think it would be tough to tell them apart with the exception of the LED shots. Home Theater Magazine did this years ago (a double-blind test) comparing high end ($1,000) speaker cable vs. zip cord (cheap hardware store electrical wiring) and no one, audiophile or not, could tell the difference. It was pretty funny.
However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens.
EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.
I have done stuff like that with comparative lenses, and formats, people can never see what they believe they will be able to see. Even the most strident.