March 03, 2015, 10:15:10 PM

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 - caruser

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
EOS Bodies / New 1DX Firmware Version 2
« on: October 22, 2013, 07:43:13 AM »
Am I going crazy, or are they finally giving us a true Auto-ISO in M with exposure compensation?!?!?

That's a pleasant surprise!

EOS-M / Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: October 13, 2013, 08:22:35 AM »
Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?
One factor is the fact that the smaller flange distance allows smaller lenses only for wider angle lenses. (This is the "in a nutshell" of a very long explanation; for an example look at the 35L and a 35mm f/1.4 for Leica M-Mount; the difference in size is due to the 35L having to "compensate" for the larger flange distance of the EOS mount; I'm no expert on the field but I remember reading something about having to complicate wide-angle lens design once the focal length goes below the sensor diagonal (or some value that is a linear function of the sensor size)).

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6d WORSE than 60d for moire/aliasing?
« on: October 11, 2013, 04:00:09 AM »
The 5D3 has little moire because of its strong AA filter. If the 6D has more moire because of not using all the pixels for video then it's just cheap. If its because of a weaker AA filter then hooray, I'd greatly prefer my cameras completely without an AA filter!

Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild.  Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning. 
Interesting you say that, for I've had that exact experience. In the Adelaide Zoo about 10-15 years ago, walking around with a bunch of kids as part of some school-holiday daycamp thingy (something my then-gf roped me in to help with).
At least it sounds like they gave it an honest try before reverting to the zoo...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: September 17, 2013, 10:10:07 AM »
Flash news, Nikon and Canon both introduce new medium-format camera systems with a single joint open-standard lens mount. Now THAT would be COOL!

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 02, 2013, 07:56:29 AM »
The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor.

No, the point of ETTR is to avoid blown highlights while not losing detail in shadows. It might mean less light hitting the sensor, if average metering was going to blow important highlights.

In digital photography, exposing to the right (ETTR) is the technique of increasing the exposure of an image in order to collect the maximum amount of light and thus get the optimum performance out of the digital image sensor.

+1.  It's all about getting as much light as you can without clipping the highlights while reducing the shadows.  It's equivalent to an overexposure of around 1/3 EV.
You can't generalise ETTR in that way, whether and by how much it overexposes or underexposes depends on what the autoexposure does (since that's the frame of reference in this case) and on the concrete scene (the maximum difference between the "average" and maximum brightness).

A dark scene with one slightly brighter spot will need a few stops of overexposure; a normally lit scene with one very very bright object will need some underexposure.

So I'd say that Wikipedia is wrong; ETTR is a "technique" to ensure the best exposure without clipping the highlights. In some cases it increases the exposure, in others it decreases it. If ETTR were a simple overexposure or underexposure we wouldn't need a new term for it.

EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 02, 2013, 03:15:33 AM »
Klaus at Photozone and I have shown several times that  if one copy does not appear as it should we took another copy to test,  I tested 4 Canon 24-70 before I got one good example  and showed the test results  and so  did also Klaus  .
All brands have problems with the uniformity and quality, also Nikon
If I were reviewing a lens and I got a crap copy, I'd review the crap copy and give it a harsh negative review.  The fact of the matter is that a glowing of a review where three out of four copies are junk does not accurately reflect what a person is going to get when they buy one, statistically speaking.  If these manufacturers want to get good reviews, they should have better quality control.  This isn't rocket science.  They could trivially attach every lens to a test rig, measure it, and verify that it is within spec like pretty much every other professional hardware manufacturer does.  The fact that they obviously do not do this speaks volumes about their product quality, and I firmly believe that the reviews should reflect that lack of concern.
This could be taken a step further by purchasing multiple copies, like now, but posting the review for the WORST out of the bunch! Or start reviewing one copy, and then see what the worst one that a reader of your's got is!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is metering not linked to AF spot?
« on: July 30, 2013, 06:20:07 AM »
It appears to be artificial product segmentation.

It seems to work in their favour, this feature was one of the reasons that made me get a 1DX over a 5DIII.

Of course some other people might have chosen a Nikon over a non-1-series Canon, we don't have the numbers.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Panasonic 60x superzoom
« on: July 19, 2013, 11:48:19 AM »
Come on, is this the level we are at?

"The [...] FZ70's lens has a 60x magnification factor, meaning you could probably read the date on a penny from across the room."

Anecdotally, I just don't see people using point & shoot cameras anymore. I see either smart phones or bridge/DSLR cameras.
And, it appears, many iPads and other tablets, seems like more than p/s cameras...

The trouble is that many people use this philosophy of not bringing a compass on to a mountain too seriously.  In the UK there have been numerous call outs to the (voluntary) mountain rescue teams to rescue them because the battery in their phone has run dry.  The trouble is that redundancy might be apparent, but that doesn't mean it's real.
Battery life is a very real problem with modern smartphones, you get all the features, but not for very long!

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: June 14, 2013, 12:58:54 PM »
If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III.  Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.
Hopefully, it'll take them at all.  Lots of people are clamoring for a rotating zoom like the 70-300L.  What if that plus a compact design means the lens loses extender compatibility??  Why would they do that?  Consider...all along the 'barrier' was 400/420mm.  If you wanted longer and still wanted AF, you shelled out the big bucks for a 1-series body or a supertele.  So now that they've put f/8 AF in a 5-series, perhaps they'll take away a 'cheap' 560mm f/8 IS option with good IQ.  Not really trying to be the voice of doom, here, but we all know that Canon giveth and Canon taketh away (AFMA on the 60D, anyone?).
But presumably it would still work with 3rd-party extenders?

I'd get a 135L and while using that I'd think about the 35 IS or which other 35 or 50 to get, or perhaps the 28 IS and 40 pancake.
First, I'd be thankful -- lots of folks would love to have a 5D2 and $2K!!
That's a nice answer.

Now that I think of it, surprising that they don't use computer-generated renderings.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9