March 01, 2015, 02:23:53 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 - nightbreath

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3/5D2/D800 DR plotted
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:25:53 PM »
Because D4 DX just cropped away most of your pixels. DX mode is only 1.5 crop. So FF had 2.25 more area and pixels.

My thought was that having relatively big pixel pitch DR is less affected by the area light is projected to, and 33% less area doesn't make such a big difference.

I've checked the web-site again and noticed that the (e) prefixes disappeared from the D4 labels and the difference between DR of those became closer to 0.6 stops.

Lenses / Re: What, exactly, does it mean when Canon "patents" a lens?
« on: March 16, 2012, 06:26:51 AM »
Also, a bit different question: is there a rule of some sorts that is required for lens manufacturing that requires certain lenght? (for instance there are a few lenses that start at 15,17,18,24mm, but not at 16 or 21mm, why is that?

You've forgotten about 16-35 :) I don't think engineers are bound to specific focal lengths, they are just looking at how current task from research team can be resolved. After new formula appears I think it may be even aimed on 15.42mm to 35.74mm range, but it gets a nice looking length of 16-35mm in description to be better selling.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkIII ountouched files for testing purposes (RAW)
« on: March 11, 2012, 11:15:28 AM »
When I was looking at the ISO 3200 shot I've found a white cross in the RAW image. Don't know whether it's a drawback of converter (IrfanView plug-in released in October, 2010) or something Canon use to mark their pre-production cameras / sensors, but it is definitely something interesting.

Software & Accessories / Re: Polarizing filter in wedding photography
« on: March 11, 2012, 10:32:08 AM »
I'm not sure I can confirm this from personal experience, but I have been told that using a CPL on human subjects can tint the skin so it appears unnatural.  I have been lazy from time to time and haven't bothered taking off the CPL when I'm taking a few shots of my daughter and I haven't noticed anything. 

I'd suggest taking a dry run just to make sure that it doesn't make the bride look alien in nature... or ethnic, as the case may be.

What about overall difference between shots with and without the filter? Do you think when it's on, it gives you more saturation under the bright sun (i.e. decreases hard light effect)?

Software & Accessories / Re: Polarizing filter in wedding photography
« on: March 11, 2012, 06:32:51 AM »
I have also found this statement on Flickr discussions:

Sure you could use polarizing filter on a sunny day and would get dark blue skies and bright white clouds. It has a slightly strange effect on skin and removes moisture and specular light (shinyness) - not something you think about, but people look dry and appear to have extra powder makeup in my opnion.

It's actually very good if you shoot or intend to output in black and white.

Could anyone comment if he had the same experience?

Software & Accessories / Re: Polarizing filter in wedding photography
« on: March 11, 2012, 06:21:54 AM »
Thank you for your responses. What about lens hoods and UV filters? Is there a need in them at all?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3/5D2/D800 DR plotted
« on: March 11, 2012, 06:07:21 AM »
Didn't say they were made up - just estimates

Hard to compare a D3X against, say, a 1Ds3 or a 1DX  or even a 7D against the D700 - because as you say they are all Nikon

The (e) numbers look unrealistic to me. I don't understand why there's such a big difference (~ of 1 stop) between D4 and D4 DX in terms of DR. There are also other examples.

Software & Accessories / Polarizing filter in wedding photography
« on: March 11, 2012, 05:53:24 AM »
Hi everyone!

My main area of concern is the image quality, the feel and look of shots I get out of my camera during wedding photoshooting. I was thinking a lot about possible improvements and a thought that is floating around for a while is to use polarizing filters to reduce harsh light strength in the middle of the day.

So I'm just curios if it is wise to use polarizing filters for outdoor portraits as it's where I want IQ improvement in. This filter is usually used to lessen glare, reflection, saturate colors and add contrast, so I'm wondering if it would work for me or add more inconvenience to the workflow?

I would also like to ask the same question about ND filters (in combination with flash), graduated ND filters, UV filters and lens hoods. It would be great is someone can share their experience or some technique they use to get the best portrait quality out of the camera?

Here's an example of the creamy look that can be taken as a reference (it is most likely that this shot is balanced by flash and is heavily processed in post, but it can give a background of what I seek for):

I also heard that anything one puts in front of the glass degrades image quality to some extent, and it is always a trade-off of adding artistic manipulation. Currently I use flash and UV+protective filter, so I'm able to get this:

But I'm always wondering if it is possible to change the way I shoot for retrieving more important information and being more flexible in post.

I understand that flash / reflector is something that is normally used to balance scene lightness, so please don't turn the discussion into incorrect direction.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 10, 2012, 11:23:48 AM »
Question for those who may know.

Do these test (the OP's method, those in links or DXOlabs' stuff) include sensor level processing?

The Sony A580 and Nikon D7000 use the same sensor, yet the Nikon is evidently capable of an extra .6 stops of DR. I assume that's due to Nikon's Active D Lighting processing, but maybe it's due to generally better front-side optics.

Any ideas?
It might be an improved algorithm in ADC or the optics. I never saw how DxO measures DR of a specific camera and I doubt they use the same lens for different brands.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
« on: March 09, 2012, 10:41:34 AM »
@nightbreath:  just checked out your portfolio, really nice book of work.

Thank you  :)

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:36:08 AM »

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you happy with the 5D III Specs?
« on: March 09, 2012, 06:05:46 AM »
Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add).  However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch.  Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations.  Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus.  This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years.  I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP.  As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs). 

You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally.  If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.

I am 100% agree with you, but my point is that the topic we have this discussion under should have been called differently. Forum threads are full of complaints about the 5D Mark III price / MPx count / DR / ISO performance / whatever, and it would be nice to see suggestions of a camera that has not been yet created rather than complaints about current one that many people liked spec-wise.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you happy with the 5D III Specs?
« on: March 09, 2012, 02:23:01 AM »
Having a 36 MP sensor gives ~28% increase in resulting image size (vertical and horizontal, comparing to 5D Mark III), diffraction limited aperture of f/9.2 and all the complexities smaller pixel pitch apply. From one side you get less than 1/3 improvement in image size, from the other – drawbacks of the bigger pixels number.

I would definitely consider 5D Mark III as it is now + a borrowed medium format camera for the job rather than a compromise camera that was going to suit everyone.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III ISO 100 RAW's - NEW
« on: March 08, 2012, 04:46:19 PM »
I have processed most of the RAW files and they look good.

Sorry for off-topic, but what do you use for processing 5D Mark III RAW files?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M9-P
« on: March 08, 2012, 05:12:04 AM »
Leica M9-P is a superior camera, but different from what you used to see. So, if you want an SLR, just buy it and forget about hesitation. M9-P is rangefinder with full-frame CCD sensor. It doesn't have AA filter and can make stunning images if used properly. Here's a sample shot made usin Leica M9-P and 50mm f/0.95 @ f/1.0:

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 31