Messages

106

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 07:24:06 PM »

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.

I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of a candid photo is one that is captured in a moment, without being posed. I don't feel that just because the subject of the photo noticed and looked just before the picture was taken its not a candid shot.

I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge." So I suppose there might be some overlap. But I tend to take the view that once the subject has awareness of / reacted to the camera then it's no longer candid. Don't know how I'd classify the photo of your son, he may have turned at the sound of your wife's voice, but his eyes locked onto the camera, not above it, or to the side as would be expected if he was looking at the person who was to calling him, demonstrating an awareness of the camera. Grey area is Grey.

Ah, well I appologize. If my picture offends you, I'll happily remove it for you. It was never my intention to offend anyone, I just wanted to share. My understanding of a candid photo was slightly different, and who am I to argue with Webster?

I didn't say it offended me, I thought I was implying that your photo fell into a grey area based on your description of the event. The dictionary didn't state that only pictures taken without the subjects knowledge qualified as candid, but that it related especially to pictures where that was the case. Hence the "grey area is grey" comment. 

 Sorry if I'm being too pedantic, I tend to treat words as having fairly strict meanings instead of fluid ones.
My love for words and meanings gets me into trouble fairly often. 

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

107

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 05:38:02 PM »

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.

I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of a candid photo is one that is captured in a moment, without being posed. I don't feel that just because the subject of the photo noticed and looked just before the picture was taken its not a candid shot.

I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge." So I suppose there might be some overlap. But I tend to take the view that once the subject has awareness of / reacted to the camera then it's no longer candid. Don't know how I'd classify the photo of your son, he may have turned at the sound of your wife's voice, but his eyes locked onto the camera, not above it, or to the side as would be expected if he was looking at the person who was to calling him, demonstrating an awareness of the camera. Grey area is Grey.

108

Software & Accessories / Re: Sling Straps: Black Rapid, Sun Sniper

« on: February 03, 2012, 04:33:34 PM »

I've been using this system from Spiderholster http://www.spiderholster.com/ and been very happy with it.
Paul Wright

Thank you for posting this, I hate having straps attached to my camera when shooting. I had been looking for a holster bag that could accommodate a full size DSLR with a 24-70 2.8L, and hadn't really found anything I liked. I was about to go the BR route for lack of another quick access option. This looks much more convenient and suitable for me.

How does it feel while walking/jogging with it. (Obviously jogging short distances to get out in front of a subject)

On a related note - I showed my girlfriend this system, just because I thought it was a cool idea... so she's getting me one for Valentines 

109

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 02:06:06 PM »

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.

110

Portrait / Re: Candid portraits

« on: February 03, 2012, 01:52:15 PM »

Southern California, Ren Faire.

111

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII or 5DII wait or get a deal?

« on: February 01, 2012, 04:34:04 PM »

Unfortunately the 5DIII has been rumored to be imminent since the middle of 2010... about the same time as I discovered this sight. I'm still waiting  This site is probably the only reason I didn't end up purchasing a 5DII, been feeling the same way for a year and a half. Can't justify a 5DII with the 5DIII release so near.

112

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Could Fuji's new X-Trans CMOS processor be the end of Bayer Sensors?

« on: February 01, 2012, 04:05:22 AM »

You did read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page about the sample images? 

They are simulated!

To me, this means they are doctored.  While a doctored image might be good at fooling those who don't see the note, it leaves me with the feeling that its all sales double talk.

Didn't see that, but here's a few actual samples... http://www.christianfletcher.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/Shearing-sheep1.jpg

I did get to see some full size samples, but the demand was putting too much strain on the photographers servers and they've been removed. The sheering sheep one at 6400 iso was very impressive at full resolution.

113

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work

« on: February 01, 2012, 03:58:40 AM »

I currently have the 7D, I'm going to be giving it up for the 1D X or the 5DIII. Image quality really isn't as good as I had hoped, and the 1.6x magnification makes it harder to work in smaller studio spaces. My advice would be to buy a second hand 5DII instead of a new 7D. But if you think the 1.6x is a must have, or you're going to be shooting sports where you need better autofocus than the 5DII can deliver... by all means get the 7D.

I bought the 7D off my brother for a grand because he needed the money, otherwise I would have sprung for the 5DII. Helping family was more important than getting the camera I wanted.

114

Third Party Manufacturers / Could Fuji's new X-Trans CMOS processor be the end of Bayer Sensors?

« on: February 01, 2012, 02:27:48 AM »

Fuji's new X-Trans CMOS Processor eliminates moire and false colors.

The new X-Trans CMOS Processor in the X-Pro1 seems like an elegant solution, no need for low pass, anti-aliasing filters. The images look pretty sharp. I haven't been able to detect any chromatic aberrations in the images either. Would this type of sensor help limit CA, I don't know, but it it's other strengths could signal the end of the line for the Bayer sensor layout.

Read More about it...
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/features/

115

EOS Bodies / Re: Tastes Great...Less Filling

« on: January 31, 2012, 01:14:45 AM »

I abstain from voting because I prefer a write-in vote:

...I will...  Not give a crap because I'm planning to buy a 1D X (or if by heaven-sent miracle the 22 MP 5DIII also has pro-level AF and >6 fps I'll buy that instead).

I'm with Neuroanatomist on this one, with the caveat that I may still go with the 1D X over the 5DIII if the ISO, evaluative metering, and the predictive autofocus of the 1D X is indeed well beyond that of the 5DIII. If the difference is negligible, then the 5DIII for sure.

116

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Technical Report

« on: January 30, 2012, 06:14:33 PM »

Now, now, play nice. After all it was posted in the Canon Museum. If you want excitingly new (and suspect) information, you'll have to wait until Canon marketing releases their white paper - "Alien technology, Area 51, and the 1D X: The Truth is Out There."

So Canon is also now owned by Dell?   Oh no!   

Wouldn't that be Alienware? Been using Apple for the last 8 years, hadn't even given Dell a second thought, since I hated them even before I switched platforms.

117

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Technical Report

« on: January 30, 2012, 10:49:42 AM »

That was actually pretty shockingly uninformative.

Quite.  "We wanted to make a new camera.  We wanted to make it good."  Earthshatteringly insightful...

Now, now, play nice. After all it was posted in the Canon Museum. If you want excitingly new (and suspect) information, you'll have to wait until Canon marketing releases their white paper - "Alien technology, Area 51, and the 1D X: The Truth is Out There."

118

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 30, 2012, 09:17:09 AM »

I must write to Canon and tell them that they made a mistake in reducing the mpd from 21 to 18 as it will reduce the performance below that of the 5DII.

I will tell them that they should be looking to a 46 mps ff and all their high iso/low noise issues will go away

I applaud you sir, a good laugh was had. But why limit it to 46 mps ff, obviously more is better, the more pixels you have... the more light you can gather, right? So I'm thinking tell Canon to shoot for the moon - 1,800MP Full Frame, if the 1D X can hit 204,000 ISO at 18MP, then a 1,800MP full frame sensor should be able to hit 20,400,000 ISO. The DR would be amazing too, because everybody knows that image quality goes up across the board when you increase the megapixels.

 The trade offs in MP/ISO/DR up until now have just been a conspiracy to increase sales by leap frogging the competition. Canon, Sony and Nikon are all sitting on the perfect High Megapixel, HDR, million ISO sensor... with no noise, all these tradeoffs are just inside jokes they're playing on their customers.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

119

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 30, 2012, 08:41:55 AM »

The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores          5DII         7D     Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score           79            66

Color Depth (bits)     23.7        22

Dynamic Range       11.9        11.7

Low Light ISO          1815        854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

120

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 30, 2012, 08:09:33 AM »

Donny you're out of your element!

Unless there is some tremendous new breakthrough that negates the laws of physics... you only get to pick two. 

If you want amazing DR and ISO performance then you have to sacrifice Resolution. 

If you want high ISO and Resolution then your DR is really going to suffer. 

No, no it does not have to.
The 7D actually has BETTER DR per area of sensor than the 5D2 by a little bit....

From what I've read on DxOMark the 5DII beats the 7D in DR at every ISO level with a final score of 11.9 vs the 7D's 11.7. 

What did the 7D give up to achieve it's higher pixel count per square mm while maintaining a high DR, oh yeah ISO quality. Look at the DxOMark Sports Score, this is their criteria...

"Sports Score is based on Low-Light ISO performance (values in ISO index). Low-Light ISO indicates the highest ISO sensitivity to which your camera can be set while maintaining a high quality, low-noise image (based on a Signal-to-Noise-Ratio [SNR] of 30dB, a dynamic range of 9EVs and a color depth of 18bits)."

The 5DII reached 1815 ISO before falling below that quality threshold. The 7D only reached 854 ISO before falling below the same quality threshold.

So yes, the 7D did manage to get close to the 5DII's DR levels and upped the resolution per square mm, but it came at the expense of ISO performance. 

I will admit the diffraction limit example wasn't the best... but it was the best I could find in the limited time I had  before heading off to watch the Pro Bowl.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

Also where are you getting the info that some P&S have a better signal to noise than DSLR? I haven't run across that yet. Not saying that it's not true, but what good is it if the rest of image quality isn't there?