April 17, 2014, 11:56:02 AM

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 - lol

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 11:59:49 AM »
While I agree Canon will do what it thinks will give them the best return, they can't ignore the market either. As a general trend, dominant companies in mature markets can be slow to react to a changing environment, although that doesn't rule them out from doing something different either. Looking to the past to guess the future only works if you expect them to do "more of the same". If they have something really new, anything goes.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 07:14:08 AM »
Just give me a D800 in a 5D body and a 7D2 on the side, and I'll take on anything!

18
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9 released
« on: October 31, 2013, 03:39:38 PM »
Finally got round to installing it. Did a very quick look so far, comparing:
1: Output image with normal NR
2: Output image with Prime
3: #1 ran through Neat image at 50% luminance reduction

1 is obviously noisier, with 2 and 3 looking very similar, so I was thinking, is Prime really worth 2m23s processing time compared to 9s with normal process? As I looked further, there really wasn't anything of note in detail retention or excessive smoothing. However there was a slight benefit to Prime, in that I saw less local bursts of colour noise. These are rather large scale and I guess missed by normal NR, but Prime is able to deal with it. Also colour retention in darker areas seemed better with Prime, were other NR would start killing real colour as if it were noise. If I have time later I could do some crops to demonstrate the above.

Since I'm already a DxO user I'll upgrade to keep things going. But I wouldn't rate this as a game changer if you already use something else. Maybe I'll change my mind after more testing, but I doubt it.

19
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9 released
« on: October 27, 2013, 04:53:08 AM »
I really need to download and try this myself some time. I've been a paid user since version 6 so have seen it improve, although there's still plenty of room for more.

What caught my attention is a statement to the effect they have also improved clipped highlight handling. In the past, comparisons of raw converters found this to be a weak spot as they didn't do synthesis using unclipped channels. So if they now also do this, that's another plus even if it is a catchup feature.

20
The electronic interface need not be a major barrier. Look at CF cards, and how we get ever faster ones while maintaining backward compatibility. Unlike SD cards, where newer generations don't necessarily work on older ones.

Also there is a possibility they could release multiple sensors per generation, but will still have an upgrade path in that if you want a radical improvement some time later, you'd have to replace a bit more. Within a generation, I'd love to see a mono sensor offered alongside the typical bayer colour sensor. Want AA or not? That could be another choice. Or even one optimised for video like the ultra-low light one they're testing.

But the biggest problem I see is that a removable sensor will consume more space, which goes against the trend of smaller bodies in the consumer space. So this may be better suited to higher end kit, perhaps a future medium format body.

21
50D, sub-zero (don't know exact temperature but any water outdoors was definitely in solid form), several hours. No problems even after dropping it into snow.

450D, 600D, sub-zero (don't know exact temperature but I was getting frost on the lens), several hours. No problems.

22
when I enter a (valid) Gmail address, it sends me to the download links, but doesn't send me an activation code...? Is there normally some time delay between submitting your email and receiving the activation?

I just got it via gmail too. The e-mail went into the spam folder so you have to go there to find it.

23
Lenses / Re: Results with the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC?
« on: September 21, 2013, 04:44:22 AM »
Previous link is for wrong lens :)

Anyway, I've used the 100-400L with Sigma 1.4x. Biggest problem I have is no usable AF (50D, 7D). This means manual focus, which I find impossible to get accurate in viewfinder, and 560mm handholding live view isn't going to end well. If you can use a tripod, I find the image quality ok. Overall hardly worth the effort over 400 and crop.

Some people claim AF success by taping over some teleconverter pins to make it appear not there, but it never locks reliably for me, if at all.

24
Lenses / Re: A New Zoom Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: September 11, 2013, 06:09:50 PM »
I'd like to have a zoom macro for the same reasons I like regular zooms. Something in the short tele range would be ok, say, 50-100mm? f/4 is no problem since most of the time most will stop down to have any depth of field, although AF will not be possible as you get close to 1:1. But again for a macro that is ok. Ideally it would be parfocal throughout the range so you don't need to refocus as you zoom. A change in magnification is ok, although my sleep deprived mind is telling me that then isn't going to be 1:1 through the range, unless wider angles will allow you to focus closer.

I already have the MP-E65 but I don't like the varying focal point as you adjust and other laws of physics really getting in the way.

25
A bit late, but weather and my free time haven't managed to meet up until now. Here are some samples from a standard 600D with Hoya R72 filter. It is a sunny day with a mostly clear sky and slight haze.


Image straight out of camera with auto WB. 1/5s, f/2.8, ISO1600


Same image with "auto levels" applied in photoshop.


Fresh shot after doing a custom white balance. 1/3s, f/2.8, ISO1600


Same image with "auto levels" applied in photoshop.

This is just a very quick and dirty test to give an indication of what's possible. Of course you could spend longer in PS tweaking stuff than my one click adjustment here.

Exposure time... if you need it, you could possibly use a faster lens and higher ISO to get into hand hold territory.

26
Lenses / Re: EF 24-35mm f/2.8L pure wide angle zoom
« on: August 24, 2013, 09:55:03 AM »
The 24-35/2.8 range is already covered by two lenses. I really can't see adding a third one unless it brings with it something extra. For example, what about a 24-35 f/2.0? Or even faster?

If you need ultimate quality, just get a set of primes.

27
I did a test of a few unbranded or no name brand IR filters off ebay in the past. For unmodified cameras they can be hit and miss. Some let through too much visible red which swamps the IR effect. I recall a Pixco one was very bad in that respect.

If you want a white-ish preview on screen, then doing a custom white balance helps.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Coin Cell reminder!
« on: August 12, 2013, 04:20:47 PM »
Err 30 is supposed to indicate something related to the shutter. If you used it much maybe it is on the way out?

29
Lenses / Re: Advice: extension tubes Macro
« on: August 12, 2013, 01:47:06 PM »
That image looks like a butterfly wing to me.

Be aware of the difference between minimum focus distance, and working distance. MFD is from sensor to subject. Working distance is from lens front to subject. Do you care about either anyway if you can get the magnification?

Personally if I need a small boost in magnification I'd reach for a teleconverter first. A 1.4x wouldn't usually impact the quality significantly and you don't have to worry about limited focus ranges as you do with extension tubes or "close up filters".

30
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Distagon
« on: August 12, 2013, 01:41:27 PM »
It does look like the ultimate fast 50mm-ish lens for most aspects of image quality. Like most things, it depends on what you want if it is worth it. For example, I think if I was spending that much cash, I'd rather get the CoastalOptics UV-VIS-IR 60mm Apo Macro. Much slower at f/4 but it is corrected from near IR to UV!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32