April 16, 2014, 04:16:26 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 - Meh

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46
Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:41:50 PM »
As im having to get a new camera strap, i thought id add this info here...

I had a sun sniper "the one" rated to 2.5kg. As my combo now weighs nearly 2.3kg thought it was time to get a higher rated strap.
The sun sniper pro is rated to 5kg, not bad, but i thought id check the black rapid rs7. Interestingly theres no info anywhere (that i can see) about loading. Which is strange as its pretty fundamental as to what the thing is for.

So emailed customer services at Black Rapid, and got a reply.
"On all of our straps, our hard ware is rated at 300 lbs"

Now i know thier first language isnt English, but unless my basic maths is failing me, thats about 136kg or a very large human.

They said "hardware" so they might only be referring to the metal caribiner and fasteners.  I'm more surprised by the 2.5-5kg rating of the Sunsniper.  That's not much, I think a couple strands of dental floss could hold that.  A large human could easily hang from even a cheap caribiner, a solid metal d-ring, or a nylon strap.... ok I wouldn't go mountain climbing with the little one on the Blackrapid straps and it probably wouldn't withstand the impact force a falling mass but I bet a static mass of over a 100kg could hang from it.

Canon General / Re: New APS-C Camera in February?
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:33:21 PM »
7D2 will almost definitely hve a new sensor, what it is i don't know. Either 18MP with a lot higher IQ than currently (larger pixels a la 1dx), or the same IQ-per-pixel as the current 7D with more of them (keeping pixel-size the same and fitting more in the same space). If it's 24mp or more current-7D-owners might upgrade, but either option would be a nice upgrade for 60D/xxxD-owners. Keep the rest of the features the same, there's nothing wrong with it.

If you're using "pixel" to mean "photosite" then that should be possible by now.  To differentiate the two terms, pixel usually means the entire area on the sensor occupied for each pixel of resolution so that can not be made larger when keeping the same 18MP resolution.  The photosite which is a portion, usually less than 50%, of the area occupied for each pixel can certainly be made larger if tech as advanced and the electronics that sit beside each photosite can now be made smaller.

Canon General / Re: G-Next: must be larger sensor
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:24:10 PM »
I can pay $600 for a Sony NEX-5 with APS-C sensor including a kit lens.  (599.99 with rebate and free shipping -- B&H 11/08/11).

$600 is the usual price point for the G-series camera, roughly.   For $600, do I want a 1/1.7 camera when I can get a slightly larger but still compact full aps-c camera for the same price?   Tough sell.

To compete effectively, I think the G-series has got to be larger sensor, hopefully full APS-C, even if it is still not an interchangeable lens camera.   I wouldn't be surprised to see the G-"Next" as non-interchangeable APS-C this spring, (hopefully with a nice reasonably fast 24-1nn IS lens) and the interchangeable lens non-mirror system at the end of the summer.   Hopefully all APS-C.

Another poster in this thread speculated that Canon is stupid.  ...I don't think Canon is stupid.   The question is, does Canon think we are stupid?   I don't think so.   That Canon skipped producing a G13 with a 1/1.7 sensor suggests that Canon respects the intelligence of its customers.

Now another major camera company producing a small-sensor interchangeable lens non-mirror camera with a tiny sensor and expecting us to buy it because of cute ads with Ashton Kutchner.... not so much.

Good call... the next G with a larger sensor would be sweet (even if not all the way up to APS-C) would really re-position it in the market and make the larger size over the S95/100 more worthwhile.

Ashton Kutcher is cool, funny, handsome, charismatic... but the whole Nikon thing... that's just a big negative!

Canon General / Re: Dynamic Range - Digital sensors
« on: November 08, 2011, 12:14:43 PM »
Where does this notion that film has more DR than digital sensors come from?  Ken Rockwell who only shoots jpeg?

Checkout the Zacuto clips on youtube of them comparing the video output of the 1D4/5D2/7D with that of Kodak film. The kodak film has 14.2 & 14.5 stops of DR whereas the 5D has 11.2 but usable is probably closer to 10. Episode 1 of the Great Shootout of 2011 covers DR.

Now I don't know if all film has the same DR as the Kodak film used in that "shootout" but it is a place to start.


that kodak is motion picture film...not photography film ;)
but still, look at the DR of it.

Right.  My understanding (albeit limited and prone to being wrong!) is that motion picture film is designed differently and optimized for things like DR rather than resolution which is far less important when there's motion... for example in digital video 1080p (2 megapixel) is high-res and 4k (~9 megapixel) is super-high-res.  The transfer functions used in the movie-land are also different.  Consider also that the DSLR video is an h.264 output.

EOS Bodies / Re: Final shopping list for tomorrow..
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:13:48 AM »
As you saw from that post, I just recently replaced my Manfrotto QR plates (they use their own designs) with an AS-type system.  In fact, today I sold my set of Manfrotto clamps, RC2 plates, and BlackRapid FastenR-T1's.

Are you still using the Manfrotto ball head (468MG) or will you be swapping that out for a Kirk or RRS?   I think my new system of choosing gear will be to save myself hours of painstaking deliberation and just buy what you buy  ;D

Canon General / Re: Dynamic Range - Digital sensors
« on: November 08, 2011, 10:51:18 AM »
Where does this notion that film has more DR than digital sensors come from?  Ken Rockwell who only shoots jpeg?

It might have been true 10 years ago for some mass market sensors but even then it wasn't significantly more.   Digital sensors produced anytime in the past 5 years have more DR than film.   The response curves are different and the fall off into highlights and shadows is different and to some it's less "pleasing" with digital but digital technically has more DR, which is why you hear talk of "useable DR".   

However, if you're looking at jpegs it's a different story because they are only 8-bit files so a transfer function has to be applied to fit 4096 luminance levels (14-bit) into only 256 luminance levels and highlights and shadows are typically where there is more compression applied.   Keep in mind that LCD displays and prints have much less DR than the original RAW files or film.

I'm not an expert in this and not the best at explaining it so if anyone has any corrections or additional details feel free to correct me.

Canon General / Re: New APS-C Camera in February?
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:07:19 PM »
If Canon was smart they would outfit the 7Dii with a sensor with the same philosophy as the 1Dx... lower mp count with larger pixels!  ;D

If Canon was smart?  I just checked, they are.  Market cap is $53B, annual revenue $47B, annual income about $8B, $11B in cash, and most important of all... this site has 13,840 members who just can't get enough of Canon cameras!   :P   But seriously, I'm with gmrza, I think they'll stick to 18MP in the APS-C line and work on improving noise and DR just a touch.

EOS Bodies / Re: Max CF Card size that can be used in the 5D2?
« on: November 07, 2011, 10:08:24 PM »
I ran some tests this evening, and in a day or two I'll tabulate and post the results.  But preliminarily, a 90 MB/s cards does result in a slight performance boost on the 5DII compared to 60 MB/s cards (roughly, shaves a second off the write speed following a 3 second burst, and allows a few more frames during 20 s of continuous shooting).

Consistent with my anecdotal observations with my 7D that I mentioned earlier in this thread.  Do you have a 200x card available to measure the jump in performance compared to 400x cards?

EOS Bodies / Re: Video Moire/Aliasing!?
« on: November 07, 2011, 01:55:10 PM »
@jasonmillard81... looking back over your posts from the previous threads along with the most recent posts I'm wondering if for your mostly video shooting that upgrading to a higher-end camcorder wouldn't be the better choice over a DSLR or GH-2.  For example, the Sony NEXVG10 has a larger sensor and longer lenses that would give you more control of DoF and might be easier to use than a DSLR form factor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mobius by Vincent Laforet on the EOS C300
« on: November 07, 2011, 12:10:06 PM »
I don't know who Canon is competing with a $20K price range, the Sony F3? It certainly isn't the Scarlet-X. Why pay more for a video system that performs poorly against its cheaper rival? Only an idiot would do that.

Perhaps that's exactly the answer... that Canon sees the C300 competing against the other similarly priced cameras.  Or they believe the overall image quality, build quality, the Canon name, service, support, etc. is somehow superior to Red?  Just posing the question, I don't presume to have that answer.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mobius by Vincent Laforet on the EOS C300
« on: November 07, 2011, 12:05:15 PM »
A $20,000 C300 with 1080p vs a $10,000 Scarlet-X with 4K resolution...did someone at Canon forget to do the math? Personally, if the C300 were more reasonably priced at 7-8 grand, then Canon would have something and I'd consider buying it. But with the Scarlet-X and its better resolution and sporting an EF mount, why would you pick the Canon. As it turns out, I will probably purchase the Scarlet-X in the future.

I suppose Canon is, whether right or wrong, claiming by virtue of their design choices and pricing that the C300's 4k sensor that uses pixel binning to produce a final 1080p image will have better image quality than competing cameras.

Australia / Re: ND filters
« on: November 06, 2011, 08:51:43 PM »
I have a couple of step-up rings (67mm and 72mm up to 77mm).  No issues with vignetting.  One problem is that, with rare exceptions, a step-up ring and larger filter precludes use of the lens hood, meaning less contrast, more flare, and less protection.  They also tend to get stuck, so have a set of filter wrenches.

Baffles can help here, as can an extra hand by itself or holding a card/hat/etc to keep out stray light.

The hood isn't the only way to block out incident light. Just look at the baffles used in hollywood.

Can you point me to any alternate "hoods" that would screw into an 82mm filter thread?  I have a Mamiya rubber lens hood that screws into a 77mm filter thread but that one is for longer lenses.  I use it for shooting hockey with my 70-200mm and 7D... I especially like it if I'm ever shooting through the glass... I can put it right up the glass and if the players hit the boards or someone bumps me it has some give so I won't get a black eye!

Australia / Re: ND filters
« on: November 06, 2011, 08:38:33 PM »
I have a couple of step-up rings (67mm and 72mm up to 77mm).  No issues with vignetting.  One problem is that, with rare exceptions, a step-up ring and larger filter precludes use of the lens hood, meaning less contrast, more flare, and less protection.  They also tend to get stuck, so have a set of filter wrenches.

Thanks, good to know.

Australia / Re: ND filters
« on: November 06, 2011, 12:31:42 PM »
Does anyone have experience buying one set of larger filters such as 82mm (I have a 16-35mm f/2.8 II) and some step-up rings to fit lenses with smaller diameters?  Any problems such as excessive vignetting?

Also, how much better is the image quality from a single ND filter versus stacking one or more filters to get the desired density?

EOS Bodies / Re: Max CF Card size that can be used in the 5D2?
« on: November 06, 2011, 09:16:09 AM »
I did have but on this occasion I don't know where it is! Shooting RAW takes longer to process because of the amount of data, much of the data from a jpeg is dumped in processing.

Please look, because that statement makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying jpg processing is faster because data are discarded during processing, but that would mean bits are tossed without being processed, e.g. take every other pixel and just ignore it. It can't work that way - the data have to be analyzed during processing, before elimination. Write would be faster, with less data to write. Processing would be the same. It's write speed and quantity of data that determine overall throughput - I don't think the processor is a significant bottleneck. That's why frame rate and buffer capacity take a bit hit going from JPG to RAW, and another small hit from RAW to RAW+JPG. There's no difference in the processing required for those three modes - all involve processing the full sensor RAW image to a JPG, including applying the in-camera settings (Picture Style, ALO, PIC, etc.), the only difference is the amount of data that need to be written to the card.

I agree with neuro... RAW files have to be processed first then converted to jpg (which is done even if you shoot in RAW only because a small jpg is needed to display the image on the LCD).   If you shoot in jpg only then after processing only the jpg is written back to the buffer saving a lot of space and reducing the write time to the memory card.

Edit:  Actually, even in jpg only mode, the processed RAW file also may be written back to the buffer first and then deleted if the user selected JPG only.   Discarding the RAW file is not likely built in to the processor as that would be an unnecessary function since it can be done after the fact.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46