December 21, 2014, 04:37:50 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 90
226
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 09:13:25 PM »
I also see no reason to record 4K today.

So I can stabilize in post, crop, downsample, and still have 1080p left.

227
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:44:58 PM »
Why would they provide quality video and 4k in a $3k 5DIV or sub $2k 7DII when they can get $20k for it in a C500?

Frankly, I don't care all that much, since I think the quality of the imagery in video is usually mostly irrelevant.  The only time I'll ever make an effort to get higher video quality than, say, my SDTV, is when I visit a real IMAX theater (you know - the 15 perf 70mm horizontal version) to see a documentary where the photography is just totally outrageous, the bulbs are 15 kilowatts, and the screen occupies around 90 degrees of my field of view.

228
Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:23:42 PM »
... try to track playing kids :)
That's wildlife  ;)
At least with my kids  ;D

Or sports.

229
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Shipping October 30, 2014
« on: October 21, 2014, 09:18:38 AM »
Don't forget the biggest ripoff there is, the WFT-E7A version 2, for only $849:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081826-REG/canon_5754b009_wft_e7a_wireless_file_transmitter.html

$849 for a wifi transmitter.  Unbelievable.

I've been reading the manual. If you have two 7D MarkIIs and two wifi transmitters (for $1698) you can synchronise the times on the two bodies. That's got to be worth something...

And if you have two 7DII's and turn the GPS clock updates on, both will sync to GPS time, thus automatically syncing to each other.

230
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Shipping October 30, 2014
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:55:10 PM »
Don't forget the biggest ripoff there is, the WFT-E7A version 2, for only $849:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081826-REG/canon_5754b009_wft_e7a_wireless_file_transmitter.html

$849 for a wifi transmitter.  Unbelievable.

231
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 06:34:51 PM »
I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs.

The 1000mm versus 700mm pair is the best one - the 700mm lens on the 7D won because it has 60% more linear pixel density and the 1D only had a 41% focal length advantage.  Do that same test with the same focal lengths and the gap would be even bigger.

232
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 01:45:05 PM »
Or cropping heavily.  Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.

If I need to crop that severely, I don't consider the shot a keeper.

Well, if I'm in a situation that cannot be repeated, which is nearly everything I shoot, I get what I can get.

A B2 happened to fly by near my house.  I grabbed my camera and shot what I could.  This is a 100% crop from the 20D image shot at 400mm.



We were in Orlando on vacation and got a chance to go to KSC to visit and possibly to see an Atlas V launch.  We were lucky and MAVEN (the probe that just went into orbit around Mars) launched right on time.  I shot it with the longest lens I had (400mm) on the only camera I had (5D).  We were as close as we could get (Visitor's Center) and this is the resultant 100% crop.


233
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 17, 2014, 01:38:33 PM »
...my pride won't let me release ANYTHING that hasn't been looked at up-close on a large monitor. Further, if I put up more than one shot of an event, it really needs to "tell a story", the pictures need to give each other context.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd.............we have a winner!

234
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:28:35 PM »
And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference." 
The discussions in many of the FF vs APS-C threads could lead one to believe that the FF is always superior so I'm thinking "not much difference" is pretty good.

The general response is that in focal length-limited scenarios, the crop sensor is better.  It can be, if you're FL-limited and at low ISO and printing larger than 16x24"/A2. 

Or cropping heavily.  Some of my final shots were shot on crop bodies with 400mm lenses and are cropped to 1:1 in the final.  I often find that I don't have enough pixels left after cropping my 20D.  That's why the full-frame options don't interest me for this - none of them would give me more pixels left on the target than my 20D does, and some like the 1Dx would give me fewer pixels.  The 7D II will give me 2.5 times more pixels left than my 20D does for the same cropping.

235
Samsung Galaxy S3.  The camera is just this side of entirely useless.  After testing it, I keep my Elph 500 HS in the same pocket as the phone.  It's a better camera by at least in order of magnitude, if not more.

I'm sent a lot of iPhone pictures for use and processing.  In general, they're worse.  The iPhone seems to like to shoot at high ISO a lot, but even at base ISO, the noise is absolutely horrible.

236
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:37:17 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently?

I do.  I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation.  For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop.  For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick?  For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.

I have to have two bodies, and neither could be a 1-series since I hate them.

In such an artificial situation, I'd probably choose two 7D Mark II's over two 5D Mark III's, but I'd far prefer to have one of each over either of the other two options.

237
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 08:53:32 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently?

I do.  I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation.  For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop.  For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

238
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 07:17:11 PM »
I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely.  I just skipped the intermediate step.

Ha! Thanks for catching that, I will correct it.

Facebook is fast becoming institutionalized and commercialized, no doubt about it. But, I study the trends pretty closely and it's definitely a medium that is here to stay. People have incorporated it into their daily lives and routines. Within a few years, it could supplant websites as the primary destination of people using the internet.

You know, there are people around (like myself) that find the less socialization the better.  There are also people around that just don't want to use computers or be slaves to the constant noise of communications.

I've never really figured out what facebook is for, since you can't "lurk".  So I've never joined.  From what I hear from those I know that use it, it's probably a good thing since the signal to noise ratio on facebook is rapidly approaching zero.

I'm not on twitter, google+, snapchat (whatever that is), instagram (whatever that is), reddit (not sure what that is, but I gather it's some sort of free-for-all forum), pinterest (some sort of bookmarking thing, I gather) or any other form of "social" media.  I follow certain types of media quite actively, but none of it is what I would consider "social", including this site.

239
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »
Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote
You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Your very limited criteria are irrational, and not within my control, as I don't own any of the cameras you irrationally demand, as though one makes any difference compared to the other.

A decrease in pixel size is the same as an increase in focal length.  Here's proof you continue to ignore.


240
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:21:31 PM »
What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov
Baloney.  I specifically went out and proved you wrong

So, he states same generation sensors and cropping the FF sensor to the crop FoV, and you prove him wrong by showing (jugding by the image titles and pixel dimensions) a comparison between cameras from 2004, 2005, and 2010 (a 5-6 year technology gap), and upscaling some of the images.

The images are all shown with the same sensor area.  The only meaningful difference is how that area is divided into pixels.  As expected, the one with the smaller divisions wins in each case, and the 20D and 5D were of the same generation and same sensor performance per unit of area.

I'll say it again - smaller pixels are the same thing as a longer focal length, as any astrophotographer knows.  That's why the astro folks generally talk about "image scale" which is measured in arc-seconds per pixel, rather than sensor size, pixel count and focal length.  They know what actually matters - aperture diameter for light gathering and image scale for resolving power, subject to the limits set by diffraction and the atmosphere.

Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 90