October 02, 2014, 06:56:14 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 69
46
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot Digital Compact Camera Under Development
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:26:20 AM »
Now add in my 'old' idea: give this boogar a rechargable lithium battery that is shaped like 4 AA batteries; the best of both worlds.

4 AAs produce 4.8V (rechargeable) or 6.0V (alkaline).  Lithium batteries produce 3.7V (1 cell) or 7.4V (2 cells).

How are you going to handle the different voltages and how are you going to estimate remaining capacity when you have different voltages and different discharge characteristics?

47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:55:02 PM »
Here's why I'd rather have a 24-70/2 than a 35-85/2.

A 35-85/2 is a "bag-o-primes".  I have a 35/1.4L and an 85/1.8.  So, at first glance, it sounds great.

But, it doesn't replace a standard zoom because it doesn't go wide enough.  So I'd still need a 24-something (24-105, 24-70/2.8, whatever).

A 24-70/2 would serve the purpose of both lenses and the difference in perspective from the change in location to maintain constant framing between 70mm and 85mm is subtle, as is the difference in subject isolation.

48
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:34:17 PM »
Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus,

The eye and parts of the tail are in good focus.  It was shot at f/4 with the 200-400/4 and so it has very shallow depth-of-field.

49
Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:07:10 PM »
I've just had my first (in 35 years) significant failure of Canon equipment.

One of the little tiny screws holding in the back plate of my 5D fell out and is missing.  The whole plate moves around and sort of crunches when you squeeze it.  The camera still works fine.

$10.80 on ebay for a new set of screws.

I called Canon.  They sent me a set as a courtesy, no charge.


50
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 11:35:55 AM »
Yep. I consider crops  "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800. 

That's four stops.  That's not what you said above.

51
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:56:20 AM »
One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text.  If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II.  That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).

Really?  I actively avoid rectilinear ultrawides for people photography because of the egg-head phenomenon you get at the edges of the frame.  That's why I like the fisheye for that - keeps people's heads round.  In fact, when I have shot rectilinear, I've often added a massive amount of barrel distortion in post just for this reason.

Oh, I'm most thinking for dramatic interior shots and also for shooting large groups when space is tight.  I frequently use the 24mm end of the 24-70 VC for that purpose.

Yeah, I frequently use the 24 end of my 24-105 for that.  Any wider than that (rectilinear), and you have a group of people surrounded by aliens.

52
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:55:27 AM »
As an owner of a 70D, I would disagree. I never shoot it above ISO 1600.

My FF cameras are significantly better. I would say the 6D is 2 1/2 stops better, 5DIII 2 stops.

Okay, whatever.  I'd call the 6D 2 stops and the 5DIII 1 1/2, but that's only a half stop discrepancy.

53
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:51:33 AM »
One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text.  If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II.  That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).

Really?  I actively avoid rectilinear ultrawides for people photography because of the egg-head phenomenon you get at the edges of the frame.  That's why I like the fisheye for that - keeps people's heads round.  In fact, when I have shot rectilinear, I've often added a massive amount of barrel distortion in post just for this reason.

54
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:49:44 AM »
Yes. The whiskers are eaten away by noise and the fur is lacking detail.

Well, full-frame will get you 1 1/3 stops over APS-c given the same sensor performance.  Maybe 2 stops if the sensor is quite a lot better.  This is a stretched ISO 6400 shot, and I think it's quite good given that fact.  Is it as good as an ISO 100 shot?  No, of course not.  But whatever you can shoot at ISO 12,800 with a 1Dx or 6D you can shoot at ISO 3200 or a little higher with this camera.

55
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:34:04 AM »
If you find yourself shooting ISO 3200 and 6400 consistently, it's FF time.

So, that sample is unusable to you, correct?

I have both formats and I know what each is good for.

56
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:05:39 AM »
I don't shoot in jpeg.

Well, then you should be able to do even better then, right?

No. To get the kind of detail I want, you cannot shoot crop RAW at these ISO's.

The 5D III, 1Dx, and 6D will.

I meant better than the sample I posted.

57
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 09:51:42 AM »
I don't shoot in jpeg.

Well, then you should be able to do even better then, right?

The Canon sample was provided in JPEG, so that's all we have for this shot.

58
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 09:09:28 AM »
This is a processed-from-JPEG Canon sample.  It's shot at ISO 3200 on the 7DII, but I pushed it a stop in post (so, it's actually ISO 6400) and stretched it's contrast a ton (also enhances noise a lot).  I'm posting this at 1920x1200 for viewing at that size on a 1920x1200 (or 1920x1080) screen at 1:1.  On my screen, that makes it 20.5"x12.5", so it's roughly how a print that size would look.  The processing I did was just a few clicks in the basic and detail panels of Lightroom.  Just took 20 seconds or so.

I think this is quite good for an image that's effectively above ISO 6400.


59
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 23, 2014, 03:57:02 AM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable?  I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

It all depends on the purpose.  For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine.  However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.

I'd print those 6400 files at 18x12 or 13x19 no problem.  I could manage acceptable 12x8s at 12,800.

60
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:57:17 PM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable?  I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 69