August 27, 2014, 05:15:01 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 54
61
Canon General / Re: CPN Interviews the Men Behind the EOS-1 Series SLRs
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:46:39 PM »
I believe the last bit is the most interesting for me:

"I believe that the trend towards compact, lightweight equipment is a certainty among categories encompassed by advanced amateurs, and even professional equipment, [so] the entire [EOS] system will move toward a more lightweight form.

The technical challenges are: lighter, stronger materials; glass materials with a high refractive index and high permeability; improvement in low power consumption design and compact, high-capacity battery; electronic parts with a higher degree of integration.”

62
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:33:29 PM »
  • A wireless off-camera EVF (without lag!) would also be terrific.

Google Glasses?

No reason the eye piece has to be on the camera these days.

If you're trying to track anything, moving the camera differently than your head and/or eye is so horribly confusing that it makes that tracking nearly impossible on all but the slowest moving subjects.

63
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:50:43 PM »

To me, that's one of its biggest disadvantages.  What I see in an EVF is virtually never what I get.  What I see in the OVF is what I get because I post-process the images to look the way the scene did ...

What I see in the EVF is an over-contrasty version of reality with brights blown, blacks crushed, and colors looking unnatural.

Do you use Custom Functions to adjust jpeg output. In this fast paced world many pros are bypassing Raw and using custom jpegs. The client can't see any IQ difference, but they like seeing the final photos immediately.

I post-process every image that I plan to use for anything before it leaves my hands, whether it was shot in JPEG or raw.

64
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:13:02 PM »
Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF.

To me, that's one of its biggest disadvantages.  What I see in an EVF is virtually never what I get.  What I see in the OVF is what I get because I post-process the images to look the way the scene did to my eye, not to some Japanese engineer who wrote the in-camera JPEG engine and never saw the scene.

What I see in the EVF is an over-contrasty version of reality with brights blown, blacks crushed, and colors looking unnatural.

65
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:19:47 PM »
Does anyone else have a full sensor full of dual-pixel phase-detection capable pixels?

66
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:00:42 PM »
EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?

How about image stabilization, ultrasonic motors, a relatively inexpensive full-frame digital body, and high-def video in SLRs?

How about eye-controlled focus, and diffractive optics?

How about DPAF?  Etc.

I think AvTvM's definition of innovation means making the exact specific camera he wants...

Which, apparently, is a 300D.

67
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:00:06 PM »
Image stabilization ... no Canon invention.
"The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (Japan)[255] of 1995 was the first interchangeable lens with built-in image stabilization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design#The_image_stabilized_lens

Quote
Ultrasonic AF drive .. no Canon invention.
"Canon was the first camera maker to successfully commercialise the USM technology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount#Ultrasonic_motor_drive

Quote
Hi-def video in DSLRs .. hardly much of an innovation.
It practically created a whole industry over night.

Quote
Those who need it shall buy proper video cams. Should not be forced on regular DSLR buyers.
Show me a full-frame video camera at the cost of the 5DII when it was released.  Forcing it on regular DSLR buyers reduces the cost of the bodies substantially.

And, diffractive optics.

68
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 05:14:21 PM »
EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?

How about image stabilization, ultrasonic motors, a relatively inexpensive full-frame digital body, and high-def video in SLRs?

How about eye-controlled focus, and diffractive optics?

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Medium Format Announcement a \
« on: August 19, 2014, 12:52:07 PM »
IMHO as canon has declined and ceded a lot of market back from the glory days where they 80%+ dominated every segment, they need to go this way or really start challenging mirrorless. The problem for canon is that they have the same problem Nikon had before they turned around: protecting a market. Canon and to a lesser extent Nikon are making decisions to stop the mirrorless take over instead of embracing it. In many ways, they are the blackberries of the world facing the Android take over. evolve or die.

That's assuming mirrorless is better for everything.  It isn't.  It's better for video, and in some cases for manual focus situations, and that's about it.  It's worse at just about everything else.

70
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:42:23 AM »
For doing actual imagery, the 600+2x or 800+1.4x is probably a superior system - better optics, better coatings, IS.  If you really need a lot of resolving power, telescopes are where it's at.  Mine cost $2,400 used and is 2,800mm and f/10 or 2,000mm and f/7.

Perhaps, although the 1200 is a stop faster than the 600+2x.

True, but as mentioned in the review, it's not all that great optically until f/8.

Quote
As for telescopes - I've no doubt you're right (and in this context they'd be the cheaper option), but I've used my 500L for planetary imaging because I don't have the spare money (or inclination) to buy a whole extra piece of kit for that. The results will be nowhere near as good as a dedicated system, but they made me happy :)

I looked at it backwards.  I wanted some serious resolving power, and even the smallest Canon supertele was just way too expensive.  So I bought a much cheaper but far superior telescope instead, and gave up IS, bokeh, and AF for shear optical power.  Saved over $5,000 too.

71
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:39:26 AM »
Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.

No it's not!

A very small group of nutters have the totally insane idea that maybe it was faked, despite an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

Nothing complex about it.

72
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:12:01 AM »
0:22:40 thru 0:26:40  -  shadows that don't line up for infinity isotropic light source (sun).  I'd like to hear a good reason how this photos like this were taken on the moon and not under artificial light.  I've never seen a lens create this kind of anamorphic distortion and the surface does not appear to have any topographical features that would create an apparent shift in shadow directions. see screen shot below.

I'll answer just this one.  The lander is up on legs and next to a slight hill on camera right.  This makes it's shadow appear like it's going a different direction when it's not.  Look carefully at the lander and its legs and you'll see that its shadows are consistent with those in the rest of the image.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/68/9487.jpg

By the way, this one and many more were debunked by the Mythbusters.  Go watch the episode.


73
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 17, 2014, 08:26:42 PM »
Sneaker Zoom is quite a bit cheaper

Not if you want to shoot extraterrestrial objects (the moon, other planets, etc.).

Do you get out much?

Got out last night.

74
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 17, 2014, 05:49:37 PM »
Sneaker Zoom is quite a bit cheaper

Not if you want to shoot extraterrestrial objects (the moon, other planets, etc.).

75
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 17, 2014, 05:18:16 PM »
For doing actual imagery, the 600+2x or 800+1.4x is probably a superior system - better optics, better coatings, IS.  If you really need a lot of resolving power, telescopes are where it's at.  Mine cost $2,400 used and is 2,800mm and f/10 or 2,000mm and f/7.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 54