April 20, 2014, 08:22:13 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 - dryanparker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Landscape / Re: Astrophotography - which camera?
« on: April 11, 2014, 09:01:58 PM »
It's often easier to do these things in arcseconds. The ISS is ~63" (arcseconds) long. We can compute the number of arcseconds/pixel ("/px or asp) using this formula:

Code: [Select]
(206.265 / focalLength mm) * pixelPitch µm
For the 7D and a 200mm lens, our asp is (206.265/200mm)*4.3 = 4.43asp. For the 5D II and a 200mm lens it's (206.265/200)*6.4 = 6.6asp. If we take the 63" length of the ISS, and divide it by our sensors arceconds/pixel ratio, we get ~14px for the 7D and ~9.54px for the 5D II.

Now you can slap on teleconverters to get longer focal length. The 7D will suffer from the effects of diffraction and less lignt sooner, meaning the 5D II will then be more capable of using a longer focal length with a teleconverter, or for that matter stacking teleconverters (you can stack in a number of ways...2x III + 1.4x Kenko, 2x III + 25mm ext tube + 2x TC III, etc.) Let's say you use a 2x TC on the 7D and two 2x TC's on the 5D III. The 7D and 5D II are going to be producing roughly the same noise, and diffraction softening will be roughly equal (slightly more on the 5D II):

7D: (202.265/400)*4.3 = ~2.2asp
5D II: (202.265/800)*6.4 = ~1.1asp

We have a roughly equivalent IQ case here (similar amount of noise), but a much longer focal length on the 5D II. The ISS is 28px large on the 7D, but 57px large on the 5D II. Since we are talking about highly collimated light, all you need to do really is manually focus in the stars or the moon...so you could, theoretically, stack as many teleconverters as you think your pixels will handle. The larger pixels of the 5D II will handle more than the 7D before you start achieving similar results on both (diffraction blurring will eventually reach a point where the ISS is blurred the same mount on both if you just keep stacking TCs, and the 7D will simply be oversampling that blurry image more than the 5D II, albeit with more noise.)

Yes, definitely arcseconds. Couldn't agree more.

Wizardry alert. :)

2
Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 07, 2014, 03:37:07 PM »
I once came across a parkour group in downtown Jacksonville. One of them was falling from the sky.

Mamiya RZ, 75mm Shift Lens, Tri-X 400

3
Can someone please do the following:

1) Explain how these eBay stores can offer a 5D3 for $500 less than amazon and other retailers, and

2) Reassure me that it's exactly the same as buying from the bigger retailers (valid warranty, etc)

Thanks!

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5d Mark ii ebay advice
« on: February 06, 2014, 02:01:42 PM »
Do not even think about buying it.

+1

Walk...not worth it!

5
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 24, 2013, 04:31:09 PM »
If we construct a Cartesian graph with X and Y axes, with X representing the technical merits of the photograph, and Y representing the artistic/social merits of the photograph, then answering the question "What makes a photo great" becomes an exercise in mathematics.  We assign a numerical score to both a photo's technical execution as well as the importance of it's artistic/social content. We then plot those values on the appropriate axis of the graph. If a photograph excels in the technical merit - i.e. is well lit, thoughtful composition, in focus, etc etc, but depicts nothing of social/artistic importance, it's plot will fall in the lower right quadrant of the graph.  If the subject matter is of significant artistic/social importance, but poorly executed from a technical standpoint, its plot will fall in the upper left quadrant of the graph.  In both cases, the photo has failed to achieve an measure of "greatness".  Only a photo whose plot falls in the upper right quadrant - one that is of a worthy artistic/social subject but also technically well executed - will be considered a "great" photograph.

Of course, all that is a load of s**t - nothing more than a tongue and cheek nod to same simplistic analysis ridiculed by Robin Williams' character as the literature teach in "Dead Poets' Society".  But I just couldn't help myself.  When I read the question, that scene was the first thing to pop in to my head :)

Extraordinarily well played.

+1

6
Canon General / Re: Renaming and storing photos
« on: December 21, 2013, 11:18:26 PM »
If you've ever seen Chase Jarvis' YouTube video on his workflow and backup methodology, he goes over file naming as well. I've adopted a variation of his naming...

Date_project_camera_initials+sequence.ext

So, this: 20131221_SISWIM_5D3_DRP0013.JPG

4 digits is good for project sequences, unless you're shooting 10,000 frames in each session...in which case you may have bigger issues than file naming!

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2013, 02:00:12 PM »
Not sure I understand the correlation between a flagship studio camera and a switchable Optical/EVF. If I'm doing studio work and need the EVF feature, I'd much prefer Live View. Am I alone here?

Seems EVF makes a lot more sense on smaller cameras, particularly mirrorless or rangefinders.

8
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:27:41 PM »
I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.

Agree 100%

9
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:30:48 PM »
...sadly you don't get legendary status unless your in ver special circumstances...in these cases your in the presence of living history...we can only say that because for something to be historic and iconic it does have to pass the test of time. ... All the tech, gear and passion in the world doesn't get you that iconic image unless your at that location, the spot where something of history is taking place...

We're on the same page here. The way I see it, "iconic" photos can be captured any time. However, "legendary" photos have passed the test of time.

The thing is...a "great" photo can be any of these—including the high-dollar macro mural you mentioned. The concern I get sometimes (and what spurred the post in the first place) is that "great" photos are often defined in technical terms, and I wanted to get people thinking in different terms. Terms like passion, creativity, awareness, and yes even LUCK! The bottom line is the gear doesn't matter all that much to the greatness of an image. What matters is that you made the image for the love of making the image, however you choose to do it.

Great Ali + Fab Four picture!

10
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 12:08:13 AM »
.
The examples of "iconic" pictures here don't seem to clarify the issue. Most are mediocre pictures at best, and when a background story is needed to make them important, they are reduced to simply supporting documents. One thing I most love about the Ali picture is to see the expressions on the faces of photographers behind Ali. They all know the guy on the other side of the ring just got the great shot, and all they have is Ali's rear end -- such is sport photography.

Really appreciate your thoughts, though I'll take some issue with this bit. These four images I chose...do you need the background story for them to be compelling visuals? I certainly don't. I suppose if I didn't know anything about them, I might find the Ali picture the least compelling of the four, while still a great image.

11
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 17, 2013, 09:56:05 AM »
Visual impact

+1

This is what it's all about. I mean, it might be a captivating wall-sized print of an Arizona sunset captured with $80,000 in gear...or it could be a street photo made on ISO 3200 film in 1982.

I guess my point is...it doesn't matter how you capture the moment. It's about being there and recognizing the power in making images that are meaningful to YOU.

12
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:55:10 PM »
Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster..... two of the worst iconic photos ever taken :)

Uniqueness has a lot to do with it....

Ha! No doubt. But as you say, they are iconic!

13
Photography Technique / What makes a photo great?
« on: December 16, 2013, 01:37:06 PM »
We love CR, and we're here because it's fun to discuss and debate new technology, engage and speculate upon rumors, share techniques and advice...among so many other great reasons. That said, I feel like someone needs to lower the boom every once in a while to keep things in check. MTF charts, megapixels, noise and JPEG artifacts have their place!

Let's not forget what an iconic photo looks like. The reality is most of them are soft and grainy; and any one of us would be blessed to bear witness and capture such a moment just once in our lifetime.

The last thing I want in my portfolio is a bunch of perfectly-lit, ultra-sharp, mural-sized, noise-free crappy photos. I'd be happy with a single epic image that I can be proud to have captured. That search continues.

Soapbox dismount!

14
Technical Support / Re: Best Possible IQ
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:49:10 PM »
One final note on the 80MP: files that size are most helpful in areas like fashion photography when you're cropping into an image and need to maintain a high resulting resolution.

...or you're an animal who shoots landscapes or architecture and just loves making massive images. Who are we kidding? That's a totally viable use of the platform. And thank goodness, because that's why I got into medium format. (Of course, I had to opt for film due to the price, but it's definitely fun!)

Best of luck with the shoot!

15
Technical Support / Re: Best Possible IQ
« on: December 11, 2013, 12:36:50 PM »
I may go ahead with 5d3 on this one, but I have made a promise to myself that I am going to test out the medium formats personally in the near future and judge for myself.

For the life of me I cant figure out why so many of you are saying there will not be an IQ difference on a coffee table book if shot on a 35mm 23mp camera vs a larger 60mp sensor....

Must get to the bottom of this!

I'd say this is an excellent idea.

The 5D3 is more than capable of delivering professional results with knowledgeable operation and an eye for composition. I believe a great image is made when you know how to use the tools at your disposal. Some of my favorite images were made with a 7D, and those 18MP look great even on a 24x36 canvas.

80MP images aren't necessarily better...only larger. You still have to know how to use the tools to match your creative vision. I'd much rather have a beautiful 23MP image than poor 80MP!

One final note on the 80MP: files that size are most helpful in areas like fashion photography when you're cropping into an image and need to maintain a high resulting resolution.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7