August 31, 2014, 04:48:38 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 [4] 5 6 7
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 02, 2013, 08:38:18 AM »
I find the MF talk very exciting. But, I also think it's important that Canon find a way to bridge the gap price-wise. I'm not sure they'll pull people over from Phase One et al with an equally expensive offering. (Roughly $65k for an 80MP Phase One setup these days.)

Maybe if they take their existing FF technology and package it in something like the LEICA S system, there would be better market share opportunities. 50MP+ with great lenses, 1-series build quality and familiar handling. It would definitely be expensive, but it could fill a gap in price between current FF and MF offerings.

47
EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 02, 2013, 08:30:53 AM »
Put 35mm sensor in this chassis ::)

Am I asking too much?

+1!

48
EOS Bodies / Re: 3.5\
« on: September 29, 2013, 11:12:41 PM »
The larger screen could have something to do with the MF rumors...Phase One backs are navigable much like an iPhone.

49
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 16, 2013, 03:02:15 PM »
All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)

50
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 09:19:47 PM »

51
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »
To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

Well, you use FF as a benchmark. The FOV is basically the crop factor...so APS-C is 1.6x compared to FF, so a 17-55mm zoom on a 7D is kinda like the 24-70mm on a 5D. This is because the APS-C sensor is physically smaller than FF, so the area of view it records is similarly reduced. This has the effect of cropping the FOV into what appears to be a longer focal length.

On the MF Mamiya RZ that I use, the "crop factor" is 0.48 because the 6x7cm film negative is so much larger than a FF sensor. This makes my 65mm fairly wide, with a 32mm FF equivalent FOV.

52
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Regarding the field of view, you are spot-on. But readers should bear in mind, a 600mm lens is still 600mm regardless of platform. With MF, you get the FF field of view, plus a great deal more, so that 600mm appears to be a shorter focal length. (You may have been making this point.)

As for practicality, I shoot the RZ. It is HIGHLY impractical for most stuff you might use a FF to shoot. It's heavy and awkward. It's made for slow, methodical tripod work. That said, I absolutely love it.

My longest lens is currently a 210mm, which offers the field of view of 102mm on FF. The resolving power of the lenses is pretty incredible, and with a 60x70mm negative, my desktop scans are north of 65MP. Pretty cool!

53
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 03:00:35 PM »

Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range.  If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard. 

My guess is it will be pricey though.  If the 1 series bodies are in the 7k range, then expect over 10k - more $$$ than pentax, but less than hasslebad/leica...just guessing

Phase One IQ and Leaf Credo backs both come in 80MP versions...they're roughly $40k. That puts a new Phase One system at 80MP in the neighborhood of $65k.

54
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:53:34 PM »
It all depends on how many MP they can get into a FF camera compared to how many MP they could get into a MF camera.

I'm sure there are professional phtographers that will buy a high megapixel Canon MF, especially if they can use some of their existing lenses.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but pros won't be able to use their FF lenses on an MF body. It's an issue of the narrower image circle in FF lenses. My guess is if Canon made an EF mount on an MF body, you'd get some serious vignetting, which negates the value of an MF sensor. Bottom line: MF lenses are built differently than FF lenses.

Perhaps the TS-E lenses would show better results since they have larger image circles?

55
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:38:56 PM »
ignoring all other posts, this would at least give justice to all the fuzz about big MP sensors being tested in the wild...So, is the new 1Ds the 1MF?

My question is why they'd really need to go all-in MF when they can produce pretty solid FF technology approaching 50MP? That alone may pull a few MF users back to FF.

I hope they make it affordable.

How about it Canon? World's first affordable MF-system? That would get it to world dominating levels in no time.

The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.

Well, as long as you don't mind shooting film (like me), the Mamiya RZ67 system is quite affordable these days. ;)  Honestly though, flawless RZ gear sells for about 15-20% of its original cost. Pretty incredible.

56
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is 20,000 shutter clicks worth?
« on: August 13, 2013, 10:16:30 AM »
In checking out the sold listing on eBay, the seller seems to check out with a 100% positive rating. However, there are some interesting red flags...including his poor-form additional shipping request.

#1) Why would he elect not to accept a return? The good news is he doesn't have to for you to be protected. Since the item did not arrive as described, eBay Buyer Protection should cover you.

#2) You might be able to reach out to CPS and inquire based on the serial of the camera. That could at least help you check out his claim of being the original purchaser and the associated refurb/service reports. If he's a high-level CPS member, they should have some info on him.

57
Canon General / Re: Bad Photography Rant
« on: July 25, 2013, 11:17:16 AM »
All of the substandard work out there should make those who clearly win on expertise, vision and ability thrilled to know that winning new business should be fish in a barrel.

The problem is you're then tasked with convincing people with no recognition of expertise, vision or ability that it's worth the added cost.

The reality is, as others have alluded to, that there is a market for this stuff. Sad to say, but many people shop on price alone, and in the end, they might actually be happy with the results. They simply don't know the difference, and they probably don't care.

I'd recommend finding a better market!

58
I'd check the Fred Miranda forums...I've bought and sold there with great results. The going rate beyond the retail market is likely to be north of $200, a premium you pay for the convenience of getting it quickly, I'm afraid.

59
Rodney Smith (rodneysmith.com) is one of my personal favorites. I love his style. Compelling, simple compositions.

60
Portrait / Re: Shooting a soccer portrait for a friend
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:41:23 PM »
I think it would help the image if the background was less distracting.  I like the pose and what you were going for though.
+1
+1 as well! I dig the creative direction.

What I would try: have him put his hands on his hips in an aggressive position. I'd try to draw less attention to his chest. (No offense meant. Just trying to be constructive.) Also, lower the chin a bit so he's looking up slightly.

I think the lights on either side of his head distract because they're actually not strong enough! Maybe try ramping those up just a bit...just to see what happens.

As for processing: I like the edgy look in sports portraits. Try a slight desaturation, then run a high pass on a layer merge and set it to "soft light" blending mode. (This is a slick way to sharpen an image.)

Hope this helps!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7