March 05, 2015, 01:55:51 PM

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 - Fleetie

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19
EOS Bodies / I Had a Dream...
« on: May 25, 2013, 07:07:25 AM »
This is going to sound a bit sad or obsessive.

I had a dream the other night, in which I had some digital camera - a small, rangefinder-ish-sized one, or like the Fuji X ones that are coming out now.

It had a manual-focus, wide-aperture lens on it, and I manually focused it, and got a great picture, with great bokeh. It had blossom or something in it.

I think the lens was probably one of my Olympus OM film camera lenses; probably the 50mm f/1.2.

I woke up, remembered it, thought about it. It was one of those dreams that changes your mood about something.

I found I really WANTED such a nice, small digital camera I could fit my manual-focus lenses to, even though logically, AF is better and more reliable and usually faster.

I realised that actually there isn't a lot out there at the moment that I could buy that would let me do that. I could buy a current Fuji one and a Fuji->OM adapter, but the newer ones still seem to be fixed-lens ones. The X-Pro one is a bit old now, and I think I would prefer to get its successor, if one comes.

I could get the EOS M, and the EF adaptor and then use my OM to EOS adaptor, but given the bad press the EOS M has had, and the fact that a better one appears to be imminent, it would probably be a bad use of funds to buy that now.

It has made me search for somewhere I can get decent film (Velvia, for example, seems to have a good reputation). I have a nice film camera I could use; I think I'll have another play with film in the near future.

For now, it's a lovely day, so I'm taking my 5D3 and 24-105L out.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]
« on: May 22, 2013, 08:06:09 AM »
what good do these news do you if they are all nothing but rumors? last 4-5 "news" were all a complete and utter fail, im actually surprised how people get excited with every new rumor, CR2 or not. if i sneeze in my hand full of paint, most of it will just spray all around, but a few drops will bound to hit the target. this is what CR is.

Oooh! Get her!

If you don't like reading rumours, why come to a forum called "Canon Rumors"?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon 5D Mark III
« on: May 19, 2013, 06:44:04 AM »
Wow; you've obviously been saving your pennies.

I bet you're really enjoying that nice big viewfinder image, and I expect you'll have lots of fun with your excellent new camera.

Have fun!

EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the SL1 sensor?
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:53:40 AM »
I don't think anyone was seriously expecting the 7D2's sensor to be in the 100D.

I, at least, just wanted to know whether it was (as far as high ISO performance is concerned) just basically the same as the 4-year-old 7D sensor, or whether the 100D's sensor showed a noticeable improvement.

EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the SL1 sensor?
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:15:36 AM »
Yes, I used the Comparometer (TM) to compare the 100D's high-ISO noise at 6400 to that of the 7D.

The difference was pretty much imperceptible. Maybe slightly better from the 100D in some areas of the picture, but honestly - was it any better to any useful extent? No.

So the 100D does seem to be just another outing for the 4-year-old sensor in the 7D, at least in terms of high ISO performance.

I'll give it a miss then. I might have been interested in it as a more portable body to take out when I didn't feel like taking the 5D3.

EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the SL1 sensor?
« on: May 12, 2013, 09:18:47 AM »
I have been wondering the same myself.

Is it a better sensor for high ISO than the old 18MP sensor from the 7D and so many others? Or is it a genuine improvement in it?

It makes me smile, all these rich people with expensive 5D3 cameras who don't want to pay for Canon batteries.

EXIF is the name of metadata your camera saves about the image, in the JPG files it creates.

So as well as the image itself, your camera creates JPG files that have data about the camera model, lens, exposure time, lens focal length setting, exposure compensation offset, flash mode, white balance, etc. etc..

All of that lot is in the "EXIF data" in the image file.

On most/all computers, if you right-click one of your JPG files, and select "Properties" or similar, you can get to see
the EXIF data.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony 400/4 telephoto on the way....
« on: May 03, 2013, 11:03:28 AM »
See, for example, Very Long Baseline Telescopes.

sorry but arenĀ“t that radio telescopes??
Yes, but there are now optical telescopes using the same principle.

The fact is that if you take a large lens that gives you high resolution because of its large size,
you can paint most of it black and leave odd spots of transparent glass around the edges and, I guess, some dotted around inside, and still get that high resolution.
That's why VLBT telescopes exist; there'd be no point in them otherwise.

It's just that your light grasp becomes rubbish when you paint most of your lens black!

So you have a high resolution, but a RUBBISH T-stop because most of your lens/mirror/desert isn't contributing

Having said that, I am sure there are Fourier "consequences" of only having odd dots on your lens/mirror/desert contributing. I expect the COC "shape" depends on the FT of the pattern of the dots you have chosen. Or something. I'm straying into hand-waving semi-guesswork here; it's been over 20 years since I did Fourier signal theory at uni.

Having said that, I do have a book entitled "Atlas of Optical Transforms" which is a whole book full of 2-D patterns in real space on one page, and the optical Fourier Transform 2-D on the page opposite, so you can compare them and see how one is related to the other.

Then it goes on to show effects of masking out part of a Fourier transform pattern and how the masking affects the reconstituted-from-Fourier pattern back in real space. So you get low- or high-pass spatial filtering.

Fascinating reading, it is.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony 400/4 telephoto on the way....
« on: May 03, 2013, 10:21:05 AM »
Said to be "affordable for amateurs".

Absolutely no sign of a new 400/4 coming from Canon ie a scaled up version of the superlative 300/2.8 II would be just fine - very little R&D required!. With slightly smaller aperture it would be slightly lighter and approx same price.

So, is the contention is that a ~$6K lens would be "affordable for amateurs"?  Or will the Sony lens just be a lot cheaper? If so, how? A 400/4 will need a 100mm front element just like a 200/2. Will they change the laws of physics (or economics)?  Make the elements out of plastic?  I just can't see a 400/4 being "affordable". Or maybe they'll take a page from the Pentax book and label the lens with a 'crop factor adjusted' focal length, i.e. try to market a 267mm f/4 lens for APS-C as a real 400mm lens, or maybe a 200/4 for their NEX cameras.  ::)
Well, to get the resolution of an f/4 lens, you don't actually need the whole 100mm diameter front element to be
there. See, for example, Very Long Baseline Telescopes.

Maybe you could get away with a few small transmitting "zones" around the edges of the notional 100mm lens that's mostly opaque, and perhaps a few dotted around elsewhere to smooth out the Fourier nastiness that might result (I'm guessing this part.).

So you could end up with a lens that has the resolution of a f/4 100mm front element, but with a HORRENDOUS T-stop of f/(hundreds) because of the rubbish light grasp of the mostly-opaque 100mm "lens".

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?
« on: April 24, 2013, 11:00:28 AM »
No, it's not. At 0.71x magnification 100% coverage viewfinder will be bigger than 97% coverage viewfinder. 6D and 5D3 both has 0.71x magnification viewfinders. APS-C cameras have smaller magnification, 7D, for example, has 0.63x, 50D has 0.59x.

The specs I read (Canon's own 7D brochure) say the 7D viewfinder is 1x magnification and 100% coverage.
Or do you mean that the 7D viewfinder is only 0.63x the size of the 5D/6D?
Yes, the 7D's magnification is either 1 or very close to it. You can put a 50mm lens on it and things look pretty much exactly the same size as they do through your other eye; in fact you can still have proper binocular vision with 1 eye looking through the finder and the other not.

That is definitely not the case with the 5D; its magnification is far lower.

As I say, my film camera does have 1x magnification, and is still (obviously) full-frame, so its viewfinder size is enormous compared to that of the 5D.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?
« on: April 23, 2013, 03:45:45 PM »
Even the 5D3's viewfinder image is small compared to old-style film SLRs' viewfinder images.

My Olympus OM2SP's viewfinder image is much larger. I wish the 5D3's image were that size!

I think the OM2SP's image magnification is about 1.0X, whereas the 5D3's is quite a lot less than that.

But the 5D3 has to fit other things like digital readouts underneath the image; maybe that's why they made the actual image area smaller.

Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 17, 2013, 05:37:29 PM »
Thanks for all your advice.

I've downloaded the LR5 beta, and I'll have a play with it.

Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 16, 2013, 07:24:52 PM »
Sorry, I don't know how to post the pictures full-size on here, because the site only allows up to 4MB files, and the full-size jpgs are much bigger than that.

You can't see much difference between the above 2 pictures, because they've been reduced in size so much, but on the big computer monitor, the RAW-converted images is sharper and I've played with the levels a bit to make the image have more "pop", to me, anyway.

Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 16, 2013, 07:20:40 PM »
And here's the SOOC jpg.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19