December 17, 2014, 09:44:38 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 112
16
What unfocused said.

Plus, while I have a gripped 5d3 and love the grip, why are you needing a grip? Or is it because you want the dual batteries so you don't have to change in the middle of a field somewhere?

As for the 6D, it's a great camera from everything I've heard. The center AF point is very good, although the rest are meh.

As for memory card, from what I recall, 6D supports up to UHS-1. So pick a card that has UHS-1 support, and then pick you're preferred brand & speed.

Last bit, landscapes. You can do them without a tripod, depending on your style, but if you are going to end up being rather serious about them you should definitely consider a good quality tripod, which will run you $500-600 and up. But, if you just sorta have an interest, leave that for another time. Also get a cable release and learn about mirror lockup.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 02, 2014, 01:16:11 PM »
Nothing indicates that Canon  have a  new sensor ready.
I do not understand all the rumors that are flourishing.
That a Foveon-like sensor is  to be launched is a joke, what is the probability that Canon could do anything better than the five major sensor manufacturers? Sony alone has over 50% of the  whole world wide sensor market.

Someone stated that the color accuracy would be Foveons strength, this is completely untrue.
It takes a lot of processing power to get the colors  tuned in a Foveon-based sensor, there are many articles written about this topic and problems.
The desire for a new sensor from Canon is larger than Canon's ability right now to manufacture one.
But we can all dream

And we have lots more processing power, even in camera, available to the average user, to say nothing of the systems that are available for design simulations. Not saying it's automatically a solution, just pointing out that we have a LOT more CPU horsepower, to say nothing of a properly designed camera chip having a few specialist bits as ASICs.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2014, 08:46:19 PM »
I think they lost me at "Foveon-like". 

So it will have all the negatives of a high MP camera, like massive files to store, and a slowed FPS, and a faster-clogging buffer, but none of what you actually want from all those MP's, namely higher resolution and more detail to spare when doing things like shooting at high ISO, or cropping heavily.

Am I missing something wonderful about Foveon?  If so, then so is everyone else based on the failure of Sigma's Foveon bodies to fly off the shelves.  Why not copy FUJI sensors instead?  That more complex, non-bayer pixel, no filter thing sounds much more interesting to me, anyway. 

Crud.

I thought with Foveon-like you'd actually have higher effective resolution & detail, because no de-bayering needs to occur. Plus, no anti-aliasing filter generally needed. Granted, based on Wikipedia, the way in which Sigma resolution (the number of actual pixels) doesn't add up to the same spatial resolution (number of actual pixel buckets), but 3xPixels since they considered each photosite, even those within the same pixel bucket, as being part of the Mega-Pixel count.

That said, based on the Wikipedial article, a Foveon sensor likely would outperform a slightly higher spatial resolution bayer pattern sensor in general.

If Canon has a improved QE significantly, and individual color response for each photodiode and improved the read-out times, it might make for awesome photos, even if the actual spatial resolution stays at it's current value, or even decreases slightly.

19
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: For a bit of fun - Selfies by Kai
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:22:40 PM »
lol, ok, so that was mildly amusing for one of their not so subtly sarcastic videos.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:16:18 PM »
Interesting.

A 7d2 more focused on fast action definitely makes sense. Birders & sports guys will probably love that.

5d4 features...hmmm...

I'd love to have metering based on focused AF points, even if it's not the full RGB of the 1DX, it'd be great to still meter based on the AF point.

Dual CFast slots, or at worst, dual UDMA7 CF slots.

More AFMA points along a zoom could be nifty, not sure if needed though. Add in an automated AFMA adjust (with appropriate target of course) would be awesome.

USB3 port instead of USB2.

Full, uncompressed 4:2:2 via HDMI, and it'd be great for similar off of the USB3 port, but I find that unlikely.

'Dual-Pixel' sensor Phase Detect AF could be handy, although I'd rather the better color accuracy/DR that Foeven-like might bring.

Probably a few other things that would be great, although I highly doubt I'd buy it day one. My 5d3 is working great, but eventually I imagine I'd go for a 5d4. Some day. Unless I win the lotto first *crosses fingers*

21
Lighting / Re: Incredible Godox Witstro 360 flash (does HSS too!)
« on: April 29, 2014, 08:38:01 PM »
Seems rather reasonably priced with the Li battery pack. Thanks!

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New User looking for advice..
« on: April 29, 2014, 01:36:24 PM »
Yea, the 70D will be quite good for you to start with, if you can afford a bit more to step up to it. And the new Tamron 150-600 will be pretty great as a fairly good telephoto zoom. You'll also end up needing a good tripod, most likely, and you don't want to skimp on that.

If you can manage, buy the 70D, Tamron 150-600, good tripod (budget $500-1000, and definitely get Arca-Swiss compatible). Macro, I think the go-to in Canon land is the 100L f/2.8 IS. It'll really bust your budget, but you can always get it later. Or switch and go Macro first, and then get the Tamron later on.

Realistically, you'll have to go over $2K for a fairly good body (meaning one with acceptable AF for the racing photography) plus telephoto lens, plus good tripod since you _will_ need one. Theoretically with enough light you can hand-hold the Tamron with enough light, but while it's not a monster like the 800mm, it still weighs a too much for most people to handhold for very long.

And trust me, don't try to spend $50 for a tripod, it'll suck. You'll end up buying another one for $150 thinking you'll be set. Then you'll go for $300, and it's better, but then you'll just end up spending more money to get something that's quite good. Ah, here's the link, Thom's tripod article. Look at Maxim #2.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: 5DmkII + Magic Lantern question for ML users
« on: April 28, 2014, 07:59:33 PM »
I've used it on my 5d2 & 5d3, no problems at all. Unless you get the bleeding edge Alpha, it's generally pretty safe. Even the bleeding edge Alpha I've heard usually won't b0rk your camera, although it may not be stable.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: dual pixel tech going forward
« on: April 25, 2014, 12:55:51 PM »
Wouldn't you also end up having to deal with a significant drop-off in number of photons hitting the photo-diodes? After all, you're essentially turning one 'pixel' site into 3 sub-pixels, none of which covers the entire area of the 'pixel'. Not that I don't want them to try innovative new things like that, but I don't think it's practical except for maybe some specialized applications.

I don't know if you'd lose any additional light. Right now, there is a color filter immediately covering two diodes. If you had two smaller color filters adjacent to one another, you aren't going to halve the light, though you may move it around. Rather than "all light hitting here is red", it would be "some of the light hitting here is red and some of it is green," and they would have varying intensities. I think. :P

Well, you realistically would. Since a photon can only hit 1 of the photo-diodes, if you give a photo-diode less surface area, there are less photons that can hit it. With the current, you end up with 2 photo-diodes that get the same color of light, which ends up with nearly as much surface area combined as a single photo-diode at the same pixel location.

It probably would also screw up the phase detect AF, since now you have different colors of light be compared for the phase, and which you can't be sure you're getting the same _amount_ of light of the different colors...so it'd probably be really, really hard to accurately do phase-detect. Then again...I'm no scientist, so maybe it's not so bad and you can reliably correct it via software.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: dual pixel tech going forward
« on: April 24, 2014, 12:30:39 PM »
Wouldn't you also end up having to deal with a significant drop-off in number of photons hitting the photo-diodes? After all, you're essentially turning one 'pixel' site into 3 sub-pixels, none of which covers the entire area of the 'pixel'. Not that I don't want them to try innovative new things like that, but I don't think it's practical except for maybe some specialized applications.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: A speculative thought on Canon test bodies
« on: April 23, 2014, 08:13:27 PM »
Laptops and cell phones eat batteries during testing, too.  Whenever you're working with software, there's a good chance you're going to have bugs that cause excessive CPU utilization.  Any time the CPU is doing work, it is consuming a lot more power than when it is idle.  It only takes a tiny bit of activity every few milliseconds to seriously impact power consumption by preventing the CPU from ever reaching an idle state.

Hopefully, those bugs get fixed before the thing ships, but it isn't at all uncommon to have them during development.  I'd be really surprised if anything other than the CPU were responsible for the high battery drain.

Well, Intel's CPUs generally use less power than AMD's CPUs.

Intel has greater IPC (instructions per clock) than similar level AMD CPUs at the same clock speed. More complicated than that, but basically Intel CPUs of similar generation as an AMD CPU at the same clock speed will do a good bit more work than the AMD CPU does. This lets the Intel CPU do a "race to sleep", which is to say get the CPU back to it's lowest power usage state. If a bit of software keeps the CPU active, even at low levels, it ends up using quite a bit more power than it does if it can if it is in it's lowest power state (at which point it's not really doing much at all).

Like dgatwood said, a tiny bit of activity every few (or even more often) milliseconds can result in the CPU staying at a higher power state longer than it otherwise should, and using much more power than it would otherwise. Also, don't forget that when it uses more power, it's also using part of that to generate waste heat. I don't know the formula, but I believe, in general, as the power usage goes up, for the same conductor efficiency goes down and more of the power is released as waste heat, rather than getting to where the work needs to get done.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: A speculative thought on Canon test bodies
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:40:44 PM »
I think you're referring to what they call triple-CCD (or three-chip) cameras in the video world, right?  I've wondered about that for a long time, too, but don't know about how practical it is in terms of size for an SLR.  I know the pro video cameras had them for many years (and still do?) as they were supposed to produce better color and be better in low light.

Yea, but they're also quite a bit bulkier than a DSLR, even a 1D size body. At a guess, you'd need quite a bit more back-length at a minimum, because the prisms have to cover 100% (or slightly more) of a FF 35mm sensor. I'm pretty sure those 3-ccd video cameras had/have a much smaller sensor size than even APS-C, which requires a much smaller set of prisms.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Petition to Canon regarding the EOS 5D Mark III
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:38:17 PM »
Have you tried using AI servo in low light?  Wouldn't it have been nice to have your AF point illuminated in red so you can actually see what your focussing on?  Without the illuminated AF points, AI servo would be crippled in low light for me.

There's no reason why this feature shouldn't trickle down to the 5D, or spot metering tied to AF points given the fact they share nearly identical AF systems.
You sound quite certain about that…I'm not so sure. 

For AF point illumination in AI Servo, as I understand the issue, the problem is that the the light which illuminates the AF points also affects metering.  In prior 1-series bodies, the illumination wasn't an issue, since the light was at a different angle to illuminate the AF points etched in the focus screen, compared to the points displayed on the transmissive LCD.   It's not a problem in One Shot, as metering is done once.  But in AI Servo, metering is done continuously, along with AF.  The solution for the 1D X required that the illumination blink on and off, but I also suspect it may involve altering the way the data is read from the metering sensor, so the data from the red channel are eiher ignored or given less weight.  That would be possible with the RGB metering sensor of the 1D X, the 5DIII doesn't have an RGB metering sensor. 

Regarding AF point-linked spot metering for the 5DIII, while the AF systems are nearly the same as you state, the metering systems are vastly different.  Here are the 61 AF points superimposed on the 5DIII's 63 zone iFCL metering grid:



The resolution of the 5DIII's metering sensor simply may not be high enough to support spot metering with the AF points, whereas the 100,000 pixel metering sensor of the 1D X can do so.  Even when the 1D X's metering sensor reverts to zone metering (in very dim light or for flash exposure metering), it's divided into 252 zones - 4 times the density of the 5DIII's metering sensor.

I can't say for sure that those tecnhical limitations are absolute, but you might consider the possibility that there are technical reasons for those features being available on the 1D X but not on the 5DIII.  After all, they did add f/8 AF to the 5DIII.

I'd LOVE #1. However, you do raise a good point that the metering systems are quite different. I'd still like to see it if possible, however I don't know if we'll ever know if it's possible because I highly doubt Canon will bring that to anything other than the 1D line. Maybe the 7d2 (or equivalent replacement) as a crop-factor equivalent of the 1D.

29
Photography Technique / Re: Slides
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:30:48 PM »
And I'm afraid Kodachrome processing has gone the way of the Dodo. I believe it is possible to development as a black and white negative but that is hardly what you want.

Really? That's interesting.

30
Photography Technique / Re: Slides
« on: April 22, 2014, 06:54:16 PM »
Far as I know, you can't get Kodachrome to be developed anymore. Anywhere. I could be wrong though.

Not sure about the Kodak Elite Chrome 200. if it uses the same chemicals as others such as Velvia/Provia, you probably could get it developed just fine. Or you could always just have them cross-process and see what that brings out.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 112