March 05, 2015, 07:10:04 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 112
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: what to do
« on: May 24, 2013, 02:43:16 PM »
If you're shooting landscapes, you're on a tripod, or at least a monopod most of the time, correct? Then you can generally use a longer shutter speed to avoid higher ISOs, and a mix of open and stopped down.

If you don't have a good quality tripod, and you mostly shoot landscapes, I'd actually invest in a high quality tripod first. It'll cost you as much as some mid priced lenses, but if you select the right one you can use it for years and it will help with your landscapes a lot when it comes to fine detail. Just stop down (higher f-number) your lens to around 6.3-8 which generally increases the lens sharpness by a good bit on nearly all lenses.

If you have a pretty decent tripod, then it's time to look for a lens. Do you want ultra-wide? Or is wide to normal going to be good enough? And do you think you'll move up to full-frame (FF) camera like the 6D or 5d3 in the future? For ultra-wide, there's really only a few options for crop-sensors, but they tend to be decent to good optically. You can get ultra-wide FF lenses that will work on your 500d, but they'll function as wide to normal focal length lenses.

Frankly, one of the cheapest lenses you can get is actually quite sharp. The Canon EF-40mm f/2.8 is quite sharp even wide open, and stopped down improves some. It's also only $200, I think $150 right now after the coupon/rebate that Canon is offering. It'll be in the normal focal range (~64mm effective field of view) on your camera, but it's quite cheap, and a great deal.

If you want wider, the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for $900 is very good optically, although it'll be ~56mm FoV for you which is still normal. Next is really looking at the Canon 24/28mm lenses, with the 24L f/1.4 probably being among the better, although still quite expensive. Then there's the Canon 17-40 and 16-35 zooms. The 17-40 might be quite good for you since it gives you ~28-64mm FoV, while avoiding the extreme corners where it tends to be quite soft. It's also relatively inexpensive, $839 ($739 right now after rebate) and pretty good optically, except for extreme corners which on a crop you won't have. The 16-35 v2 is a good bit better in the corners, and a lot more expensive. From what I know, both are quite good optically stopped down, although the 16-35 is still the better.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: what to do
« on: May 23, 2013, 06:13:19 PM »
Some more information would be helpful for us to give you some advice. First, do you find yourself technically limited by your camera? Or are you just thinking because you have some cash you should get the latest and greatest? The general advice most often given is get better glass rather than replacing your body. A fantastic body with some crappy glass won't give you the images you think you might get. But a great lens on a decent body (and virtually all bodies these days are at least decent) can improve your image quality (which can be somewhat subjective) quite a bit. If you think you want to make photography a long term serious hobby, I'd look at Canon L series lenses, although there have been some recent releases by Sigma and Tamron which provide quite good quality at a significantly lesser price than Canon L. In the case of the new Sigma 35mm, it actually is optically better than the Canon 35mm L.

They have fixed the Mac GUI version of raw2dng, no more 2GB recording limit!  That was very fast and very un-Canon!

That's because it's not Canon, it's the MagicLantern team  :o

Exactly!  A rag-tag band of part-time, just-for-fun programmers can fix their software in a couple of days...meanwhile Canon announces a firmware update and then takes over 6 months to actually roll it out... :o

Well, they have some advantages. If things break and your camera no longer works, they aren't legally liable. Granted if it happens to too many people they'll just stop using it. But Canon needs to make sure things are as bullet proof as possible, otherwise they face potential massive liabilities. Also, ML runs on top/alongside the Canon firmware, they don't have to do everything top to bottom like the firmware does.

That said...I definitely agree Canon should move faster with some of their firmware updates.

Has anyone used the latest ML release (alpha 3 or nightly build) with the 1.2.1 firmware? Also how do I get the nightly build? Do I need to build it?

Thanks in advance.

I don't have it up in front of me, but I've been following in the forums....

1. THey are currently only working on the older firmware, I think it was 1.1.3?  The threads are like 50 deep, but in those they have links to get the older firmware so you can 'downgrade' to the version that works with current builds.

2. There are no 'guides' with everything you need to know about running the nightlies so you can play with the RAW video. YOu basically have to read through the long forum threads and take notes. ON some of those threads I saw links to outside sites where people have tried to put it all together into one guide, but if you're not familiar with a bit of coding, or more intricate computing methods, you might just want to wait till they have a more stable candidate.

That being said, the info is on a couple of ML forum threads.....I"m currently just watching the threads from the sidelines for now, but I may jump in at some point and try nightlies....



Yea, I'd recommend waiting until there's at least a pre-built alpha/beta that's officially released. A lot easier to install and use. Also it'll be a lot more stable and less experimental. But, if you do want to participate, please do so and help them out with any bug reports or suggestions!

They have fixed the Mac GUI version of raw2dng, no more 2GB recording limit!  That was very fast and very un-Canon!

That's because it's not Canon, it's the MagicLantern team  :o

Lenses / Re: dpreview reviews the Tamron 24-70/2.8 Di VC
« on: May 22, 2013, 11:57:38 AM »
Buy cheap, buy twice....the Canon lens isn't just optically's built to a far superior standard.
Most photographers won't need the extra build quality. But for someone who uses their kit day in day out and earns by theor results....then the pro glass is always the cheaper long term purchase.

In general I agree, however I have used the Tamron and it feels (at least) to be quite solid with good build quality. Also, I completely agree with the quote above. For the enthusiast (aka me), the value is much better than the 24-70L v2. That's not to say I wouldn't love to have one of the latter, but as far as value for the money, the Tamron is well suited for the rest of us. The only thing I find is that the zoom is reversed, and the focus is thin and closer to the camera than the Canon norm. But I can adapt.

Warning: Komputerbay 128GB cards are too slow. They won't work for this. I hear their smaller sized cards are faster though.

Yeah, read the FINE PRINT about the WRITE speeds of the cards.  You need at least 90MB/s WRITE for 1920x1080 24p raw video.  Not all 1000X cards are created equal unfortunately.  Seems like you can just have a fast read speed and call your card 1000X...

My Komputerbay 64GB is working great so far, I was definitely a skeptic...

Yea, the write speeds have to do with how many NAND devices and the type and the controller. More devices, SLC instead of MLC, good garbage collection algorithms. Those all contribute to faater write speeds. And higher costs.

I was just thinking that you could probably batch the .DNG files not just in AE/ACR but in PS/ACR with with full PS power and various other plug-ins and have video frames processed with full on stills photography quality tools and all sorts of fancy, fancy processing and super advanced sharperning, NR, coloring tools.

Ding, ding, ding!

I'm mainly a stills photographer but I’ve been starting to get into timelapse and video over the past year.

You are EXACTLY right.  This is HUGE for people that are mainly stills photographers.  Just as you describe, you can process this raw video EXACTLY like you can stils.  Exactly.  This is driving the video people nuts, but it’s huge for me.  The workflow is a bit complex but not as hard and time consuming as you’d expect.  I’ve made one crappy comparison video (will post later).  Here is my workflow:

1)     Shoot video, staying under 2GB (it tells you in real-time how much space it’s hogging)

2)     Convert .RAW file into .dng files using raw2dng.  TIME: about a minute

3)     Import .dng files into Lightroom (this is  where my workflow is a bit different than most…) TIME: about a minute

4)     Process .dng files just like you would a raw from a camera…because that is exactly what they are. (I convert my Canon .CR2 files into .dng files anyway) TIME: how many images have you edited in LR?

5)     Export .dng files as full-res jpegs TIME: a couple minutes (I guess if you were really anal about quality but not about HDD space you could convert to .tif's)

6)     Import full-res jpegs into Quicktime 7 Pro as an image sequence (exact same way you make a time-lapse) TIME: one second

7)     Export image sequence as Apple ProRes HQ 422 .mov’s (if you don’t’ want to do any video editing you can just export these as h264-compressed .mov’s or .mp4’s instead) TIME: a couple seconds for ProRes, a couple minutes for h264

8)     Import Apple ProRes 422 .mov’s into Final Cut Pro X TIME: instant

9)     Edit… TIME: see LR comment, I suck at video editing

10   Export to whatever format you want TIME: a couple minutes

Canyon do this with PNG or TIFF? In theory You can get better quality if you output the final movie at full resolution. Although...if you're outputting in a lossy format anyway, it might not make a difference.

Lenses / Re: my new 24-105
« on: May 15, 2013, 10:17:29 PM »
Thank you for helping i have a 50mm f/1.4 and thinking of buying 85mm f/1.8 would either of these be good for macro is so would you recommend the 50mm or the 85?

I'd recommend you use the magnification calculator at You'll need the sensor size of your camera, focal length of the lens, extension tube size. Plug those in, hit calculate, and it'll give you the magnification. 1 is 1:1 (or 100%), while >1 is more larger than life, and less than 1 is smaller than life.

Based on the specs of the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, the 50 1.4 would be better as you get a higher magnification. But it's still not great, only 0.39x or 1:2.6 with 12mm extension tube on FF 35mm sensor. The 50mm Compact Macro is actually cheaper than the 85 1.8, gives you 0.5x out of the box and with 12mm extension tube gives you 0.71x magnification which is getting a lot closer to true macro (1:1).

If you get an extension tube set, you can generally stack then (although you get accompanying light loss from any extension tube), which means you can probably start with just the tube set, use your current 50 1.4, start figuring out best practices and how it works for you (don't forget a reasonably sturdy tripod, mirror lock up, remote shutter release). Once you have the basic technique down, start looking to see if you want to invest in a better lens, or better mounting/tripod system, bellows, etc.

Lenses / Re: my new 24-105
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:56:33 PM »
This calculator can be of help, and this has some good Macro information

I'd actually recommend an inexpensive prime with an extension tube or reversing ring rather than a zoom. While the 24-105 is a good general purpose lens, it won't perform as good for macro, even with extension tubes.

I'd really recommend something like the 40mm f/2.8 or even the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro (only $300). That 50 + 12 or 20mm extension tube will be pretty good, or you could go for the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-L) for $600 and not need an extension tube for 1:1, or get one and get more magnification.

You can also try and mess with the new MagicLantern RAW video recording which will help with your DR, however I think paul13walnut5 has some better suggestions. Mask or rent a clickless manual lens such as a Samyang/Rokinon.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I've had a revelation
« on: May 15, 2013, 12:37:22 PM »
Ok, got my scans done and a few bits of editing, mostly just removing dust and specks from the scan. Here ya go whoever wants to see them

Nice images ... I would guess the slides would be even more impressive.

Definitely. I tried to match the slides pretty closely, but I think I'd need to spend a lot more time tweaking the scan process to get closer, and even then I probably won't quite match it.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I've had a revelation
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:32:47 AM »
Ok, got my scans done and a few bits of editing, mostly just removing dust and specks from the scan. Here ya go whoever wants to see them

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!
« on: May 15, 2013, 01:33:14 AM »
First, are you being paid? If you are going to be shooting for paid stuff, roll the cost of renting any lighting that you need for that particular shoot. Even if this is a no/ultra-low budget short or teaser or reel you're trying to get off the ground, it'd be worth it to put the money you'd spend trying to cobble something together on renting some actual lighting, even if you only get 1 or 2 lights and use reflectors instead of having a whole bunch of smaller lights.

If this is something you're going to use a lot for personal stuff and you can't afford to rent as many times as you'll need it, I'd say put whatever money you'd spend towards trying to get something together to buying a quality low-end light, even if it's just a single used kino-flow that you managed to scrape together the money for. Then buy some lighting modifiers (flags, reflectors, etc) which can help make up for only having the 1 light.

If you're just wanting to get something that's better then nothing, get a cheapo 1 or 2 head fluorescent kit from Samy's or Calumet and know you're likely to be limited in some of what you're going to do.

Technical Support / Re: Urgent Help Please on Eos Utility for canon
« on: May 14, 2013, 09:17:16 PM »
Just wondering.... I have never tried this on a windows box....

Could you set up three virtual machines on the laptop and have each control a single camera?

In theory, should be possible, yes. You'll run into Windows licensing limits, and you'll have to use USB pass-through to individual VM's so that only that VM will have access to that USB port.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 112