July 23, 2014, 02:28:51 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 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 112
931
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Flash transceiver
« on: December 19, 2012, 04:33:37 PM »
Having had pretty much the same problem, I just ordered two Yongnuo YN-622C's. Depending on your location, you should be able to get them for anywhere between 80 and 100 USD for the pair. Anything cheaper will be far less versatile. Most alternatives with equal functionality are more expensive (Pocket Wizards, Phottix Odin) or again less functional (Phottix Strato, older YN's). Flip side is that build quality of YN is far from stellar.

The Phottix Strato II's are fairly reasonable, although it's a simple trigger, and don't give you any kind of TTL build quality is fairly decent, and it's RF which means it can trigger where you don't have line-of-sight which is needed for the built-in TTL on the 430 EX/580EX speedlites. The Yongnuo YN-622C's are RF with TTL support, and by most reviews they work well which for their price is fantastic. I haven't tried them yet, but I'm tempted to even though I already have the Strato II's, 1 transmitter 3 receivers simply because the wireless TTL and wireless manually setting the power of the speedlites would be fantastic.

932
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: YATT: Yet another Tripod Thread
« on: December 18, 2012, 09:18:51 PM »
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/A3064-Benro-C2692TB1-Transformer-Travel-Angel-Carbon-Fiber-Tripod-Kit-/380387989127?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item5890e41687

I have this and I also have the aluminium version which is a little heavier they are great can be converted to monopod if needed and basically do everything
extremely good value for money tripods they come with a nice padded baga nd fold down to a nice compact size


Perhaps I needed to say, I'm in the US, and prefer to order from someplace like B&H or Adorama, although I'll consider other places if you've had a reliable time with them.

I can't seem to quite find the exact match for the model number on B&H, is that an AU/International specific product number? The nearest I can find is the C2691TB1 which is about $200 more expensive. However, I do see it on Ebay for quite a bit cheaper, but I'm not sure which seller is best (haven't picked through them all), or if there's one specific package that's worth spending a few dollars more to get a few extra things thrown in.

933
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / YATT: Yet another Tripod Thread
« on: December 18, 2012, 08:39:48 PM »
So, I've randomly come into $250 AMEX gift card I could use on my regular, random expenses...or I could blow it on something I actually probably really should get since I do want to try out some timelapse, long exposure, basic macro, so I thought Tripod! Now, I understand $250 is probably about the minimum for a good set of legs, and then I need a head, but I'm fine going up to $350-400 total. So, what do you recommend? Right now I have 5d3, and the heaviest lens I've got is probably the 24-105 or 135L. I am planning on getting the Tamron 24-70 and Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS v2 eventually.

So, something reasonably lightweight so I can take it with me on hikes (doesn't need to be ultra-light, I can handle some extra weight for a few miles), but is pretty stable and can take the 20-700 and my 5d3 and be pretty stable. And of course a fairly nice head. Doesn't have to be really fancy, but something dependable and would work well for my current use cases.

934
From what I've read about issues and download time, locking up the camera while downloading, and lots of other things with various Canon Bodies, I have decided to not buy one, not even for my wifes G1X. 
Maybe for a 10 mp camera with small jpeg files, it would be practical, but firing off shot after shot @30mb with a 5D MK III, they sound totally worthless.  Even the faster cards don't cut it, I wouldn't even consider the low end ones.
Well, darn....

Thought it might be a fun toy....from what I'd read..the 'pro' version of the eye-fi card said it would handle RAW files....

Anyone out there that uses the eye-fi?

cayenne

I've been somewhat thinking of maybe getting one to play with on my 5d3, since I can actually do some basic processing of RAW files/HDR. Not sure it gives me the option to choose where to save it, so don't know if saving to the CF card, and processing across to the SD card to have it automatically upload/post to a site or FTP only the ones I want. I will have to experiment with it.

935
Software & Accessories / Re: EOS Solutions Disc latest version?
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:32:25 PM »
You can also download the software from Canon. Maybe it bit more work. On the other hand, you can choose what you want and what not. And, online is always the latest version of the software

No, straightly speaking you CAN'T
In order to install online updates you'll need to have the original Solutions Disc (actual disc or ISO image) in place


Well, actually, you can.  It does take a little more work.  Keith at Northlight provides instructions.  Basically, you either spoof the Registry (Windows) or delete a file from a duplicated installer package (Mac), which 'tricks' the installer into thinking you've already got Canon software installed.  In spite of the check for previously installed Canon software, every updater is actually a full install.

But of course, you can only update as far as the latest available download from Canon, and the newest cameras usually ship with a version of DPP than is later than that, a version not made available for download until a newer update is released.


Yea, that's one of the sillier things I think Canon is doing. A big PITA, without really stopping people from getting/installing it.

936
Software & Accessories / Re: Stop Using Instagram
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:30:18 PM »
Nobody can steal copyright, they can steal the image (which is not the case here) or the original copyright holder can assign rights to others, which is the case here. If you don't agree with an end user license and their draconian copyright sharing policies then don't tick the box to signup for an account.

Further, once you have ticked the box and got an account there is usually a clause in there that states you agree to any changes unless you opt out, that is, if you don't monitor what changes they make to the agreement and do nothing then you are considered to have agreed with the changes.

So, pay attention to the agreements you make and any emailed changes to the end user license. Don't post anything unless you are happy to give it away anyway, these big corporations might be trying to make money off your images legally but plenty of people are happy to just copy and paste, steal, your image if it is what they want. Never, ever, post a high res image anywhere unless you really don't care about it, plenty of customers will be happy with even low res small prints they can take off proofing web pages without paying.

Talking of high res images, for this forum I did post three comparison images at full res on a hosting site, despite the fact that probably only 100 or so people read the thread, the links were not high profile and few would have found the image interesting they have subsequently been viewed over 5,000 times in two weeks. That hosting site has tagged them, I didn't, and the images are now searchable, and they are obviously coming up in searches.


Which hosting company? I'll want to avoid it if I can...


Minus.com

http://minus.com/lKDaU0HCu4BgR


Thanks. Interesting, never heard of them.

Is anyone else totally hating the bottom footer (e.g. About, FAQ, Help, Contact Us, etc) that keeps disappearing? It's freaking annoying! I want to click on those, but they are never visible on the screen! WTF! Facebook is another big offender when it comes to that and the timeline. Grrrr...

Oh, and found another opinion on the updated Instagram policy. Looks like it's more a clarification of language that already sorta gave them those rights anyway.

937
Software & Accessories / Re: Stop Using Instagram
« on: December 18, 2012, 12:49:11 PM »
Nobody can steal copyright, they can steal the image (which is not the case here) or the original copyright holder can assign rights to others, which is the case here. If you don't agree with an end user license and their draconian copyright sharing policies then don't tick the box to signup for an account.

Further, once you have ticked the box and got an account there is usually a clause in there that states you agree to any changes unless you opt out, that is, if you don't monitor what changes they make to the agreement and do nothing then you are considered to have agreed with the changes.

So, pay attention to the agreements you make and any emailed changes to the end user license. Don't post anything unless you are happy to give it away anyway, these big corporations might be trying to make money off your images legally but plenty of people are happy to just copy and paste, steal, your image if it is what they want. Never, ever, post a high res image anywhere unless you really don't care about it, plenty of customers will be happy with even low res small prints they can take off proofing web pages without paying.

Talking of high res images, for this forum I did post three comparison images at full res on a hosting site, despite the fact that probably only 100 or so people read the thread, the links were not high profile and few would have found the image interesting they have subsequently been viewed over 5,000 times in two weeks. That hosting site has tagged them, I didn't, and the images are now searchable, and they are obviously coming up in searches.

Which hosting company? I'll want to avoid it if I can...

938
Lenses / Re: 2.8 vs F4
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:23:28 PM »
Dido?

Dido - Don't believe in love - Live

or do u mean... "dito" ?

Yes diTo.  Give me a break.  Typing on small device with fat fingers.  Auto correct must of replaced whatever I typed we with a "d"
Not the first time there's been a misspelled word on CR.


It's actually "ditto", see this definition.

939
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark "Perceptual Megapixel"
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:21:22 PM »
Quote from: DxOMark
Can you define MTF? Do you know if an MTF20% of 50lp/mm is better or worse than an MTF 50% of 30 lp/mm? And when reviewing an MTF chart, can you distinguish which curve is best? The short answer is probably no.

Yes, yes, and yes.   :P


Yea, but can the rest of us? I keep re-reading the same couple of articles now and then on MTF, and I sorta, kinda can describe the general purpose, but have a hard time actually getting meaningful information out of MTF charts still :(

940
Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 17, 2012, 06:37:17 PM »
Since he's not interested in photography, why not just pick up the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889965-REG/Canon_PowerShot_SX50HS_Digital_Camera.html

50X optical zoom, 24-1200mm, 12.1MP, Full HD 1080p Video, Optical Image Stabilizer and High-Speed Burst HQ for 13fps Shooting.

That looks amazing.  And a small camera like that is very discrete.  I just wonder whether it would be any good at night?


That's the big question. Also a question of Auto-Focus. Contrast detect is very accurate, but tends to be slower and you may not be able to easily tell it what part you want in focus. I haven't read any reviews, so I don't know if that applies to this camera or not.

941
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark "Perceptual Megapixel"
« on: December 17, 2012, 05:16:32 PM »
Paging Neuro. Doctor Neuroanatomist, please post to this thread.

Overall, it looks like there is something to the 'perceived' resolution, and that the problem they are stating, that MTF charts are not what the vast majority of photographers read, seems fine. But I think they need to publish (if it wasn't in the article, I may have missed something) how they came up with the numbers. Give us the methodology, and then we (meaning not me, someone like neuro probably, or Roger at LensRentals.com) can run their own numbers and thoughts and see if DxOMark's number makes sense.



I was fairly certain that Roger at LR had concluded the D800 out resolved quite a good deal of Nikon lenses.
Roger's Article on the D800 and Lens Choice

Quote
The D800′s ultra-high resolution sensor can provide amazing detail. Not every lens (in fact, not most lenses) are going to be able to give you the maximum resolution the camera is capable of.  This list isn’t about great lenses, it’s about what lenses can wring the most resolution out of a D800 when you need every ounce of resolution. Maybe you have a two page magazine spread to shoot, or more likely you just want to post your pics on a Canon forum to rile everyone up.



Ah, I think that was before I started reading his blog regularly. Thanks!

942
Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 17, 2012, 04:58:33 PM »
Anyone notice what camera kit Virgil uses in Homeland? He always gets the perfect shot of his target's face, and it looks like a light setup.

It's magic movie fairy dust. Can't you see the sparklies in the air whenever he uses it?

943
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark "Perceptual Megapixel"
« on: December 17, 2012, 04:37:54 PM »
Paging Neuro. Doctor Neuroanatomist, please post to this thread.

Overall, it looks like there is something to the 'perceived' resolution, and that the problem they are stating, that MTF charts are not what the vast majority of photographers read, seems fine. But I think they need to publish (if it wasn't in the article, I may have missed something) how they came up with the numbers. Give us the methodology, and then we (meaning not me, someone like neuro probably, or Roger at LensRentals.com) can run their own numbers and thoughts and see if DxOMark's number makes sense.

944
Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 17, 2012, 02:19:00 PM »
What does this mean: "Oh, and doesn't Canon have some kind of strong signing of an image that it comes from a person/camera? Maybe he should look into that, since it probably would help with chain of custody kind of thing for any evidence." Strong signing?
Canon offers a Data Security Kit for some cameras, although a quick google suggests it's been cracked.

Yea, that's what I was referring to. Too bad to hear it's been completely cracked.

Oh, and maybe he should also get the GPS logger for the 1DX/5d3 if that's what he gets? That will help place the location of where he's shooting, and I believe even a digital compass to say which direction he's shooting in.


How far away does he need to do surveillance?
This is the question.  Because it determines the focal length of the lens.  The ultimate low light telephoto is probably the 200 f/2 ($$$), but whether that is the appropriate focal length depends on the subject distance.

Pro-level tripods are big and easy to spot.  Leaning the camera on something sturdy, perhaps with a bean bag, may be more practical.  Or perhaps a monopod or a very short tripod/stand, like what some sports photographers use for their remote cameras. 

The essentials are going to be:
- high res, high ISO camera = Canon 5D3, 1DX, 6D, (or Nikon D4, D800, D600?)
- wide aperture (f/2.8 or faster) prime or zoom with image stabilization, probably a discrete non-white lens (Nikon, Sigma) or white lens with an appropriate dark cover.
- practice focusing; practice steadying the camera.

Depending on the distance, a camera with quiet shutter mode may be of use (5D3, 6D).  Also, it will be important to learn how to turn off / tape over anything that lights up on the camera.

The 200 f/2.0 would probably be overkill, although I'd love to own one :)  The 70-200 2.8 IS would probably do just as well, and be much cheaper as well. Add on the 2X TC, and you get the 140-400, even though it does go to f/5.6 it probably could still be usable at high ISOs like on the 5d3/1DX.

Great point about the big tripod. A beanbag on a car/wall or good quality monopod would be less obvious and easier to move around with. I'd also make sure to be using the lens-hood, even though it'll make it bigger and bulkier, it might help prevent reflections off of the front element of the lens. Most photographic lenses aren't made with the non-reflective coating like military/surveillance binoculars/scopes generally have on them.

945
Lenses / Re: 2.8 vs F4
« on: December 17, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »
Is it like freeway numbers? Take the 55 to the 5 to the 10 the 15 to the 395 or take CA55 to I5 to I10 to I15 to US395. :-X

You left out the 405 to the 101 to the 170 to the 118 to the 210 :P

Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 112