December 21, 2014, 07:23:45 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 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 112
976
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Top Focus Point Light Bleeding Issue
« on: December 13, 2012, 11:47:40 AM »
Umm... No.  This is a reflection in the viewfinder area where the focusing screen and focus points exist, not the sensor area.  Verify this by seeing if the problem exists in liveview.  Wait, those points don't show up in live view because....

Right, but the light can, possibly get through the AF partial-mirror on the main mirror and hit the sensor. On a fast exposure or with lots of light it likely won't make a difference, but in a long exposure (>1sec) it may. Also, it may affect metering, if the red light doesn't turn off when the camera determines the final metering when the shutter button is pressed.

977
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 13, 2012, 11:44:38 AM »
i think you'd be better buying a light meter, they are quite cheap...

I think the OP is also looking to use the DSLR as both lightmeter, and simulated captured image, kinda like how they used to use Polaroids to get the right shot before actual exposure.

978
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography
« on: December 12, 2012, 09:43:34 PM »
Pn the flip side, contrary to the many claims you will hear, right now in the Canon lineup a 36x24 sensor is also not more useful for landscape photography UNLESS you own and use the T/S wide angle lenses. You will hear all day long how FF offers better image quality at low ISO. It does not, and you can demonstrate this all day long by presenting unlabeled large prints from both (or pixel crops online) and watch while FF fans stumble trying to guess which is which. They never can.

Who is 'they'?   Here's what I can tell you.  I took a series of paired, identically framed shots shots with the 7D and 1D X, using either the 24-105L or the 70-200/2.8L IS II, using the zoom to compensate for the effect sensor size on FoV (meaning same distance, so same framing and same perspective for each pair).  I shot about a dozen paired images like that, some landscapes, some architecture, and a couple of close-up flower/plant shots with the 24-105. I processed them equivalently, then showed the paired images to my wife, scaled down to 3.7 MP (full screen on an Apple Thunderbolt Display), and asked her which she liked better.  For 11 of the 12 shots, she picked the 1D X image.  Subjective and completely anecdotal? Yes. But subjectively and anecdotally, at least, the 'FF mystique' is real.

And neuro strikes again. But this is why we all love him, because he runs the tests we are too lazy to do ourselves :)

979
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography
« on: December 12, 2012, 05:52:44 PM »
Welcome to the forums! If you've been reading a while, you'll see most of us tend to be pretty civil and helpful :)

I think the other thing is that there tends to be better quality lenses for super-wide. I know the 10-22 is pretty good, but I believe the 16-35 is at least as good with better build quality, and the 14L is pretty good, and the 17mm T-S is phenomenal from what I understand.

If you have good lighting, I'd actually go for the 5d2 or 6d, as the 5d2 has a bit of an edge in low ISO over the 5d3 I believe, and I think the 6d performs pretty good, although I haven't done much research on it over the 5d2 with IQ.

Note: I don't really shoot landscapes, so I probably am not the most qualified person to reply to this

980
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: [crop + 35L] versus [FF + 50 f/1.4]
« on: December 12, 2012, 05:47:42 PM »
The other thing about moving to FF and the 5d3 is you may be able to simply crop to close to the FoV you are used to, while still being equal or better quality. Especially better quality at higher ISO's.

I'd say try using the 35L when you get the 5d3, see if it still suits you and your style, or if a 50mm really is more for you. In which case, try the 50 f/1.4 for a while and see if that length is better for you.

981
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Top Focus Point Light Bleeding Issue
« on: December 12, 2012, 05:37:22 PM »
Here is how it looks like. I was able to capture it via the viewfinder using my phone. Note the area above the top focus point:



Not to worry. I'm an expert for this job. Red or Black?     ;D ;D ;D

This is sounding more and more like the 5d3 light leak 'issue', that wasn't really an issue. Only thing I can think this would affect is metering, and that's if the light stays on and it's low light. Maybe some light leaking from the view finder down into the sensor, but it'd have to be a pretty long exposure with very low light for that. If it stays on.

982
EOS Bodies / Re: Memory Cards--What is the absolute best?
« on: December 11, 2012, 06:14:52 PM »
The cards are rated to 1000x, 600x, 400x aso. Hence their sustained data transfer rate must be somewhere around these values.
That's their linear read rate.

Unfortunately, their write speed is not determined only by their "data transfer rate". The reason for that is that the flash can only write into pre-erased blocks, and the size of erase block is big, in the order of several megabytes (whereas FAT32 cluster size is in the order of several kilobytes), the erase operation is slow, and the writes almost never happen to be by full erase blocks.

The controller writing logic is quite complicated and consists of a lot of tradeoffs (such as for which file sizes to optimize the erase blocks de-fragmentation logic). As a result, for example, one card can be faster than another in writing JPEGs (smaller files), but slower in writing RAWs (larger files).

There's also trade-offs in the type of NAND flash that is used. SLC generally being fastest, while MLC tends to be a bit slower. I wouldn't be surprised if modern CF cards look a lot like modern SSDs on the inside including controllers & firmware. However they're still stuck in the parallel days, so I hope that QXD or CFast get put into all future cameras, or at least the ones that have CF cards now. I'd actually prefer QXD, since it's based off of PCI-Express. I can start to imagine all of the possibilities with some kind of open SDK to let 3rd party accessories hang off of that. Imagine hanging a modern SSD off of that with it's hundreds of MByte/sec write speeds! You'd never run out of buffer with write speeds like that.

983
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 11, 2012, 02:38:44 PM »
Are you looking for an incident reading or reflected reading? Incident is you put the meter between the subject and the light source(s), reflected is you point the meter are your subject. So your normal camera with a light meter built in is generally going to be reading the reflected light, however it's also calibrated more specifically for that sensor/electronics. If you want an incident reading, you probably should get a dedicated light meter.

Neither, I WANT a digital MF camera.  But that's not going to happen. But if the image on my lcd of my digital camera can be reproduced with the MF film camera with the same settings, I see no need for a light meter, which can only tell you what IT thinks is correct. ( I understand some differences will be there, depth of field, FOV, etc..  )

I think the biggest thing would be the ISO, since actual effective digital ISO levels actually vary a bit from the stated ISO levels often. So the shutter/aperture listed will likely be in the ballpark, but not necessarily exactly what your MF camera would need to be set to. If it's not too expensive, you can try doing a series of +/-Ev on your DSLR and compare against the actual exposure for that subject on your MF film. Plus you have the different metering modes. Spot, center-weighted average, partial, evaluative. So, you may need to experiment some to find the one you like best, or just simply use spot to get the most specific metering mode on a very specific part of the image.

So, my guess it'd take a bit of experimentation to get exactly what you want, but it certainly can be done. Just make sure you record everything until you figure out the exposure correction factory (e.g. if your DSLR shows f/5.6 @1/500 ISO 400, by experience you've found you need either 1/1000, or f/5.0 to get a correct exposure on your MF film with film of ISO 400).

984
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 11, 2012, 01:50:55 PM »
Are you looking for an incident reading or reflected reading? Incident is you put the meter between the subject and the light source(s), reflected is you point the meter are your subject. So your normal camera with a light meter built in is generally going to be reading the reflected light, however it's also calibrated more specifically for that sensor/electronics. If you want an incident reading, you probably should get a dedicated light meter.

985
Thankyou for ur reply Drizz, by better files I meant that the increased file size & later model of the CCD of the Mk111 compared to the origional 5D  which I'm currently using. I'm sure I read somewhere the bottle neck for write speed was the canon choice of connection from the SD card to processor or something to that effect. The write speed was 133x which meant 20mb per sec , or something similar & folks were complaining regarding slow shooting due to the buffer overload. But if I can shoot short bursts of 2 fps with no buffer problems writing full RAW to both cards I would be fine.Thanks again Pete

First, the sensor type for both cameras is CMOS, not CCD.

Second, increased filesize is not indicative of 'quality', which can be subjective. It is influenced significantly by megapixels, and somewhat by the content of the image which can include the amount of noise and other things which can cause it to not compress as well as a fairly uniform image.

And the bottleneck for writing to the SD card on the 5d3 is the fact that Canon did not use the newer UHS-1 hardware which I personally suspect is partially due to the Digic 5+ only having 1 high speed memory card interface. Although it could simply be that Canon didn't want to put in the necessary hardware interface for UHS-1 since it likely was a bit costlier at the time, and/or they didn't see that the necessary cards would be coming out as soon.

And yes, I suspect you will be fine at ~2 fps shooting, although you likely would eventually hit buffer full. But if you pause for a second here, a second there, you likely will be fine.

986
For the frame rate, the speed of the flash cards only comes into play if you end up exceeding the size of the memory buffer. So let's say you're shooting full size RAW, and the memory buffer can hold up to 12 images. You can hold up to 12 images before the camera needs to stop taking photos until a photo is flushed to the memory cards. In reality it tends to exceed the memory buffer size some because it writes out to the flash cards while you are still taking photos. So with the fastest cards (which in the 5d3 is the CF UDMA7 cards) you can pretty easily get several extra frames before the camera increases the time between photos.

So, if you are shooting 1-2 frames per second on average, you likely will be fine so long as you get an SD card that will max out the speed that the 5d3 can write to it. Now, for downloads, you may want the faster UHS-1 SD cards, but that's purely a matter of workflow and amount of time it will take.

You speak of "better quality files", but what does that mean? The RAW files on the 5d3 is of course somewhat different than the 5d2. They are different cameras. But both will include proper checksums, preview jpg, meta-data, etc. The Digic5 generally just gives a faster CPU, as well as more memory and possibly more readout line capabilities, but that requires the sensor to be able to handle those as well.

987
Why didn't Neuro figure this out :)
I'll have to check my lenses.

Because he's too busy schooling us on the mechanics, technology, and general photo information to be bothered with something like this. Or he figured it out already and was keeping it secret just for himself.

988
Canon General / Re: Camera insurance for Canadians (Travel)
« on: December 10, 2012, 05:43:19 PM »
I can't find any company with more than 500$ insurance on camera(electronic) stuff around the globe (I will travel to Europe) (theft,loss etc ).. I'm kind of worried about this because I will bring for about 6000$ in gear . Is there someone who can help me with this? Thank you
I'm from Quebec, Canada so I don't think a USA insurance can cover me..

Not sure about Canada, but I know I can get an addition on my renters (or for those who own, homeowners) insurance which covers my cameras for loss, theft, etc. I do know there is photo insurance out there which will cover theft, etc wherever you bring your equipment, but I haven't researched any of that yet.

989
Lenses / Re: History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images
« on: December 10, 2012, 05:41:49 PM »
Doing some Google searching I found that another company (rhymes with Flycon) has/had a similar lens.  The explanation of why the lens was made is interesting.

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/recollections/r16_e/index.htm

Very interesting. And I love how they don't ever once give the name of the competitor :)

Olympics and Pulitzers: I thought I would pass along my experience with Canon 1200/5.6 from the 84' Olympics which led to a great shot and part of a Pulitzer prize.

I was working at the Orange County Register in SoCal and was assigned to cover the 100K Cycling race in Mission Viejo. To get the shot I wanted, I would have to camp out over night in the backyard of local that looked straight down at the finish line but I was going to need a monster of a lens and when I heard about the Canon 1200, I knew it would do the trick. I camped out the night before and as the race unfolded the next day it came down to a sprint to the finish between the Canadian and Alex Grewal of the US and was literally so close at the finish line that there was no jubilation until about 50 yards past the finish line. It was perfect from my vantage point and a nightmare for the pool photographers who were getting his rear-end since the Olypic Pool position was right at the finish line!

Then it was topped off when the next year, the Register was selected for a Pulitzer prize for our Olympic Photo coverage and that images was part of the entry.

I had other occasions to use the lens for other sports events, but in SoCal, you had to be careful using it on a hot day at ground level as it would pick up so much of the heat waves coming of the ground, that it would compormise your focus....They are a pretty amazing piece of glass and a fond memory for me!

Todd Buchanan
www.toddbuchanan.com

Photo: Mission Viejo, CA- Los Angeles Olympics 1984 Alexi Grewal wins the Gold medal in the 100 Kilometer bicycle road race to win for the United States team.

Awesome story. That's really awesome, and a great shot. I guess that's just what you have to do to get the shot you want, camp out where you need to be and bring a BIG lens :)

990
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: CompactFlash vs SDXC (Effectively 5D3 vs 6D)
« on: December 10, 2012, 03:29:29 PM »
My concerns about speed were generally unfounded.

I just tested my memory cards for speed:
Card TypeCard Write SpeedCard Read Speed
SD - SanDisk 16GB Extreme Pro UHS-1 95MBps70.5MBps87.5MBps
SD - Transcend UHS-1 32GB35.0MBps84.5MBps
CF - Transcend 16GB 600x26.9MBps78.7MBps

The SD UHS-1 cards truly surprised me!  I also learned that the SDXC readers in Retina MacBook Pro's are direct to the logic board and transfer at 2.5GT/s, which is well into the GB/s range.  The old MacBook Pro's used to have their SDXC readers attached to the USB 2.0 bus, so they were limited to a theoretical maximum of 60MBps.

I'm quite happy with new SDHC cards!

So I'm guessing you got the 6D? Or are these speeds with your MacBook Pro? How did you come up with the CF card speeds? With my 32GB Transcend I've gotten >100MB/sec sustained via the Lexar CF/SD Pro USB3 reader to my mSATA SSD on my laptop (after recent Lexar firmware update). Sure that's reads, but writes are supposed to be a good bit higher. Or was your OP about whether the SDXC/UHS-1 cards would be significantly slower than modern CF cards?

Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 112