July 24, 2014, 11:59:45 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 248
1021
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 27, 2014, 11:05:56 PM »
Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)


I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?


Here's the links:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-sensor-revolution-first-non-bayer-sensors-coming-in-2015/
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2013/12/rumor-sony-to-release-non-bayer-54mp.html

1022
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 09:18:06 PM »
To all,

Here's a wide-field image of the North America Nebula.  This was taken with a modified Canon 5D2 and a Canon 200mm f/2.0L stopped down to f/4.0.  It is an integration of 24 four-minute exposures.  It was calibrated using six dark frames, twenty biases, and twenty flats.  All calibration and processing was done in PixInsight.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

How do you like PixInsight? I'm getting into deep sky AP now, and am in the process of buying a mount and software. I was planning to use something like Nebulosity or maybe BackyardEOS for control software, PHD for guiding, and Photoshop for processing. But Pixinsight seems pretty popular these days.

1023
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:50:39 PM »
They will definitely, the main reason - Phase one and Hasselblad have announced 50MP Cmos sensors which are presumably made by Sony, it could be someone else like Dalsa but bets are on Sony with their 36MP tech it seems very plausible.

So the gauntlet is really down in Cmos 50MP land for canon to respond, I imagine Canon have something nearly ready by now and this may spur them to push it out quicker which would be nice.. or canon may have to buy off Sony to keep in the game.

Now MF is a different kettle of fish, and this could really help MF regain some ground back to DSLRs with quicker capture and higher iso, a much more versatile camera, though AF still is years behind basic canons & nikons.
And this could bring costs down but I wound't imagine too much.

Large format is another thing altogether so please don't try to redefine them. Having a plate camera with lens movements is the key. I've always foreseen that sensor tech will catch up and one day we will get 5x4 or at least 7x9 backs for 5x4 systems.

Hmm. That would definitely start bringing the medium format market to a new level, if they are going to use Sony sensors. I know Sony is working on a 54mp sensor with non-standard pixel shapes (either triangular or hexagonal), supposedly with similar high DR as the D800. The medium format market has long had much older sensor technology, and their sole advantage was pixel count. If they bring Sony sensors into the mix, they would again be a leap and a bound away from anything in the DSLR market.

1024
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:48:19 PM »
Well, that should stir things up a bit.

Here's the setup: Phase One and Hasselblad have announced 50 mp sensors for their large format (I really don't feel that we can refer to these as "medium" format anymore) cameras.

Some may see this as a sign that Canon "must" now offer a high megapixel sensor. I think just the opposite.

We have discussed to the point of nausea the idea that the larger sensor size of "full frame" cameras will always outperform APS-C. So the same principle applies here. There is simply no way that a DSLR sensor can match the performance of these large format sensors.  Scale up a 19 mp APS-C sensor and you get to just under 50 mp., so you are talking about pixel density somewhere between that of the 7D and 70D to match the new 50 mp of these large format cameras.

If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad would be convinced to switch based on pricing. That, in turn, leaves the sales potential only for new users. The point is we are talking about a niche, within a niche, within a niche.

Now, if Canon were to take one of their APS-C sensors and simply scale it up to full frame they might be able to keep their development costs down, but would it be low enough to turn a profit on the body? I don't know. And, you'd have to account for the extra waste that would occur with the larger sensors.

All in all, I'm thinking that a high megapixel body is becoming less and less appealing for manufacturers.

Let the flame wars begin!!!

I don't agree 100 percent, but I do mostly agree...

FF beats APS-C for IQ due to the larger pizel size..... Always has, always will....
Large format beats FF for the exact same reasons...

but I do think that in the continual quest for more pixels that we will end up with a high megapixel FF camera that has similar pixel size and IQ to that of APS-C....

I would extend what you've said a little bit. FF beats APS-C for IQ due to larger pixel size AND more pixels (in most cases, the same number of pixels on the worst case). Assuming equivalence, same framing and all that, a 5D III will not only put larger pixels on subject, but also more of them. The same goes for MFD...more pixels.

Technically speaking, MFD format sensors have actually shrunk their pixels enough that for the highest megapixel counts, their pixels are actually SMALLER on average than the 5D III. Many of the largest mp count MFD sensors have pixels in the 5µm to 6µm range. The 5D III has 6.25µm pixels.

A 50mp MFD sensor would indeed still have larger pixels, but technologically, MFD sensors are not necessarily as advanced as even a Canon sensor. They certainly aren't as advanced as the D800 sensor. For the "highest end" MFD equipment, there hasn't been a pixel size advantage for a while now. So the only REAL advantage is pixel count.

Assuming Canon can make more BETTER pixels than a 50mp MFD sensor, I think there is still a good reason for them to do it. Furthermore, Canon wouldn't really be competing with the medium format market...they would be competing with the SoNikon alliance. Nikon has the D800. Sony has the A7r. Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!) The reasons for Canon to produce a high megapixel camera have much less to do with competing with medium format, as they do with competing with their direct competitors.

1025
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Curved Aperture Diaphragm
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:41:17 PM »
Well, here is another Canon innovation for that "Where are Canon's innovations?" thread. ;)

1026
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Curved Aperture Diaphragm
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:40:16 PM »
Having the curved aperture closer to the lens may also have possibilities of diffraction correction???

Diffraction is caused by the passage of light through an aperture. Where the aperture is doesn't really have anything to do with how much diffraction occurs.

1027
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:38:19 PM »
Great Blue Heron at sunset. Huntington Beach State Park, SC Canon 40D, EF 100-400 IS @ 400mm. 1/250, F5.6 with Better Beamer flash

Great shot! Superb use of the better beamer, he's lit exquisitely.

1028
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:37:41 PM »



Great shot! Cute little ball of feathers.

1029
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:57:58 AM »
Oh, and I live on the outskirts of Melbourne, where the skies are pretty dark. This one was taken from my house.

Check how your light pollution is with this map:

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/dlorenz/web/astronomy/lp2006/overlay/dark.html

Yellow and up are bad. Green is ok. You really want to be in blue or gray areas, where the skies are really dark. Trust me, I've experimented very recently with how much light pollution affects results. I live in a brighter yellow area bordering on an orange area in Denver, Colorado. LP is pretty bad over my house, even though it doesn't seem as much to my bare eyes. Green areas improve quite a bit. Blue areas are amazing, the number of stars increases considerably, and astrophotography gets much better.
Thanks for the link, that's really neat. Looks like I'm pale yellow, moving into green. It's not bad, considering I'm an hours drive from the City. Last October I went to Tasmania for a week. The areas around Cradle Mountain were stunning for clear night skies. I'll have to head back later this year :)

I've just downloaded DeepSkyStacker. I'll go out and try again, now that Orion is up :)

Ah, that is really funny. Orion just set maybe an hour ago here. My favorite constellation...I don't have much time left to image it. I'm trying to find a good equatorial mount, an autoguider, and get some custom telescope rings built for my 600mm lens so I can use it as an apochromatic refracting telescope. I don't know if I'll find what I need before Orion sets for good...it is up near zenith by 8pm now....and directly overhead before 10pm...it's fading fast...

1030
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:46:47 AM »
Princecookie, I love the very cute "yawning" swallow.  For newcomers/others, I think it's more fun when we can see your included settings as well as a few words of how/when/where or whatever.  Just my opinion of course. ;)

jrista, don't worry, there is scarcely a day goes by I don't express gratitude for being able to shoot with my 300, it is so convenient.  It's like a little point and shoot (well almost); doesn't seem awkward at all, especially with my Jobu gimble "handle" that I wouldn't be without.  And here's an example of the bokeh it yields - I do love it! :)

6D  300 2.8 II 1.4X III  1250th F8  ISO 640  not very heavily cropped

Jack

Aye! Now your getting the hang of it. You want to move your background stuff farther back, though. I'd say you want to blur it by about double to produce more pleasing boke. You can blur it entirely, and that's great. Sometimes it's nice to leave just enough complexity in the background that you see those nice large round boke blur circles for highlights. I'd move your background stands holding the pine fronds back until you can no longer really make out any detail, but close enough that it isn't just one largely flat-toned or very smooth single gradient. A little patchy blur is really nice, and ideally isolates your subject and it's perch...eliminates fighting between foreground and background.

1031
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:44:35 AM »
My second post.

Cute pose. Love it when a teeny tiny bird yawns.

1032
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:44:03 AM »
Playing with a Tamron 150-600 on a 60D... This is a heavy crop from the center of the image...
Seems a bit of chromatic aberration in the bird's head, but considering that was cropped, you still think it is a good lens?
Good catch! I posted it from a laptop with a tiny screen.... now that I am home, I see what you mean...

I went back into lightroom and turned on the correction for the lens profile and enabled chromatic aberration correction. Normally I do this automatically, this time I forgot.... top picture is without, bottom is with... ( and the crop is of about the center 2000 pixels of the image).

I like the lens, but like any tool, it takes time to learn how to use it.

Nice and razor sharp results. Looks like that lens will be a popular birding lens!

1033
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:41:09 AM »
Oh, and I live on the outskirts of Melbourne, where the skies are pretty dark. This one was taken from my house.

Check how your light pollution is with this map:

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/dlorenz/web/astronomy/lp2006/overlay/dark.html

Yellow and up are bad. Green is ok. You really want to be in blue or gray areas, where the skies are really dark. Trust me, I've experimented very recently with how much light pollution affects results. I live in a brighter yellow area bordering on an orange area in Denver, Colorado. LP is pretty bad over my house, even though it doesn't seem as much to my bare eyes. Green areas improve quite a bit. Blue areas are amazing, the number of stars increases considerably, and astrophotography gets much better.

Gray areas are just phenomenal. The two lighter regions of gray conform to Bortle Scale level between 2 and 1...very dark skies or "truly dark skies". You can see an unbelievable amount of stars, everything is crisp and clear, you might even get a glimpse of airglow. The milky way is brilliant, and at the right times of the year, you can see the zodiacal light (provided it isn't obscured by LP bubbles on the horizon. Blue and gray areas of the map above are really where you want to be for AP. Think of it like stops on a camera...Blue is about a stop worse than gray, green is about a stop worse than blue, yellow a stop worse than green, etc. Each time you get closer to the main source of light pollution, you lose about half your ability to deeply image the night sky.

You can expose for almost twice as long and all that as well (i.e. you can expose for maybe 10 minutes in a green region, but 20 minutes or longer in blue and gray regions) as you move out to darker regions. BTW, there are three levels of gray. The darkest gray are what they call "Exceptionally Dark Skies", and has a Bortle Scale level of 1. There are actually relatively few regions of civilized Earth that are still this dark. Australia appears to have more than normal. Canada also has large regions of exceptionally dark skies. There are small pockets of exceptionally dark skies in the US and Europe. Excptionally dark skies are where they put the big scientific observatories, especially when they are on mountaintops. If you have the opportunity to visit an exceptionally dark sky, it'll just blow your mind how clear and bright the night sky really is. It's a thing of wonder, and most people in the "civilized" world rarely ever see it. The milky way is so relatively so bright it will actually cast shadows, the zodiacal light (which I've never seen under these conditions) is apparently "annoyingly bright" (which came from an astrophotographer, so take that in context!), and the number of deep sky objects that you can see with your naked eye maxes out...magnitude 8 stellar objects are visible to the naked eye (which is really amazing, given that most people on earth are only able to see magnitude 6 and larger stars, a whole two orders of magnitude difference, and in cities magnitude four and larger is the limiting magnitude. If you live in a metropolitan heart, where LP is at its highest, you can only see things magnitude 0 and brighter, so mostly planets, the brightest stars, the moon....no milky way at all, no deep sky objects, you can't make out most constellations because there simply aren't enough stars visible. Light pollution is kind of a terrible thing really, a travesty against the natural state of night...massive waste of energy to light so much of the earths surface up like that when most of it is suburban regions full of sleeping families...they could all turn off their lights, turn of the street lights, etc.)

I have not had a chance to photograph in the night sky under exceptionally dark skies. I'm hoping to get up to the top of the continental divide in one of the couple spots where you have exceptionally dark skies and image the milky way and zodiacal light when the latter rolls around again this spring.

Anyway...if your on the outskirts of Melbourne, but are still under green, yellow, orange or red, try heading out to darker skies. The difference is worth it.

1034
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 04:38:13 AM »
Last night was one of the rare nights this winter I've been able to use the scope, and only for about 3 hours at that, the seeing went to crap by 9PM.  A shot of M81 (bottom) and M82 (top).  The bright star in M82 is a supernova that became visible in January.  About 12 million light years away.....I may be front focusing a few million miles.  Taken with a 6D through an 8 inch scope, 1260mm effective focal length, f/6.3.  Stack of 10 shots, each 30 seconds.  I had some (operator) issues with my mount so there's a bit of trailing in the image.


Not bad! Kind of cool to capture a supernova in a distant galaxy. I always watch this blog for updates on interesting phenomena like that:

http://remanzacco.blogspot.com

They have a lot of info on solar system object, comets and asteroids and whatnot, but they also track extra-solar system events as well.

1035
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 04:33:54 AM »
To all,

Here's a wide-field image of the Galactic Dark Horse Nebula.  Numerous dark nebula come together to form a horse if rotate clock-wise 90 degrees.  This was taken with a modified Canon 5D2 and a Canon 200mm f/2.0L stopped down to f/4.0.  It is an integration of 25 four-minute exposures.  It was calibrated using six dark frames, twenty biases, and twenty flats.  All calibration and processing was done in PixInsight.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

Wonderful! It just blows me away how many stars there are near and in the galactic core. The density is stunning!

So, with a modified 5D2, I assume that means the UV/IR cutoff filter (and maybe low pass filter) were removed?

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 248