April 20, 2014, 08:22:09 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 ... 217
1021
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:42:52 PM »
I'm relatively new, so I don't know about the forum dynamics/politics/etc., but in my short time as a member I've seen a lot of negativity on this board.   :(  Not sure what to make of it, exactly, but it's discouraging.

As for the topic.  I'm reluctant to believe that the 5DIII will get upgraded to a 5DIV next year.  I see 2015 being the year for that.  Especially as Magic Lantern is getting more and more attention and Canon can milk an existing product that appeals to budget-minded aspiring film-makers.  As I understand it, right now the 5DIII is the top-dog for Magic Lantern given that they're hesitant to touch the 1Dx after getting threatened with legal action (which IMO Canon would have a difficulty following through with if you are familiar with the cases Sega Enterprises v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) - even though these cases are both from the 9th circuit).

However, more full-frame cameras is otherwise great news to me.  I think it will result in more lenses designed with full-frame users in mind.  I might be wrong there, but that's how I view it.

Thank you for those judgement reference. Although I have very little knowledge in American laws and jurisprudence, I am very curious of the precedent that could apply to a possible legal action between Canon and ML, since American court would probably be the correct forum in this case (although I know nothing about American international private law). Still, I have one silly question, as a non-american and non-under-common-law person, what is the 9th circuit? Are those first instance court? Thanks for your help.
P.S: Sorry if I made mistakes, I studied law in a different country and a different language!  ;)

From what I hear it's more that they have decided that they don't think it would be right to try to turn a 1DX into a 1DC and that they are also afraid of playing with the 1DX in general because they don't want Canon to try to lock out the next firmware for all cameras and also the 1 series bodies are expensive and they are not getting paid to do this work and a few 1DX test bodies costs a heck of a lot of money. Also, until very recently they didn't even have a clue how to work with dual digic bodies either.

Aye, these are the reasons I think ML guys gave themselves, particularly the last one, that buying several 1D X bodies is just unrealistically costly.

1022
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:42:05 AM »
+1 ... why should we "just rip" someone's photos "to shreds"?

Because that is the nature of pack animals.

Seriously? Insulting just one of us wasn't enough, so now you have to insult the whole lot of us by calling us "pack animals"?

You have lost all credibility. You've fallen back on the most baser level of animalistic instincts yourself here, and stooped to the lowest level. There is nothing more to say to you.

I encourage everyon to ignore Dilbert, either figuratively or literally via this forums ignore feature, and get back to the original topic of discussion. Because this man is NOT worth responding to.
On second thoughts (after I had a chance to step back and cool down a bit) I don't think its a nice thing to ignore someone because of a comment we feel is rude ... but I've said/done a lot of things in life that I'm not particularly proud of, but God has still been kind to me and am glad that people who I've wronged did not ignore me. I would ignore a pervert or a stalker but not a long time forum members who does have some valid points at times, who knows if we were to meet him personally we might all get along famously. OK, I'm not giving a lecture to any one, this is for me personally ... just "thinking out loud".
jrista, for the record, I still feel strongly that, what dilbert said was not cool ... but what I said wouldn't be considered cool either. I come to CR to learn and maybe share whatever little that I know ... I've always learned a great deal from the photos you post and I'm glad you post them.
Hey dilbert, no hard feelings man, nothing personal ... but try and be nice to us sometimes :) Cheers and have a good day.

To be honest, I really don't care if someone thinks my work is junk. Dilbert is free to have his opinions.

The thing that really ticked me off was him calling the whole lot of us "pack animals". That is pretty low, a blatantly and intentionally rude jab, the kind of thing a child usually does when they lose an argument.

Sorry that it made me angry...but it made me angry. Your response here is dead on, and very commendable. Honorable and reasonable. I truly applaud your will. ;)

I debate because I want people to have truthful information to work with, not because I have any kind of personal vendetta (although I'll happily admit I really personally despised Mikael...that guy was the epitome of a narcissistic, arrogant antagonist who seemed to have an unhealthy attachment to dynamic range..........I can't say how much I'm glad he's gone...) When people stoop to childish lows and start making things personal and insulting, or try to evade a reasonable discussion about facts vs. conjecture with snide and rude remarks, it really irks me. It's uncalled for, it doesn't help anyone, and it derails topics like this.

I can't say I'll ever stop trying to keep the facts honest. And I mean facts...people are free to rumormonger and share their wish lists and the like, but I'll probably always step in when someone gets going about how canon equipment "sucks" because they don't have the absolute best of the best top notch world dominating drguzzling sensor on the market, or how they can't even compete anymore because they are dominated by the marketing monster or crap like that. When people like dilbert start flinging around global insults, sorry...but that isn't acceptable. He can insult me personally all he wants, I'm happy to let all that slide off my back (although I might point it out...very powerful debating tool that, when someone decouples their responses from the argument and gets personal. ;P)

It just isn't right to call everyone animals when you lose an argument...  >:(



Anyway...as for the topic at hand.

I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly  8) So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.

This was my last favorite comment from this thread. I totally agree...Canon can take their time on the 5D IV and 1D neXt. Far too early to replace those cameras. I suspect the big camera Canon will be at least announcing next year will be the big megapixel camera...the 1Ds X or whatever then end up naming it. The landscape and studio photography camera.

Personally, I hope it gets the following (this would be my wish list for the 1Ds X):

  • 180nm sensor fab process, 60% Q.E.
  • 46mp (8350x5567) or 54mp (9000x6000)
  • 16-bit on-die parallel ADC (3e- flat read noise)
  • 15+ stops DR
  • ISO 52100
  • 1D X meter and AF system
  • 61pt AF unit
  • 5fps frame rate (FF), 7fps (APS-H cropped), 9fps (APS-C cropped)
  • Integrated intervalometer, 9999 max frame count, configurable inter-frame delay, configurable pre-start delay, manual mode or bulb mode support, bulb-ramping
  • Price not to exceed $6,999

 :D

1023
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: The 2nd ff camera in 2014 will be...
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:48:52 PM »

AF is extremely important in studio photography as well, though. I can't imagine any studio camera, 5Ds III or 1Ds X, not getting Canon's top of the line AF system.

If thats the case then why do a lot of studios use Medium Format systems with average AF systems?
Don't get me wrong, I am not an expert on studio work but I would have thought an improved version of the highly praised 19 point system from the 7D will destroy any of the current Medium Format AF systems and be more than good enough? Happy for people in the know to point out studio exaqmples where this AF system would not be good enough.
If someone absolutely has to have the 61 point system with a high res sensor then presumably Canon would make them fork out the 7-9 grand for the hypothetical 1DXs.

I just hope there is room in the 2014 lineup for what the 5D2 was in 2009: high resolution at the expense of speed, at a (then) reasonable price. I like Canon cameras, I am used to the GUI, they fit nicely in my hand and the controls all feel right - but it looks as though a Sony A7R with an adapter may be the thing to tide me over.

In my peripheral experience with studio photography, you generally only need center point focus. You don't generally do off-centered compositions or anything like that. While the design of medium format AF systems may seem mediocre, they are very good at what they do. Similarly, the 61pt AF system has a vertical strip of five of the industries most powerful and accurate AF points, which would be a huge boon to studio work (especially in a 40-50 megapixel body).

I don't think the grand total number of AF points don't matter all that much for a studio camera, however those five ultra precision points would be pretty awesome. That said...why develop a new AF sensor with just those five, when you already have on that is ready to go, and has all the manufacturing lined up?

1024
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:44:09 PM »
As I've written before, this model may represent nothing more than Canon's attempt to reduce the cost of manufacturing an M body.


But they've already paid for all the tooling for the original body.  Creating a new one to make it smaller (which, given how small the M is already seems silly to me, and I have small hands) seems like a waste of money.

I'm anxiously waiting for Zeiss to come out with EF-M lenses.  Until then, the 22mm and some of my old FD glass with an adapter are keeping me quite busy.

The R&D cost to design a smaller body is a minor fraction of the total materials cost, shipping weight cost, etc. to manufacture tens of thousands or millions of them. The fundamental cost savings of reducing the size is well worth the minimal R&D effort to design it.

1025
EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: The 2nd ff camera in 2014 will be...
« on: December 02, 2013, 07:59:50 PM »
I can't see the 5D3 being replaced in 2014. The current 5D3 is in a sweet spot for wedding and event photographers, a market place it dominates. 22 megapixel is sufficient for this without having huge files that are a pain to work with and combined with the AF and frame rates it is superior to the D800 in this application IMHO.
It would be nice to see a high megapixel version which sacrifices the 61 point AF, frame rates and video capabilities. A 6D2 or 5Ds (whatever you want to call it) could fill this void and sell alongside the current cameras at a 5D3 price without canibalising sales too much. At the 5D3 price point I don't think you could have high res AND high frame rates - that would be more of a 1DXs thing.

Unfortunately I don't think this will eventuate. Unless you are well marketed and established, Landscape photography is not that lucrative, whereas even average wedding photographers can make decent money. There are plenty of amazing landscapers out there that don't make a cent out of their photos. The 5D3 fills the wedding/event niche very nicely and no doubt Canon's marketing department knows it. If there is demand in the studio world for a high res low fps model, then Canon may exploit that. I can only hope!

AF is extremely important in studio photography as well, though. I can't imagine any studio camera, 5Ds III or 1Ds X, not getting Canon's top of the line AF system.

1026
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 03:05:23 PM »
yeah i first misread the sensor information.
i always thought they will use the latest (best) APS-C sensor for the M2.  ::)
 
why only 4.6 FPS?

other mirrorless cameras have much faster burst rates.
in fact the burst rates are one thing that i really like about mirroless cameras.

With mirrorless, you don't really need more than 2-3fps since you can't track moving subject anyway.

DPAF can track moving subjects, and well enough for 30fps video!

1027
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:01:17 PM »
Hmm...I think it would be a real mistake for Canon to make use of their 18mp sensor...AGAIN. That thing is becoming the laughing stock of the digital photography world...it's tainted, and would be a real negative for Canon to slap the "same old sensor" into "another camera"...again.

The other specs seem piss-poor for a mirrorless camera, even an entry-level one. If nothing more than for their own reputation, I hope Canon releases something better than what this rumor indicates...

1028
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 12:51:30 PM »
+1 ... why should we "just rip" someone's photos "to shreds"?

Because that is the nature of pack animals.

Seriously? Insulting just one of us wasn't enough, so now you have to insult the whole lot of us by calling us "pack animals"?

You have lost all credibility. You've fallen back on the most baser level of animalistic instincts yourself here, and stooped to the lowest level. There is nothing more to say to you.

I encourage everyon to ignore Dilbert, either figuratively or literally via this forums ignore feature, and get back to the original topic of discussion. Because this man is NOT worth responding to.

1029
EOS Bodies / Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 04:49:56 AM »
I'm ready for QPAF (Quad Pixel).
HDR plus AF.
it seems like a natural evolution to me

I'm not sure DPAF or a hypothetical evolution to QPAF is really a means to achieving HDR. Remember, ML had to cut resolution in half in order to achieve its makeshift approach, not because they did not have dual pixels...but because they had to use both the per-pixel amps as well as a secondary downstream amp. Doesn't matter how many times you dice up a pixel...if you have to use the downstream amplifier to achieve ML's style of "HDR", then diced pixels won't help.

Additionally, HDR implies 32-bit float data storage. Current camera ADCs are still limited to 14 bits int. Canon already has 12 stops of DR...seems a bit extreme to use such a convoluted approach to improving that by a mere two stops, when their problem actually lies in the ADCs themselves. Canon could take a far simpler approach...increase the parallelism of the ADCs, and move them closer to the pixels, to reduce the amount of noise they introduce into the signal. That's what everyone else is doing, and it is quite effective.

Assuming Canon was able to use QPAF to do some form of HDR...unless they increase the bit depth of the ADC, it isn't really going to be HDR. You would still be limited to 14 stops of DR, albeit achieved via a rather convoluted apprach that could be more costly and less effective than simply modernizing their read pipeline architecture. To get true HDR, Canon would need to use 32-bit ADC, and use floats rather than ints. At the very least, to improve DR by a meaningful degree, they would need to move to 16-bit integer ADC, however that wouldn't necessarily be "HDR".

1030
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 04:26:53 AM »
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

1031
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 02, 2013, 03:04:31 AM »
OK, I finally did a set up for my waxwing friends.  First I cleared my pond of all the snow -whew.  Then I got out the garden hose and stretched out all 200 feet of it over there this morning after the sun was coming up.  Then I invited my friends to model for me once I got the water distributed.  Unfortunately, they would not behave!! ;)  What a bunch of troublemakers.

6D 300 X2  1600th F8  ISO 1600

Jack

Sometimes misbehaving is exactly what you want! :P Great shot.

1032
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 02, 2013, 03:03:18 AM »
One of the regulars in CR asked me to post some of my Images shot with the 300f/2.8 L II, so I've pulled these four as examples of just how well the Lens works on either the 1Dx or the 5DMK III.

I wasn't able to pull up any shot with this Lens + the 1.4x converter, I've tested this Combo and found it's a perfect match, very little degradation viewable, but I very seldom use the combo as I've always had the 400f/2.8 L II as well, now the 200-400f/4.

The 300f/2.8 L II is one of my absolute main stay Lenses, sharp, fast to focus & light.

Stunning work! The first shot, in particular, is just beautiful. Love that partial silhouette and backlighting.

I rented the 300/2.8 L II last year. Really loved that lens. With TCs, it is extremely versatile. I used it with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and even at 600/5.6, it's IQ was as good as or better than my 100-400mm lens. I would call it the ideal wildlifers lens...gives you top quality versatility for almost any situation except very distant subjects.

1033
EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »
On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it.  CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action.  PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.

That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.

It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to misinterpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not not the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.

1034
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 12:59:06 AM »
That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.


And you know this because...?

Quote
As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.


And you know this because...?


I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800?


So you've never heard someone say "I like the green from Nikon DLSRs better" or "I like the blue from Canon DSLRs better"?


Sure I have. I've also seen their results, which, as I said, look nothing like what actually came directly out of the camera.


And if what you were saying was true then the graph attached at the bottom would show both lines together, right?


The graph represents an imperceptible difference that can only be discerned by software. And, again...it is based off the strait out of camera RAW. You can RADICALLY change those results by tweaking the raw with a very basic algorithm. You can make the 5D III better than the D800, or make the D800's margin even wider. Color is all about mathematical processing.

Depending on how much time you spend in "Photoshop", you can change the colour or compensate for the lack of colour, white balance, etc, to come close to making it not matter which camera you use. But just as using RAW is better than using JPEG (because the data you have available is better to work with), so too is higher quality data (from e.g. the D800) better.


The D800, in some respects, does have MORE data. It has less read noise, so it preserves more data in the shadows. Beyond that, "higher quality"? Nah. It's all bits...ones and zeros, encoding some known original quantity that can be reduced, divided, and redistributed however we please. We aren't talking about preserving analog data in it's original untainted form here.

Think of it like comparing a purely analog audio system in a hard core audiophile's home, the best of the best, $400,000 worth of vibration replication perfection, reading a pure analog signal off a pristine record played on a turntable with 10 degrees of vibration reduction, piping it through the highest quality vacuum tubes and analog processors, sending the filtered signal that is nearly entirely free of noise along the highest quality cabling to a pair of $100,000 (each) speakers, set in an audio room with the most exquisite wood supports and wall paneling that enrich the unmitigated perfection of musical sound permeating every cell of your body (trust me...it really IS like that! :D) The equipment, in that circumstance, is EVERYTHING. You can't beat audio from such a system, it is pure bliss, music of the gods to the ears...literally.

When it comes to playing back CDs? There are a few things you can do in order to improve the quality of your sound. You can buy high quality electronics that don't introduce much additional noise of their own, and for every bit less noise, you pay another order of magnitude in cost. But the simple fact of the matter is that a CD has already been limited, already been restricted, already been diminished from the original source. It doesn't matter if your working with 20 bits or 24 bits, the original unfettered, pure fidelity of the native analog signal is lost. You cannot replicate it, no matter how good your equipment. The vast majority of people who play their CDs can't tell the difference between 44khz and 48kz, let alone 96khz...or 20 bits vs. 24 bits. The frequencies that those bits represent, while a $100,000 CD playback system may preserve them, are beyond the average range of human sensitivity.

A DSLR is basically synonymous with Audio CD systems. It doesn't matter if your color quality is 23 bits or 24 bits...the original fidelity of your native image signal, the one projected by the lens, was lost the moment a sensor packed with evenly arranged discrete sensing elements recorded that signal, and converted it into a sequence of...numbers. From that point on, everything about that image was digital and mathematical.

Now, if your personal style is to take photos and print em strait up, without any processing, then sure...these minute differences in cameras could very well matter. You might not ACTUALLY be able to tell the difference, but if knowing that one particular camera has half a bit more accurate color reproduction makes you feel as though your raw work is better, more power to ya. If you are like 99% of the rest of the billion plus photographers on planet Earth...sorry, they don't really matter much at all. The most significant benefit of the D800 is its extra DR, but that simply improves your editing latitude, allowing you to extract detail in areas where detail was lost to electronic noise. It doesn't do a damn thing for the final color quality of your post-process results. And it only does it at low ISO, to boot, so the value of improved DR is limited in applicability.

Quote
Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.


Quite right however everyone wants the best possible source material to work with or else they wouldn't use RAW, would they?


RAW, sure. Doesn't matter what camera the RAW comes from. Again, the RAW is the source. What you end up with rarely ever looks like the source, or is even "color accurate", because it is based on artistic vision, personal style, not hardware. What matters is what you end up with...the destination, per-se. I'd challenge you to pick out which camera made which photo if I presented you a range of, say, landscape photos from some photo site or sites (that had all EXIF information stripped). You would certainly randomly guess a few correctly, but in general it would all just be guesses. You can't tell from the final results of an artists processing where their photos came from. It's all the same in the end...the result of mathematic functions applied to an input stream of pixels, rendering an output stream of pixels. Discrete data, in digital form, all having lost the purity and infinite precision of the original. The data doesn't matter. What matters is the photographer's vision.

Quote
I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!


The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.


I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.


Nice. Clever, underhanded way to fling out an insult. Your very good at that, I applaud your skill...you've apparently put just as much time and effort into honing that as I do into honing the art of my photography.

I would be curious to know if you honestly think my work is "junk", though...as I suspect your words were simply poorly chosen:

http://www.jonrista.com

1035
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:32:16 PM »


I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?


The Zone System is not a "zone based metering system" it is a system of prioritising the import part of a scenes dynamic range before exposure to maximise that tonal areas reproduction in a subsequent print. Printing is the be all and end all of Adams' system, how best to expose the scene within the DR limitations of the camera system to achieve what he foresees in a print.

Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.

Sounds like he'd hate HDR then, don't you agree?

Are you truly serious? Or are you just trolling? Because this is a ludicrous response....

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 217