October 24, 2014, 09:58:12 PM

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 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 299
Software & Accessories / Re: Microfibre Cloths for Lens Cleaning
« on: May 04, 2014, 02:11:17 AM »
Thanks for your feedback, jrista. I did a quick search on the Kimwipes and they seem to have quite a mixed reputation with some swearing by them while others swear at them!

While I was searching for them, I came across Zeiss Pre-Moistened Lens Cloths Wipes which have got some excellent reviews and are reasonably priced.

I wonder if anyone here has used those?

To be very honest I had never given much thought to the whole microfiber issue. I am concerned that these wipes may not work well when I am working in the rain and the lens gets covered with water droplets - amazing how that happens, but you just need a big storm and rain at an angle I guess, and it must bounce off the inside bottom of the hood and up onto the lens. Last time that happened both I and the guy next to me were totally amazed at just how much rain had got to the lens, and a 400 /2.8 ii does not have a small hood!

Kimwipes are like tissue paper...very thin. They won't really "wipe" in the rain...however, they are superior for absorbing water droplets without leaving any residue or spots of their own behind. So you can dab a lens to pick up water droplets, and that works quite well (assuming the wipe didn't get obliterated by the rain before you got it to the front of the lens).

I'd like to see some of the negative comments you found about Kimwipes. It's pretty rare that you find anything negative about them. They have almost universally positive reviews at Amazon (i.e. there are 75 four and five star reviews, and only 2 three, two, and one star reviews each; as far as positive vs. neutral/negative review ratios go at Amazon, that is stellar!) Everyone I know in any industry that requires high quality wipes has only ever had good things to say about them. My eye doctor uses them (they have kimwipe boxes everywhere), a jeweler friend uses them religiously, I know a few product photographers who photograph valuable jewelry and coins, they swear by kimwipes.

They are some of the most loved microfiber wipes I know of. The next best runner up would probably be Pec*Pads, which are more specifically targeted at lens cleaning (specifically for photography). Pec*Pads cost anywhere from three to five times as much for half as many wipes (i.e. you can usually find 280 kimwipes for about $4.50, where as 100 pecpads are usually $12-14.) PecPads are different, structurally...where as a kimwipe actually feels rough (it doesn't damage the lens, the rough feel is actually what makes them work so well...it's a flat surface with pits), pecpads feel very soft. Pecpads do live up to their lint-free name, however they are not the same as a microfiber cloth...they don't pick up and lift off oily residues nearly as well as kimwipes. If you use a solution, pecpads work fine...but you already seem to know the potential downsides of using cleaning solutions. Without solutions, you'll often find that the more expensive and supposedly purpose-designed photographic wipes don't actually clean...all they really do is smear oily residues around.

I really, honestly do highly recommend kimwipes. I went through a lot of cleaning wipes and solutions when I first got into photography. It blew my mind how easy it was for oily crap to get on my lenses, and I could never get it off, or if I did, I eventually found out that the solutions I used to clean my lenses ended up just making it easier for more oils and dust to get stuck to the lens because of the residues left behind. (I eventually did fine one organic solvent that works superbly and does not leave behind any residue, but I haven;t used it since I found kimwipes.) Kimwipes are an odd thing...they don't feel smooth or soft, they have the faintest rough feel, and that often scares people off. That's the irony about them, though, as the pitted surface is exactly what you want for a lens cleaning wipe...the surface itself is smooth, the pits create a grabbing edge that picks up oil, and the pits collect it. You don't need any solutions, just the lightest amount of elbow grease and steady, broad circular motions, and you can pretty much eliminate every last bit of sticky, oily crap from your lenses.

I'm honestly not a sales man for KimTech...kimwipes are just the best lens cleaning product I've ever used, by a very big margin.

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 04, 2014, 12:30:20 AM »
Sigma wastes far too much time, money, and effort trying to trick potential customers into thinking they will get more resolution with a Foveon than a bayer, which is just a blatant, outright lie. I don't appreciate that, and yes, I fault Sigma for it. If Sigma would take a big chunk of their false advertising budget and inject it into their R&D department instead, I think they could make Foveon viable both on the color fidelity and spatial resolution fronts, and actually have a real competitor on their hands. But sadly, they keep pushing their missleading advertising.

If Canon come out and say that their 15MP layered sensor is in fact 45MP, how are you going to
respond? 15 is just an example, maybe it will be 20, maybe some other number. But the challenge will be how to market it as being superior to a 36MP Nikon or a 36MP Sony.

If Canon comes out and makes spurrious claims about how their 15mp layered sensor is really a 45mp sensor, I'll be the first to call them out for using the same missleading tactics as Sigma. I almost hope they do, and if they do, I really hope your still around, because I would love to prove to you that I stick to the facts and the physics, regardless of brand.

How many times have you heard me say the D800 has a superior sensor at low ISO, or in terms of resolution (hell, just a couple posts ago I stated that the D800 had twice the resolution as the 1D X)? I only dispute what's wrong. The Foveon, like Canon's DPAF, is not a magic bullet. It cannot give you more resolution than it actually has. Canon DPAF cannot give you more resolution, because DPAF isn't about resolution. The D800 cannot give you better high ISO performance because high ISO performance is physics-limited. I could care less about the brand...all I really care about are the facts, the engineering, and the physics when it comes to what a sensor or camera is capable of.

I would have thought my tiraid against the mistaken notions of Canon's DPAF also being a magic bullet for better IQ in the future would be an indication of how little I care about brand when debating the facts.

I spent over ten grand on a lens last year.

Why should we care about this?

Well, if your going to intentionally miss the point, you shouldn't.  :P

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 04, 2014, 12:23:01 AM »

One of the most ubiquitous shorebirds in the US, the Killdeer is hard to miss. Between their incessant "injured bird" act and fast antics as they spurt about along shores and around grasslands in their "dash-pause" manner, they are also probably the most well known plover. They are larger than a lot of other plovers, like Piping or Semipalmated, and have longer legs. They have two slightly different plumages...one with two white bands around the neck during breeding season, and one white and one cream colored band during the winter season.

They have a very persistent technique for protecting their nests and their young by playing the injured bird...with a high pitched, lilting chirp, flipping one wing out at an oddly-cocked angle, and showing off rusty-red colored underfeathers that look like they might be covered in blood, they play the hurt card until your close, then jet off with a broken, jerky flight a dozen or so feet out in front of you. Get close again, and they keep drawing you away from whatever it is they don't want you to find. ;) Clever little bastards. :P

Based on the ruckus last year every time I got near a throng of Killdeer, I'm sure they breed in Cherry Creek. I have not yet found any nests or chicks. Unlike the more common beaches where shorebirds are most often found breeding, Cherry Creek is FULL of hiding places, and finding baby birds is near impossible...even if you spot one, they skitter about and disappear into the brush without a trace, never to be seen again. Maybe this year I'll manage to glimpse some baby shorebirds.

Killdeer (Plover)
Cherry Creek State Park (Cottonwood Creek)

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 04, 2014, 12:09:09 AM »
The last shot was pretty much uncropped and not a lot I could do (tricky with 780 reach).  Same with this one.

Oh, I missed that you were using the 2x TC. I guess you kind of need the TC with the pixel count of the 1D II...but generally, I'd drop that and just use the 300 bare with a little bit of cropping if you can get away with it.

Software & Accessories / Re: Microfibre Cloths for Lens Cleaning
« on: May 04, 2014, 12:06:04 AM »
I don't use microfiber cloths, I use microfiber wipes. Kimwipes, to be exact. You can get boxes of them for super cheap, or whole crates of them for even cheaper. They are scientific grade microfiber wipes that are specifically designed with rigid fibers. It isn't so much the fibers that clean, as the pits in the wipe that actually collect and lift off oils and other crap from the lens.

I usually use them dry, no solvent, and I've never had any issues. No smearing, no scratching.

I don't use Kimwipes alone, though. I also a LensPen. My general routine is to dust off the lens with the lenspen brush end, then to use the kimwipe, then use the carbon lifter on the lenspen to buff out any stubborn spots if there are any. I picked up the three-piece lenspen kit, which includes a lenspen for lenses, one for filters, and a small one that I use to clean up my viewfinder eyepiece (which is by far the dirtiest lens element I have, and the one that gets dirty most often. :P) The lenspen kit comes with a microfiber cloth that contains three holding slots for the pens, and it bundles up nicely and fits into your pocket or a small pocket in a camera bag.

Between the kimwipes and the lens pens, I never have to bother with solvents, so no need to be careful with chemicals. I never have to wash anything, as the kimwipes are disposable and biodegradable. Eventually the lenspens wear out (they use carbon-activated lifters on one end, and there is only so much carbon in the caps...plus, I've noticed that if you aren't extremely careful, the brush end inevitably picks up some oils off your fingers, and eventually you either figure out a way to clean it that doesn't leave behind a residue, or just buy another lens pen.)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:49:39 PM »

Shorebirds are some of my favorite birds. I always loved seeing them when I visited a few beaches known for attracting them in California when growing up. Last year was pretty much the year of the shorebird, we had more of them, and more variety of species, than I'd ever seen before. That was thanks to the extremely hot summers and mild winters of the two years prior (2012 and 2013), which created unprecedented mud flats and sandy shores around Cherry Creek reservoir, which created prime shorebird feeding grounds.

Between the deadly rains we had last September (it literally rained non-stop for over a week, no wind, the rain just fell vertically out of the sky at a high rate for days, flooding everything), and the hefty snow pack in the mountains this winter, water levels at Cherry Creek are some of the highest I've seen. Water is backlogged right back through the wetlands, and a couple days recently it was flowing backwards out of the lake because water levels were so high. Without much in the way of shores and mud flats, I don't expect to see as many shorebirds this year.

Thus, it was pretty nice to see a Willet meandering up and down one of the shores of Cottonwood Creek's wetland (a flow control system just south of Cherry Creek reservoir.) Willets are a bit larger shorebirds, larger than most pipers, slightly larger than Solitary Sandpipers. They are pretty bland at first look, but on closer inspection their gray is actually a number of colors and patterns, including gray, white, black, and some shades of brown and tan. They have fairly beefy bills compared to most sandpipers, more akin to a Godwit or Snipe.

Cherry Creek State Park (Cottonwood Creek Wetland)

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:36:30 PM »
"Ah, I have to say, after the long and very cold winter here in Colorado, it's really nice to have some warm weather where I can hang out with the birds without shivering to death."

You've got that right, Jon. 

This was a pretty brutal winter. We didn't have as much snow as we've had in the past...but the cold was killer. I had two months where my heating bill (just to keep my house at 63°F) was over $250 (my "normal" bill is $75, and usually around $100-110 in the winter).

Really glad the cold is gone.

I was just out wandering in the bush without the camera (kinda chilly at around 0 C).  +17 one day, 0 the next ugh.  We're behind you relative to spring but there are ducks showing up daily and I got a far shot of a cinnamon teal the other day as well as a northern shouveler.  And this goose with the 1D2, 300 X2.  Oh to have this frame rate with a better camera!

Hmm! When did you get a 1D II? I bet that frame rate is nice! :P I have too many photography-related hobbies to plop the cash down on a 1D X, as much as I know I'd love it's frame rate and AF system. I'll be getting a 5D III soon here, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to miss having 8fps. But, with the money I'll save by not getting a 1D X, I'll also be able to get a nice high quality astro CCD imager and a few upgrades for my mount.

Anyway, great flight shot of the goose! The detail is excellent. Your 300mm lens is ideal for BIF...I have a pretty hard time with BIF using my 600 unless the birds are a good distance away (although that usually results in lower IQ due to waver vapor and evaporating water warping things.) I'm not sure if you cropped that...if you did, I recommend pulling the crop out more...it is a bit too tight. I think it is best to leave a decent amount of negative space around the bird, with more ahead of it's direction of flight than behind.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: May 03, 2014, 09:10:55 PM »
My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

It really is amazing how sharp that lens is wide open. I really love that. I need to get a 5D III this year, but I may just have to put an Otus on my list for the future...it's just phenomena.

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 09:01:18 PM »
Blue-Winged Teal

For most of the year, were Mallard-central here in Colorado. Mallards are everywhere all the time. They even hang out well into winter, and tend to get here sooner than any of the other duck species. One of the species I find to be quite beautiful are the teals, particularly the Blue-Winged Teals. A few of these beauties were racing (literally) around the Cherry Creek duck ponds...chasing food, chasing after each other, or just simply racing around for the fun of it.

It was actually a rather entertaining show, and they didn't seem to mind my proximity (I set up RIGHT on the edge of shore...I actually ended up creating a puddle where I sat, as the pond is right into the water table, and there is always a muddy shore). A few of the males came right up to me while chasing after tasty morsels of food, so I was able to get some nice shots with a low perspective.

Ah, I have to say, after the long and very cold winter here in Colorado, it's really nice to have some warm weather where I can hang out with the birds without shivering to death.

Blue-Winged Teal, Males
Cherry Creek State Park (Cottonwood Creek)

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 08:56:00 PM »
Thanks Jack and Click!

Cog, I really love your roadside shots! Especially the one of the warbler head-on....lol, love their spindly little legs.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 08:38:25 PM »
Meadowlark Headshot

Here is a headshot of this beautiful little bird. I love the colorfulness. Not many birds in Colorado are this colorful...most of them are brownish with some reds, and most of the time, color is a very small percentage of their plumage. Some of the few exceptions are the Yellow Warbler, American Goldfinch, Yellow-Rumped Warbler, and Western Meadowlark. These guys all have brilliant yellow feathers, although I think the meadowlark takes the cake for color and design. I love their blue beaks as well.


EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 03, 2014, 08:17:50 PM »
Lol, well I know you like the higher spatial resolution...but that only works if the lens is up to the task (at least for "spatial" resolution of the image itself...not for comparing final or effective resolution of the larger sensor to a smaller denser one at the same lens focal length, etc...obviously ultimate image quality is less of a factor in that case).  Not many lenses are up to the task.  Also I'm not saying the 600 ii is not able to pull it off, obviously of course it is.  For astro imaging, would you not still need to do a similar multi shot NR process, even for a 6D, 5D3, or 1DX sensor?  How about for the 24MP or 36MP Exmors?  Wouldn't the A7r be an interesting option (since it can be adapted for EF lenses)?  Or is the closer flange distance enough to discourage trying that, due to the higher ghosting?  I assume in that process, you are not using (and would not want to try to use) ISO settings above 1000 or so (meaning the Exmors would have clear advantage). 

If you are talking about astrophotography (honestly not really sure what your trying to get at here), then the answer would really be "none of the above". I use my 7D for AP only because it's what I have right now. As far as the best sensors for AP, one doesn't use a camera built for normal photography. Every normal photography camera "cooks" the images. Even Canon's, even though they cook them less than the competitors, are always modifying the raw signal in some ways, but more than enough that it can make it difficult to properly calibrate and integrate a stack of images to produce a low noise, easily stretched astro image.

Astro CCD imagers tend to be vastly superior to any CMOS image sensor from normal photography cameras. They are usually monochrome, therefor their spatial resolution, particularly for color filtered frames, is higher despite the fact that they often have slightly larger pixels.  They use higher grade silicon and fabrication processes, and usually have higher Q.E. (55-65% is common for low end CCDs, 70-96% is what you get for higher end CCDs). They also usually have considerably higher dynamic range. About the best DR for a modern CMOS imaging sensor for a normal photography camera is around 40-43 dB. Even a lower end astro CCD gets about 55dB, and the midrange and higher end CCD can get anywhere from 70-105dB of dynamic range. About every 3dB is a one-stop improvement. Most of the nice high end astro CCDs that use the Kodak KAF-16803 full frame (36x24mm) sensor with 9µm pixels (or similar variants, some use a 36.7x36.7 4096x4096 pixel square Kodak KAF sensor, but it's specs are generally the same) get between 79 and 91 dB of dynamic range (depends on the actual grade). FWC is around 100,000e-, read noise is about 9-11e-, and dark current (when fully cooled) is around 0.02e-/s or less. Factoring in read noise, that's anywhere from 24-29 stops of dynamic range...which utterly TROUNCES the D800 and any other Sony Exmor based imager on the market.

When it comes to core technology, a lot of the technology that matters for normal photography really doesn't matter a wit for astrophotography. Spatial resolution is an important factor for normal photography. Not the single most important (you should know me well enough by now that I don't believe in the concept of a single most important feature for IQ :P). When it comes to astrophotography, it's a very keen balancing act, between getting enough resolution, but not so much that your dramatically oversampling your subject. You have a number of factors that go into producing a "spot size", the size of a diffraction-limited star at the sensor. When you factor in seeing (atmospheric turbulence), most of the time it's difficult for amateur astrophotographers to find seeing good enough that stars are less than 2-3" (arcseconds) in diameter. For nebula, galaxies, clusters, basically anything non-planetary, you want your sensor resolution to be fairly close to your spot size, not oversampling them too much, but also not undersampling them. For the most part, a pixel size around 5-6µm is pretty ideal for this purpose, but most astro CCDs allow pixel binning, so you can make your effective pixels larger or smaller as necessary when adding barlows or focal reducers in order to match your pixel size to your seeing/spot size. Astrophotography is also dependent on having sensitivity to wavelengths of light that are either utterly unimportant for normal photography, or which may even have a negative impact on color accuracy (i.e. deep reds and near IR and near UV), while concurrently being averse to other wavelengths that are often very important to normal photography (i.e. the various bandwidths within which sodium and mercury vapor lighting emit...yellows, greens, and violets, which contributes to light pollution in cities, is often filtered out with light pollution reduction filters.)

What I need for astrophotography is very different than what I need for stills photography. There is nothing wrong with more spatial resolution for normal photography, more of it certainly doesn't hurt. Total sensor area is also important for normal photography for VERY different reasons that it is important for astrophotography. Total sensor area leads to higher real sensitivity with normal photography. Larger sensor will always trump smaller sensor when it comes to high ISO performance.

With astrophotography, most of what your imaging are point light sources. This makes full well capacity, quantum efficiency, and having a low gain setting far more important than high ISO performance, as the higher you crank gain (or ISO), the faster your stars saturate and "bloom" (clip, then begin to spill over into neighboring pixels, which also eventually clip). Physical aperture size vastly more important than relative aperture in astrophotography, as it doesn't matter so much how fast you image as how much light you get from each and every definable point of the sky that you are resolving.  Physical aperture is also the primary factor in determining limiting magnitude, so a larger physical aperture, even if the telescope is effectively only f/8 or f/10, is important if your goal is to resolve very small details of very distant objects, or very small, dim stars.

It's generally illogical to compare normal photography needs with astrophotography needs. They are very different. What I argue for here on CR is very different than what I may argue for in the astrophotography threads here, or on astrophotography forums. Conflating what I've said about CMOS image sensors for normal photography with what I may have said about astrophotography is generally pointless, as there is no real correlation between those two types of photography.

Have you seen Sigma's internal balance sheets and accounting?  You claim you know where their money goes.  I admit obviously their foveon sensor is still very much in infancy, which is a shame.  However, they did buy the rights to the design from the American company.  And, they are the only ones producing a sensor like it (so far).  They even have a new one (which you were quick to trash, without ever having tried it). 

Your kind of missing the point of what I was saying. It doesn't matter how much money is involved. My point is that if they dumped their Foveon advertising budget into Foveon R&D, the money would be better spent. Regardless of how much they actually spend. A truly competitive Foveon (one that has BOTH the color fidelity advantage as well as competitive spatial resolution) would speak for itself, in images and by a much larger community and word of mouth.

I see nothing wrong with giving Sigma credit for trying, for being different...it seems like it works for the segment of the market they have laid claim to. 

I've never faulted Foveon for trying. Ever. I've only faulted them for lying or being misleading and creating this mistaken notion that somehow, Foveon's layered pixels somehow give them the magical ability of creating more resolution out of nothing. Sigma has a misleading, fallacious advertising agenda for Foveon. They seem to think they NEED to falsely trump up Foveon's resolution capabilities in comparison to bayer sensors, when they really don't. That's my beef with them. If they were truthful and sold Foveon on it's REAL strengths, I'd have nothing to call Sigma out for, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Primarily they make lenses, after all.  The cameras are a very small niche.  Why would you expect them to be able to spend the funds necessary for the R&D to develop the sensor to your liking, when Canon and Sony have (as yet) not been able to do it?  Canon is trying to do it, and they are the largest camera company in the world.  Yet it's still not even for sale.

Based on the earliest patents from Canon for similar technology, they haven't been at it for even half as long as Sigma (or the prior owner of the technology). Hence my quip about Sigma better spending their money on R&D...it shouldn't take so long for such an intriguing sensor technology to go...almost nowhere. It was at 4-5mp for years, then it had a jump in the last couple of years to higher resolution, but it still lags behind bayer sensors. Foveon still suffers from noise problems, so it's never been as viable at high ISO (which immediately makes it a non-viable option for a LOT of photographers). Some of the technology in Canon's patents already surpasses Sigma's technology that is already in Foveon.

I sincerely hope that as more cash flows into Sigma from their lens division, they will be able to better prioritize more funds for Foveon R&D. I do like the core concept. I just don't believe that Sigma has done Foveon justice (so far). Things could change, and if/when they do, I'll applaud Sigma for the change...but to date, the snail is still losing the race.

(And let's face it, if Sigma spent $1 billion to develop it, it would still be a failure in your opinion, no matter how good it ultimately was...how is that fair or unbiased?)

Now your just assuming things. If you actually learned anything about me over my time on these forums, you would understand how ludicrous that assumption is. :P

I could care less, really, about how much money Sigma spends. What matters more to me is whether they money they spend results in progress that produces real value, and whether they HONESTLY sell the thing or whether they resort to misleading factoids and spurious claims. If Sigma could make the Foveon a truly competitive sensor TECHNOLOGICALLY (and it certainly has the potential, nothing wrong with the technology itself), it wouldn't matter if it cost $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,000...so long as in the end they turned enough of a profit to continue investing in the technology and keep it competitive. If they end up failing in the end, well it still wouldn't matter if they spent a hundred grand or a hundred billion, it would all be a waste in the end.

It will be both interesting and amusing, to see your criticism of Canon's new camera (assuming it even uses this technique...for all we know the next full frame model may not even use it after all.  It's just rumors...)

Again, your disgust with Sigma for simply existing, is juvenile, misplaced, and unnecessary.  As is your harsh view of those who use, or have used their products.  If we state our opinion of the images we got from using the camera, who are you to say we don't have a right to state it?

And were back to the personal insults. You and I do indeed have a mutual loathing of each other, and I have no interest in being friends with you...but I'm really trying to keep it off the public forum. No one else wants to see us fight, so I respectfully ask that if you want to insult me, please use PMs. Then you can get as nasty and hateful as you want.

Backlit Snowy Egret

I hadn't been out to Cherry Creek, my regular birding haunt, for months. I haven't really birded since last year...just been too cold until recently, and I've been so sick of cold. I missed part of the migration, but now the summer birds are arriving. That includes the egrets and the ibises. While photographing shorebirds, a few groups of both flew by, but sadly I was on the wrong side of the birds relative to the sun to get any good shots. This is the only one that came out decently well, although I quite like the backlit wings.

Snowy Egret
Cherry Creek State Park

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 03, 2014, 07:07:16 PM »

I was out checking Cherry Creek to see what kind of birds may have still been around. I kind of missed the first part of the migration this year, as the ducks moved through when it was still rather cold (and I've been just so sick of cold, as it's been quite cold here in Colorado since late September...long time). While hiking around one of the small wetland areas, I almost stepped on this little guy. Not sure what he was doing on the ground, or why he didn't move when I got close (extremely close). His fearlessness gave me a chance to back off, get a nice vantage point, and get some excellent shots.

He sang for me the entire time, too! Really love the meadowlark song, very musical.

(NOTE: No setup of any kind here...completely natural, by-chance setting.)

Male Meadowlark
Cherry Creek State Park

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 03, 2014, 05:45:15 PM »
Don't pretend you don't have your own biases, though.  You are proud of, and trumpet often, your bias against an entire company, Sigma.

I've never pretended. I'm pretty strait up about what I think of Sigma. I am not against the entire company. I've said on many occasions I think their new lenses from the last couple of years are excellent, and that I appreciate the competitive force they bring in that arena.

I have NEVER hidden my feelings about how Sigma has handled Foveon. I have been quite open about it. I think they do Foveon, which I believe is technology with a lot of potential, a severe disservice by missleadingly selling it as having some magical powers to increase resolution, when it does nothing of the sort. Spatial resolution is determined by pixel size, plain and simple. Foveon's strengths lie in other areas than spatial resolution, and they are good strengths. No color moire, good sharpness (for the resolutions that Foveon sensors come in), and excellent color fidelity.

Sigma wastes far too much time, money, and effort trying to trick potential customers into thinking they will get more resolution with a Foveon than a bayer, which is just a blatant, outright lie. I don't appreciate that, and yes, I fault Sigma for it. If Sigma would take a big chunk of their false advertising budget and inject it into their R&D department instead, I think they could make Foveon viable both on the color fidelity and spatial resolution fronts, and actually have a real competitor on their hands. But sadly, they keep pushing their missleading advertising.

Your bias and the need to feel proud of it somehow, is rather juvenile, don't you think?

Bait. Hmm. I'll let another fish bite.

Since you are very concerned about having the highest image quality, you should never use an aps-c camera, yet you do, very often.  Practice what you preach.

I use an APS-C camera because I haven't had the money to buy a full-frame camera. I spent over ten grand on a lens last year. No one who isn't independently wealthy spends that kind of money, then turns right around and spends thousands more on MORE equipment. I do practice what I preach. Soon as I have the funds, I'll be using a full frame camera. Until then, my 7D has more reach, thanks to it's higher spatial resolution, and that's a fact I greatly appreciate. Oh, it's also a fact I preach, too. ;P

Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 299