April 19, 2014, 08:45:36 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 ... 77 78 [79] 80 81 ... 217
1171
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DmkII F8 AF for wildlife?
« on: September 30, 2013, 06:45:37 PM »
If the Dual Pixel CMOS AF is fast and accurate enough, that works out to f/11 (although I'm skeptical of accuracy at narrow max apertures).

For wildlife, I would have additional concerns as well. How does tracking perform when you are rapidly panning? How is tracking consistency? For that matter, how is the consistency overall, even at f/5.6? With video, you have a continuous stream of frames at high speed that the DPAF firmware can use to provide more accuracy, something you don't really have with wildlife or bird or sports photography.

1172
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DmkII F8 AF for wildlife?
« on: September 30, 2013, 05:12:40 PM »
It would really depend on what AF unit they use in the 7D II. If they stick with the 19pt system, then there is no way you'll get f/8 AF. If they drop in the 5D III/1D X 61pt AF system, I see no reason to think they wouldn't offer f/8 AF. If they create something new, such as a 41pt AF system, your guess is as good as mine. Canon has never seemed too concerned with competitive efforts from Nikon. I think the primary reason they put teh 61pt system in the 5D III was because their customers were screaming LOUD and CLEAR for it.

1173
Just out of curiosity...has no one ever filmed fireflies in the deep dark of night before?

1174
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 13, 2013, 02:53:33 PM »
WOW, thanks jrista.  I do have some books but they're outdated so don't have the modern-day quality.  Thanks for the recommendation.  So, it can be tough and it's not just that I'm a dummy.  ;D

Jack


Hah, no, your not a dummy. Identifying birds can be quite difficult. This diagram demonstrates why:



Yes, that is thirty, 30, THREE ZERO, different and distinct areas of a birds plumage that can differ between species. Sometimes it is only just a couple of them that differ, and again...you have male vs. female, juvi. vs. adult.

1175
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:54:47 PM »
Thanks Moobark and click.  I'm confident you're right.  I was thrown by the yellow patches, which the Savannah also has.  That was a great little video.  I had no idea we had those sparrows here :-[  Just goes to show what a camera can do to a guy - a whole new life!

Now I know who can answer my what's this questions.  How about the previous wren?  It doesn't really look like my friendly house wren flying to her house (very darkish brown).

Click, two years ago I looked at an inflatable kayak but backed away because it was one man (wife likes the outings too) and then various folk advised that it doesn't go well with a camera.  So, then I started looking into the smaller inflatable dingys and for now that's on hold because I have too many unfinished jobs around the acreage.  I'd be interested to hear your comments.  BTW I think I should have remembered what you shoot with from a previous post.  How do you allocate the duties between the 1Dx and the 7D and what's your thoughts relative to me thinking 7D2 with 6D as backup?
 
Jack

Something to keep in mind when identifying birds is that they have two different sets of feathers each year. There is the "summer" or "breeding" plumage, and the "winter" or "non-breeding" plumage. Most birds look similar in both, although there are always small differences that are good to know to help you identify them during different seasons. Some birds have radically different summer plumage. Males are usually more colorful during summer/mating seasons. Additionally, you have to contend with juveniles, and for some birds (like bald eagles) multiple years of different juvi plumage that is like neither adult seasonal plumage.

Birds have to molt, twice a year, in order to change their feathers like that. During transitory phases, when molting is actually occurring, it can often be quite difficult to identify some birds. "Old" feathers tend to be raddy, lack color, or be otherwise unidentifiable without more detailed knowledge about the plumage of each species, in all seasons, for all ages and genders. ;)

I highly recommend getting a bird identification guide. I am a personal fan of Sibley (they include a lot of excellent information on how to identify birds, areas of plumage on the body and head with official names for each region, etc), and their art is superb. There are plenty of other guides as well, but having at least one is fairly essential to solidly identify a bird you've never seen before.

1176
Lenses / Re: A New Zoom Macro Coming? [CR1]
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:45:47 PM »
Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a macro zoom lens.   ;)


what is the zoom range?  65 to 330?


The 65mm is really a misnomer with that lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

From that link (read more, of course):  "Canon lists the focal length for this lens as 65mm. It is, but disregard this number for all intents and purposes. Think 1x to 5x magnification. Think 1:1 to 5:1. This lens starts where typical macro lenses stop."

It's a nutty 5:1 macro magnification.  You'd use it to shoot flies' eyeballs, circuit board details, human hairs, etc.  DOF is comically small from what I've read, and it really pushes you to need macro focusing rails, meticulously groom your lighting, stack your focus, all that.  I won't touch that kind of specialized/'engineered' photography with a ten foot pole, but some folks love it.

- A


Hmm, sounds like someone who has never used the lens! You are really putting it in bad light, but it isn't even a fraction as bad as that. It is a high magnification macro lens, that's all. It is a lens with built in adjustable extension, so you can get REALLY CLOSE (which is what macro is all about!!!)

You don't really need all that extra stuff either...focusing rails, meticulously groomed lighting, focus stacking, and "all that". I have followed a number of excellent macro photographers for years who use that lens HAND HELD at 4-5x zoom! It's all about technique, and simply HAVING light (it doesn't necessarily need to be groomed).

For example, try this guy's work and tutorials on for size. Prolific MP-E shooter, hand held with a little bit of technique and "bait" (or just the right time of day). He's been published in a couple well known photography magazines:

http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501

It is a total myth that this lens is some kind of nutty, unwieldy, difficult to use lens requiring a host of additionally quirky equipment to use right.

1177
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 10, 2013, 11:31:56 PM »
Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring?  Just the stars and lots of grey..  I get the general settings but am I missing something?  How did you get the blue??

It all depends on how you process it. I ran your photo through photoshop, got the below result in about 2 minutes:

Added Levels Layer Adjustment:
  Blacks -> 17
  Grays -> 1.39
  Whites -> 121

Added Color Balance Layer Adjustment:
  Tones: Midtones
  Cyan/Red: -25
  Magenta/Green: +2
  Yellow/Blue: +66


1178
Hmm, I am not sure what everyone is complaining about. Given the terminology, the price is $9.99/mo in perpetuity so long as you sign up before the end of the year. That comes out to $60/yr for these apps, or less than that if you factor in the online storage space option.

I was greatly dismayed with Adobe trying to force everyone to move to the $50/mo "master suite" cloud deal, which is what their prior pricing basically amounted to. Hardly anyone uses just one adobe app, and at $20/mo per individual app, everyone might as well just pay for the master cloud deal. Not everyone, however, has FIFTY PER MONTH of disposable income, particularly freelancers, photographers, etc. who may not have consistent monthly income in order to support a subscription.

Fears of Adobe increasing price are overblown. Given how much hate there is for their Cloud service in general, they know they would lose droves of customers if there was ever even a HINT of a price increase. Most previously existing customers, such as myself, have been wise enough to keep their CS6 license and software, so they will always have something to fall back on. There is no reason not to stand your ground and vote with your pocketbook in the event Adobe ever does try to stick it to you and raise your price unnecessarily.

Over the LONG term, inflation is a perpetual, and seemingly permanent, and fairly simple fact of the fiat currency world. "Paper" money inflates, and prices will eventually inflate with it. I wouldn't expect a sudden price jump from $9.99 to $19.99 in a year...but over five years, I'd expect something along the lines of a move from $9.99 to $14.99 at most (probably less than that). That assumes Adobe doesn't finally learn that lower prices mean more subscribers. If other popular subscription services are any indication, the price should DROP in the long term as Adobe gathers more and more customers. As NetFlix's subscriber base has grown, the price has dropped. I used to spend $30/mo for three discs a month. Now I pay $7.99 for unlimited HD streaming. I wouldn't worry about price creep until it actually occurs, and instead, I would look forward to price contraction over the long haul, assuming Adobe's customer base continues to increase (and, if they produce more packages like this one, say a $9.99/mo deal for freelance digital artists and graphic designers, another for freelance DSLR cinematographers, etc. I suspect Adobe's CC membership will indeed increase.)

At less than $60/yr each for these two apps, that is a very good deal. The monthly price is not too difficult to swallow. And it comes with 20 gigs of online storage space to boot! Personally, I think this is the first good Adobe Cloud deal to come along.

I believe you are wrong about the $9.99 being permanent.  Read any Adobe EULA.  They reserve the right to raise prices at any time.

That isn't evidence of anything. EVERY EULA says that. Its a pretty standard thing for subscription services (companies HAVE to be able to adapt to changing economic circumstances, and can't be locked into prices that may eventually not support their service.) I wouldn't read into that clause in any way. Adobe will change prices according to demand, inflation, and other economic forces. Sure, they will charge as much as they can, that is the basis of a capitalist market...but people WILL walk when the prices get too high, or when the service doesn't offer what people want.

Again, NetFlix is a superb example of how this works with subscription services...when the company tried to spin off Quickster, dropped Stars Play, and increase streaming rates, DROVES of members literally left the service. The company reversed its policies, shored up its services, increased content offerings, and their members came back.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Adobe has more power over the customer than the customer themselves regarding price and offerings just doesn't understand market dynamics or the power of the customers "wallet vote."

1179
Technical Support / Re: Which one is accurate?
« on: September 07, 2013, 05:20:00 PM »
The reason I asked was because National Geographic says
"National Geographic Photography want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography."

So I would assume the first photo is the one.
I don't plan to submit anything but I just want to go with their guideline

Thank you very much


The first pic is how it looked.
The second pic is more colored accurate (after subtracted the sun) via WB correction.

color accuracy or staying true to the original scene?

Like Neuro said, if you need the colours to be faithful to the original scene then a grey card or something is necessary; If the photo is your artwork then whatever looks right, is right.

Jim

Accurate to what? What actually was? What your personal artistic vision saw it as? What it would look like when conforming to your own stylism?

Color balance is really a matter of personal preference when it comes to creative photography. You, the photographer, have to choose what you want, what looks good to you, and what fits your personal style. Style is just as important to photography as literal "this is how IT WAS" kind of accuracy...so long as the goal is to be artistic. So, you have to decide... "Accurate to what?"

If your job is to reproduce reality, then obviously the answer to the question "Accurate to what?" is "Accurate to actual reality." and not some artistic deviation.

1180
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 07, 2013, 04:03:03 PM »
I can't wait for Nikon to go out of business. Their sensors are worse in every way that matters, their bodies are low quality and the controls make no sense and their pathetic excuses for lenses  perform worse than coke bottles.

I have to try hard not to laugh out loud every time I see a moron who spent thousands on a "pro" Nikon body. Pathetic. The 70D wipes the floor with everything Nikon can put out at any price level.


Well, I think we can boil this down to a single word:

T R O L L



 :P

1181
Hmm, I am not sure what everyone is complaining about. Given the terminology, the price is $9.99/mo in perpetuity so long as you sign up before the end of the year. That comes out to $60/yr for these apps, or less than that if you factor in the online storage space option.

I was greatly dismayed with Adobe trying to force everyone to move to the $50/mo "master suite" cloud deal, which is what their prior pricing basically amounted to. Hardly anyone uses just one adobe app, and at $20/mo per individual app, everyone might as well just pay for the master cloud deal. Not everyone, however, has FIFTY PER MONTH of disposable income, particularly freelancers, photographers, etc. who may not have consistent monthly income in order to support a subscription.

Fears of Adobe increasing price are overblown. Given how much hate there is for their Cloud service in general, they know they would lose droves of customers if there was ever even a HINT of a price increase. Most previously existing customers, such as myself, have been wise enough to keep their CS6 license and software, so they will always have something to fall back on. There is no reason not to stand your ground and vote with your pocketbook in the event Adobe ever does try to stick it to you and raise your price unnecessarily.

Over the LONG term, inflation is a perpetual, and seemingly permanent, and fairly simple fact of the fiat currency world. "Paper" money inflates, and prices will eventually inflate with it. I wouldn't expect a sudden price jump from $9.99 to $19.99 in a year...but over five years, I'd expect something along the lines of a move from $9.99 to $14.99 at most (probably less than that). That assumes Adobe doesn't finally learn that lower prices mean more subscribers. If other popular subscription services are any indication, the price should DROP in the long term as Adobe gathers more and more customers. As NetFlix's subscriber base has grown, the price has dropped. I used to spend $30/mo for three discs a month. Now I pay $7.99 for unlimited HD streaming. I wouldn't worry about price creep until it actually occurs, and instead, I would look forward to price contraction over the long haul, assuming Adobe's customer base continues to increase (and, if they produce more packages like this one, say a $9.99/mo deal for freelance digital artists and graphic designers, another for freelance DSLR cinematographers, etc. I suspect Adobe's CC membership will indeed increase.)

At less than $60/yr each for these two apps, that is a very good deal. The monthly price is not too difficult to swallow. And it comes with 20 gigs of online storage space to boot! Personally, I think this is the first good Adobe Cloud deal to come along.

1182
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 07, 2013, 01:37:24 AM »
UV filter? That would mean pixels are approaching 380nm (0.38µm). At the moment, the smallest pixels are 1100nm (1.1µm), which is approaching the near-infrared spectrum. Once we achieve 700-800nm pixels, then you could remove the IR cutoff filter (which most digital sensors have). If we ever actually get to 700nm, then we would already be filtering some red light. The chances of us getting to pixels smaller than 400nm is impossible...as we would then no longer be able to record visible light! :P

I don't think that's actually true.  As best I understand the behavior of light, some light passes through holes at a given wavelength even if the holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength.  It just falls off in intensity, both as the size of the hole shrinks below the wavelength and as the distance between the hole and the detector on the other side increases.

So if we had pixels that were on the order of 300 nm, you might be able to get away with dropping the infrared filter, but you'd also have a lot of red loss by that point, some green loss, and a little blue loss.

That said, I am not a physicist, so I could be understanding things incorrectly.

Sure, its not a sudden cutoff to zero light, however it falls off faster than you think. you would be working with practically no visible light with 380nm pixels. I dont see the usefulness of a sensor that is filtering out the vast majority of the light it is supposed to be sensitive to. It takes some rather specialized equipment, for example, to perform subwavelength EUV lithography for cmos manufacture...I can't imagine a subwavelwngth sensor would be an easy or cost effective thing. I guess color splitting in place of color filtration might help...

1183
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 07, 2013, 12:20:59 AM »
I'm pretty sure a sensor made up of pixels smaller than 700nm would just end up collecting excess heat if you let IR light hit it, so it's still in your best interest to filter light not being translated into a signal.

You are still gathering that heat. It will either be directly in the sensor itself, or a fraction of a millimeter above it. One way or another, the ambient temperature of the sensor is going to increase, so why put in an unnecessary filter?

1184
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon vs Nikon at DxOMark
« on: September 06, 2013, 03:21:23 PM »
You misunderstood the comparison. Let me explain
...
The lens comparison was about sharpness which the 70D should be better due to higher resolution.

But that right there is the very problem. That isn't a lens test...it's a sensor test. :P A lens test should be sensor agnostic. It should tell you about the lens, not the sensor that was used with it.

1185
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:09:12 AM »

Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80 81 ... 217