Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:46:00 AM »

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AF Adjustment : What Am i doing wrong!

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:32:51 AM »

So did 3 tests with Focal and result was +3, + 2, +4(on 50L)
I've decide to make a 4th test and got +3...so +3 it is. (used strong Hallogen light to be EV 12)

after taking tests shots I am more confident the correction is accurate.  Although there is no true alignment with Focal...I still like it :-)

thx guys

Aye, FoCal is pretty good stuff. It DOES need a LOT of light to really work right, but it really simplifies an otherwise complicated process.

33

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:43:47 PM »

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)

Too bad nothing that's been released is both affordable and better than what was purchased years ago.

Are you saying the 5D III is not better than the 5D II, or pretty much ANY camera from four-five years ago?

34

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:01:07 PM »

or an iPhone.... Apple claims that more pictures are taken each day with an iPhone than any other camera.....

WOW, seriously! That has got to be one of Apples' most bold-faced outright fabrications (superlies) EVER.

There must be millions of photos taken every day, hell if you count the whole world...hundreds of millions or more. No freaking way the majority of them are taken with iPhones.

as an aside, I refer to my 400mm lens as my "grizzly bear" lens...... a lens for things that I can't get too close to, or don't want to get too close to.... I am NOT going to walk up to a polar bear and stick an iPhone in it's face.... I also have problems walking on water and flying up into trees, so for me, gear does matter.

Aye. And there is just a respect element, too...its better for the animals and the environment if photographers aren't tearing things up, trashing about the water, etc. to get close to wildlife or birds they shouldn't be disturbing in the first place.

Although, if an idiot with an A1400 got his face eaten off by a bear while trying to get a macro eyeball shot of it...serves him right! At least then, he's feeding the bear.... 

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 09:45:05 PM »

 

Anyway, I thought I'd give it one more try to convince the guy. Even the article he linked proves my point (which is that the gap between FF and MF is shrinking):

There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.

However, I have never seen such a great details and resolution in $3200 35mm DSLR before! Will it be any visible difference between large prints from both cameras? May be, if we’ll look at those prints with the loupe. But how many idiots use loupe to enjoy large prints? 

Both cameras did a great job recovering very dark areas of the image, with slight advantage on Hasselblad’s side:

There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon. And if we consider the price difference, the Nikon become a true hero: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge…

The only thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima.

I rest my case on that article!

It is apparently impossible to convince RL, so I'm done for good now.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:07:57 PM »

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.

Just to demonstrate that that statement is not actually true, here are some photos (taken from this link: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html) that compare the D800 to the IQ180. The D800 images have been downscaled 2x, the IQ180 images have been downscaled 3x. If what RL is saying is correct, the IQ180 photos should be winning hands down, no questions asked, stomping ALL OVER the D800. The extra downscaling factor should be giving it a FURTHER edge.

Now, for the facts. First image is D800, second image is IQ180 (As they are in the linked article). These are lifted a MERE 1.5 STOPS (EVERY camera on Earth can currently handle a 1.5 stop lift...so we aren't even remotely close to the realm of "only Exmor can do that" territory! )

MIDWAY BETWEEN CENTER & EDGE:

v--- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800


^-- mostly sharp, noisy in the shadows! IQ180

CORNER:

v-- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800


^-- not sharp, NOISY!!!!!!!!!! IQ180

Hmm...well, hell has obviously frozen over, the planets have stopped their rotation around the sun, the galaxy has certainly stopped spinning....because, the D800 appears to be...winning....HMM!

37

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:00:47 PM »

Lets move on.  So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year  (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently.  I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of  2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be --  beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2.   is anyone anticipating more than this?

Canon has repeatedly said that the 7D2 will be "a significant upgrade" and "a game-changer". The safest bet is new sensor technology and improvements to AF, burst rate, video, and remote control. At the minimum it should be the unveiling of sensor performance that the rumoured high-megapixel camera will have.... and it is possible that they will skip over the .18 micron technology to something else... who knows?

And that's the crux of it.... "Who knows?" In the meantime we wildly speculate. We have no hard evidence to back up our speculations, but it's fun to dream.

I'll probably get one when it is released.... but I am patient enough to wait, plus my 60D works just fine.... I bet it has at least another 15000 shutter releases on it before the 7D2 comes out

game-changer
new sensor tech
So suddenly Canon changes to something new regarding sensors , where stands the  1dx, 5dmk3 , 6D after that?
and 1DX and now  6D newly presented in to the market.
Sounds like little bit unrealistic don't you think?.

Again, assuming only sensor tech matters. The 1D X and 5D III are phenomenal cameras for the market niches they are intended to fill. They have EXCELLENT IQ, even without two extra stops of DR, but sensor isn't necessarily the most important technology factor. There are gobs of other technological improvements in those cameras as well, not to mention they are all full frame.

So, the 7D II comes along with new sensor tech...its APS-C! It isn't going to be encroaching on 1D X nor 5D III territory any time soon...its a different class of tool for a different market...even IF it has better DR, same 61pt AF system, 10fps frame rate, deep frame buffer, rugged body build, dual CF cards, and comes strait out the gate with all the other improvements added to the 1D X and 5D III with firmware updates: f/8 AF, blinking red AF points in darker conditions, etc.

The big MP camera is, once again, a different beast. I fully expect it to be KILLER on the IQ front, including at least two more stops of DR. If it isn't, it's a dud on arrival, as there is no question the market will compare it to the D800 and Sony Exmor. It'll be a BIG MP camera, though...so it won't be taking on either the 1D X nor 5D III. It'll have a low frame rate. It'll probably top out at ISO 26500, although I wouldn't be surprised if it topped out at ISO 12800 (with great quality). I suspect it won't have a deep frame buffer. As a likely studio camera, it could very well come with an integrated grip, and be 1-series, although I wouldn't really be surprised if its a new 3-series camera. It will serve an entirely different market than the 1D X and 5D III, most likely at a price point somewhere between the two.

So, the 1D X and 5D III have their place, for at least another three years. I see no reason for anyone to be worried about their purchase, or even planned purchases, unless they are a bird & wildlife photographer, landscape photographer, or studio photographer (in which case, waiting for the 7D II or Big MP only seems logical.)

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AF Adjustment : What Am i doing wrong!

« on: May 10, 2013, 01:09:03 PM »

Good day, I am in the process of fine tuning my 1dx AF body and lenses combo with lensalign.  Naturally, I spent a lot of time aligning the red circle(making sure there is a same amount of white around...One Shot Focus, Normal Focus point).

Now, I am really stuck and don't know what to do in order to 1)Get good results 2) trust myself doing it

Mainly, with the lensalign on my combo 1dx + 50 F1.2, I found that AF needed -10 adjustment. 

PROBLEM is : When I take a photo of simple writting, it seems very very fuzzy...and if I take the photo with AF adjustment to 0...then I see good results

Here are all my files : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/98pv8euzc11l7xg/bF4X6vpYuk 

let me know if anyone can help.

It looks like your testing wide open. At maximum aperture, especially an aperture that wide, your going to experience some optical aberrations. Chromatic Aberration, Spherical Aberration, etc. Additionally, AFMA settings tend to be distance dependent. If you tune your AFMA for shooting at a distance of 40 feet, then start shooting at five feet....it is very likely your AFMA setting will not be ideal for the closer shots. If the lens works well at an AFMA setting of zero, I would leave it there, and stop down a third of a stop or so to sharpen things up at other distances.

39

Lenses / Re: Any one ever seen a zoom extender

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:32:35 PM »

Conceptionally the idea sounds great - an extender from 1 to 2 or even 1 to 1.4.

Would make the Great Whites even more versatile.

Suspect that no one has done this because the optical quality would be fair to poor (perhaps worse).

Would you really want one? I have to figure that a zoom TC would incur a greater hit to IQ at all settings than a prime TC. A prime TC tends to have enough of an impact to IQ...

The idea certainly sounds intriguing, but I think a zoom lens is more practical from an IQ standpoint.

40

EOS Bodies / Re: Why no crop mode on 5d mkiii 1dx

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:03:47 PM »

...
Gimmie Chuck Westfalls number so he can explain why canon left out this feature.
...

http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/

Enjoy.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - Tilt Shift Lens Related

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:01:15 PM »

Shooting assist functions suitable for tilt lens

• Rotate display grid lines
• The angle information of the tilt lens to determine the angle of the grid lines
• To align in the direction of change of focus, the angle of the grating lines, easy to compose the picture

Now that sounds AWESOME. Can't wait for this!

42

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:53:39 PM »

...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

You have! 

HAHA! Well, ty! Good to be friends, my friend!

43

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:46:27 PM »

This is the difference that I'm talking about. Maybe this can only be called "Depth Compression" or "Background Compression"...but to me, the relationship between the subject (the brick...or a Grebe...) and its background CHANGED...that is perspective, no? I guess one could say that only if the relative positions of elements change, do you have a change in perspective. I would be willing to agree with that, however I have a number of friends who are wedding photographers who use the term "perspective" to refer to both changes in relationship...both change in relative positions of near/far elements, as well as the change in blur and apparent depth between a subject and it's background. I'm willing to accept that the latter definition is not accepted. I can just call it background compression from now on.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

Exactly.  As for having a lot of friends who also misuse the terminology in the same way that you (jrista) do, well...I know a lot of people who write 'a lot' as one word, but that doesn't make 'alot' correct, either.

Alright then...just blur. I actually picked up the bad use from them, as I got tired of making the same debate...guess I just absorbed the expanded/alternate definition into my vernacular (although that was years ago...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:31:19 PM »

so much about what a CR2 rating is worth. 

Hmm...only CR3 means "just about fact". A CR2 rumor only means it was a relatively good rumor from a known source. Good rumors are still just rumors. A CR1 means a "take it with a big doze of salt, came from a new/unknown source" type rumor, which are more likely to be wrong than a CR2. Neither CR2 nor CR1 should ever be taken as "This most likely WILL happen"...that honor is only reserved for CR3.

If this had been a CR3, then we would have had to seriously question the rating system, but seeing as it was a CR2, well...it WAS A RUMOR!

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Download Firmware 1.2.1 link for 5DIII

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:27:36 PM »

No improvement on the red focus points - Booooo Hisss
No ability to customise the stupid rate button - Hope magic lantern can do something here instead since canon have no interest in being helpful

Well that sucks.