Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:54:52 PM »

The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.

Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...

The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.

RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter.

Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.

My previous point made exactly.

You do realize that twice now, you have fulfilled the role of Person B, no?

62

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:47:48 PM »

I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.  Please read the linked post again, in its entirety. The blue and pink water bottles are not my example, they're wikipedia's, and they are confusing because while the focal lengths are prominently labeled, distances aren't stated - and the distance is a covariant.

Scroll down to the beer bottles - those are my examples. Look just at the left column - those images have decreasing focal lengths but the same distance, and thus the perspective is identical. The 100mm shot could be 600mm for the grebe, and the 50mm shot analogous to a 300mm lens - if you're the same distance from the grebe, the perspective will be the same, whether the foreground is a loon or open water.  To change the perspective as you see in the right column of beer bottle images, you'd need to be wading out into that 10' deep water. Bring your A1400 if you want, or your 600mm lens - in either case, it'll be the changing distance that's altering the perspective of the shot, not the camera/lens you're holding while treading water.

Ok, yeah, I agree with that. That also wouldn't really be what I was referring to, but that is my fault. If I use the 100-400mm lens as an example....if I change the focal length from 100 to 400, the background, and the relationship between whatever I'm focused on and the background, does change...when the exact same aperture is used for both focal lengths. Perhaps that is not "perspective"...maybe the correct terminology is simply "background compression." Whatever the correct term is...the relationship between the focused subject and its background does change. I'll see if I can get some examples, including crops.


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.

Same aperture, f/6.3, used at both 100mm and 400mm. Camera was set up at a fixed point, subject distance did NOT change. The 100mm shot was scaled and cropped in Photoshop to match the 400mm shot. The relationship of the brick to its background changes considerably between the two (sorry, the lens is not parfocal, so the focal plane shifted forward by a couple millimeters in the 400mm shot):

63

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:15:12 PM »

Willets, Western variety, at Cherry Creek State Park:






(See more full size images at my site)

Will it be Willets?  Yes
Really great shots and worth what you had to endure

YES, Willets indeed! Thanks for viewing.

As it turns out, I found a slightly easier way out onto those shores. Its through thickets and brambles, and grasslands covered in about an inch of water...but, there is far less chance of permanently losing a shoe to sucking mud.

64

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:13:50 PM »

The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.

Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...

The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.

RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter.

Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.

65

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 07:04:48 PM »

Sigh...

Yeah...even visual evidence derived FROM HIS OWN evidence isn't even enough! Oh well...guess a Zebra really can't change its stripes.

66

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:54:51 PM »

...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective! 

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

Sorry, but no.  The ONLY thing that determines the perspective is the distance to the subject. Not focal length, not aperture, not sensor size/FoV. Distance from image plane to subject. Period.

EDIT: dug up a previous post showing the difference between changing focal length vs. changing distance:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11592.msg208320#msg208320

I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

If we change the two bottles to a Grebe (blue) and water (pink)...the longer focal length changes depth of field compression (exactly the same as getting closer to the bird...effectively it IS a change in distance), which has an effect on the water as it relates to the Grebe, while also enlarging the Grebe relative to the frame. From a fixed point on shore, going from a shorter to a longer focal length DOES have an apparent impact on the perspective of a DISTANT subject. There is no foreground subject that can remain static (the pink bottle) relative to a distant subject...other than the environment surrounding it.

67

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:46:07 PM »

...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective! 

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, there has been a rather well mannered thread about this kind of thing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

I can see both sides of this argument, only a fool couldn't, or an argumentative troll who wouldn't. Some photographers can achieve amazing results with comparatively modest equipment, eg, most of these images were shot with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f1.8 http://tamarlevine.com/. On the flip side some photographers wiill always find images they can't shoot due to equipment limitations even when they are using the best currently available, eg, http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?pageno=6&link=blog&category=7 now those images, however skilled you are, could never ever be shot with a point and shoot, an SX50, or a 4x5 field camera.

I don't disagree that a good photographer can take good photos with lesser gear. It is most certainly possible. I'm just saying a good photographer, or an excellent photographer, can usually take better photos with better gear. I'm also saying that the ability to get good photos, or any kind of photo at all, with lesser gear doesn't invalidate higher end gear. It is about more than just being more convenient. As Krob said...we get both increased convenience and better capabilities with higher end gear...so its a win/win!

i still think you'd do better sticking to your 7D and jus tusing the longer lens on that unless you had something long enough to frame ideally with the FF and for a grebe way out there, that sounds unlikely

Sure, the crop factor is actually a real benefit for distant subjects. It wouldn't matter if you were using a 5D III or 7D, the 2.25x subject enlargement factor would be the same.

68

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:52:11 PM »

Ah, this was a better day. My lens is still soft...dropped it again after getting it back, so its softish (i.e. I can't resolve feather barbs anymore, regardless of the distance to the bird...where as before the drop I could.) Scaled down, and carefully processed with LR, Nik, and Topaz, I can extract every ounce of quality possible from them though. I just can't get razor sharp shots, which bugs me every time I go out.

Plus...I got these after spending about 30 minutes acting like a bush. Continuing from the debate with RLPhoto...I was wearing camo, had LensCoat RealTree HD on my tripod, Jobu Pro 2 gimbal, and a LensCoat RealTree raincoat on my lens. The birds moved down shore, both directions, when I scooted up. Took a while before they were satisfied that I was just some kind of odd-looking dead bush, and were willing to get close. About another hour after that, they were comfortable enough to allow me to inch closer and closer. Most of these shots are near MFD...so, about five to eight feet out, maybe ten at the most.

Still...If I had a BETTER TOOL, I wouldn't have had to wait at all...I could have set up shop at a distance the birds were more comfortable with, and started getting good shots right off the bat! Wow, imagine that!  

Well, it would have been more convenient wouldn't it! LOL!   Just jesting of course with regard to the images, throwing back to someone's ridiculous remark that 7D is a crappy camera, still irks me!  Every time I see good or great 7D images I have to smile!   

Aye, the 7D is a great tool. Takes skill to use it right, but it can get some great shots. Certainly not as convenient as the 5D III or 1D X with a 600mm or 800mm lens and a teleconverter (or even a 7D with either of those lenses). It also requires you to be a little less respectful of birds and wildlife, as you have to get closer to get similar quality. The key with the 7D is to use as many pixels as possible. Fill the frame, and noise drops, detail improves. Definitely NOT a crappy camera.

69

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:45:19 PM »

block a soccer pass and get pummeled by fans,

+1 Oy! Such a scary statement, because its so true!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/fenerbahce-soccer-fans-riot-league-championship_n_1512067.html

70

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:43:24 PM »

...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective! 

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, there has been a rather well mannered thread about this kind of thing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

I can see both sides of this argument, only a fool couldn't, or an argumentative troll who wouldn't. Some photographers can achieve amazing results with comparatively modest equipment, eg, most of these images were shot with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f1.8 http://tamarlevine.com/. On the flip side some photographers wiill always find images they can't shoot due to equipment limitations even when they are using the best currently available, eg, http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?pageno=6&link=blog&category=7 now those images, however skilled you are, could never ever be shot with a point and shoot, an SX50, or a 4x5 field camera.

I don't disagree that a good photographer can take good photos with lesser gear. It is most certainly possible. I'm just saying a good photographer, or an excellent photographer, can usually take better photos with better gear. I'm also saying that the ability to get good photos, or any kind of photo at all, with lesser gear doesn't invalidate higher end gear. It is about more than just being more convenient. As Krob said...we get both increased convenience and better capabilities with higher end gear...so its a win/win!

71

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:37:06 PM »

Let's get back to the fundamental principle here.

A great shot from a A1400 from a never attempted perspective very close to an animal very difficult to do so, would destroy anything ever done by any super-tele + $$$$$ 1D combo. That's the principle. It's Irrelevant how its done, but that's what makes a better picture. The photographer.

Well, your going to have to prove that one. You need to go get that shot, then prove to me that the only thing that matters to a magazine editor is the simple fact that it's unique. Words aren't enough anymore. Your going so hard against the grain here, so far beyond the point where you could have cleanly exited this debate without all the bumps and bruises, that you now need hard, irrefutable PROOF, actual physical evidence (i.e. your A1400 photo reproduced in a prestigious magazine...oh, say, "Living Bird" of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology).

You can say whatever you want. Doesn't make it true. I don't think you quite understand what it is your debating...and are just debating for the sake of taking the contrarian position? I mean, I can't think of any reason your still continuing. You lost the debate a long time ago.

I'm not saying the photographer is not a critical factor in getting a good photo. On the contrary, that has been core to my point ever since the debate started. You are still, conveniently, ignoring my point. That even when the photographer is as skilled as humanly possible, if you put a better tool in their hands, they will have the capacity to make better photos. The PHOTOGRAPHER is still CRITICAL to that equation...and a skilled photographer, the human mind aspect here, would KNOW about all of the factors I listed in my previous answer. That skilled PHOTOGRAPHER would KNOW that an aesthetically appealing perspective and clean low-noise output isn't going to happen with a wider angle lens, while treading water, with a microscopic sensor, from a few feet away!

No one is going to care that YOU, the great and powerful "photographer", risked your camera, intruded upon the territory of a bird (in rather rude and unethical fashion), and got yourself soaked...in order to get a photo of a Grebe that was "unique". That doesn't matter. No one cares. You aren't going to be getting any props, and in a circle if other bird and wildlife photographers, or even in any group of naturalists, they would probably be quite miffed at your lack of respect for the bird and it's environment. You'd probably get stoned to death for encroaching upon the bird's bubble of comfort and making it fly away in the first place!

Again...you should really quit while your...well, there is no "ahead" anymore, RL. You don't know what your talking about anymore, and I think that is paramount to anyone still reading this thread. Quite before you dig the hole so deep you can't see the rim. It's the less embarrassing, and still honorable, thing to do.

72

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:22:43 PM »

Red-Winged Blackbird, taken with my 7d/600mm f6.3 - 1/800 iso 160

I didn't crop the image at all just re-sized.

Nice and sharp, Magical! Love the detail there. Not often you see a blackbird of any kind photographed with care (guess they are too "common and boring" for most people.)

73

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:21:59 PM »

Willets, Western variety, at Cherry Creek State Park:






(See more full size images at my site)

I see your still having issues getting nice images with that 7D Jon!     Seriously, very nice!  Thanks for posting!

Ah, this was a better day. My lens is still soft...dropped it again after getting it back, so its softish (i.e. I can't resolve feather barbs anymore, regardless of the distance to the bird...where as before the drop I could.) Scaled down, and carefully processed with LR, Nik, and Topaz, I can extract every ounce of quality possible from them though. I just can't get razor sharp shots, which bugs me every time I go out.

Plus...I got these after spending about 30 minutes acting like a bush. Continuing from the debate with RLPhoto...I was wearing camo, had LensCoat RealTree HD on my tripod, Jobu Pro 2 gimbal, and a LensCoat RealTree raincoat on my lens. The birds moved down shore, both directions, when I scooted up. Took a while before they were satisfied that I was just some kind of odd-looking dead bush, and were willing to get close. About another hour after that, they were comfortable enough to allow me to inch closer and closer. Most of these shots are near MFD...so, about five to eight feet out, maybe ten at the most.

Still...If I had a BETTER TOOL, I wouldn't have had to wait at all...I could have set up shop at a distance the birds were more comfortable with, and started getting good shots right off the bat! Wow, imagine that!  

74

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:12:55 PM »

That's an opinion Jrista, and I believe that getting closer to your subject always make a stronger photo. Is it more inconvenient? Sure. Impossible? I doubt it. Extremely Difficult? Sure. Why drop by a volcano when you can just shoot it from the air?

Unique Perspectives is what separates the good from the greats. Lets say You did get that shot with the A1400, and It's never been done before. Let's say shot is average, Every wildlife photographer and magazine will ask how on earth you got it? See where I'm going with this?

If you got that one unique photo, No-one would think twice about which photo is better.

Magazines don't really go for unique as the primary factor in the photos they select for print. I read a lot of magazines with wildlife and bird photography in them. A magazine editor is interested the artistic quality and aesthetic appeal first, and probably photographer reputation second. I can show you a hundred photos of Grebes, Loons, Herons, Owls, you name it. They all look fairly similar...in one way or another. Some have a unique ASPECT or two to them, but none of them are totally and entirely unique in any particular way.

The point about them is the quality and aesthetic of the shot. Does it just make you go "WOW!!" the moment you see it? Does it draw you in? Are the technical aspects correct...is the bird lit well? Is it isolated? Is your perspective appealing? Are the surroundings "clean", rather than cluttered? Is the photo engaging...is the bird looking out of the frame (unappealing), or right at the viewer (VERY appealing)? Is the birds body angled properly to the frame? Is the bird doing something interesting? What kind of emotion is there in the scene? These factors aren't unique...but they are critically important.

Those are the kinds of questions a magazine editor is going to ask you, or use if they are evaluating your photo for inclusion in an issue. They could care less about whether its totally, never-done-before unique. They care about each and every quality aspect of the photo, technical and artistic. And there ARE specific expectations for many of those aspects...perspective, depth of field, sharpness, bird pose (body and head angle), viewer engagement. They aren't arbitrary.

Trust me...some half-assed, wobbly photo taken by someone treading water with an A1400 while trying to photograph a fleeing Grebe wouldn't ever make the cut unless the magazine was all about that kind of thing... '"Unique" shots, damn the quality, give us the craziest thing you've ever done!'

You should really quit while your ahead. No, people won't think twice about which photo is better...no one will even look at the one taken with the point and shoot. Trust me...I've had enough critiques of my work in the last couple of years (of my own choice, I asked for them! to know, from first hand experience, what makes a good bird photo, and what people won't even give a second glance.

75

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

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:01:26 PM »

"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient. 

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient...

LOL...I got a chuckle out of that one for sure.

Just to prove I'm not spouting smoke and mirrors out of my rear end, as I photograph birds almost every day. Here is a "Western Grebe with a Fish" shot...at least 60+ feet off shore (maybe this one was about 90-100 feet, actually), taken with a 400mm lens and the 7D:



If I had a 5D III, 600mm lens (and probably a 2x TC, given how far off shore this grebe was)...I could have gotten a FAR better shot...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective, sharper detail, and better exposure (and thus lower ISO, less noise) than would ever be possible with the 7D and 100-400mm lens. I can't wait to get better photographic tools in my hands...I'm a fairly skilled photographer, but there is no alternative to having the best money can buy in combination with that skill.