September 20, 2014, 10:14:18 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CR Backup Admin

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52
16
Macro / Yellow Jackets on Sunflower
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:34:47 PM »
I bought a used P&S camera today, so one of the things I tried out was a closeup just as the sun was setting.  I wanted to see how the camera acted with a hand held close focus situation.  I found it quite difficult to get reasonably sharp images, but finally did get a couple.

This one is cropped to about 80% of the original size.


17
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:42:49 PM »
700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though.  As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load?  I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom.  That's where it sits now 700 X 700.  I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?

700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows.  after that, you have to scroll around to see it.  Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.

18
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:15:29 PM »
I like big thumbs...

I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.

I understand.  It would be nice if everyone could remove the linked images, but it would be nicer yet if they were removed automatically.

I'm still looking for a beter solution

19
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:13:05 PM »
700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though.  As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load?  I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom.  That's where it sits now 700 X 700.  I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

20
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:54:57 PM »
At this point, it looks to me to be a clear majority want the larger thumbnails.

I'm going to revert to them immediately, but leave the poll open.  As a compromise, I'll allow 8 images and see what happens.  I've not been able to find a way to remove the image links from a reply to a post. 

Also note:

I also have the ability to turn off the thumbnail and show images full size.


While I was fooling with the image controls, I noticed a option that is checked to show the thumbnails as PNG format images.  I did a little research, and the Simple Machines Manual says that's a higher quality setting.  It just might be responsible for the frequent reports of poor colors and artifacts noted in uploaded images, so I will experiment with turning it off to see what we get.  It is also possible that showing the image full size might improve the quality, the resize option is turned on now.  I definitely don't want to bring down the forum by playing with the options too much, but it might be interesting to try settings for a few minutes to see what happens.

I'll first try turning off the png.  Generally, the changes only apply to new posts and are not retroactive.

Anyone who wants to compare send me a PM and you can try a before and after.

Ed

21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF16-35mm F4 IS vs EF24-105mm F4IS test (Part 2)
« on: August 10, 2014, 02:10:01 PM »
I didn't view the link, but was wondering how they compare at 16mm, or at 50 or 85 or 105mm.

This seems like apples and oranges.  The two lenses are not in competition.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Any rumors on a new fullframe body for Canon?
« on: August 10, 2014, 02:07:31 PM »
The current rumors are for new FF bodies in the first half of 2015.  Perhaps a replacement for D1X, or a optional high pixel version.  5D MK III IV or 5DX might happen as well.  Expect $4,000 for the 5D.

23
Lenses / Re: Teleconverter crop factor conundrum
« on: August 10, 2014, 02:04:14 PM »
I'm considering buying a 1.4tc to go on my 400mm 5.6. I've often wondered, which is better in terms of IQ:

Using 400mm (no tc) on 60d?
Using 400mm on 5d3 and cropping?
Using 400mm on 5d3 with a 1.4tc?

These options all yield a similar focal length, but which would give a better overall result?

Cheers
Al

When using autofocus to capture a quick image, the second two methods might yield better results, for a simple reason, AFMA.  You cannot fine tune your 60D autofocus to give you the best autofocus accuracy (liveview will help, and so will manual focus if mounted on a tripod and used with liveview).  You can tune your autofocus with a 5D MK III or 70D too, for that matter.  On a 70D, live AF will let you add that 1.4X or even 2X TC.  Being able to use fast enough shutter speeds to prevent motion blurring is also often a advantage in FF.

Being able to fine tune AF or use live AF on a 70D might very well improve the images merely due to focus accuracy.

You might also wait for a couple of weeks and see what features will be in a new 7D replacement.  It may have better live AF that is capable of tracking and even faster response and focus accuracy.  There is a possibility that this will be the best for inexpensive use with long lenses, at least until the next generation of FF bodies, and if its done right, the only advantage for FF bodies will be shutter speed, since the large sensor gathers more light, you can use higher ISO's and faster shutter speeds.

24
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 01:46:57 PM »
...Canon might come out with a $4500 Camera to place between 5D III and the 1DX.  Maybe a 5DX?

3D

 ;D

Possible, but unlikely.  I think they are reserving that number for 20 years from now.

25
Canon General / Re: Battery Overheat
« on: August 10, 2014, 01:43:25 PM »
Popular power tool batteries/chargers can also cause a fire.

Those of you that leave cordless tool batteries and chargers on and unattended are asking for trouble.

I know one person that almost lost their home and another started smoldering on a jobsite- which set off the alarms and the FD showed up. Not the first go around for that FD and that particular brand of charger/batteries.

Consumer grade chargers are manufactured to a cost/profit point, not necessarily quality.

The issue is 90% battery, and only a few percent charger.  Li-on batteries have a circuit in them that turns off the charging.  An exception is fast charging batteries, too much current overheats a battery, and then the failure rate shoots up.  Different standards organizations have different tests, The Japanese Test is one of the toughest due to the short circuit test.

Here is a link to a overall summary which gives a idea but no specifics about the tests.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Li-on%20cell%20japanese%20test&FORM=BB07LB&PC=BB07&QS=n

Li-on batteries are fragile internally, and the cheap ones can short out from a shock like being dropped.  For a power tool, dropping it is a common occurrence, so the power tool batteries are taking a huge amount of abuse.

Here is a Underwriter Laboratories article.

http://newscience.ul.com/articles/lithium-ion-batteries

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF
« on: August 10, 2014, 01:02:55 PM »
Thanks Dustin. :)
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael
 :) ;) :D

It's a surprisingly competent lens. I agree with whomever said that Canons replacement will probably not be a giant white lens. That doesn't really say "travel" at all. Even the color makes one more a target, while this lens (Tamron) is pretty much invisible.

Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS.  They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality.  This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses.  It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality.  That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high.  They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 12:42:55 PM »
It does look like Nikon is very convinced that bring full frame cameras out in large numbers will mean more sales.

FF sensors no longer cost a huge premium to manufacture, and by increasing the volume, prices drop further.

Nikon is not likely to cannibalize D4S sales, I think they learned that from the D700.  the Df certainly was a niche camera and not likely to affect D4s sales.

I wonder if this is a indication of what Canon will be doing.  They are obviously aware of each others strategy, so, Canon might come out with a $4500 Camera to place between 5D III and the 1DX.  Maybe a 5DX?

28
I've started a poll, to get member input on this.

29
Site Information / Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:32:06 AM »
I have reduced the size of image thumbnails to 200 X 200. A viewer must click on a thumbnail to see a larger image.

At the same time, I increased the number of images allowed from 6 to 10.

The issue is that it takes a lot of time to have a large number of  770 X 770 loading, and not everyone has a blazing fast internet speed.

What do you, the users think?  I do not know how many users have fast internet, or how many have slow internet, so tell us.


I'm willing to go with the majority on this.  The poll runs for 5 days.

Thanks for your input.
 
ADDED:
 
The forum only allows one size regardless of the board.
 
I'll look at the options for removing images.  As I recall, they are not repeated when used as a attachment, but when someone embeds a link, its copied.  We would not  ban embedding links.

30
If enough people want them back, I can do it.  So far, I've had several comments from those who like them, and prefer the ability to post more images.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 52