November 28, 2014, 06:12:24 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 - mb66energy

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28
166
Hi,

What makes one monitor vs. another good for photo editing?  (If anything).   

I want to get a new one, and I want to get the right type. Not looking to spend more than $400 or so unless there is a good reason, and I really don't need anything bigger than about 23" or 24" or so.   I use Lightroom, but plan to get into Photoshop Elements sooner or later. 

Thanks.

As others said: A good panel technology like IPS or S-PVA is very helpful due it's high contrast and low susceptibility of viewing angles.

But it is very important to have stable lighting conditions around the monitor. I would recommend an halogene incandescent lamp or a LED lamp with good color rendering (CRI > 80, better > 90 if available).
The same goes for the monitor settings: I use sRGB and don't fiddle around with the contrast and color settings.

To get some idea of the differences between monitor and printouts of a photo dealer I used 9 photographs containing different typical photographs with varying contrasts, colors, etc. - It matched well so I trust my monitor.
ADD: If I say the photo dealer that I do not want any post processing he prints the images directly without any changes - I had only 2 iterations - but if the printouts weren't o.k., my postprocessing was definitly suboptimal (or the photograph was not worth it to be printed).

A procedural remark: During editing colors sometimes I use a smaller view to decrese the image size compared to the (gray) frames of my OS/applications. This helps my eyes (and brain) to calibrate a gray as "standard" and not e.g. the green of a photograph of a forest.

Good luck for your "monitor choice process" - Best, Michael

167
What do I shoot?
Nature (Landscape, Macro), interesting patterns, some table top and similar subjects - no action on a regular base.

Answer to the cropping question:
I try to avoid cropping - except for planned cropping into another aspect ration. For that I really like live view: What you see is what you get and it gives me a similar experience like the Rolleicord or Mamiya 645 - more distance to the picture which is presented on a flat screen.

Why?
It slows down the act of taking pictures and leads to (better) composition. Hopefully. Combine that with a tripod and a great head (Manfrotto 468 Ball Head), it allows "meditative" photography not (or barely) limited by the availability of light.

168
There are endless threads on this forum about the slow AF of the 85 1.2L II. This Zeiss lens have 248 deg rotation angle of focusing ring and I assume it carries (at least) as much glass. For you who understand this better than me, wouldn´t that end up being a very slow AF?

AF speed depends on the forces you can apply to the moving elements. The higher the forces the higher the acceleration and the faster the moving elements of the focusing group are in place.
But the forces to accelerate an object are proportional to the mass of that object - so your idea is basically correct if you take into account that the forces you can apply in a lens are limited. That is the fact because the battery of a camera can only provide some limited power and this limits the forces on - e.g. - focusing elements.
Compare a 30 kW engine for a motorcycle and a truck.

Internal focusing is a solution with telephotos: You move a small and more or less lightweight element to gain focus. In Zeiss' OTUS 1.4 55 I see only massive lenses/lens groups so it will be limited in that way.

You can overcome that problem with stronger batteries (or perhaps a supercap which provides power peaks) and stronger motors but ... fast acceleration and deceleration of massive lens groups will rotate or shift your lens/camera system substantially. You can add additional masses which move in the opposite direction to compensate for this effect ... twice the power is needed and we speak about a 2 kg lens system with a 1/2 kg battery ... not exactly a system for the hobbyist!

169
I think this lens is far from a no compromise lens:
  * LARGE
  * HEAVY
  * VERY EXPENSIVE
but ... different needs = different style of compromise(s). In some situations a 1 kg perfect lens IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE than a 300 g standard "equivalent"!

I am looking forward to test the chrome ring FD 1.4 / 50 which is small, light and waiting to be reused since 2000 with my EOS M which I bought today. "Digital" will show its weaknesses (optically) and I see low contrast/a slight halo + longitudinal CAs. My need: low DOF photography and/or low light photography - so these weaknesses might be negligible.

170
An interchangeable sensor is a good idea, but
  - it requires to change the processor too because IMO sensor + processor = film replacement - but that doesn't drive the price too much.
  - replacing a sensor by a customer needs a high precision sensor fixture to bring it in the same plane as the replaced sensor

I think it is possible to do this for 200 or 300 $/EUR more on a medium class camera, let's say 1300 $ instead of 1000 $. I would really appreciate such a system - specially if a monochrome sensor is available. Thinking (better dreaming) of ~ 20MPix with 12 or 13 bit DR and superior sensitivity, 2 EV more ISO sensitivity and working red filters for landscapes ...

171
Technical Support / Re: White balance, how to determine?
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:08:59 AM »
I shoot raw and use always the "sunlight" white balance setting to keep things comparable.

Afterwards I correct - if necessary - the color temperature (using DPP, lightroom will have it's equivalent) to a value which suits my needs.
I too observed the color shift in afternoon light and it muddle up different greens to a "greenish-yellowish soup". Shifting color temperature from 5200K (daylight) to sth. between 4000K and 4500K gives IMO better colors. But I do not try to overcorrect the values - 3500K might be correct for such cases: I like to leave a bit of the warmer atmosphere in the image to conserve my experience (or colder ambience if the light was blueish).

A major prerequisite is a constant lighting of the surroundings of the monitor and to "calibrate" your eyes to grey or white regions of the computer screen.

Best - Michael

(BTW: you use a great lens set with larger gaps which can be filled by using your feet ... :)

172
Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: July 28, 2013, 08:58:50 AM »
I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:

first time i hear that the non L version has better IQ... i highly doubt that.
every review i have read so far tells the L is slightly better.

equal maybe but the non L better? that is stuff people tell themself so they don´t have to buy the more expensive L lens. ;)

A late reply but now it's there :)

APS-C comparison between both (50D) (1st is NON IS version)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/488-canon_100_28_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d?start=1

FF comparison (5D mk ii)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1

The differences are marginal - but the NON IS shows much lower CAs and a better uniformity of sharpness which is important to me because I like compositions where sharpness is needed at borders/in corners @ f/2.8 or similar.

As Hesbehindyou remarked - sample variations play an additional role.

173
Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm or High-End Compact?
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:21:48 AM »
After I owned the 40mm I rarely used my S95. Iused it a lot with my 40D, IQ is great, 65mm equiv focal length suits my needs very well. The 40D with this tiny lens is a VERY compact system which is comfortable to "wear". If I ever go into FF it will be my "moderate wide angle",

174
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 26, 2013, 03:51:37 AM »
75MP + high frame rate might lead to the conclusion that this camera uses a "three subsensors per final pixel" design - as others mentioned here:

Using 3 x 25 sensels for R, G and B avoids the calculation of the final image from the Bayer patterned raw data. I don't know how much processing power is needed for Bayer sensors but if you want to to it right it might be a lot.
Using clean RGB-data for photos or video means just storing numbers.
Reading out three layers of a sensor independently eases the readout process and AD conversion by simple parallelization ...

Just my 2ct

175
EOS Bodies / Re: A Canon 44.7MP DSLR at the End of August? [CR1]
« on: July 25, 2013, 12:15:39 PM »
You are all wrong.... This will be the 7DII..... and all for less than $1800.00 :)
...

Why not? And with a FF sensor based on the beloved 7 D 18 MPix sensor:
1.6 x 1.6 x 18 = 46

 ;)

176
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 23, 2013, 06:53:18 AM »
There will be NO camera with a 75+ megapixel FF sensor.

Shure? While smart phones get 40+ megapixel tiny sensors?

I tried the Digital lens optimizer of DPP (just available for a few lenses) and I see very good quality with the 10-22 on a 18 mpix sensor.

Not that I am lusting for 75 megapixels or more - 20 GOOD megapixels are sufficient for me (and a lot other too) but I think it is a possible future of FF DSLR - and a likely one.

177
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 05:07:42 PM »
9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...
Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.

Great - that sounds interesting! I will start to save money for that display ;)

178
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 04:58:47 PM »
Ugh, with a RAW file size of what? 120MB?

So?  Storage is cheap, and my computers are fast.  ;)

I upgraded yesterday from Pentium 4 3GHz-PC to a Core i7 CPU-Machine: What a progress ... its computing power is great but data transfer might become a bottleneck during backup etc. ...

179
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 04:54:19 PM »
9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...

180
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 04:49:08 PM »
... or 75/2 = 36 million image pixels with Dual Pixel AF  ...

But 75 million image pixels / 4 means roughly 18 Mpix full color (R-G-G-B) pixels - not too bad for certain situations.

Just some ideas about a product that still doesn't exist on the market, will perhaps never exist and if, it is to expensive for me.

my 2ct - Michael

EDIT: Forgotten the millions!

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28