July 25, 2014, 01:46:13 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 - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 95
256
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D M3 - Mirror slap during live view?
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:37:14 AM »
I use 2 seconds time with mirror lock up. No problem of blur so far though I haven't experienced live view photo yet.

This. Sounds like you don't have mirror lock up enabled. I shot a ton of architectural stuff for a few years and results would suffer if I didn't do mirror lock up and wait a second to two to trigger the shutter after the mirror had settled into position. The tripod in this situation can actually magnify the vibrations of the mirror slap causing slight motion blur in otherwise sharply focused images. The effect lessens with faster shutter speeds or really long shutter speeds. When the shutter is between 1/60th and say a sec or so it's particularly troublesome.

Irregardless of live view, make sure mirror lock up is enabled and that you allow time for the mirror to settle before triggering the exposure.

This seems to nail it.

257
Photography Technique / Re: Can you share your workflow?
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:25:25 AM »
I guess the lack of responses is because the reply would be so long and detailed.
If I were to give you my workflow in detail, it would take so much time. :(

258
Photography Technique / Re: Upsizing a landscape picture technique
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:24:07 AM »
I do not have a reply to your question but will agree with you that the Nikon image looks much better even without looking at the prints.

259
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:05:59 AM »
Yes. :)

260
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:58:33 AM »
Am I the only one who thinks that if a certain technology exists, consumers will move towards it.
In other words if 4k becomes available in cameras, displays, easy storage etc, consumers will use it and demand will increase and slowly it will become standard?

Egg and chicken story?

261
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:44:22 AM »
The point is I wouldn't hire any wedding photographer who was also offering to shoot video unless he had dedicated stills and video shooters with him/her.

Why, when you can theoretically shoot the whole thing in 4K video and then just pull printable stills from the video footage.

Theoretically?  We can theorize until the cows come home.  Care to share real-world examples of this being done successfully?

Aye, only in theory. This has never been proven. The thing people who believe this notion don't understand is that a camera is ALWAYS moving. Given that the standard frame rates are 24, 29, 30, and maybe 60fps (the latter is less likely unless your doing something special), even the smallest amount of camera shake will result in more than enough blur to render every single RAW 4k video frame unacceptable from a "still" photography standpoint.

The "dream" of being able to shoot video then pull out crisp, clear 4k frames as "photos" is really just that...a DREAM. The needs of video and still photography are very different. They always have been different, and with the exception of high speed filming (which is still also very different), the chances of anyone ever actually being able to pull out full sized crisp, sharp frames from 4k video is highly, highly unlikely, regardless of how good the technology gets. The entire point of 24fps is to ensure you end up with a certain amount of blur. You WANT the blur in video. You DON'T want the blur in a still photo.

Agree with this.

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:37:07 AM »
These people are just showing their dynamic range.

And since we're Canon users, it's not much ...  :D

hahahaha

263
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:26:52 AM »
...
Now Panasonic comes out with 4K video at 24 frames per second... still not fast enough to do anything beyond very slow moving objects

4k video at 24fps is not fast enough for ... anything?

Someone better tell Hollywood that the frame rate they've been using for decades in nearly all of their movies is too slow for motion!
Good point :)
They also have a lot more skill at movie making than I do... a LOT more...
My movie making has been recording musicians (slow), scenery while paddling (slow), and birds and a hyper kitten (very fast). 30fps is fast enough for the first two, and 120fps isn't fast enough for the second two...

Your still thinking like a photographer. When it comes to video, it's always 24fps, or 29fps, or 30fps. Those are the standard cinematic frame rates. They don't change. Doesn't matter what your filming, you always use those key frame rates. Video is quite different from stills in this respect...one of the things that is great about these lower frame rates is they are slow enough to exhibit motion blur, which is actually quite a desirable thing for cinema.

The Hobbit movies were filmed at 48fps. That lead to a lot of complaints from many movie goers. The lack of motion blur results in it being a LOT easier to spot the propishness of props, it results in movement that is too crisp, panning that is too sharp, etc. Hollywood cinematographers are going to have to discover a whole new batch of tricks to hide the fakeness of movie scenes with higher framerates. At 60fps, which is coming down the pipe, it will be even harder to conceal than at 48fps. And the stark kind of motion-without-blur will become even worse.

I think 48fps and 60fps may be a little ahead of their time. They are CERTAINLY ahead of the post-processing tools. I think a lot of the means cinematographers have to hide the fakery at 24fps is ultimately going to end up being done in post. I think motion blur, achieved by cross-blending certain parts of sequences of frames, will also ultimately be achieved in post, if higher frame rates are really the way of the future for cinema.

For anyone who isn't a professional cinematographer, however, 24, 29, and 30fps are pretty much the staples. Even if your filming birds.

Are you a cinematographer or video maker? I would be really surprised if you said yes as then you would know better than to say these things. 48/60 and more fps is required when things need to be shown in slow motion. Many times birds need to be shown in slow motion to create drama and to catch things which normal motion would not do.

264
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:08:59 AM »
When Canon debuted 1080p video with the 5D Mark II, would you have said that this was intended to be a niche product or main stream?

When the 5DII was announced, HD TVs and media were widely available.  The market had matured to the point that the 'format war' (BluRay vs. HD-DVD) was over. 

Can I walk into Target and buy the LOTR box set as 4K movies?  Can I buy them on Amazon? (Don't try to sell me on '4K Mastered for optimal up scaling and a near-4K experience.)   No, I didn't think so.  That's why 4K is niche, not mainstream.

You've addressed the point of the format on TV, not that of the video feature in the camera.

Using a DSLR to create worthwhile video - even at 1080p resolution - takes its use out of the "mainstream" and into "niche". If I needed to create a 1080p video of a wedding or some other event, I wouldn't use a DSLR of any kind because they're just not built for it. The people to whom the 1080p in the DSLR has appealed to are those looking for another alternative to expensive bodies used in video rigs. Thus the amount of care required to bring video originating from a DSLR moves it well and truely out of mainstream. That plus the amount of editing required.

So if you're doing video on a DSLR you're thus not mainstream, that would put you in a niche that would correlate well with the people that will want to use 4k video for production.


Whereas Canon created the market for "indi" 1080p production with a quality and look that matched professional, if they make no attempt to deliver 4k in their next round of xD cameras (at least) then it would seem to me that they've decided they no longer want to be a part of a market segment that they created.

As much as I agree that DSLR form factor is not very comfortable to shoot video, but there are many many many people shooting video on 5d2 and 5d3. All over the world... from interviews to location scouts to You Tube videos to training videos to short stories etc etc. In other words in my opinion it is very 'mainstream' in non features/commercials situations.

265
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:32:32 AM »
...
I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.

You don't need Cinema EOS to understand the value in shooting 4K now. Shooting 4K now allows you to deliver 1080p video now and in n years time, remaster your video and all of a sudden you can offer people 4K content in addition to 1080p content.

There you go again. You COMPLETELY INVERTED my statement. I never said you needed Cinema EOS to understand the value of shooting 4k. I said if you understood the value of 4k, you would have a better appreciation for Cinema EOS. You LITERALLY INVERTED my statement. Good god..when do you stop twisting words and obfuscating facts, man!

No but you implied that Cinema EOS is needed for 4k.

No. I said that a full understanding of 4k implies the need for something better, like Cinema EOS, to fully take advantage of it.

True to a large extent. But 1dc works perfect within its limitations and is great in real cramped situations or for rigging.

266
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:34:22 AM »
Is this even news?

267
Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 27, 2014, 08:56:41 AM »
Do NOT forget a light tripod.

And yeah the Fuji is a great option.

268
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:24:22 AM »
I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS


If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

What I also like about FF is that f/4 is now a quite shallow dof at 50mm and above. The slow zooms that I had on my 7D become a lot more useful.

Separate argument about the upgrade path - I agree that FF needs good lenses and if someone asked me to upgrade lens or body first I'd say lens. However, if someone already owns decent primes I think they'll benefit more from going t2i - 5D3 rather than change the already good prime to L prime.

I wish I had just bought a 5D2 + 24-105L from day one tbh. All beginner advice be dammed. I just ended up at the same place 3 yrs later anyway and slightly poorer having sold off cameras at a loss. My advice to myself would have been buy the best camera you can afford that will last you at least 5 yrs then build up your lens collection.

What I don't get is the contradiction between those who claim IQ is their no1 priority and have the best L lenses, because they were told lenses are more important than camera and are using only a crop sensor body with those L lenses. Obviously not counting sports shooters and other people who have reason to (in which case IQ is not their priority anymore it's making money!). I'm talking the rebel t1i with 200mm f/2.

Huh?

269
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 12:45:57 AM »
If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have  been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives  applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?  :-)

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

Your understanding, as per my understanding, is totally wrong. Will find a photo I saw yesterday on this forum on a TS lens which was beautiful and far from accurate. Will find it and post next so you can see better.

Hi Sanj...thanks for posting that, not sure who shot it, did you?  It is beautiful no doubt, but I will venture a criticism...the phrase I would use is "they got happy with the black slider a bit"...I admit it creates a lot of negative space which makes the rest "pop"...but true enough, it looks hyped and unnatural.  If I were doing it, I would have some shadow detail, but try to let perhaps only 30 to 40% of what is total "black" here, be black.  As for the hyped color, well that's typical of what people do with digital photos these days.  This one is really not all that bad though.

Not my photo, I just put it there to make a point that photography is not only documentation but an art expression as well. :)

270
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:34:59 AM »
If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have  been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives  applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?  :-)

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

Your understanding, as per my understanding, is totally wrong. Will find a photo I saw yesterday on this forum on a TS lens which was beautiful and far from accurate. Will find it and post next so you can see better.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 95