September 18, 2014, 09:44:56 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 - hgraf

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16
Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:57:08 AM »
Get an SL1 body and a Tamron 18-270. As an alternative a mirrorless camera with a couple zooms.

I know you said you're worried about quality, but do you need the ultimate in quality and sharpness? Do you need the super low light ability of full frame, or the high frame rates?

You're on your honeymoon, this isn't a paid gig. Personally I'd concentrate on it being a honeymoon and time to relax. The quality of every entry level DSLR or mirrorless camera will be more then good enough for pretty much anything you'll be shooting. Keep it small, keep it light, keep it simple, and enjoy yourself, that's my 2 cents.

TTYL


17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 10, 2014, 05:31:05 PM »
Hello dear friends.

What do you think -  Canon need this market ?
Will we see any MF cameras and lenses of course any soon ?

I'd say no.

The question you should be asking is this: what benefit would going into MF be for Canon? The market itself is tiny. It's tiny because the equipment big, hard to use and is super expensive. So say Canon went into it with the intention of undercutting the competition (cheaper, easier to use). How much would that grow the market? Enough to be worthwhile?

Now look at it from the technology viewpoint: what benefit does MF bring to the table? Does MF produce a better result in the "meat and potatoes" section of the photography business?

My opinions? No. Due to pure physics (size, weight, lens focal lengths) MF isn't very convenient in pretty much any setting other then landscapes and studio work. Outside of that MF is too big, too slow and too unwieldy. Any improvement brought to the MF game would be equally applicable to the FF and APS-C markets (aside from size, can't get around that one). Even IN the realm of landscapes and studio MF really only helps if you're going WAY big with your image. I'm not talking about a 2 page spread. I'm talking about a 30 foot tall poster. How big is the market for that kind of photography?

So, would MF bring something to the table to say a wedding photographer, or a news photographer, or a sports photographer, or a travel photographer, that would make it worthwhile? IMHO, no. The image quality benefit just isn't there for those uses, and the equipment would be bigger and heavier then FF or APS-H/C sized solutions, again for no benefit.

MF has been a niche for a long time, and the physics IMHO just prevent it from leaving that niche.

18
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: February 10, 2014, 05:18:07 PM »
Walking the dogs this evening. 5Dmkii + 24-105L @ 95mm f8, 1/320, ISO 320

Love this!

19
PowerShot / Re: Updated PowerShot G1 X II Specs
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:36:34 PM »
NFC? Why? I guess so I can "bump" my phone/tablet up to the camera to transfer an image? Seems like something that could be covered by WiFi. Feature creep?

NFC would be for faster/easier pairing between phone and camera, the data connection itself would still be wifi-based.

True, but how many times a day would you do that? I think, for most people, they would use NFC for that reason once, and that was it. After all, once you're phone/tablet is paired, it's paired, no reason to do it again.

Again, sounds like a "feature" that's only there for advertising, unless they've come up with some other use?

20
PowerShot / Re: Updated PowerShot G1 X II Specs
« on: February 10, 2014, 11:23:54 AM »
NFC? Why? I guess so I can "bump" my phone/tablet up to the camera to transfer an image? Seems like something that could be covered by WiFi. Feature creep?

21
Finally! A consumer zoom lens for APS-C that's WIDER then 18mm that isn't (probably) going to be crazy expensive. The only real other option was the Canon 15-85, but I find for my travel use 85 isn't tele enough. Always wanted to pick up the 18-270 from Tammy but couldn't get by it only being an 18mm. 16-300 sounds like a dream! Way to go Tammy!

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:36:16 AM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.

23
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Yongnuo YN-568 EX problem
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:41:39 PM »
If you get no where with yn. Call your credit card company

I don't see what the credit card company will be willing/able to do. The item was purchased in June last year, and the op received a working item.

About the only thing a credit card MIGHT help you with is if the manufacturers warranty is up and your card extends that warranty. Even with that, if the manu warranty is still in effect, the credit card company won't do anything.

Thanks, TTYL

24
...
 That's assuming this format gets adopted. I doubt it.

I'm not sure that there is a way to _not_ adopt this.  It's not a new format. It's the latest version of the standard libjpeg.  Now, software that works with jpg might choose to ignore the new features, even if they use the latest version of the library, which would be equivalent to not adopting it, but that sounds a little lame from a marketing perspective.

If say lightroom does not allow you to save 12bit jpeg two years from now, wouldn't that be a great selling point for all the competitors? Look, we can do something that lightroom can't and we are even standard compliant!

You're of course assuming that all software uses the libjpeg library. That isn't true. Most GPL stuff does indeed use libjpeg as is, but very few propriety software packages do.

The license for libjpeg states that you can use the library in any product, but you must acknowledge that use. So chances are, if your software package uses libjpeg they'll be an attribution somewhere for it.

This is all ignoring that the majority source of jpeg files isn't software, it's hardware. There is NO way that embedded hardware uses libjpeg as is, it's far too big and cumbersome to run as embedded software on most platforms (big and cumbersome = power hungry), nevermind the hardware implementations of jpeg compression baked into many asics.

Fact is, for the majority of the market, jpg is "good enough", and I don't see offering support for this format to the average consumer being something the consumers will flock towards. Most consumers add stupid instagram filters to their photos, they don't care about high colour depth or lossless encoding, and I don't see that changing.

25
I see it with good eyes. If you think about it, after processing the RAW file, the result is almost always JPEG (TIFF eventually). So have a JPEG with higher bit depth, and lossless is great. We must remember that in the future, the software may not be compatible with current RAW. Imagine a futuristic scenario where Sony went bankrupt and disappeared from the map. In this scenario, users with Sony RAW files are fu-ked. You can say that it will never happen, but remember Kodacrome, and imagine if someone told 10 years ago that Kodak would disappear from the market and the wonderful kodacrome could not be revealed anywhere on the planet. Say that you are a lunatic, but it happened and now kokacrome is dead. Nothing prevents some 10 years from now disappears, and with it the compatibility of your RAW files. So I loved the idea of a high-quality JPEG.

Sorry, but what the heck are you talking about?

Say Sony DID disappear? Would that mean that all instances of any software that can open a Sony RAW file would disappear with it? How is one related to another?

True, if Sony were gone, it's likely that eventually software that opens RAW Sony would loose that ability in future versions, but that doesn't remove prior versions from the planet. And how often would you be editing a 10 year old RAW file anyways? I'm always amazed by this impression people give of constantly re-editing their files a decade after they were shot. That said, if that WAS your bag, finding software to convert your 10 year old RAW file wouldn't be hard.

Personally on the lossless side I see almost zero benefit to this. The only one I can see is that it would be a more "universal" lossless format (it's not equivalent to RAW in any way). But we already have that in TIFF and in DNG. Why another format?

The added colour depth OTOH IS useful IMHO. As displays with deep colour become more common it will be useful to have a widely adopted format that supports it. That's assuming this format gets adopted. I doubt it.

26
Conspiracy theories abound, but I'm not one normally to believe them.

So with that said: what's the catch? Why doesn't Canon implement this natively in their firmware? There must be some technical reason Canon decided NOT to do this?

27
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 17, 2014, 12:19:14 PM »

Is the fact that the T3 does "only" 720p while the iPhone does 1080p the reason you label the iPhone's video capabilities as "vastly superior"? If so, that's a load of rubbish. 1080p video off a cell phone is so massively compressed it's NOWHERE near as good as what you get from even an entry level DSLR. I've seen the 1080p video out of an iPhone. It's good, but it's blown away from the 720p and 1080p I get from my DSLRs (and even P&Ss). And that's in good light. Drop the light and any smartphone's video will be a mess of compression artefacts and digital noise from having such a small sensor.


The iphone has a much more capable processor inside of it,  which is why it does higher frame rates than the 100D, let alone t3.  Apple also doesn't to worry about nerfing the IQ in order to maintain product differentiation. 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

To sum up, iPhone has better screen, better audio, and better at handling low light noise. And I'm pretty sure that was comparing to iPhone 5.

For the record. I'm not an Apple fan at all. I have a windows phone!

OMG, you are using a Ken Rockwell review as basis for your argument?

I think you should do a few Google searches on your source, you may find the term "entertainment value" show up.

As for the comment "better at handling low light noise", you're kidding, right? Have you SEEN the noise that a small sensor like in the iPhone produces as ISO's above base? I have, there is no comparison. An iPhone type sensor, while really good for what it is, has noise levels at ISO400 that you don't see until 6400 on a Canon APS-C sensor. I know this, since I've actually compared it.

I think you should do a little more research and have sources a little more reliable before continuing to comment.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 17, 2014, 11:31:14 AM »
Below the 100D? You mean the market segment that doesn't exist because it's IQ is indistinguishable from iPhones?  Get a clue Canon.

You mean the iPhone produces the same image quality as the T3/1100D 12 MP APS-C sensor? Get a clue HurtinMinorKey.

In the hands of the people who would actually buy something on par with the T3, yes.  Also, the iphone has vastly superior video.

I'm always surprised by how detached some people on here become from the "common" market, where entry level is king.

I started with the equivalent of the T3 (The Rebel XS/1000D). And yes, it was VERY entry level, but you know what? I learned alot from that camera, it STILL takes great pictures (with the right glass), and I'm sorry, but even the absolute cheapest SLR with the crappiest kit lens takes images FAR BEYOND what an iphone does. I still use my XS for time lapses and just a "throw it in the back seat" sort of camera.

Don't get me know, I LOVE the fact that pretty much everybody has a camera in their pocket now. From getting news as it actually happens, to civil liberties, to just plain fun it has been a wonderful revolution.

But to say that the "average" person with an iphone wouldn't get better IQ from an entry level DSLR is simply ludicrous.

As for video, wiki shows the T3 is capable of 720p video. While not 1080p, that's actually pretty good (alot of people shoot 720p anyways to get the 60fps framerate for flexibility in post to slow video down).

Is the fact that the T3 does "only" 720p while the iPhone does 1080p the reason you label the iPhone's video capabilities as "vastly superior"? If so, that's a load of rubbish. 1080p video off a cell phone is so massively compressed it's NOWHERE near as good as what you get from even an entry level DSLR. I've seen the 1080p video out of an iPhone. It's good, but it's blown away from the 720p and 1080p I get from my DSLRs (and even P&Ss). And that's in good light. Drop the light and any smartphone's video will be a mess of compression artefacts and digital noise from having such a small sensor.

Finally, as a reminder: not everybody has $3000+ for a DSLR. And I'm sorry, for the VAST majority of images even seasoned photographers take the T3 would "work" well enough. The quality of image you get from even an entry level APS-C camera these days is astonishing.

TTYL

29
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: January 13, 2014, 09:23:39 PM »
I understand that some photos have a magnetism that directs our eyes to a certain body part. ::) But after carefully observe the image for a long time, I would like to see the face of the owner of that body. ;) Sorry to get away from the topic bikini, but we try to look at the face of Brazilian singer Anitta. :P

I'm wondering if perhaps your screen is a little off?

I'm looking at the picture with my calibrated screen (what I do all my editing on), and while the face is a little on the dimmer side, it's still clearly visible. I don't understand why you'd say "I would like to see the face of the owner of that body", her face is clearly visible on my screen?

Might want to check the gamma setting on your system? Or even better get it calibrated?

Thanks, TTYL

30
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: January 13, 2014, 11:39:29 AM »
70-200 f2.8 IS II
Beautiful model, but the lighting does not allow to see details of the face. There seems to be off-camera flash but the reflection of the sun on the water is so strong that it is difficult to tame. :( Maybe a CPL filter help?

So? Not every picture has to follow the mold of "rules".

I think this picture is perfect the way it is. Yes, the face is a little dark, so what? Not every shot HAS to look like it was shot in a studio. I think the slight silhouette treatment works VERY well, it gives a sort of mysterious look to the photo.

This is photography. There is an art element to it. Not everything photo should be "perfectly" lit IMHO. The B&W treatment also adds alot. Bonus points to the photographer in my book.

TTYL

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8