December 20, 2014, 10:30:36 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 - Marsu42

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 359
Photography Technique / Re: EC - adds or subtracts light?
« on: Today at 09:29:08 AM »
YEAH, it's kinda like PI ... 3.14 is close enough, but mathematicians have been trying to get the absolute forever.  Not sure what that will change in our world if someone ever gets that final decimal figure.

Hasn't it been proven that irrational numbers like pi have no end, and if you translate the numbers into chars every book ever been written and will-be-written in the future is contained in it (if you look at the right decimal place)?

EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: Today at 09:26:01 AM »
If/when canon brings out a FF mirrorless, would it be possible to have a built in adapter for EF lenses?

Surely they'll over some means of transition, or people are bound to take the opportunity and switch to another brand. However, with the film-lens distance ef is designed for, the adapter will be quite awkward esp. for smaller ef lenses and counteract the "small camera body" opportunity of mirrorless.

That's probably the reason why there isn't a ff mirrorless from Canon (yet) and their ef-m lens lineup isn't very large: They're still unsure which way to jump and if to produce a new ff mirrorless lens line.

How do users that use both these programs do it?

I tried DxO's PRIME (as of v9 of their software) and found it only really useful for very high iso, and not(!) for all shots alike. For some, I could hardly see a difference to ACR's denoising, though with ACR it's annoying to tweak around until you've found the best denoising & sharpening combinations with so many sliders involved.

Is the best way to weed out/catalog in LR, denoise and apply lens profile in DXO OP, and the do all other adjustments in LR (crop, brushes, etc.)?

Unless you depend on DxO for all shots, I guess that's the reasonable approach. DxO added tighter LR integration lately for a reason, obviously they've given up on convincing LR users to switch over completely. If they'd only add the ability to read dng raw files now...

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 09:14:26 AM »
Not a great business model giving all your content away free online.

Smart move to run, given the outlook. Problem is that falling fees for photogs or journalists in general change the content, 7d2 or 7d1.

One of my recent jobs was organizing a congress dealing with this: if ads get out of print newspapers, there's no budget left for investigative or quality journalism and you depend more and more on ready-made stories you copy/paste from lobby organizations.

As you pointed out, people loading content on the devices they own aren't prepared to pay for it, esp. if it's more convenient than trying to unwrap an old-school newspaper in a subway train.

With very good photogrphy gear becoming more accessible (even to me!) and even iphones producing decent pictures, there's only one way it'll go, as you described: A small team buying content and duplicating it to every media channel, while everything else is outsourced.

I just happened to see the movie "all the president's men" yesterday with the old-school newsroom, oh my, those were the days :-o

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 08:50:57 AM »
The guys with the 1dx & 600's are with corbis or getty, not with the newspapers, not these days.

So I hear. Unless you've got the right connections :-p

I sold some shots to a local homeless people project newspaper for a really minor fee, doing the right thing, you know? But when I saw their office is stuffed with the latest Macintosh systems and the boss carries a 1dx+24-70L2 for starters, I felt kind of underpaid.

However, the local guys working for news agencies (selling to the newspapers in turn) all have to buy their own gear, and they're happy if they can afford a 7d1 with a half-decent lens at all. But as I wrote, the agencies are just fine with the 7d1 iq, it's not like they'd produce wall-mount posters with it.

Working as a pj pro is soooooooo different from amateur enthusiast photography - if you're trying to gather your rent, you just want your darn gear to work and deliver what you want. And in this department, Canon imho is the best brand to use and the 7d2 is a dream camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 08:12:01 AM »
That's a very poor review. I don't feel like typing out all the problems with it again.

+1, I was just about to start out but it really isn't worth it.

I'm agree with every Canon fanboy on this, for once: The 7d2 isn't there to produce top notch iq, but get the job done. If you want good iq with horrible af, then there's the 6d. The only complaints I see have nothing to with the 7d2 at all, which has a reasonable price - for Canon.
  • the "af and iq all in one" 5d3 is rather expensive, but then again Canon isn't a charity organization.
  • Canon has abandoned aps-h, but we (most likely) know the reasons for this move.
  • the "xxd for the masses" 70d didn't get the a bit improved 7d2 sensor

What I don't get is what reviewers consider to be the 7d2's use case and sports photography. Not everyone is reporting on the olympics, and those who are just get a 1dx+600L from their newspaper or buy one themselves.

For most web-screen or print reporting, image quality doesn't matter as far as the recent crop-ff difference go. You don't need a f2.8 lens to create subject separation for tele shots with a lot of space behind the subject. No local newspaper, blog or whatever is going to complain about some more noise reduction and sharpening if you get an af lock for just that precious moment of the action or the split-second of emotion. It isn't what I do, but there you are.

My own favorite shot among the last six shows got nary a positive comment. Go figure.

This makes it kind of difficult to choose what to publish and post-process, doesn't it? I've got tons of good shots lying around, but this outdoor wildlife stuff needs individual settings on each one, no can do copy/paste settings. If people with money like different things from what I like, maybe I should exchange my taste for a more mainstream one :-o ?

Is a photograph an accurate depiction of a scene, or is it art and to be manipulated to emphasize a feeling or a concept? Or is it both or is it neither?

My current "problem" is that shots that accurately depict the scene happen to look manipulated w/o me really aiming for it :-p ...

... but unless you're only shooting in controlled light or in the golden hours, you're bound to run into the hdr problem. It looks somewhat out of place on the screen even if I'm positive this is just the way it was and there's no outlandish tone-mapping involved (just fill flash). But the the thread title says, that's just me.

Like you, I'm not always impressed by HDR in general because I've seen so much of it (most of it overdone) that it is generally unappealing unless it's subtle and well done on an otherwise interesting image.

Feel free to participate in my "post your worst hdr shots" thread :-) ...

I think most people are smitten by it because its so attention-grabbing, especially if they've not been exposed to the style previously.

That's my guess, too. It's just that I'm currently getting into the professional "If the client's happy, I'm happy" spirit and away from the "Omg, if other people only see those shots, they have to think I'm a hdr freak". But of course that's why I put these into my stock in the first place, tastes vary, but a € is a €.

I hope some other photogs share their experiences with customers' tastes and if/when to go "Look at me". On the one hand, it's nice to build a subtle and charming style, but one the other hand, what's the use if nobody notices :-\

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:57:30 AM »
I was comparing this new 100-400 with my 70-300 at TDP and found this curious thing:
Following Canon manuals, it's impossible to use a TC 1.4 on the 70-300. What am I missing here?
As far as I remember you can use Canon extender with 70-300 L at the tele end. Especially for testing :D, because zooming to the wide end you can cause last element crashing against extender.


You can still safely use Kenko instead of Canon extender throughout whole range of this zoom lens.

Correct, too - but there's a reason why Canon didn't bother with tc+70-300L: The bare image iq is fine, at least with current sensor resolutions on ff. However, cropping away the center esp. wide open shows - and you're at f8 when af'ing.

I only use my Kenko tc for the 100L which is really useful, but for the 70-300L it only makes sense if image sharpness if of no concern like zooming in on the setting sun. The difference to the new 100-400L2 might not be huge, but this is what counts when multiplying with a tc.

Business of Photography/Videography / (Why) do clients like high dr shots?
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:50:15 AM »
I just sold a couple of documentary shots, the client chose among a rather huge amount of my stock photos what the wild horsies I report on are up to round the year.

While tastes may vary and the client certainly didn't chose shots I like best (emotional content, uniqueness, whatever), I was surprised that nearly all choices were those of high-dr shots taken with Magic Lantern's dual iso, i.e. having 14+ stops of dynamic range.

Among the shots were these two below which were a pita to post-process, and I'm still not really happy. The scenes were noon and high dr, so I cannot really do anything about the "tonemapped" look, but it isn't - just plain Lightroom/ACR. It's only a choice how *how much* you raise shadows, not *if* ... sitting in indoors in winter it's hard to imagine summer can look that glaring and hard though.

Question:What's your experience - do clients like hdr-ish shots and why?


Thanks, but I always found that the official err code descriptions don't reveal anything at all and you really have to admire their rigorous commitment to elaborate error resolution procedures :-> ...

Err 05 Resolution: Turn the power switch off and then on again.
Err 06 Resolution: Turn the power switch off and then on again.
Err 10 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 20 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 30 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 40 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 50 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 60 Resolution: Check that the lens is clear from obstructions. Then turn the power switch off and then back on again.
Err 70 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.
Err 80 Resolution: Turn the power off, then remove and re-install the battery. Then turn the power on again.

In my book "Err70" is "Magic Lantern just crashed" and "Err80" is the catch-all "your camera shutter or lens aperture just died, go buy a new one".  I never experienced anything else for myself.

Videography Technique / Re: How can I tell if my microphone is working?
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:48:01 AM »
Any thoughts?

Yes, in case of your friend I'd re-think the decision to have you video the wedding :->

Unless the video is completely optional and there's nothing lost when it doesn't work out (even after the guests seeing you filming, and asking "where's the footage?"), wedding work is not a testbed for trial&error.

As for the mic: pop against it, that'll make a nice sound bump so you see what the source it. But really, at this stage I'd recommend against trying it in a live scenario.

Lenses / Re: So, Yongnuo replica lenses....
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:44:06 AM »
Anybody tempted?

Definitely not - the 50/1.8 build quality (two pieces of glass helpd together by a cheap plastic barrel) will be still horrible, as will the noisy an imprecise af motor. I had bad experiences esp. when the zoom mechanism pushes the interior outside - bump against anything, and that's that.

That isn't salvaged by the bokeh going from "horrible" to "below average", in the best case to be expected, that is. This one is build and designed for the local Asian market.

Of course, the f1.4 is possibly of more interrest once they get round to shipping it...

Indeed, a 50/1.4 clone at a very cheap price would be tempting to have around just for the low light capability when in a pinch (like night time photography). For everything else, there are better options around nowadays unless you're on an ultra-low budget and don't worry about af precision.

However, as this has to be imported from China I'd have to pay 20% vat plus 20% customs (Germany/EU), so unless you try to circumvent customs altogether it isn't such a great offer anymore vs. a used Canon 50/1.4 bought locally. And it's not like there would be any good warranty service to be expected from Yn.

So what are they talking about, rechargeable lithium batteries (is there such a thing?) or just regular ones?

Actually a good question, there seems to be a lot of different li types. In the absence of information, Canon has to talk about all of them, rechargable or not. As far as I just read, the problem seems to be rapid discharge, and that would be what happens in a flash, but not in a camera or mobile phone.

I'm using "Varta Lithium Professionals" and have quite a stockpile, so it would suck if i shouldn't use them anymore.

These things indeed seem to be not without risk, even air travel with them is restricted. Canon has quite a linup of li batteries themselves and warns against this as early as 2008:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 359