October 23, 2014, 09:21:40 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] 4 5 ... 322
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 02:43:40 PM »
Personally I think it's funny it took Nikon 4 cameras to compete with the 5d3.

If it would be Canon, people would call it clever because Nikon managed to sell 4 models to their customers before they now all want to upgrade to the d750 :-p

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:12:18 AM »
I think most people would rather see a $1499 full frame camera, but Canon seems to be marketing the EOS 7D Mark II on par with the 6D as far as image quality goes, so that might drive the 6D upwards, which in turn could also move the next EOS 5D body up as well.

Agreed, that sounds just like Canon, they like to have a straight model lineup and an overlap crop/ff is bound to "confuse" customers and prevents them from being upsold to the next, "better" model. And if Canon are happy with the current 6d sales, it means less expensive Nikon/Sony models with more features don't hurt them.

This in itself doesn't mean anything about the 6d2 release though, I'd be surprised if they'd upgrade the 6d1 before releasing a 5d4.

Lenses / Re: Do date codes matter?
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:06:31 AM »
For other lenses, it can be important.  Take the long in the tooth 100 - 400.  This lens has been around for 16 years and while an L lens, the push - pull mechanism seems to be a dust magnet.

Good point, most like plastic/sealing parts also age with, well, age.

And if they do matter, and if I'm buying the lens online (say, from B&H) how would I verify that I'm buying the later / "better" date code version?

You can try add this kludge to the order ("only if datecode after xyz") I doubt a large retailer will take the hassle unpack the lens & decode the date - but you don't know unless you try. With smaller online retailers or esp. a local shop, try probably want the sale of an expensive L lens bad enough to have a look.

Photography Technique / Re: Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:01:25 AM »
My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner. You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100 or 200.

Generally, "pulling" means just digitally(!) moving the data to the left side of the histogram, the "analog" sensor setting is exactly the same as in the base iso it's "pulled" from. It's all bout Canon's very high read noise that drowns dynamic range on lower iso (hence the flat nearly flag dr curve at the start != Nikon exmor). But "160 better than 100" is an urban legend, at least with the camera models I have (60d 18mp sensor & 6d).

Read this where I've asked the Magic Lantern people about this, and their answers are in-depth: "Do have iso160-multiples have more dr & less noise?" http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9867.0

Photography Technique / Re: DoF question
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:08:56 AM »
Sorry if this has been answered before

The activity in this forum would stall if people would get used to using the search option, so ... :-p

but I wonder if someone could explain to me how to derive the relation between DoF and f number.

Smart question, because you noticed that the f-number is important, and not the physical aperture (I only learned this recently)

Say that I have determined that using a 50mm lens and f/6.3 I have enough of the picture in focus to do a family shot (let's not debate this, it's just an example).  If I move twice as far away from the family and use a 100mm lens (to achieve the same framing of the subject), can I still use f/6.3 or do I need a different setting?

To just find out the result, you can simply use your trusty dof calculator like here:  ... http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ... for your example:

Family @5m with 50mm =  standard dof 4.4m (in front 1.37 m (31%) / behind 3.03 m (69%))
Family @10m with 100mm =  standard dof 3.91m (in front 1.59 m (41%) / behind 2.32m (59%))

Which proves the rule of thumb that with shorter focal length the dof distribution is 1/3:2/3, with longer lenses it gets nearer to 50/50. And it demonstrates why small f-numbers with long lenses gets tricky, the dof is becoming very thin - for example with my 70-300/f5.6 I often need to step up to get the subject in focus, no matter how bokehlicious it would look If I had a f2.8.

Beyond a simple yes or now, can someone explain the basic optics here (as at least a quasi-math rule of thumb).  I would even be happy with a pointer to a detailed analysis.

I'll let the CR heavyweights post the maths behind it, but from a simple users' pov you should read a thread like here why dof is just the subjective(!) "acceptable" sharpness and depends so much on print/view size: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15884.msg293901#msg293901

Photography Technique / Re: Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:21:29 AM »
Bad choice, only use full iso stops (100/200/400/...) or you lose image quality.
I am fairly certain that is an urban legend with no basis in reality.

Well, I'm not one of the CR heavyweights, but in this point I'm positive: The Magic Lantern guys have tested the iso steps a lot, and you simply need to look at the dr values of intermediate iso stops: When shooting raw anything except full iso stops just nudges the data left or right, so you gain nothing, but lose dynamic range.

Edit: Due to Canon's read noise problem, iso160 can have an itsy-bitsy-tiny amount of more dynamic range than iso200, but nothing to write home about. Imho it doesn't justify getting confused about the iso settings, if you need more dr just use Magic Lantern's dual_iso (at low iso) and/or wait for their upcoming mini_iso module providing +1/3-1/2ev more dr for free with no hassle attached.

.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey).  I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 05:07:12 PM »
If anti-aliasing is so hard to do, then how do computer games have 16x AA filters running at video game frame rates?

:-p, indeed, probably we should replace the (analog, optical) real life we shoot with (digital) cgi - then we can just upsample, downsample and postprocess do our heart's desire.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2 :)

You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop.  And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys :-p

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 04:54:01 PM »
If this is more of an artistic choice, then why doesn't someone make the filter removable, or something you could layer onto a lens?

Of course a "magic bullet" of removing the filter appeals to us: more sharpness for free!

Personally, my pixel peeping ventures are over by now and I was cured after reading about d800 vs d800e like here, there are lots of reviews showing the drawbacks of no aa filter: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800/vs-d800e.htm

A better solution in my opinion would be to drop the optical filter, and handle it in post. Any re-shuffling of light that the filter does should be as easily handled by reshuffling bits in a computer program.

Afaik it doesn't work this way, just as you cannot add real optical bokeh in postprocessing - moiré is very painful to remove in post, sometimes it's even near impossible w/o too much iq loss.

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

Did give it a try, but feel like is too REAL

Interesting - tonemapped hdr seems to work better on "unreal anyway" sfi-fi interiors than on a natural environment, I'll try to remember that.

I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.
how much time each of us have to devote to fixing problems in photoshop varies
I have little and much prefer simple global adjustments on files that can stand up to such adjustments.

+1, generally the notion "I'll fix it in post" gives me the creeps as I'm already sitting in front of the pc much more than I'd like to. If you want to postprocess the one great keeper you have with full-blown PS adjustments, fine, but for anything else I'd like to stay in Lightroom - which excludes inter-shot blending.

Do you mean a +3ev shadow push in post?

No, +3ev beyond Canon's acceptable (ymmv) range - but I can't really tell about exmore as I'm using the 16bit raw files from ML that have more shadow resolution.

Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?

Of course you can manual blend a lot, but that doesn't count as "easily circumvented" as speculated above. How bad small movement is of course depends on the export/view size, but in my experience when doing a 2x bracket with there's simply double the chance that something moved or happened in the scene. I'm not much of a landscape photog, but I know this can happen in nature macro.

How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?

A 3ev difference is in my experience often just the range you need to prevent clipped sky while retaining good shadow resolution. And the nature moves a lot, esp. if you look at 100% crop. If you doubt it, get out more :-> ... then you'll see it doesn't take heavy storms to make leaves and grass move noticeably. Are you watching closely ("The Prestige")?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 322