All kidding aside, I think the TRIANGLE is the key. I'd take ISO out of it, and have then work with shutter speed and aperture. As for concrete exercises, I don't know....
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.
I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...
'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'
... even means. It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years. And many seem to agree. What am I missing? And if this is the case, why is Canon equipment still in their bag?
This is not a personal attack on Canon's overall quality...just calling it like it is... 6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...that's what the comment made by me and others means...
I also said in a different thread that once the 6D price settles down from the initial high, it would be a good value and a competent camera in its own right.
I may be a Canon user, but I don't believe in mindlessly defending Canon at every turn where every single thing they do is the second coming that needs to be venerated and praised to high heavens. Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.
I use Canon because I like the overall platform. I call the 6D an incremental move because it is.
ScottyP is right on. My 2c: if you are not missing pictures, wait. If you are, then upgrade. If you wait, like robbymac said, you may even save a hundred...
If you are not taking action shots (fast moving objects like kids, sports, BIF, jumping mountain lions etc...) then you probably do not need a 7D or a 5D3 (or even a 1DX)...
LR4 is far better than LR3 for IQ retention. I could push my RAW files harder in LR4 than in LR3, and it also handles highlight recover much better.
If your willing to upgrade, it's well worth the $$$.
Your theory that others have not used different patterns is contradicted by the facts. Do a little research before making such claims.
There are many Bayer type patterns patented by Kodak. The alternate patterns have not worked out to be popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
Fujifilm is the new kid on the block to try alternate color filters, others who tried them did not find success.
There was the CYGM pattern used by Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Kodak in the late 1990's.
The CYGM filter is far less common than the Bayer filter. CCDs that use it include the 3 megapixel Sony ICX252AK and ICS252AKF (which sampled in October 1999).
Cameras that use it include several Canon models of the 1999-2000 period, such as the Canon PowerShot S10, the original Canon Digital IXUS (June 2000), though subsequent IXUS models used the Bayer filter, and the Canon G1; the Kodak DCS 620x and DCS 720x DSLRs, and several Nikon Coolpix models.
Sony introduced the Cybershot DSC-F828 with a RGBE pattern in 2004.
Fuji has at least two alternate patterns that they have patented, but how much is sales hype and how much is performance related is yet to be seen. There will be advantages and disadvantages.
Thanks. I will look at both methods and see if I can work the extra steps for a couple of years without "cracking" and buying LR4 and maybe a new computer.
I have an old Core 2 Duo processor, and only 3 GB of RAM, but I upgraded both the video card and the OS within the last year.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 ghz
3 GB Ram
NVidia GeForce GTX 550Ti
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit
I could buy LR4, and then buy some memory and up this to 4 GB or maybe more for $200 or so IF it would be enough to make a difference. What do you think?
I'd spend $100 on memory. Check your emory type, many core 2 duo systems use cheap DDR3 memory.
16GB of DDR3 memory costs less than $100. If you happen to be stuck with DDR2, you can buy 8GB for about $100.
Memory is cheap.
Just an update on the tests. I've done tons more with different speed lites, targets, etc, most of this has been 6D vs D600 type stuff. Ive even recorded video of how I do the tests so you guys can see and I will post the video here when it is done.
I am not seeing any difference between the 600 or 580 Speedlites. I did look into the auto focus settings on the 5Diii, but as another forum reader pointed out, most of it has to do with AI Servo type shots (which doesnt require a focus lock) to take the shot.
I should probably add a note, as I did on the Canon Forum about why I am going back and forth between the 2 differnent targets at different distances; Target 1 serves mainly to defocus. If im just aiming at target 2 and focusing over and over, its not a good measurement of the cameras ability to get that initial focus.
Another point is that the average focus times for each shot work out to:
5Dii - 1.5s
6D - 1.7s
But this is not what is happening. The focus lock on Target 1 (in good light) is always very quick, almost instantaneous.
Focusing on Target 2 is taking longer than these average times. In fact, most of the time is spent on Target 2.
It is hard to be precise, but I would say the times are closer to:
5Dii - 2.2s
5Diii - 3 + s
I have a Sekonic 558 Light Meter that seems to be unable to measure the light Im shooting in which would be ideal to know, and am waiting on my new meter - that should help to know exactly at what point it starts to struggle.