« on: August 15, 2013, 11:49:37 AM »
More importance is reliability and better QC, but only time will time.
Have a nice day.
More importance is reliability and better QC, but only time will time.
Have a nice day.
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'm confused.... I thought the big improvements in the 70D were all about focus?? A a 60D owner, I find the focusing system to be more of a limit than the image quality...Hi,
I'm looking at the ISO 6400 example between all three camera, and I see virtually no difference. Although, if I may say so, in some areas the 7D looks sharper than the 70D, but there are a variety of factors to consider. In some areas, the lighting or reflections are not exactly the same, so that can skew the results.Hi,
Thinking about it though, since the megapixels have increased in the 70D, the image quality has had to improve to some degree to keep up with the 60D and 7D.
Next, I looked at the ISO 100 example between the 70D and 7D, and saw virtually no difference either. Maybe in some cases some of the colors were better in the 70D, but that's really just clutching at straws.
Both the 7D and 70D appear to provide the same image quality is what I'm seeing.
This is the bit that winds me up "The Av/Tv mode will automatically adjust the exposure to get the correct exposure". The camera should never decide the "correct" exposure. That is for YOU as a photographer/artist to decide through experience and defining your own shooting style. I couldn't give a toss if you like my shots or not or the way I post-process, these are decisions I've made from the instant of picking up a camera, choosing a focal length and attaching a lens, deciding on how shallow I want the DoF to be, the composition, how much light the shutter speed should let in and how I need to control them using ISO or if I'd like fill in flash. Or 2 flashes or 3 flashes or rim lighting or shot into the sun for flare or exposing for the light and getting a silhouette. If I need to plan in advance to get "the shot" then I plan in advance and set up my camera in preparation. If a scene is constantly changing then I'm constantly aware that I need to be constantly in control of what I'm doing and constantly aware of my surroundings. I also need to be in constant control of clients/guests/attendees, backgrounds. some things are easier to control than others and it's quick thinking and experience that makes the best of the worst situations, not the decisions of a processor in a camera. At least if it fucks up then it's my fault and I'm not blaming the camera that has chosen to do something at 30th/sec or f16 thus ruining it that way.Hi,
Note: I do not shoot birds in flight or sports...
Av lets the camera pick a shutter speed, which affects the ambient exposure when using flash. So, one instance you could have a coleminers cave @ 1/200 and the next frame it will be light trails @ 1/60 or even slower if you activate 2nd curtain sync. Av doesn't give consistency when using flash with changing ambient light. Its similar to using Av to shoot concerts with flutters in lighting conditions that will ruin the subject with underexposer + the use of flash on top of that.Hi,
The rules change alittle bit when using flash because now your exposing for ambient and one for the flash.
Shutter speed = Ambient control (that's why sync speed is so important to a flash photog)
ETTL or M controls on flash = Flash exposure.
Hi,I'm surprised to see everyone saying they only use flash in M mode. While I am normally in M for flash work, I sometimes shoot flash in Av mode with a locked ISO so that the changes in ambient light will be picked up automatically by the shutter changes. Of course, I guess that is assuming manual flash; many people probably stick to E-TTL?
Using Av for flash and with a locked ISO will affect the one thing flash photographers need to control the most... shutter speed. If we can't control our shutter speed, we can't control how much ambient is mixed with our flash.
IE: Bounced flash mixing with ambient at a reception, event or mixed lighting situation.
Yes, that's my point, let the camera choose the ambient via the shutter speed. You can control the ratio of ambient to flash with exposure compensation, and control the flash power with aperture. That way, when the ambient changes, the camera compensates while keeping the same flash ratio/power/etc.
Yeah that's great but you'll still have wildly different exposures if the meter catches a bright light, and guess what? You have to dial in expo comp, then flash expo comp. then again when the light goes away... It's great if you like to fiddle a lot with that.
I find it easier to just set my settings in M mode, then simply control the flash exposure comp of the guests with ETTL. Then I have control of the ambient and the flash will be variable to changing light to get a good exposure on the guests. This works way better and I can concentrate on composition more than twiddling dials all night.
I thought we are not supposed to trust DxO considering they are in the pocket of everyone-not-canon.Just don't look at their single finally DXOMark Score, but their measurement result should be valid.
Seriously, this is a SWEET lens, perfectly suited for 7D..
It's not about 'fake' - it's about transmission curves.+1. If you do Astronomy, you'll know that different brand filter had slightly different transmission curve even they are the same type of filter... you had to look at the transmission curve.
Can't speak for the 'Rocketfish' or Canon, but Hoya, Zeiss, and B+W all publish their transmission curves. No filter has a perfectly vertical cutoff on a transmission curve - most good commercial multicoated filters that 'block' wavelengths ramp from ~0% transmission to their max of >99% over a 25-125 nm range (although some of the longpass and bandpass filters I use in microscopy are close to vertical, with a slope covering <5 nm - and they come with a price tag commensurate with that performance).
The Zeiss has the steepest slope of the three, ramping up over the 410-435 nm range (in fact, it's cutting out some blue light, which is considered to start at 400 nm). The Hoya has the least steep slope, running from 350-460 nm or so, meaning its passing some UV in the 350-399 nm range, and blocking a bit of blue light as well. The B+W is intermediate, ramping up from 360-430 nm.
So, with the '395 nm flashlight' (which actually uses an LED that emits at 380-385 nm, but what's 10-15 nm among friends?), you can see from the transmission curves that the Zeiss will block that, while the Hoya and the B+W filters will pass some of it.
Of course, while that might be good to know if you're shooting film, none of that matters if you've got a dSLR. The dSLR's sensor is insensitive to UV light, so there's no difference between a UV filter (be it the 410 nm Zeiss or the 360 nm B+W) and a clear filter that fully passes the long end of the UV spectrum. I have empirically tested my 7D and 5DII for UV sensitivity with calibrated UV/Vis light sources (costing a hell of a lot more $$ than a flashlight to detect cat urine!) and some of those precise bandpass filters mentioned above (running a lab that has such equipment comes in handy sometimes) - there's no need for a UV filter. I do use UV filters for protection (B+W MRC or Nano), instead of clear - but that's only because every time I've needed to buy one, the UV version was cheaper than the clear one (although that's not the case with all brands or in all geographies).
So, my advice is to just buy whichever is cheaper, clear or UV. I'd still pass on the Hoya - it blocks a bit too much blue (and that's the least sensitive color channel). Since it blocks less of the visible blue light, the B+W is actually a bit better than the Zeiss in that regard (because sometimes 5-10 nm does matter among friends).
Hmm... might not mean anything to Nikon DSLR user, but Canon user can mount Nikon lens to Canon DSLR...QuoteDxO should come out a standard testing camera for testing lens... a mirrorless camera should be idea since it'll have the shortest flange focal distance and can use adapter for different vendor lens... then the only variables will be the lens and the result can be valid to compare between different lens.
that wouldnt really be more valid as you still have to mount those lenses on their brand camera for real world purposes. why would i care what the test results of a lens would be mounted to a camera i would never shoot. i would rather see test results from a lens/body combo that i could actually use.
not that i really care about DxO that is....