December 21, 2014, 06:44:01 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 - risc32

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36
31
cool.

The photos look good to me, but i gotta wonder. not that it has any bearing on what is captured, but at the end of the first paragraph, when he listed his camera settings, do many of you guys do things like that? An auto exp mode, with compensation, then manually jacking the iso around? At night, under lights(that is, bright objects moving around the frame with a black background, in an auto mode?)?
again, good shots though.

that is also one amazing HS facility.
 

32
Lenses / Re: Zoom or 135 in Place of 100 and 200?
« on: October 20, 2014, 03:53:11 PM »
the 135mm and 1.4 tele might be a good option, but i don't know if $wise it makes any sense. I've used the 135 and i owned a 100f2. I never found the 100f2 lacking in anything compared to the 135mm(besides 35mm), it's awesome. what camera are you using? besides 135mm + 1.4 tele gives you a fixed f2.8 lens for nearly, if memory serves me and it usually doesn't, the same money as a 70-200 2.8. unless you really need that 135 f2, i would take the 70-200 over it all day. i did in fact.

33
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS on sunny days and white jerseys
« on: October 20, 2014, 01:36:35 PM »
when i got my 300mm2.8 i used it with my 40d and 5d. I wasn't really that pleased with it. It never really seemed to be in focus, except under one condition. If i was using my 5d and shooting right up close to the minimum focusing distance even at 2.8 it was very good. I have no explanation for how that could be, i would think that would be very tough for the AF, but somehow it did very well. i took many photos of my kids this way and depending on the lighting i can see my reflection in their pupils. anyway, I sent it to canon for a checkup along with a cd with images as per their request. i got my lens back with a vague description of what they did and an invoice for something like 200$. If it was better i couldn't tell. fast forward to when i got my 5dmk3. that fixed it.
good luck man!

34
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS on sunny days and white jerseys
« on: October 19, 2014, 08:41:24 PM »
I would think the first couple shots have plenty of contrast for the AF. I can only guess the size of the AF point in those shots, but the girl in white has dark lettering, so that should be good, and if you had the AF sensor a little left it would see the white jersey against that black jersey and that could hardly get any better. those should have hit. The others are purple or that goalie shot, and i would think the camera sees those as very different than a the first two. You said that it's front focusing. maybe i've cocked up my terms but from my wife's laptop it looks like that ref is in focus and that he is further away than the girl in purple, so wouldn't that be back focusing? either way there isn't anyone anywhere near close enough to confuse the AF, and that looks like a problem. It would be interesting to see if a ND filter improved the situation. not that you should have to do something like that with the awesome gear you have. I hope someone is able to nail this down for you.
   And most importantly, just drove past ODU this morning.

35

Instead of buying a new PC, you can simply buy a decent SSD, install as an additional drive in your computer and setup dual boot, so you can choose which to load.   Be sure when doing the OS install you disconnect the other drives. I would then have 3 drives in your PC, Vista boot, 8.1 boot then a high capacity drive for data. You can then slowly migrate stuff to the new OS as you wish. 

yup, and use something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817994164&cm_re=HD_tray-_-17-994-164-_-Product so you can easily swap drives. you'll have to shut down with a c drive swap of course, and this accepts a bare drive so no silly rails to attach.

  as an aside, i had win 98,98se, 2000pro, vista 32, and win7 64. I haven't seen a BSOD or any real problems since win2000pro. since then rock solid. My IT friend laughed and laughed at me running vista, but i didn't have one single issue. i don't know what the deal was, but it sure had/has a bad rap. I built the 98,98se,2000 machines, and modded my vista,win7 boxes. they are still low end stuff, but i kick'em up a bit.

36
When i shot minolta i was a bit pleased that sony bought them. I mean, Sony=electronics and cameras are turning into computers with some glass on the end. but i feared they would do what they usually do. Come out with proprietary things for their cameras, something like flash cards(tried), or hot shoe mount(done, even though that one wasn't sony's doing). I also feared they would come out with too many models and they wouldn't stick around long enough for the aftermarket to support them. Something like, say underwater housings, radio flash systems... In the audio/ video market place they used to drive dealers crazy because they would come out with newer models without giving the dealers much notice. One day they would have the latest sony receivers on the sales floor, the next they had a load of discontinued models they had to cut the price on. Sony has no market share in DSLR so they have to throw everything they have against the wall and see what sticks. They took up the helm of minolta, discontinued many of their lenses and placed a huge price increase on the rebranded models that stayed in production. You might not believe this and i can hardly, but during their take over of minolta i was buying gear from ebay, and they flipping it right back on ebay for a good profit. I think this was due to that big price increase, discontinuing of lenses and new people to market learning that they could put a minolta lens on their new sony with full functionality. whatever it was it was silly.
 I just wonder how long sony plans on sticking around losing money. I don't know how far the profits from the PS4 are going to stretch. They are losing money all over the place. I'm not saying they are about to fold, now or even later, but they can't go on forever like this. I'm not suggesting someone not to buy a sony DSLR or mirrorless or whatever, some of their models interest me, but I doubt i'd invest heavily in their ecosystem. Honestly, you might just as well invest in a Samsung system.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 08:57:02 PM »
i believe there was an early Canon camera or two that skipped the AA filter for computer tom foolery in the interest of the best IQ, but in the end they tossed it. I never used one of those, I think it was in the early 2000's, so it was early, but not like an even earlier frankencamera.

38
Sports / Re: Superbikes from Silverstone
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:21:59 PM »
Maybe not a sports camera due to the fps spec, but that AF system is very good at tracking things. Very nice shots. through a fence? impressive.
  did you ever see that incredible wet racing Kiyonari threw down a few years ago? I think it's on youtube, it's most amazing.

39
weird. were you using some sort of filter? the spider wasn't behind glass? weird, and cool. not that i'd want that on all my shots or anything...

40
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 09:23:47 PM »
It was interesting to note Kelby's claim that he shoots JPEGs for sports -- then to complain about the 5D3's buffer.  I use my 5D3's primarily for sports and it only buffers if I burst in RAW.  Just now, I tested a 54 frame burst in JPEG with no hesitation whatsoever.  (I know, a minor nit.)
i caught that too, but forgot to mention it. my 5dmk3 isn't buffer limited while shooting jpgs, and it clears fast.

another, you guys looking for a smaller camera. again, that's not what scott would be looking for. lighter, sure. they would gladly take that, but they work that camera for hrs, they want it to fit their hand. full grown man hands, and work with those hands in the winter when they wear gloves. I just don't think this distinction is fully realized. basically, what scott wants and what many of us want are two different things.

41
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 09:17:51 PM »
So it's being referred to as the 1dx light. that's not surprising, they said the same thing with the 40d and 1dmk3, and i bet the same about others as well.
  Not like i forgot, but watching this video reaffirmed to me the differences between pros and everyone else. Here Scott about losses it because he thought he lost his "lock" button. I have no idea what a lock button is,what it's for, do i even have one currently? i have no idea and i bet most of us don't either. But to Scott and guys who run like him, it's big. Then scott misspoke a few times and said something like 24mp. well, to him he probably doesn't really give a damn, as long as it's in the ballpark of what's the norm. But to some at home, that would be a pretty big thing, an extra 4million pixels? sweet!! That doesn't count for Jrista. He's on the hunt for a sign that canon is dumping money into their sensor tech, not really a few more MP. Same goes for RAW -vs- jpg. scott and his crew don't really care about RAW performance. You could squeeze out 2stops of DR/ ISO out of a RAW file and they won't care. they don't have time for that. Basically they want it to work as expected, no surprises, nail focus, have a long lasting battery and be dead reliable.
  when these guys start really getting excited over it being such a great thing it is to have a 1.6 crop, my mind started to wander. really, ?! it's great! sure, if you say so..  care to swap me for your 1dx? And mom and dad don't HAVE to buy a 1dx to take photos of their kids playing sports? really? that's.....well,that's just retarded, and i'm not going to touch that one.
   all that said, i've never heard of scott kelby before this but he seems like he's probably a good guy.
 
just a quick question, does the 7dmk2 have bright AF points or are we going to pretend that isn't a thing again?

 one more, is anyone out there going to mention the insane awesomeness that they are claiming to do with indoor arena lighting? I'm at a loss for how little attention this is getting. it looks to be as cool as velcro laces!

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mark II AF Points Lighted??
« on: October 04, 2014, 03:25:55 PM »
yeah, this is big deal for me also. I remember when the 5dmk3 was announced and they released all these reviews, many from event shooters. Strange how they never complained about not being able to see their AF points while shooting in the dark. of course it's not strange, it's BS. i wonder if they even used a 5dmk3 before writing their "review". it's not something you could miss. I don't know about canon being cheap, they sold a ton of cameras this way. now they can come out with a mk4 and tout the visible AF points, while they sneak another feature away when nobody is looking...

43
mostly my images would have gotten technically better. My post work kung fu, which still sucks has getten much better and that's made more of in improvement, but that's knowledge/exp not really gear.

reminds me of Laguna Seca motogp 2006. I'm on the hill at the corkscrew with my minolta 5d and cheapy 75-300mm. it was packed and everyone taking pics was in the same general area. I thought i could find a better view threw the trees. found a nice area, rested my huge can of beer between my knees, auto focused on a target area, i knew i had no how of tracking them, and got them as they hit my spot.  after a couple minutes i took the camera down and found that a crowd of photo guys was how around me and i was trapped. I certainly wasn't doing anything special, it's just that photogs can be funny sometimes, and just join in instead of working things out.

44
It surprises me that no-one has tried to put a Sony sensor into a Canon 5d3 and make the perfect camera.
Swapping engines and transmissions in cars is not uncommon, so why not swap sensors in cameras?

I don't think it's a simple as changing a lens or a focusing screen. The sensor is the guts of the camera and it's hard wired in. I'd imagine Sony uses completely different components than Canon so you can't just stick it on and expect it to work. Then you need to programme the digic processor to work with the new sensor. So you'd need the electrical engineering skills from both Sony and Canon plus the coding skills of the ML team to stand a chance. How many attempts would it even take? Do you wanna buy a bunch of $3000 cameras just so you can play Dr Frankenstein with them?

I bet there is some lunatic out there that is probably doing this very thing as I type this!

You need to replace almost all of the electronics, design new custom chips, write a new firmware from scratch.

NOW YOU TELL ME! OMG i guess i gotta put this all back the way it was...
====
seriously, jrista, get better and keep up the good fight. I'm by your side in spirt.

Sure this place isn't all rainbows and sausages, but it's pretty good overall. I've always been surprised that these disagreements don't quickly go down the road of, "ya? well your mother...." again overall pretty good. Lots of guys here are mostly into gear and perhaps never actually use their cameras. others will grab whatever they have and do their best. I'm much closer to the later. most of my nitpicks involve getting stuff done as efficiently as possible. I only wish i could fiddle with one image for hrs, and personally I don't see the example you posted as being so out of line. tons of people go all "natural light", and that's just what they would get.(personally i feel that most natural light shooters just don't know how to light but that's a horse of a different color) i guess you could go the other way and expose for the inside and then tweak out on the windows. i guess that would be better. at least it would have a smaller footprint on the... print, but whatever, i get it.
  some of you are hopelessly lost yet damn sure of where your are. to the point i don't care to bother looking the i forum, but then sometimes (cue dumb and dumber) you go and totally redeem yourselves. i don't know. i guess i'll kick around.
  so on reacap,
    jrista-cool, i would totally take you out for a beer if i was in (wherever you live).
    clueless people(I know, you don't think i'm pointing at you)- be more humble.
    everyone- chill. we are taking about cameras.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 04:25:43 PM »
I never said game changer for bif and wildlife. I said it was superb if you're not in the high end 1d market. I said the anti flickering mode is a game changer, and it is.

I think it's hard to understand how big of a deal this is if you haven't shot indoor sports in crappy lighting.

So it looks like Viggo and raptor3x are probably the only guys here(besides me, duh)who even know what this new feature cures. They say it cures it, but it's almost a fantasy that they are able to pull this off. Anyway it's good to know that out of the thousands of photo guys here, 3 guys(me included) know what the hell is going on.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36