September 23, 2014, 04:37:06 PM

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 - TAF

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
EOS Bodies / Re: Asking for 5D III firmware improvements
« on: November 29, 2012, 09:09:47 PM »
If the hardware will support it, I would be most pleased to have a 1200 fps (or faster) video capability, even if it necessitated as little as 320x240 resolution (if needed to reduce the readout/data move time).

High speed video is just so ridiculously expensive...

Canon General / Re: A Lion Eats an EOS 5D Mark II & EF 16-35 f/2.8L II
« on: November 28, 2012, 08:56:53 AM »

It turns out Ed Hetherington had the same sort of thing happen and sacrificed his Canon EOS 5D Mark II and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II for some fun photographs. The good and bad news? The lens lived, but the camera is touch and go.</p>

"Honest honey, I have to buy a new camera - a lion eat mine."

"Hello Prudential"

"We're sorry, but your insurance policy has an exclusion for that.  You're covered for bear and shark eatings, but not lion."

"Today Nikon announces it's newest mascot..."

Nikon executive at board meeting: "I've got this great plan for increasing market share"

They said the camera industry was dog eat dog...

Would have preferred a Twinkie, but alas...

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D launch and effect on 5D MkII & MKIII
« on: November 24, 2012, 12:31:14 AM »
So answer this question, do you ever back-up your computer to make sure you don't lose the important files/photos you have saved???  Having a 2nd memory card slot is the same thing when it comes to a camera!  I guess we're not going to agree on the importance of having back-up files! 

My point is from a retail price standpoint, I'd much rather have a camera with a 2nd memory card slot and pop-up flash vs. a camera that had one card slot and no pop-up flash, but had GPS and WiFi.  If you talk about the "wants v. needs", how many people really need GPS and WiFi? 

WiFi = The ultimate 2nd memory card slot, without taking up space in the camera body, and with a great many other benefits as well.

Computer back-ups are great, if you keep them off site.  If they're in the same building, then they're only so-so, since if the place burns down, everything goes.  Same with having two card slots in the body - drop the camera over the side of the boat, and it doesn't matter if you copied to both cards.  But with WiFi, your laptop sitting safely in the corner can still have your images.

Sounds to me like Canon is trying for a paradigm shift in this area.

EOS Bodies / Re: February & March are Announcement Months for Canon [CR2]
« on: November 17, 2012, 05:32:00 PM »
  • integrated grip

Wow...that would make me not buy it for sure!

I would imagine that's what a potential 70D would be for.  I add a grip to every camera I buy and it's definitely useful for sports and any time you're shooting in portrait orientation.  I think it would also enhance weather sealing for me since adding a grip always introduces another point of failure for the seals.

With or without a grip, none of these DSLRs can be considered small, I consider the benefits outweigh the minor drawbacks.

A non-removable grip is a catastrophe for me, as it makes the camera not fit where I want it, and it makes it heavier and bigger than it needs to be for the 99% of the time I don't need a grip.  If you want a grip, buy a grip.  I never have, and I never plan to.  That's the beauty of a removable grip - those that want one can have one, those that don't aren't forced to have one.  This is one reason I'd never buy a 1D body.

I'll agree with that sentiment; that is why I ended up with the 5D3 instead of the 1DX.

The additional capability of the 1DX was not enough for me to overcome the fact that it did not fit my small hands well enough, mostly because of the larger grip and bottom.

EOS Bodies / Re: February & March are Announcement Months for Canon [CR2]
« on: November 17, 2012, 05:29:21 PM »
Thinking about the next 'M' (is the M for mirrorless?); what I would love to see (read: would buy) is a FF body using the sensor/electronics from the 5D3 (I use those high ISO's), a real EF mount, and a simple optical viewfinder.

All for around $1500.  Which is not an unreasonable number if you think about what a 5D3 costs compared to the 5D2, and then subtract off the AF module and viewfinder assembly.

Take that, Leica!

(in fact, if the AF worked decently and it did a similar number of fps, it might replace my 5D3)

EOS Bodies / Bracketing Focus (automatically)
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:41:39 AM »
Hello All;

I have a thought for a feature that doesn't seem to be there yet.

With our EF lenses, the camera knows (and can quickly set) the focus distance.  The computer in the camera can easily calculate the DOF from the exposure.  They already offer built in exposure bracketing.

Why not offer focus bracketing?  With a USM lens, the time required to shoot (say) three successive photos with three different focus distances would be minimal.  Perhaps setable for how many and what the end points are.  I've seen it done manually (it is certainly easy to do that way; I sometimes do it just to be certain of capturing a landscape just the way I want it).

Seems like something that would, from time to time, be very valuable to have.  And the ability to combine the photos just as one does with HDR would make for potentially fascinating photos.

And if this is buried in menu 174 of my 5D3, my apologies for not having read the manual enough times to find it...

Lenses / Re: Landscape tips needed on shooting the Grand Canyon
« on: November 14, 2012, 01:18:14 AM »
A couple of random shots from last year's trip to Sedona:

(the sum total of shots from that trip convinced me of the need to replace the 50D with a 5D3; looking forward to returning soon)

Lenses / Re: Landscape tips needed on shooting the Grand Canyon
« on: November 14, 2012, 12:08:53 AM »
1. Check to see if the South Rim is still open.  It is getting late in the year; it could already be snowed in.

2. Sedona is beautiful and the people are really friendly.  I love going there.  The main street can be very photogenic.  There is a nifty camera store in town, nearby is Oaxaca, is a nice mexican restaurant.  Note that the economy is not great in the area, so you can get excellent deals on lodging.  Pull up Google maps; you'll find a turnout south of town at 34.82335 N/-111.77610 W.  Look due east from there and you'll see a pair of spires (locally called the sisters).  If you get lucky, you can catch the moon rising between them.  It's a spectacular shot.

3. It is well worth the drive up Highway 89A to the top of Oak Creek Canyon (straight out of town heading north, can't miss it).  There are numerous places to stop and take interesting photos at this time of year, and when you get to the top there is a parking area/scenic lookout where the local Indians set up tables and sell beautiful hand made jewelry and other things.

4. Pack a jacket, hat, and sunglasses.  While it may be shirtsleeve down in Sedona, it may well be below freezing at the top of the canyon.  And the higher in elevation you go, the stronger the UV and the greater the risk of sunburn (especially in winter).

5. If you are driving your own car (as opposed to a rental), make certain the cooling system and brakes are in top notch condition.  Even at this time of year your can can overheat driving up the canyon, and the brakes take a beating driving down.

6. I hear that the glass horseshoe out over the Grand Canyon is spectacular, but I haven't been there yet.

7. If they are still operating (there were some issues a number of years ago), there are scenic flights over the GC.  Worth the price if the weather is really clear (it should be this time of year).

8. At the GC you will find plenty of flat horizons for the grad filter (I wish I had had one of those years ago).

9. I would forget the flash; seek maximum fulfillment with the high ISO capability of the 5D3.

10. If you feel the need for some additional weight, bring water bottles.  Gallon jugs are a good idea (9 pounds each, and you can drink them if the car breaks down and use them if you need water for the radiator).

I'll leave lens recommendations to others.

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Protective Filter Question
« on: November 03, 2012, 10:23:44 PM »
It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.

I've taken my 70-300L down the beach a few times, to shoot surfers and things, the wind is always blowing a gale down there. Am I going to point my $1500 lens straight into the wind and have the front element sandblasted? Hell no, I point my B&W MRC filter into the wind, it only cost $60 or so, it has no measurable difference on IQ (as i tested on my 7D), and it's Multicoated so no extra flare in *normal* situations (i don't feel like testing it by pointing at the sun).
As to whether it's *needed* for weathersealing? Don't know, don't care. It can't make the sealing *worse*, and since it doesn't make the images worse either, then to me it's a no-brainer.
As for impact damage? Some people will claim that Hoods are better. They may be, it all depends on too many variables of height, floortype, angle, etc. Why not just use both? (And why not just don't drop it?) Hoods help a bit with less flare too. And if i dropped it i'd be more concerned about the IS elements rattling around and the mount breaking off the camera body than the outer elements smashing...

And when I am photographing jet engine tests, in high winds, or any other situation where I expect flying debris will hit the lens I use a protective filter as well.

But the question had become whether they were necessary to complete the weather sealing.  Now I know that some of Canon's lens do require the additional piece be added (very disappointing of Nikon not to go to court; clearly they're off their game).

As for the filter that broke, I never said I dropped it.  I didn't.  I was walking through a doorway in NYC with the camera over my shoulder and got bumped into the door frame.  The evilly  >:( designed Canon lens cap 'ear' got shoved into the filter and it shattered.  Had the filter not been there, the cap ear could not have made it to the front element.  Hence the protective filter cost me a lens.  Unless you live in the countryside, such is an unavoidable risk if you actually carry your camera.

Come to think of it, I have become a hood guy these days.  Never really thought about it until now...

You really should try shooting directly into the sun some time.  8)  The pictures that result can be quite beautiful.  Although as you note, you might have to remove the filter to really get the best IQ out of the situation.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III sensor cleaning noise (squeaks)
« on: November 03, 2012, 06:35:39 PM »

1. The text book authors are Kinsler and Frey (and two other guys who I have forgotten)

2. My experimental results.  Putting the transducer to the bone behind my ear and exciting it with a sine wave, I could hear a tone up to around 50 kHz.  I did have to keep increasing the drive level.  I won't be repeating that experiment; above 50 kHz or so, all I got was a headache.  As for my four cats; the young ones (3 and 4) sat by the door staring curiously, the middle aged one (12) meowed, and the older one (15) slept (I think she's deaf).

3. All this got me to thinking, so I did a literature search.  A report from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (Corso J. Bone-conduction thresholds for sonic and ultrasonic frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 35:1738-43, 1963) reports that the traditional human guinea pig (aka college students between 18 and 24 years of age) can hear out to 100 kHz under these conditions.

4. Interestingly enough, the other thing I found was reference to some research where they used an ultrasonic signal which was amplitude modulated, very much like an AM radio (eg: a 100 kHz carrier and a 2 khz voice band signal) and the test subjects heard not the 100 khz signal but the modulation.  Very interesting result.

My apologies for the digression.  I think you need not concern yourself with a small squeak.

When I learn how best to use the test gear, I'll report back if I find anything interesting about the cleaning sweep.

Software & Accessories / Re: What is wrong with my settings?
« on: November 02, 2012, 09:15:00 PM »
What's Ferrari's name for the color of the first car?  Perhaps "Mustard-fed stallion droppings"?  Probably not terribly poopular...

I suspect Ferrari has a nasty name for it, since that is a Lamborghini...

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Protective Filter Question
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:52:08 PM »
I suspect an urban myth.

You suspect wrong.  Chuck Westfall has indicated that he recommends using a filter to complete the sealing of all sealed L-series that have front filter threads (i.e. not the supertele lenses).  Hearsay, yes - but he's Canon's technical guru, so the source is a good one.

Beyond hearsay, there are a few lenses which Canon explicitly states require a filter to complete the weather sealing.  Those are lenses with front element groups that move 'within the barrel' either for zoom extension or focusing.  Check the instructions for the 50mm f/1.2L, 17-40mm f/4L, or 16-35mm f/2.8L II and you'll see the following statement:

Excellent!  Thank you neuro!

The fact that they put that warning in the instructions for those lenses, and not in others (obviously I need to buy more lenses), strongly suggests to me that the need is primarily applicable to those lenses.  Your description of the why in those cases makes perfect sense.

It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III sensor cleaning noise (squeaks)
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:35:52 PM »
People can generally not hear ultrasonic tones, but they can dectect pulse trains at much higher than ultrasonic frequencies.  They sound like a chirp.

In the case of the Dukane pinger, you don't even need to hold it against the bone behind your ear to hear the once per second tick; it sound like a fairly loud clock.  Nothing special to that, the square wave pulse is obvious, and I suspect it is the end diaphragm of the device popping.

What I find interesting is that once you do put it against the bone behind your ear, and if you listen really carefully in a quiet room, you will start hearing the actual tone that comprises the pulse.  Imagine the highest pitch squeak you can, and then picture it getting higher in pitch still.  That's what it sound like.  It is a very odd experience.

This doesn't really surprise me, though.  The human ear is a very efficient acoustic filter, optimized for the frequencies we're supposed to hear.  It does a pretty decent job of reducing the 'out of band' signals that we're not really intending to listen for (the text book "Fundamentals of Acoustics" covers the math pretty well; my copy is at the office so I'll post the authors name tomorrow night).  But when you bypass the filter and put the input directly into the detector, finding that the little cilia in there vibrate at a much higher frequency than expected isn't shocking to me.

I have a few transducers that will operate out well past 50 kHz.  I'll have to try a few sine waves (no impulse to confuse things) and see what I can hear.  My cats may not like the experiment (the always sit outside the door to the workshop and meow when I play with ultrasonics), but I think I can confuse them for a few minutes for science.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III sensor cleaning noise (squeaks)
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:19:27 PM »
I just took some measurements, and my 5D3 sensor cleaning 'sound' is a series of two smooth frequency sweeps from 100 kHz up to about 125 kHz and back down.

So I would conclude you are hearing some structure in the camera vibrating, and not the actual signal.

indeed, given this data,  it is probably sympathetic resonance.  so the sweeps themselves -- is this a single tone sweep or what is the bandwidth of the signal that sweeps through 100KHz to 125KHz?  I take it you were measuring with a wide band audio spectrum analyzer, measuring actual acoustic energy? 

Yes, actual acoustic energy.

I am using a device specifically intended for detecting ultrasonic emissions, the Wildlife Acoustics EM-3:

I'm still learning to use the instrument, so I cannot yet ascertain the purity of the sweeping tone.  It is fairly narrow on the spectrum display (which is very small), but until I can expand the range (or more correctly reduce the bandwidth so as to enlarge the displayed signal), I can't answer that.

I will post more when I get there.

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Protective Filter Question
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:07:14 PM »
...a filter is necessary to complete the weather sealing on L lenses.

I have seen this statement many times at multiple websites, but I have never been able to find any reference to this in Canon's literature.

I would love for someone to point it out in Canon's official documentation.

I just checked the instructions that come with the 24-105L (says filters sold separately), the 70-300L (also says filters sold separately), and the 70-200L 2.8 (says filters are optional).  No where does it say they are needed for anything.  I then checked my copy of the book "EF Lens Work III", and it isn't in there either.

Given how competitive the camera industry is, if you really had to use a filter to make the L lenses properly weather sealed, Nikon would have long ago sued Canon for false advertising, since Canon doesn't provide the filter, yet advertises the lenses as being weather sealed.

I suspect an urban myth.

Personally, unless I am trying to take pictures in severe conditions, I don't use "protective" filters.  I had one shatter and destroy a lens once (where if the filter had not been there everything would have been fine), and won't make that mistake again.

Which is not to say I don't enjoy experimenting with polarizers, ND's, and graduated ND's...

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11