April 23, 2014, 10:41:22 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 - TAF

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I don't understand
« on: October 04, 2013, 09:25:45 PM »
and my p/s even has a dedicated program mode for taking cat pictures, a necessary feature for facebook :)

Humm...that sounds like something that I would find quite useful - what's the model number?

I've noticed that the facial recognition focus mode in my EOS-M won't 'do cats'.

Perhaps Magic Lantern will offer a version that turns the C3 position on my 5D3's main dial into just such a function...it should be popular.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: September 02, 2013, 11:37:47 PM »
some additional news over at NL
18th We're told (thanks) that nothing will appear in any Canon branded MF range until there are enough items to introduce it as a 'system'. This will include 'Canon designed' [sic.] lenses with a new larger version of the EF mount (tentatively called EF-L) and, as with the EOS-M EF->EF-M adapter, a way to allow them to be used seamlessly as very high quality lenses on the current EF mount.
The lens development is being influenced by the new range of 'Cinema' lenses (I note their prices!)
The aim is a 'show stealing' announcement at Photokina next year, but no details on when any cameras might be offered for sale.
I've seen other related comments (thanks) which emphasise that this is still at a relatively early stage and the business relevance has not been established.
My own thoughts are that with the recent decline in DSLR sales, this might be a tricky one to get a good return on the necessary investment?

"EF-L" seems like a terribly choice of name, given the likely confusion with "L" lenses, unless all MF lenses will be "L".

Perhaps "EF-66" would be a better choice, assuming they retain the 6x6 format for the notional MF camera.

Lose the flash.  It is potentially dangerous (bad news near oxygen), annoying to everyone, and might get you thrown out (or at least 'lectured').

Technical Support / Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« on: August 21, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »
... You want to GO TO JAIL.

In the US, where this was taken it is ILLEGAL to fly drones for commercial purposes, UNLESS you have one of the few FAA waivers which are mainly for crops and law enforcement purposes. 

Many companies who do this type of aerial photography for real estate, etc. have been visited by the FAA and given cease and desist.

For each incident, a person faces fines from $10,000 to $100,000 (yes... $100K per incident, and 3 to 10 years in jail.


And while the jacka$$ photographer is happy with All press is good press... Getting viral coverage could cost him a whole lot more.

So I'm curious, not having done a lot (well, any) research on it, how do they classify the hobbyist RC helo's & planes that have been flying for decades? What's the difference? If it's when you go out of line of sight, sure, I can completely understand that and it makes sense. Otherwise, what's the real difference? Is it the fact that people are being paid to basically do the same thing they'd be free to do if they were just doing it for fun?

We're talking about the US Gov't here, so the rules and regulations have no basis in logic or rational thought.

A (very wealthy) hobbyist flying a remotely controlled aircraft with every surveillance sensor known to man for his personal enjoyment - legal, as far as the federal government is concerned  (within the altitude and location limitations associated with model aircraft operation...if it's OK for your 12 year old neighbor, it's OK for you with all the camera gear; basically, stay low, stay away from airports, and keep your aircraft light in weight).

But someone flying a toy helicopter with a camera on it and GETTING PAID TO DO IT - illegal.

It's all in the 'getting paid' part.

I kid you not.  See:  http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

Yes, this is one of the dumbest pieces of regulatory nonsense in recent memory.  And they plan on fixing it over the course of the next couple of years...and the fix will probably be worse than the present rules.

Lenses / Re: Stabilization for IS lenses?
« on: August 21, 2013, 12:00:07 AM »
Based on my experience with several Canon IS lenses (and their IS binoculars), I would say that the IS is essentially instantaneous (below my reaction/sensing threshold, anyway).

Have you actually looked?  I just tried with my 100L, and stabilization clearly isn't 'instantaneous'.  If I just fully press the shutter with a handheld shot, it's not much better than no IS with a slow shutter (1/25 s). 

I took a few tripod test shots with the 100L and the 600L, I'll have a look at the results in a day or two.

But of course.

On my 70-300L, as soon as I push the shutter button part way down, the jiggling appears to stop.  Same with my 24-105L.  So it's fast enough I don't see it dampen out - or I'm shaky enough that it looks so good I can't tell how quickly it settles down.

I'll play with the tripod over the weekend.

Technical Support / Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:53:23 PM »
"The surveillance drone is a sensor, not a weapon.  Please use it accordingly."

Good thing it was only a GoPro and not a 1Dx hanging from the bottom of the drone...

Lenses / Re: Stabilization for IS lenses?
« on: August 18, 2013, 03:31:14 PM »
Yet another Nikon fail?

Based on my experience with several Canon IS lenses (and their IS binoculars), I would say that the IS is essentially instantaneous (below my reaction/sensing threshold, anyway).

I don't know what Canon's official line would be, but here's my guess comparing Canon to Nikon.  Having designed and built a few pieces of equipment that had accelerometers in them, I suspect that Canon keeps the power on to the accelerometers (they use very little power) and thus only need power the servos (which will drain the battery) when you press the shutter button; while Nikon probably tries to save that last little bit of power by powering down everything.  Since it does take MEMS accelerometers a moment or so to stabilize when initially powered up, this could account for Nikon's showing in those tests.

Point to Canon.

I'll note that I too have never seen an image where IS caused degradation, so I never turn it off except when on a tripod.

EOS-M / Re: My own take on the EOS M
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:31:23 AM »

used this for some low light, indoor portraits the other day.

Nice portrait.

Which brings up my most recent 'M' story.  Ever wonder how well sealed the camera is?  I found out the hard way...my little furry friend got sick all over my 'M'.  Much to my surprise, none of the rather acidic ick got into the camera.  The only place where it wicked was across the lens mount.  Fortunately, it didn't get all the way past the flange face.  But I do think some sort of gasket to prevent rain from getting in there would be a good idea.

Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 09:01:54 AM »

The photograph below was taken in Dubai Mall, ostensibly the largest mall in the world.  The subject was 30 m from me and what caught my eye was the shoes she was wearing under the head-to—toe garment referred to as Abaya.  When I showed it to my expat host, he said that I should be careful and not publicise this photo since, ‘Here, we are not free to do things as you would do in the West’.  This seemed rather odd.  I have travelled extensively and I think I am culturally sensitive.  Has any one else among the rumour-mongers experienced this real or perceived Gestapo mentality when it came to otherwise innocuous  photographs.  I can understand one’s handlers in Pyongyang not allowing you to point your camera in a particular direction but when no apparent reason exists, a ‘police state’ mentality governing photography would be interesting.

Excellent photo, well done.  However, even though it's too late now, I would have paid very careful attention to your host if you ever planned on visiting that country again.  I'm not certain I would do so.

You may believe yourself culturally sensitive, and in the western sense you may very well be, but in this case I think you stepped on a geopolitical landmine.  You've just posted a photo that completely skewers one of the grand perceptions that middle eastern Islam has presented to the west - that the religious requirements that we in the west find so odd are pervasive throughout society, and that their womenfolk fully support them.

Those shoes are either a remarkable protest against that particular requirement of her religion, or a demonstration that those requirements are for public consumption only.  Neither plays well amongst the hard line religious folks who run those countries and who have an unpleasant habit of executing people who they believe have embarrassed them or disrespected their religion.  I think you just did both.

So yes, there really is something wrong with the photo, if you plan on ever returning to that part of the world.

As for the North Korea comparison, at least they're consistent with the western perspective.  They don't want photos showing how destitute their country is (politically embarrassing), or what their military is doing (could work against them in the next war, which they expect any moment).  Much easier to understand than religious thinking.

Nice photos!  Proving once again that it is the operator, not the equipment, that rules in the end.

Now, you owe it to those girls to take the money you saved by buying the M instead of another DSLR and get them each a cheeseburger.  They all look like they could use it.

Software & Accessories / Re: How Long Does Your CF Cards Last...
« on: July 30, 2013, 12:51:32 AM »
At work we have an industrial system that uses CF cards (the OS, main program, and collected data are all stored on the card).  It was old when I started using it in 1999, and we're still using the cards we had back then.  So I would say there is really nothing about a CF card that suggests limited longevity.

In cameras I've bought new larger cards when I've upgraded (Xt to 50D to 5D3).  The old ones are in the drawer "just in case"...and will likely remain there forever.

EOS Bodies / Re: Wrecked my 6D today, what a POS
« on: July 27, 2013, 05:51:35 PM »
So I got over my initial dislike last year of a few of the corners Canon took with the 6D (like 1/4000 max shutter speed) because the image quality was on par with my 5D3.  Today shooting the Collingwood Ontario Elvis festival in the rain with a EF 400mm 2.8 IS on my 5D3 and a 14mm 2.8 II on my 6D and I was shocked to find that my 6D stopped responding after about 20 minutes in sporadic rain.  I got home, opened things up to inspect and found felt-like material at all the seams rather than the expected rubber material that even my EF-S mount 2009 era 7D has.  I'm sorry, but F$#%K you Canon, for my couple of grand I want you to not skimp out on maybe a dollar's worth of sealing material.  My 6D is now in a bowl of rice in my cranked up to the max infrared sauna, I'll see if my hatred of Canon corner cutting sticks.  No wonder I enjoy developing EOS mount solutions for 60's to mid 80's era Canon manual focus lenses, its before they started sucking like it was a sport.

-Ed Mika

I definitely sympathize.

If you have access to a bell jar and vacuum pump, such a setup works better than rice.

Perhaps this is an opportunity - get a scrap AE-1 off eBay, and put the Fd mount right on the 6D body.  Develop some way to trip the diaphragm lever, and you'd have the perfect conversion - the one Canon should have provided in the 1980's.

EOS-M / Re: Maybe they need an accessory mirror box?
« on: July 14, 2013, 02:05:20 PM »
This is a lens adaptor, not a mirror box.  Its needed to be able to adapt A lenses to a E mount body, and still get autofocus and exposure control.
Canon makes a EF to M adaptor, but you don't need a mirror in order to get AF and Exposure control because it was planned on in advance.

Allow me to explain my thinking further.  The existing AF in the M is only fair (not that any of Canon's cameras are great when using Live View).  If Canon crafted an accessory like this where, using a pellicle mirror, they could have a much more sophisticated AF that wasn't sensor based, then it might be an interesting option for those times when you want a really top notch AF.

The suggestion "get a DSLR" misses the point, because there are plenty of times when a DSLR is not appropriate.  While 'get a DSLR and an M' might please Canon's accountants, I was thinking more of the opportunity to capture people upgrading from a P+S, by allowing them a lower cost upgrade path (without buying a new body).

And the referenced adapter clearly IS a mirror box, as it contains a mirror specifically to enable Sony to bring a separate autofocus and exposure sensor into the game on a mirrorless body.

EOS-M / Maybe they need an accessory mirror box?
« on: July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM »
Sony has apparently come to the conclusion that sometime a mirror box is a better solution, so they've come out with it as an accessory:


Imagine a similar accessory for the EOS-M, permitting full speed auto focus with EF lenses, when you aren't as concerned with size.


EOS-M / Re: How do you carry your EOS-M?
« on: July 09, 2013, 07:19:14 PM »
My "M" arrived today, and as I sit here waiting for the battery to charge, I can't help but think that this is the camera that could fit in a shoulder holster...

It's smaller than a PPK (albeit a little thicker)...Bond, James Bond.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10