September 30, 2014, 08:41:19 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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Good TripodHead
« on: February 27, 2013, 03:17:29 PM »
I have the Manfrotto (310 I think) Junior Geared Head.
It's great for accurate changing of levels or straightening the horizon.
It's downsize is it's bloody heavy and big.
I was caught by surprise when it arrived as I was expecting junior to be small.
Once you get over size and weight it's super.
It's steady as a rock.
I got of sick of ballheads and trying to get them properly level.
Maybe I should have gone for something more expensive like a Swiss Arca Ball Head or Really Right Stuff.

LOVE my manfrotto gear heads, they're almost all I use.
had some ball-heads, they blow.  Kept one midsize manfrotto ball head for use with my compact cams.
ballheads are ok if you're messing around and need to be fast

The 410 Junior is a nice match to the 055 tripod, very solid, nice big mounting plate.
I use the bigger 405 with heavier rigs and bigger 'pods.

A cheaper head a buddy likes is the one with 3 large levers to move the 3 sections and each one is also a twist lock.  it's quite precise too, not as small but if you're used to it it's pretty fast and solid.  it also has built-in spring counter-balance which can be turned on-off and is occasionally useful.

Abstract / Re: Fun with fire
« on: February 26, 2013, 10:12:43 PM »
nice image

... but why were you using EOS Utility to trigger that?
no standard remote cable release?..

I'd think the utility and computer might make for some inconsistent delays to estimate.

Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 26, 2013, 02:12:43 AM »
perfect score here too, not bad for a 50-something past his bedtime.  ;D
That was almost fun.
Should be another score for speed.
That was cherry-pie-easy on my 27" iMac's IPS panel using custom profile done without color tools like they're trying to sell.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How Do You Clean your sensor? And how often?
« on: February 24, 2013, 03:22:05 AM »
Rocket blower is a good product but not the best for cleaning sensors.
Some of them seem to have a bit of the mold-release wax left inside. It can spall off and get blasted at high speed against your sensor where it'll stick like gaucamole to flannel.  The more energetically you use this blower, the more likely you are to remove dust but end up with many more little waxy particles in their place.  The darn thing's caused me all kinds of grief over the years when I didn't have any other options on hand.  I try to only use it for cleaning external areas or anything BUT the sensor.

I've since purchased the Visible Dust Zeeion blower but have yet to put it to the test.  I like that it actually filters the air coming in and leaving the bulb and uses a one-way-valve to maintain the cleanest airflow possible to the nozzle.  Glad they built it cuz I was about to make something like it - but a lot less portable.

for wet-cleaning sensors on cameras I don't care much about, like the used Rebels I kick around for rough work, I dry clean with a blower and then have gotten away with using cotton swabs on the stickier particles followed by a wet cleaning.  I've even used non-streak window cleaner on one that looked like someone had sneezed on it, cleaned it up good but I don't recommend you use these cheapskate wet-cleaning methods on cameras you spend a lot of money on.  There are plenty of decent wet-clean products and systems out there.

To avoid cleaning in the first place, I buy a camera, put it on the back of a lens and leave it there, used consumer cameras are cheaper than lenses and often work well enough for most infrequent shoots to just leave them there.  ;D  They're optically functional dust-caps.

Oddly enough ..
I just replace it with one of those Nikon/Sony sensors ;)
.. My nikons don't show dust shadows as bad as my canons - maybe the AA filter is a little farther away from the sensor so casts a less contrasty shadow?..

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced
« on: February 22, 2013, 01:36:24 AM »
In fact, because of Canon's market share and installed base they could quite easily remain one step behind the industry state-of-the-art in sensor technology and STILL maintain their position -- until and unless that gap truly and actually results in better photos, not just better specs,  coming from the competition.

That's true, they're darn near a Juggernaut.
And all the gear these days is so good that no one bit of kit is going to stand out to such an extent that it makes the competition irrelevant.
It's only a few of us (vocal minority types) who prefer some of the technical advantages offered by the competition enough to add them to our inventory.  Some of Nikon's and Pentax's gear makes my life a little easier vs using Canon.  Altho it's unlikely we hold much sway with the likes of Canon; they're still making a (lot) of money doing things the way they've always done.
The competition had to improve substantially just to get noticed, IMO. I think they've accomplished this.  Maybe they even improved their market share slightly.
But that consumer base is an important segment and I still don't see how that fight's going to change any.
I've heard more than one consumer type photog tell me that they've heard recent Nikon cameras are technically better but it didn't matter enough to them to buy one, their first SLR was a Rebel.  And they liked it.  And if any of them upgrade, they're likely to stay with what they know.
I think it takes more than just cash to switch to or add another system.  It takes a degree of courage and determination.  There's more learning to do, more things to remember.  That sounds like work and we can predict what most people think of that.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift Announced
« on: February 19, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »
now available for pre-order from B&H in Sony, Nikon, Canon mount.

read somewhere else it's an expected March delivery

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 01:25:57 PM »
If it had the sensor quality of at least a Nikon 3200 and some revolutionary new AF system that would drastically reduce my f/1.8 lowlight misses, I would consider it.

Canon's new APS-C flagship better have at least the sensor performance of their main competitor's cheapest, entry-level, base camera.
Oh, if only they could...  :(

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 11:59:18 PM »
.. what's missing to get a photograph to have all the dynamic ranges I see with my eyes.
Is it impossible to translate it to a photograph?
Does it take a combination of photos to get a photo to resemble that?
Current print and display methods cannot replicate the wide dynamic range of many scenes, especially sunlit ones.  So it is essentially correct to say that it IS impossible to translate 20 stops worth of DR into a photograph...  UNLESS you compress the photographed image to fit within the range of the final presentation medium.  That can look flat and dull if not done correctly.  It can look artificial and "painterly" even when it is done correctly altho that's likely when it's a bit overdone.  This can be a very subjective method and worth experimenting with to see if it fits your tastes.
However, such methods are about the only options when you can't stick around to wait for golden hour outdoors and you aren't carrying a bunch of lighting equipment with you.  Otherwise, controlling the light is the main method photographers have used for over a century to lighten the dark areas and otherwise reduce the DR of an image BEFORE capturing it with a camera.  Properly lit images can look far more appealing than trying to replicate this effect in post processing.   However, controlled lighting is not always an option and the use of software and a good quality raw file are the next option to use.
Adobe's Lightroom is a great way to experiment with your raw files.  It can lighten shadows and apply digital gradient filters very easily and spares you from becoming a Photoshop pro if you don't have the time or money to invest in it.

There's at least one section here devoted to HDR, tho not necessarily the photo-realistic kind.  Look around and explore the subject a bit, there's quite a few ways to approach this.  some may be more suitable or appealing to you than others.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 02:33:23 PM »
Our eyes cannot accommodate the entire wide DR a sunlit outdoor scene may provide, but they can, within limits, adapt to the local brightness of the area we may look at, in which case we can then perceive a somewhat wider DR.

When capturing this scene and preparing it for print or display, the limitations of the presentation medium require compressing the DR and performing localized contrast enhancement to provide the viewer with a semblance of the perception they may have if they were viewing the actual scene.

How much of this gets done depends on a number of factors.  The size of the final print or display, the content of the image, the type of scene, and the artist's intent, are amongst the primary factors.
E.G.  If the bright landscape included a small cave entrance in the distance, we'd never be able to adapt our eyes to see what's inside that cave, even if the camera could.  So making those deep shadows more visible would be unnatural.  But if we were much closer to it, so that if we were to look at the cave entrance, possibly while shielding our eyes from the ambient glare, we may be able to make out some of the shadow detail.  Therefore it's not unreasonable to tone such an image to display that way.
It's all very subjective but HDR and tone-mapping and other effects CAN be applied judiciously to create a pleasing and still somewhat photo-realistic image.

see my samples, near the middle of this page, for a somewhat photo-realistic manner;topic=8105.0;attach=23647;image;topic=8105.0;attach=23646;image

This isn't the best example but it presents another example of as-shot to tone-mapped.  This one's overdone for emphasis, posted near the bottom of this page:;topic=8065.0;attach=22981;image;topic=8065.0;attach=22980;image

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 12:23:44 PM »
Improving DR to 20 stops, in a camera that would sell to the public, is still not there yet.

DR and resolution are somewhat mutually exclusive altho recent advances in per-pixel performance are making measurable improvements.  e.g.  Toshiba-made sensor in D5200 has 24MP vs the 16MP in the D5100 and yet the d5200 is showing the same DR, per-pixel, as the d5100.

if the resolution had not increased by 50%, the DR could possibly have increased by 50% instead.

Since this type of sensor is already way ahead in the DR spec, the mfr has the option of increasing resolution while maintaining class-leading DR.  And more MP printed on the box is a great marketing tool.

And yes, for artistic reasons, it's always better to have more of everything captured so that you can later choose how you want to present it by altering it to your tastes.

So for now, if you want to capture the most DR, use the best tool for the job and then you still have the option of exposure bracketing and stacking those images in software, whenever that's a viable option.
I personally don't care to stack bracketed exposures.  I find i can get a photo-realistic HDR-toned image with a single shot from a very clean camera (like most current Nikon or Pentax bodies) with lots of DR.  Just expose to maintain the hilite levels you want to keep and then recurve everything below it to your tastes, if that's your thing.
Some photographers really do not seem to like presenting images like this so it can be a point of strong contention.

How much?

est 3000 Euro at intro so that's about what in US/Cdn $ now?... $4000?...
big-time hurt on the wallet for a fast 50!
but it sure looks like a good performing fast 50
I was pretty happy with my EF 50mm /1.4 USM on FF...  diminishing returns for exponentially more outlay is not in my comfort zone unless I were to go back to makin' a living with a camera.  It would have to be a darn good living...

Just watched the video, posted February 15th, where the high performance of this new lens is designed to not only meet the sensor abilities of cameras like the D800 for resolution, but also to provide very high sharpness and contrast, corner-to-corner, wide open.  Some of the printed test comparisons they show are VERY impressive.
Wish I could justify one of these! 
Addendum:  Expected price at launch is 3000 Euro.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon d7100 might be annonced next week
« on: February 15, 2013, 05:11:59 PM »
I am curious to see what these crop bodies will be packing, it will give some indication to what we can expect in a 7d/d300(s) successor
ditto. I'm hoping a 7d2 will arrive this summer as I already dumped my 7d for IQ reasons.  Miss the speed and AF and I don't have the long glass for Nikon that I do for Canon otherwise I'd try that next new Nikon whatever semi-pro crop-body.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 14, 2013, 04:08:21 PM »
insanitybeard:  thank-you too, for recognizing what my topic is about, even if I did misplace it in this thread.  It’s gonna happen somewhere.  Kinda like (insert great historical battle of your choice).

hjulenissen: thank you for stating your understanding of the topic
be careful you don’t fall under attack for providing a supporting point of view to mine around here. :)

beyond criticism and fair debate, the most vocal opponents I have in this argument repeatedly show themselves to be condescending, hypocrites, and even insulting.  Add to that, unwilling or unable to back up their viewpoint with appropriate and valid samples, as outlined at least 6 pages ago.  Yet they demand my samples and I oblige.

All this, when all I’m asking for is samples from their 5d2, if they have one, so I could make a simple comparison to the one I had.  Doesn’t sound like such an onerous request, considering the amount of effort they expend hurling invective, nonsense and unrequested advice on this thread. (some of occasionally even invalid)

It would be hilarious if it were a comedy sketch.. if you like the 3+ Stooges taking on the lone voice standing up for logic and reason.

JR: I did not say 5d2 was useless, I said it’s usefullness was LIMITED.
Go back and read it.

ishdakuteb:  posts his latest idol of the day.  I don’t care who you want to emulate.
Do you have a 5d2?

alexanderferdinand:  finally, somewhat useful contribution, this person’s had no problems with his 5d2.  i don’t know how he uses his files but he’s happy with it.  OK by me.

bdunbar79:  happy w his 5d2, proudly credits his own skill. Another one that’s fine w me.  But no 5d2 samples from him here either, plenty of 5d3 and 1dx as he learns their quirks.

trumpetpower:  expending yet more effort providing a useless comparison wasting his time, upsetting himself in the process.
Dude, if you'd have actually shot the actual exposure series, with a 5d2 instead of creating a fake in photoshop, you'd have something close to a valid contribution.
And how do you think I came to this if I did not actually shoot the series with my 5d2 when i had it.  go back to (is it still on?) page 6 and re-read it.

but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 68