March 02, 2015, 02:46:48 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 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 75
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 08:41:23 PM »
how many PS freaks are NOT gonna want to send Adobe their $ when they see how easy some of the new tricks are to use?..

a few good video examples here:

I don't think I'd mind "renting" the SW if it was on a per-day basis.  I'd readily give them $2 to almost $10 per day for only those days I'm using it.  Heck, $1/hour then would be even better for me!
There are times I may go for months w-o using PS now, or even LR.  Nothing I dislike more than paying for what I'm not using.

Years ago I hear the adage (which goes something like), give away the razor and make money on the blades.

Same for cameras. Get them hooked on the body, if there are few 3rd party alternatives (or if you lenses have a unique benefit) then you can profit from the lenses

that can work well if you have a great razor and great blades. :)
In Pentax, we have an outstanding razor and many dull and very expensive blades, IMO.
Many of their lenses, if not technically great, do have an enjoyable personality.  But pricing a good number of them at 2x or more compared to their CaNikon counterparts is a bit much.

I hope they can maintain their high quality camera production and get moving on improving the marketing.  Even die-hard Pentaxians are finding the latest price hikes hard to swallow.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Black blob problem
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:17:51 PM »
lighting technique, not just how much and what kind but from what angles

full manual exposure & lighting control for consistent results

shoot raw files, jpgs are too limited unless you've nailed the settings perfectly (in manual)

in a studio, you are in full control and should not be subject to the vagueries of in-camera metering from shot to shot.

play, learn.  don't get too bogged down by various exposure setting paradigms, the end results are to light and expose properly to not clip whites or crush dark shades to black.

Once you get a handle on what you need to do, you'll likely find full manual is the way to go for consistency.  This is where your custom user settings on your camera come in handy, saving all your studio settings for instant recall with a turn of the dial.  If you have enough custom memories, you can save setups for different configurations and have a good starting pont when you want to adapt something.

the range from dark black tux to shimmery white gown can be covered within almost any camera's dynamic range limitations, even Canon's ;)

I also like the Pentax idea of fitting the IS inside the camera rather than having it fitted to every IS lens you might have in your possession! Fewer things to wrong.

it works well, except it doesn't do much to keep the price of lenses down.  But likely a good step for a low volume mfr.


some deals to be had on body bundles and the 645D just dropped about $1800 to $7k.

Geez, I was about to do something constructive tonite when, in typical habit, I had to check the various forums to see if anything happened in the last 6 or so hours.
Good thing I did!

Looks like most Pentax distributors have quietly jacked-up prices on almost all lenses, by huge amounts in many cases!
OTOH, body prices have dropped a bit, and a considerable amount on the 645D.

I managed to find the 2 FA series primes I wanted to get, still available at original prices and quickly dealt another blow to my battered credit card.  Doing so is saving me about $350 or more on 2 lenses.

Is this just Pentax trying to make a better profit for their retail partners or is this something they'd do a little in advance of releasing a FF body that would need to use some of that now very much costlier FF-capable glass?

If you have a Pentax habit you need to feed, tonite's a shopping nite.

Pentax touts their in-body IS as a great way to reduce cost of lenses..
but a lot of their lenses are pretty darn pricey and some of them don't test all that well.
OTOH, many of those poor-testing lenses have a really nice character to them and produce terrific images when used properly.
I'm still getting used to the Pentax way of things, being quite new to the brand, but I really like the experience so far and am hoping they will produce a FF within the next couple years.  They're still very tied to the crop body format tho, with a lot of oddball lenses just for that.
That they've kept FF type lenses in production this long is not necessarily an indicator of a FF DSLR but it will certainly help launch one without a lot of extra R&D for glass.

EOS Bodies / Re: Back to the Future Parts 1/2/3 Canon Strategy
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:48:44 PM »
Pentax seem to be hanging on, and have some very nice design work coming out, I thought the K-01 was excellent and the new MX-1 very nice also.  They've always ploughed their own furrow, Pentax, I reckon if I didn't shoot Canon I'd shoot pentax.  Certainly what you get for the money (that 16MP sensor, weather sealing, massive legacy of inexpensive lenses) lang may the pentax lum reek.  They are an interesting company making capable cameras at sensible prices.  Canon could learn a lot from them.

I agree. I started with a great deal on a Q, liked the interface so much I sprung for a K-01 when it was being dumped at super low prices.  Liked it so much I bough a 2nd one and another Q to use for, well, I'm not sure yet.
I now have K-5 IIs and a pile of K-mount glass, new and old, to play with.
I'm really enjoying shooting with Pentax more than with Nikon or even Canon, despite how familiar I am with the latter and how much I like the clean raw files of the former.  Pentax is like a decent combination of Canon operability with SoNikon raw file quality.  Sensible control layout, lots of customization and good ergonomics. Some poor ergonomics and control layout options too but, overall, I enjoy using my K-5 like I enjoyed the 7D and I feel more comfortable with knowing I can push that raw file pretty hard if I want to.
OTOH, the non-AA-filtered K-5 IIs (k52s from now on) delivers great per-pixel sharpness with a good lens, but is also showing up false color in some shots I didn't expect to have problems with so I may have to opt for a regular K5 for those scenes where I'm dealing with lots of specular hilites.

EDIT:  forgot to add, I wish Ricoh-Pentax would learn a few marketing tricks from CANON.  I don't ever recall ever seeing a Pentax ad.  If it wasn't for the encouragement of ONE Pentax shooting friend, and plenty of solid convincing from my local Pentax rep, I'd likely have never bought into the system.  I'd have been more tempted to go Fuji.
And that's my ABC (Anybody But Canon) story.  I'll likely end up using the weather-sealed Pentax gear more for foul-weather work than my other systems.  Their weather-resistant consumer level lenses are a great idea and they work well enough to use them in inclement conditions where better sharpness and optical performance is not essential.

Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject
« on: April 28, 2013, 03:21:18 AM »
A couple posters here have hit the answer to your question.
The answer is YES, lenses may have different abilities to resolve detail (defined as lines on the sensor at a given contrast ratio), depending on the focus distance.

As of yet, I know of no site that actually measures this characteristic of Canon or any other lenses.

I've certainly noticed this with a few lenses, typically zooms, where they will do a better job at close distances than at or near infinity.  I had a 17-40/4L that comes to mind first.
With the minute inconsistencies of manufacturing tolerances, various copies of a given lens model may exhibit more or less of this tendency as well with further variation possible at different focal lengths.
It sometimes seems that more low cost zoom lenses perform this way than others, likely because they're compromised to work better at the closer "people-are-the-subject" distances they're used with when kitted with consumer bodies.
Pro level lenses aren't exempt from this effect either, many workhorse zooms are a bit less sharp near minimum focus distance.

I doubt a mirrorless camera is what Pentax users have been clamouring for. [...] As a side issue, I'm always surprised that Pentax ranks so low in camera sales.  Their products and pricing seem ok.

At the same time, a mirrorless ff would make perfect sense because Pentax didn't make a splash with their traditional dlslrs even if they are good packages like the K-5. So if they cannot compete directly, they are well advised to innovate - and mirrorless is the way ahead, imagine how zebras and focus peaking right in the viewfinder would improve exposure and manual focussing capability.

Judging by today's bit from

The Pentax full frame is to be, "different than anything else available today"

The major qualification for that could be mirrorless...
The K-01 was an interesting beast in many ways, if not the most usable. I certainly have a use for it.
But I think I'd prefer a more conventional FF design from Pentax, I quite like using the K5 IIs and a FF version of that but please, an even better AF system, would be a real treat.

As I was attending a recent trade show and deciding what new gear to try out, I had a chance to play a little with the X20.
It feels good in the hand, seems reasonably responsive in many ways but I still didnt' get the impression the AF was super fast.  Faster than many for sure.

OTOH, the user interface would take more time for me to get used to compared to Canon, Nikon, Pentax.  Not a bad thing, just another learning curve.
But then.. The XE-1 started to really appeal to me more.  Just as that was settling onto my future-considerations list, I see rumor that Fuji may introduce an entry-level X-mount.

Good thing I'm waiting anyway. :)

I'm actually curious about those WB differences too.
I haven't specifically compared Can vs Nik WB but I have noticed a difference between Nik's, Can's or Pentax on the same scenes.  Even between a D800 and a d5100 on the same outdoor scene, both in AWB, with similar lenses, they rendered quite different results when the light started to change in the evening.  While the sun was higher the WB rendering was very satisfactory and nearly identical.

Would also be interested in seeing if the latest d800 firmware actually addressed any of that WB issue compared to the previous firmware.

Canon's WB seemed to make a good improvement when they started using that 63(?) zone color-sensitive metering sensor.  7D and 60D's auto WB renderings were almost always pleasing in a variety of different kinds of lighting and eval metering was far more accurate than previous bodies which tended to under/over-expose fairly often unless manually corrected for the subject matter's color.  Nikon supposedly had this technology first but I think Canon implemented it much better.

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 03:09:03 PM »
So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all.  I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower.  The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless.  Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on.  </rant>

That is good advice all around.
I think that too often people are compelled to post something in response to a post, even if it's not contributing to the actual technical aspect.

If your momma never told you, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." ..
Well, here it is.

Amending it for an internet based discussion forum would likely go something more like,
"If you can't contribute something useful to the topic, please reconsider posting anything at all."

I have to commend all involved that, at least from what I've seen recently, the level of rancour amongst differing viewpoints has taken a more civil route, even on this topic which has been beaten to death since I joined up a year ago to discuss this very issue.

So thank-you, various posters, for doing your best to remain civil.  It improves what is already one of the better places for photographic discourse.

Now for the tech contribution to the topic: I think we'll find that, as Canon moves into DiGiC 5 products, we'll see somewhat less of the general noise and banding issues which plagued a few of the DiGiC 4 equipped models and may have been less of a problem with earlier DiGiC 2 & 3 bodies.

A recent chat with a Canon rep, busy as ever manning a booth, solo in front of a large crowd of curious onlookers, who said that there are many improvements in DiGiC 5 for high AND low ISO noise issues... A point he was eager to make when I told him that I'd dumped all my DiGiC 4 bodies due to poor noise performance for my uses.
He then handed me a 6D and asked me to play with it a while and let him know what i thought of it compared to the 5D2 I had... I know he already knew the answer to that. :)

Gotta say, other than the reduced overall noise and noticeably reduced FPN on the 6D, the thing I really like about it is the smoother quieter shutter.  The 5D2 had such a crude THWACK! along with significant body shake induced by that big mirror being let loose and poorly damped.  The 6D feels more like a nicely balanced match-rifle than the shotgun-like 5D2.  it's even nicer, i think, than the quick CRUNCH sound the D800's shutter makes.
I haven't had a chance to really shoot with a 6D, likely won't unless I buy one.  Likely won't do that either until I find a compelling enough reason to go back to Canon for FF.  And about the only reason that will be is if my hankering for a tilt-shift 24mm is not satisfied by the upcoming Samyang for F-mount.
Plunking a 6D on the back of Canon's fabulous 24 and 17mm TS lenses will likely be the most practical solution for some of what I want those lenses for.  This might have been speeded up, somewhat, if the darn resale value for D800s was better. All those factory refurbs have dropped my resale value to the point where I now will likely have to keep using both of them for at least a year to get more value from them.

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 05:09:02 AM »

proper exposure what is that?


Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.  ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.
Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons.
Seriously.  There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis. :)

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 05:00:14 AM »
I had a look at the pram photos again and frankly I like the pram on the left. The one on the right is a bit  - flat! No character. Just plain dowdy... ;)
Uhmmm.. I think it's an awning, not a pram. :)

It's also a reasonable choice of scene for such a comparison push-test, with sunlit areas of near-white masonry in the background contrasting with the darks shades of a (nearly) black awning in the shade with its upper side illuminated and the underside in yet deeper shadow.  Not a super-high DR scene, but one with enough DR to be able to demonstrate the difference in sensor system noise levels.

I think Ankorwatt is being generous by comparing a 1Dx to a D800.  Had he used a camera below Canon's current flagship, the difference would have been even more significant.  As it is, the Nikon was half the cost of the 1Dx.
It could have been an even bigger cost/performance difference if he'd have used a Nikon D5100 compared to a Canon 7D.

The 1dsmk3 have a better CFA  regarding white light, day light than 5dmk2 and 5smk3, the middle tones are unsurpassed which can been seen in a even colored  surface with texture
another example and good explanation of why, sometimes, old tech is better than new

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 75