April 19, 2014, 09:15:30 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 - gmrza

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 33
Canon General / Re: Havasupai Falls
« on: October 08, 2013, 07:59:58 PM »

Hi folks,
It was the memory of the hikers coming out of the canyon that led me to suggest the mules, one guy, who probably shouldn't have been allowed to hike practically crawled over the rim and looked like he was going to arrest when he finally made it to a seat.

Cheers. Graham.

That is something the individual needs to be able to make a judgement call on.  I have taken a SLR through the Fish River Canyon in Namibia (EOS 650 with 35-70mm and 70-210mm + a Speedlite 430EZ) - that is a 86km hike.  An acquaintance of my father's managed to fall into the water with his SLR in the Fish River Canyon (not good).  One of the checks and balances in place for the Fish River Canyon is that you have to produce a medical certificate before starting the hike.

Canon General / Re: Havasupai Falls
« on: October 08, 2013, 06:59:28 PM »
Im hiking down to Havasupai Falls in the Grand Canyon next week. I'm trying to limit how much I carry down with me. I'm trying to figure out what lenses to bring. I have Canon 5D MkIII. My lense choices are 17-40, 24-105. I also have 70-200 and 85 and 135 Prime. Any advice would be appreciated. I think I only want to take two of them.

Any other advice about the hike would be appreciated.



If you are going to be photographing waterfalls, think about how you are going to get to an exposure of 1 to 3s to blur the water.  You probably will need a 3 stop ND filter or maybe 6 stops if working on broad daylight.
If carrying a tripod is not an option, the you can shoot 1/6s to 1/4s hand held with the 24-105mm at 24mm fairly reliably.  You may still need a ND filter to do that.
You may want to consider whether it is possible to carry something like a Gorillapod with, otherwise the approach I outlined above of using a wide angle lens with IS will help with photographing waterfalls.
Also think about taking a circular polariser.

I have to admit, I would probably make do with the 24-105 and 17-40.  If I could take only one lens it would be the 24-105.
I spent last week in the Grampians and between my wife and myself we had a 5DII, 5DIII, 24-70 II, 24-105, 70-200 IS II, 17-40, 15mm fisheye, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm L macro.  The 24-70 and 24-105 saw most use.  After that the 100mm macro and then we took a couple of shots with the 17-40 and 70-200.  The fisheye and 50mm did not get used.  We used a 3 stop ND for waterfalls and circular PL quite a bit.  Our 10 stop ND did not see any use.

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2013, 09:11:22 PM »

f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.

What also needs to be considered is that almost universally lenses suffer from some degree of light fall-off towards the fringes and are also less sharp wide open.  A f/1.4 lens stopped down to f/2 will usually be very sharp and suffer from minimal/less light fall-off at the fringes.  Depending on your application, this may or may not be an issue.

Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: September 30, 2013, 05:44:39 PM »
It really depends on what you are shooting usually. I love primes, but I use f8-f11 on my zoom for studio shooting. Groups of people at events are also tough to shoot wide open (unless you want to isolate one particular person in the group). But for individual portraits outdoors or indoors without lights - yeah, I'll be mostly shooting wide open.

I am not really a big fan of the "one eye in focus, one eye out of focus" look that is created when shooting with a f/1.2 lens wide open, but ultimately it all depends on when you are shooting, and what lens you are using.
With a lens like the 24-105, you are not left much alternative but to open up the aperture, because it is a slow lens.  With a macro lens on the other hand, when shooting macros, you generally need to stop down because your DoF is so desperately thin.  Landscapes you will usually shoot at whatever aperture your lens is sharpest.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS M This Week? [CR1]
« on: September 16, 2013, 09:46:46 PM »
i wonder if it does eventuate if we will see a dumping of current M stock cheap
if so I'll probably grab another from B&H and have it sent directly for IR conversion
as it will probably be cheaper than shipping one of my 5D2 off to be done and be more
compact for carrying around

+1 on that.  For IR, you generally shoot at low ISO, and don't have high demands on the AF system.  I doubt you should see any perceptible difference between the IQ of the 18MP sensor and 20MP DPAF sensor for IR use.

BTW: who are you using for IR conversion?  I have previously used Camera Clinic in Collingwood to convert an old Powershot G5.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS M This Week? [CR1]
« on: September 16, 2013, 06:33:51 PM »
Does anyone else want to be able to connect a remote shutter trigger?  Wired would be fine.  Or did I just miss the slot on my current model M?

That is my second complaint about the current model.  Once Canon introduces an EOS-M body with decent AF and a wired shutter release socket, I will be very interested.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS M This Week? [CR1]
« on: September 16, 2013, 06:32:39 PM »
Sounds promising.  If it has:
1. the 70D's sensor with dual pixel af
2. an electronic view finder
3. size similar to the original M (With an EVF it will have to be larger)
I think most people will be happy.  Though there are some that will complain no matter what is released. 

On my would-be-nice list is the hope they style it after one of their retro cameras like the canonette or something.

The previous rumours all hinted to the first EOS-M announcement being a replacement of the current body.  I would thus not expect an EVF.  Because the AF on the original M handicapped it, I hope Canon will be introducing a DPAF sensor.  I would also be interested in seeing a successor to the G1X with DPAF.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 10:09:23 PM »
What they actually need is the new 70D AF system. How can they expect the M line to be taken seriously and then not give it the new 70D liveview AF? Isn't the reason the system was a failure because were mad about the AF?
(I've honestly barely looked into M at all so I may be saying things ridiculous and or off-base though)

I would like to see them taking some of the features from the 70D (AF system, like you mentioned) as well as some from the G16 (especially focus peaking).  Couple those, and you start to have an interesting camera.

If the new EOS M has these, an (optional) EVF and remote shutter release socket, I will start looking at it more closely.

I would still look at one of the current EOS Ms, if going cheap, as a candidate for IR conversion.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: September 02, 2013, 07:09:22 PM »
IF Canon were to get into a MF type situation, the company they should buy isn't Phase One or Hasselblad, it's Dalsa - the company behind the IQ1 and IQ2 sensors.  If Canon can control the IP on the sensor technology it would give them a lot of firepower to go against Sony sensors.


This makes more sense, as it appears that most of the MF manufacturers source their sensors either from Dalsa or the former Kodak sensor division now Trusense Imaging.  Trusense is owned by private equity investors - they would most likely be interested in turning a buck by selling out.  Canon on the other hand could use control of more IP in the area of sensors - Canon would probably be more interested in getting access to and control of more sensor IP, especially technology that can be leveraged in Canon's core imaging business.

We would probably need to view a MF acquisition by Canon through the lens of what the acquisition would bring to Canon's core business.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 14, 2013, 07:19:41 PM »
The digital MF is too small to make money out of it.
And I dont see this as a growing market..... even our FF are a minority in the world of fotography.
Even Canon will not persuade too many to buy a MF.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here - MF is a tiny niche.  A very large proportion of the film MF market moved to FF DSLRs when they became a viable alternative.  MF digitial has really become a niche for those who have a business need for very specific image qualities.

Canon would probably only go into MF digital if that entry somehow enhanced its ability to sell DSLRs or to cover the cost of developing technology for DSLRs.  As a standalone business unit, it makes no sense.  An acquisition in this space would somehow need to be integrated with the rest of Canon's imaging business, and help to drive the business as a whole forward. That is no small challenge.

My question IS; Why if ML can do it, Why won't Canon? not why can't Canon? As I've said for years Can/NIK keep feeding us dribbles instead of state of the art. If they used bit slice ADCs they could do much better also.

I think part of the problem for Canon is explaining the loss of resolution, and the complicated process of generating an image afterwards. - It is possible that the Digic IV may not have had enough grunt to build the code into the camera to combine the two images afterwards without too much of a delay after taking a shot, or Canon didn't want to build it into DPP.  Then there is the complication of explaining to people that they need both files. - Just too many ways for "dumb" users to get it wrong, creating a support/marketing nightmare for Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: Wrecked my 6D today, what a POS
« on: July 29, 2013, 12:16:44 AM »
Well, not only this site has it stated (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2012/10/), as someone said, but we get this illustration found in this other site (http://imagesandcameras.com/canon-eos-6d-dslr-camera):

Where did they get this from, I dunno, but I beleive they got it from a Canon press release or something like that.

But the truth is that no camera is safe. Read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371529

Note the term "DRIP PROOF" *grin*

Canon General / Re: Canon Camera Sales Down in Q2, Imaging Revenue Up
« on: July 29, 2013, 12:10:12 AM »

One would also have to figure that many technology markets become saturated. Millions of people own PCs. At least as many millions of people own compact cameras, if not considerably more. Billions of people own cell phones with cameras. Unless someone finds massive new groups of consumers somewhere, I suspect a lot of existing markets will begin to slow down until something revolutionary is discovered or refined and brought to market (maybe something like lightfield photography).

That is exactly it.  The first digital cameras we all bought were not up to the tasks we wanted to put them to.  Now we are in a position where the technology is good enough for the use cases most of us have.  - For instance, for most of portrait work, you don't need anything better than a 5DII - unless you need output to a very large format, or you need a lot of dynamic range (as two examples where you might need something better).  For the most part, most DSLRs are now outperforming 35mm SLRs, and have eaten a good part of medium format's lunch.

The same applies to compact cameras - their output is better than any film compact ever produced, and more than good enough for most consumers.  Heck - phones are producing better photos man film compacts could!

For the most part, digital photography technology is "good enough" and the main reason to upgrade is now for many people only the need to replace a broken, lost or stolen item.

As you rightly point out - camera manufacturers need something disruptive to drive the market back to what it was for the first 10 to 12 years of this century.

Canon General / Re: Canon Camera Sales Down in Q2, Imaging Revenue Up
« on: July 28, 2013, 07:18:30 PM »

Just look at the PC market...it used to race...people would upgrade their computers every couple of years. Now? People are content to save $1000, $1500, $2500 and keep using their current PC, and augment it with a tablet or a phone that only costs $400, $600, $800 instead. People on a mass scale won't regularly start buying PCs to replace their existing ones, or buy more expensive cameras, or more expensive lenses, etc. on a regular basis again until the underlying economic force that is subtly telling them to save their money truly changes for the better.

I think there is also an element of technology maturing - as you put it.  The last time I bought a compact camera was 4 years ago (a G11).  The G15 hasn't seen a huge increase in performance over the G11.  The main reason I now have to replace my current compact is that it is wearing out, not that there is something that much astoundingly better than it.

For landscapes, I tend to reach for the 5DII - it's just as good as the 5DIII for that kind of purpose.

(FWIW, I am still using a 6 year old notebook for some stuff like email and web browsing...)

Seriously.... why doesn't Canon Hire Alex and his team....  Way back when I was done with a 350d and kit lens, I was not system dependant... I could have gone Nikon or Canon... ML brought me to the Canon camp. How many 5D2 users have stayed with Canon due to ML... it's amazing how ML has helped Canon.

I suspect there may be more to this than immediately meets the eye, however, there is interesting possibility here for Canon to get a lot more mileage out of existing hardware.

There are however marketing issues - if this really works, we would probably see the 5DIII get more DR than a 1Dx.  As for 7D users - if it works, it will be a good motivator for me not to look at a 7DII (not that I would, as having a 5DII and 5DIII mostly negates the need).  For those with 7Ds, this may be the best investment protection yet. - Again, the proof of the pudding .....

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 33