Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?

« on: May 11, 2013, 11:05:26 AM »

I tend to trust my center AF. The others are fine for landscape, but hit and miss for portraiture (unfortunately).

2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:28:48 PM »

That's great Artwork than involved good photography but the final product would be classified by me as Artwork.

I'd say it's good artwork that involved great photography.

Think about how you'd have to shoot. Intentionally under or overexposing certain areas to result in thin or thick negatives to aid in composting, printing and printing and printing to find placement and build masks, then going through an elaborate sequence (I think I read once he uses a dozen or so enlargers for some of his more elaborate works) of printing in the dark with no indication what's been exposed until you drop it in the developer.

It boggles my mind, regardless of what one calls the final product.

3

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:21:58 PM »

If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal

You might not be able to do it in the darkroom, but if someone else with a different skillset can, does it become legal?

Was it illegal when Jerry Uelsmann shot all the requisite film, built the appropriate masks, and then used a series of enlargers along with consummate skill to print this image in a darkroom in 1976?

4

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:10:23 PM »

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

No, you have not. It looks better. It's not as if you added an extra cheetah. I don't even particularly think you need to disclose it. It looks natural.

There is a common theme on photo forums, with certain people suggesting that a photo should be what the photographer saw. Maybe if one takes that statement metaphysically (as in: saw in his mind's eye type of thing), I agree. Literally? I do not, and I find it funny when those same people then post desaturated images of their dinner at f/1.2 with the camera held at MFD. This isn't that theme, but it's kinda like it.

To me, the end product has always been about what I want it to be. I'm not a photojournalist; there are rules in that realm for good reason. When it comes to art, do what you want to do. Your image is art.

5

Software & Accessories / Re: Manfrotto Repair: I thought I was buying from the best

« on: May 02, 2013, 02:18:41 PM »

Seems like the smartest thing is to buy gear made on the continent where you live.

So only people living in Asia should buy cameras?

6

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:32:42 AM »

Wait, 1.3 crop? I think you guys are thinking backwards...

No we aren't.

A 1.3 crop sensor is BIGGER than a 1.6 crop... so how can Nikon offer a BIGGER crop than the 1.5 crop sensor they put into the camera?

A 1.3 crop of "FX" is obviously bigger than 1.6 crop of the same, and they can not enlarge the sensor with software.

Clearly, it's a 1.3X crop from "DX" (i.e. a 1.3X crop of a 1.6X crop of FX).

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/1513/D7100.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs


Sensor Size 23.5mm x 15.6mm
Image Sensor Format DX
...
DX-format
(L) 6,000 x 4,000
...
1.3X Crop Mode
(L) 4,800 x 3,200 (13.5 MP)

I have to laugh at their product overview where they claim in camera cropping provides better reach. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I suppose.

7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 28, 2013, 10:36:32 PM »

what is 1.3x crop mode?
how can a camera that has an 1.5 crop sensor have an 1.3 crop mode?

does that mean the image is cropped further with an 1.3 factor?
only a part of the sensor is used?

Pretty much. I imagine the whole sensor is used but only the center crop is recorded. The viewfinder draws some dark borders to aid with framing.

Basically, it reduces file sizes to boost framerate, and I suppose saves some flash memory space if your lens is too wide for your subject. The bit about "extensive AF coverage" is marketing nonsense (the coverage doesn't change, obviously).

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 28, 2013, 11:48:13 AM »

It's possible canon will use the 1Dx AF unit which would make for incredible coverage on APS-C (and if it has dual processors maybe it could be fully functional unlike the 5D3).

Unlikely. Canon doesn't work like that.

The 7D Mark II needs to be clearly inferior in every way to the 1DX.

That is the Canon way.

Yah, it would be a long shot. Even the version the 5D3 got would be cool. I kinda expect they'll develop something for the format specifically, though. Maybe they'll use some double crosses, though.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:02:57 AM »

Will the 7D2 or the 70D meet this Specs? I hope so....

A 7D replacement I suspect will match or beat the D7100's framerate. It's possible canon will use the 1Dx AF unit which would make for incredible coverage on APS-C (and if it has dual processors maybe it could be fully functional unlike the 5D3). If on the other hand they develop a new one, I doubt it will be as good.

I don't think either will be quite as good as the D7100 when it comes to high sensitivity, and would bet the house neither will have an equivalent to Nikon's flash system (sad - would be exceedingly easy to implement).

They'll both have better ergo.

10

Software & Accessories / Re: [editing pictures] I can't live without...

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:02:01 AM »

Black clipping.

11

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8 I L --- 24-105 f4 L --- TAMRON 24-70 2.8 --- 1000$ budget.

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:00:40 AM »

Do you live in the US ... if so, for under $1000 the only option is 24-105 f/4 L IS ... the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC sells for almost $1300 in US ... but a few months ago I bought brand new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC from Amazon Japan for $1048 ... currently it is selling at $965 in Amazon.co.jp

When my aging 24-105 died, I found an excellent used copy of the original 24-70 for slightly more than 1000. I've since seen others in that price range.

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:27:15 AM »

I can not either use the camera as microwave or make coffee with it.
still the same problem TrumpetPower  to keep apart what DR are and 15pictures/sec or whatever??

I'm not talking time, I'm talking capacity. Bracketing with huge files eats away at capacity advantage digital photography holds over film. That's all I was saying.

13

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:11:58 AM »

If you're on vacation and not shooting seriously, you should already expect to be making compromises left and right. Hell, you might not even have time to set up a tripod, let alone square and level the camera. "Only" being able to push your images a half dozen stops before the first hints of noise rather than eight stops before the first hint of noise is the least of your compromises.

If you're on assignment, either you've got the time to do the job right no matter how long it takes, or you've got the money to spend to do the job right in the bare minimum amount of time. If neither, either your pricing and / or booking is off or you're simply out of your league.

I don't disagree, but huge file size is still a detriment when it comes to bracketing. Recall that bit of your post was comparing film to digital. While even 8GB cards will still give you a lot more D800 exposures than a roll of film, at some point it gets absurd. If you're bracketing three exposures, you'll get about (8*2^30)/(74.4*2^20)/3=36 scenes out of an 8GB card.

If I had a D800, which per Nikon writes 74.4MB uncompressed 14-bit raws, I wouldn't likely bracket unless absolutely necessary or I happened to be traveling with a laptop or more memory cards than I generally carry.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features04.htm

14

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:22:14 AM »

Does it really matter if you take three shots and throw away two or if you take three shots and use two of them?

It may when you're on travel (or assignment) writing out 74 MB files

15

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 23, 2013, 09:26:38 AM »

I ask myself:
had you every a job to be done, where the customer was unsatisfied with the dynamic range in a picture
or
where you had the same picture twice (1x "high" DR and 1x "low" DR) and the customer was eager to get the highDR-picture?

Most prints can muster what, 5 or 6 stops (just a guess)? Just as the camera is often recording a subset of the scene DR, the print is often displaying a subset of the camera's subset of the scene's DR.

That said, I do believe it is best to begin with as much source data as possible (all else being equal). Reducing read noise and moving the A2D converter to the sensor (to avoid adding more noise before digitizing the signal) could allow for canon sensors to render more dynamic range without any file size cost. I wouldn't necessarily immediately pony up money to buy a new body with an extra couple stops, but it would be nice to see them moving in that direction a bit.