April 21, 2014, 01:15:55 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14
106
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: March 04, 2013, 09:08:37 AM »
We're expecting a baby soon, and I thought it would be fun to rent a nice lens to take some early portraits. I assume a fast prime L lens makes sense, but what focal length? Any specific lens rental companies to recommend? Thanks.


I absolutely agree with the 50/1.4 on full frame suggestions, meaning the you would need something a little wider to accomplish the same. A zoom like the 17-40 would be functional from a framing standpoint, but less pleasing due to the increased DOF.

The ability to sit right up close with your baby and still frame him/her is invaluable. When I had to drop my 5D2 at the canon service center and used a crop camera, I was constantly dismayed by the need to either back up and have him be less responsive to daddy-right-here-making-me-laugh or sacrifice framing.

My son walks now, so I shoot a mixture of 50mm (when I'm willing to chase him around for close framing) and 24-70mm (when I'd rather show him in the environment).

Word of advise: enjoy the time you have when you can place him in nice light and he actually stays there :P
Have fun and good luck.







107
It's not one of the sharpest zooms out there. Its main strengths are size and a decent range.

However, if as you say you are not pixel peeping, and if you aren't printing huge enlargements or cropping the majority of the frame, it's a great lens. I used mine trustingly for 8 years before the aperture mechanism died. Traveling, it's often the only lens I took.
Wide open it's a little soft even at the center, but for walkaround photography I used it often.

5.6 is great for landscape work.

108
Such a sensor would really be pushing the limits, as well, and probably wouldn't even be physically possible. The pixel pitch of such a sensor would be around 723 nanometers (0.723┬Ám)!

Nokia got halfway there (1.4 micron) with a camera phone... :D

109
6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...
« on: January 31, 2013, 11:43:01 PM »


But 900 knots is way past the speed of sound, and that airplane is not closing on you, it's flying past you.



I suspect the photo was taken from an airplane going the other direction...

110
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 01, 2013, 12:04:42 PM »
One of those instances of actual wildlife spotted at a zoo :)






111
I don't have access to the standard...

In any case, it has no bearing on this discussion.

I do, but you're right.  However, we're talking about small (one stop or in most cases, much less) differences.  My point is that even though it's a relative measurement, labeling the test results as "-7 EV" is pretty darn misleading in light of the specified performance of the cameras being tested.  The difference between -2 EV and -7 EV is a 32-fold difference in light intensity.

In fact, he actually tested something close to EV9 (log2(2.8^2*60)=8.88

It's only 7 if you include ISO (log2(2.8^2*60/4)

I get your point, I just often get hung up on little details I find interesting.
[/hijack]

112
Then EV is amusingly useless since there are varying definitions of ISO 100.

LOL...now that's amusing.  "ISO 100" is defined unequivocally by ISO 12232:2006 as published by the International Standards Organization (which is why we call it ISO). 

But you're point is valid.  In actuality, when set to ISO 100 the cameras in question are really at a sensitivity of ISO 73 - 80 based on the actual standard.  That's one of the things that DxOMark measures.

I don't have access to the standard, but per wiki:

"The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006[55] gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model. Three of the techniques in ISO 12232:2006 are carried over from the 1998 version of the standard, while two new techniques allowing for measurement of JPEG output files are introduced from CIPA DC-004.[56] Depending on the technique selected, the exposure index rating can depend on the sensor sensitivity, the sensor noise, and the appearance of the resulting image. The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors, although Kodak has reported[57] using a variation to characterize the sensitivity of two of their sensors in 2001."

So while maybe sensitivity has a specific definition, the affect of sensitivity on the result has myriad possible results, hence different cameras recording different luminance levels with equivalent exposure settings.

Also from wiki, EV=log2(Fnumber/ExposureTime).

In any case, it has no bearing on this discussion.


113

0 EV has a real, absolute definition - an exposure of 1 s, f/1.0, ISO 100.

Then EV is amusingly useless since there are varying definitions of ISO 100.

I always thought exposure value was independent of sensitivity (i.e. merely a function of f number and exposure time). f/1 for 1 second happens to be EV 0, but EV 0 isn't defined as such.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

114
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics
« on: November 29, 2012, 06:08:18 PM »
You seem to be ignoring my distinction between "zoo pics" and zoo pics that are being referred to as "wildlife photography".   I have no issue with people taking pics at the zoo.  Shoot away. 

It wasn't intentionally ignored, I read the part about their label as an additional concern.

Quote
"Something irks me about "zoo shots".  Especially when people refer to them as "wildlife photography"

But no worries.

And I tend to agree with you. When sharing zoo photos, if I use the word wildlife I'll generally put it in quotation marks (they aren't wild).

115
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:44:18 PM »
I'm with you.  Something irks me about "zoo shots".  Especially when people refer to them as "wildlife photography".  Seriously?  That's like waiting in line at a book signing, then telling people that you know the author.  Like buying a lapdance then saying you hit second base with a model.  I suppose it's an OK way to practice, but that "wildlife" has been put on display, you didn't track it, you didn't "earn it".  It's just a gear test.


Earn?

Going to the zoo is probably the only way many people will ever be able to afford to photograph oh... an African elephant. Ponying up 5 figures to fly to Africa doesn't make a picture of one more legitimate. It's just a wallet test.

Often times wildlife photography is luck. Right place, right time. By happenstance, I was able to take this photo of a mother grizzly rear up to check out a loud sound. My plans that day were go from lake yellowstone to lamar valley. The road through dunraven peak was closed due to ice, so I had to go counterclockwise around the park rather than take the direct route north. Had the road been open, I'd never have seen this. I didn't earn the opportunity.


116
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics
« on: November 29, 2012, 11:30:15 AM »
Love the cage reflected on the bird's eye!

Thanks. That bird (secretary bird) has a nictitating membrane ("third eye") like a shark. I happened to catch it mid blink, which is why it's white.

117
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics
« on: November 29, 2012, 09:04:03 AM »













118
EOS Bodies / Re: 6d for underwater photography?
« on: September 27, 2012, 06:11:32 PM »
Don't forget to account for strobes (stills) or video lights in your budget!

Ikelite

You misspelled Aquatica. :P

(and yes, I say the et al, just joking around)

119
Lenses / Re: Upgrading a 300 f2.8
« on: September 09, 2012, 05:41:57 PM »
This is just a guess, but maybe the newer lens provides better resolution. While you may not see a major difference on a 10-20MP capture, if and when canon releases a competitor to the D800, newer glass may be required to match that resolution.

120
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X NOT compatible with Pocket Wizard!
« on: July 21, 2012, 10:32:47 AM »
Is it uncommon that third party gear doesn't work right away with new-to-market products?

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14