April 19, 2014, 09:24:48 PM

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 [2] 3 4 ... 14
16
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X, Dual Back Button AF
« on: March 21, 2014, 02:53:03 PM »
can the 5D3 do this?  :o
Nope.  Looking at the manual, I think you can set both buttons to start AF, but not to have one do AIServo and the other One-shot AF.

Weird. Though that's a simple firmware thing they could add.

I am accustomed to using the DOF preview button to toggle one shot, but it would be nice for a tactile option (my thumb is here, therefore I am getting one shot) having to visually verify which mode I am in.

17
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Understanding Video Autofocus
« on: March 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM »
i don't own a 5d i own a 1dx so i downloaded the 5d Mk3 manual and on page 228 it explains the issue, i quote below.

Quote
  • The camera cannot autofocus continuously like a camcorder.
  • Autofocusing during movie shooting may momentarily throw the focus far
    off or change the exposure.

I hope that this helps.

Fats

Thanks. My best guess is that it lowers the framerate to allow more time to grab focus. Guess it can't be avoided (well, other than by keeping your thumb off the AF ON button :P)

18
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Understanding Video Autofocus
« on: March 16, 2014, 11:27:08 AM »
when you use AF the camera uses contrast detection as it's method to bring the image in to focus.

Now when taking still photos the camera will open the Apature to the widest to get as much light in to the sensor as possible to enable it to find and achieve the focus possible.  Now that is great if the image is a still one but when the camera is shooting video, it can cause problems when filming, the effect for the user is the image goes brighter.  Another item the camera will use to enable it to find focus is the AF assist light that can come on as well to help the camera to find focus.

Except in this case I was already wide open (f/2.8 on an f/2.8 lens), and without a flash installed (5D has no popup). Something else is happening.

19
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Understanding Video Autofocus
« on: March 15, 2014, 08:03:49 PM »
What i'm about to say some people will disagree others will agree.

Do not use autofocus when shooting video.

this link will give you the best instructions on how to shoot great video

http://lifehacker.com/5575142/how-to-record-great-video-with-your-hd-dslr-camera

fats



Sure, the few times I've shot video, I focused manually. I understand video AF still lags far behind still AF, but really I am asking why it happens. It seems weird. If would be one thing were I stopped down, but I was shooting wide open. Pressing the AF ON button, the scene brightens dramatically, like more than a stop or two. What causes that to happen?


20
EOS Bodies - For Video / Understanding Video Autofocus
« on: March 15, 2014, 02:22:03 PM »
I rarely shoot video, but was messing around with it today (5D3). I noticed that, if I try to autofocus in video (and probably live view stills too, but I haven't verified), it gets significantly brighter while achieving focus, even if I'm already shooting wide open. What causes that to happen? Does it momentarily drop the frame rate? Can it be avoided? It looks extremely jarring.

Thanks

21
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:08:37 PM »
I don't necessarily think music has gone downhill. Rather, there is just a greater quantity of music, so there is more to sift through.

Just like having 1000 cable channels with 24/7 content necessarily reduces the hit rate of good programming, having a million new musical "artists" every year means good music is harder to find. I suppose the same is true for photography.

22
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:01:40 PM »
.
I know I can't speak for everyone, but I'd hope most folks here would join me in thanking Policar. I appreciate the great insights into photography as art.


Yep. For my dollar (tongue in cheek), this discussion is more interesting than the picture being discussed ;)

Rather than the music analogy, I'll liken it (the print) to another printed medium.

It's hard to freehand a square. You may make something look fairly square, but getting perpendicular corners with straight equal length sides is impossible. A good draftsman likely employs technique that will allow him to get closer to square than I. And size matters. You'll get a better square that's 1mm on the side than one that's 100mm. 1 meter on the side? Forget about it. So, while an expert freehanding a 1m square may have great execution, at the end of the day, he produces a square on a piece of paper. Well done, but patently uninteresting.

Gursky clearly had a concept, and he executed it well (with perhaps the exception of sloppy duplication). However, it's very boring to look at.



And, again, none are that interesting except when printed HUGE.


http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_chicago.jpg

That one is.

23
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:26:32 AM »
Most people who aren't familiar with the artist don't get the concept. I don't see it and come away with the same feelings of a bleak, sterile god perspective of the world that you do. It may be telling that the photo doesn't speak for itself (I.e. context partially drives your reaction). Or not. I dunno, and it doesn't really matter.

It really does come down to taste. To me, a good photograph need to be interesting to look at. Interest can come from the subject itself or it can come from how a subject is portrayed (composed). The subject is uninteresting, and the composition doesn't add anything to me. Perhaps that is because I don't know what it really looks like and thus can't recognize anything particularly unique about how the scene is portrayed.

Shrug. If someone wants to pay 4million for it, have at it; it's no skin off my back.

24
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:59:09 AM »


I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

Well, I'm not religious, but I certainly recognize the emotions in the lyrical sections of Beethoven's 9th...

Well, there's a convincing argument.  ???

It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just pointing out (in perhaps an obnoxious way) that Beethoven's 9th does in fact have emotionally-charged lyrics (not primarily penned by Beethoven, but the same may the the case for Miley), so it may not be the best sample for your argument.

25
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:30:59 AM »


I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

Well, I'm not religious, but I certainly recognize the emotions in the lyrical sections of Beethoven's 9th...

26
Quote from: Marsu42

Btw another part of good news from ML development: They will be able to reverse whatever trick Canon is using to cheat with fast lenses (since these capture less light on digital than film)

Wait, what? Can you elaborate? Are you saying that since sensor sensitivites aren't 1:1 with film speeds, canon secrets more gain to compensate? And they only do it for fast lenses? And they do it on a per aperture basis? I'd never heard of this. It seems quite weird.

And it's weirder when one considers that sensor sensitivites aren't even 1:1 with eachother. As someone who only rarely uses film, I care little whether my digital camera at ISO130 exposes the same as Plus-X to within .03 stops, for example.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 14, 2014, 12:31:38 PM »
Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.

This is a point so important that it is staggering! There are not a lot of companies out there producing large quantities of imaging sensors that could go into DSLR's... What happens if Sony fails, or at the least, gets rid of the portion of it's business that makes the sensors for Nikon? Hopefully, someone will buy that division and the production will continue, but if it doesn't, Nikon will be out of business until someone else can set up a production line and get up to speed... a process that will take years....


I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't Nikon fab the D4 sensor?


They designed it, or at least had a hand in its design, much like the D800 sensor. I am not sure they actually manufactured it...I thought Aptina did the actual fabrication.


Could be. This is what I found: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/22/the-sensor-inside-the-d4-is-made-by-nikon.aspx/
but it is hardly conclusive. I have worked for companies which sell circuit cards. They usually went outside for fab, but included their logo in a silkscreen layer.

Either way, it's not particularly relevant. Even if they build sensors for the D4, D3200, etc., Sony halting their line would be a huge speedbump for Nikon.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 14, 2014, 11:45:34 AM »
Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.
This is a point so important that it is staggering! There are not a lot of companies out there producing large quantities of imaging sensors that could go into DSLR's... What happens if Sony fails, or at the least, gets rid of the portion of it's business that makes the sensors for Nikon? Hopefully, someone will buy that division and the production will continue, but if it doesn't, Nikon will be out of business until someone else can set up a production line and get up to speed... a process that will take years....

I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't Nikon fab the D4 sensor?

29
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 26, 2013, 02:59:27 PM »
If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?

I believe they demoed exactly that in some of the 70D promo videos.

Cool - haven't seen them.

The phase detect on the sensor only works with the mirror up, and is seamless across the image. With the mirror down, using the viewfinder, you're still using the "old" phase detect system, which still requires the discrete points.

Ah, yes that makes sense. The ability to (auto)focus anywhere on the frame is pretty revolutionary indeed.

Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed?

I've never used a system where your "even if" is true, but if one were available I wouldn't mind EVF. I'd rather hold the camera up to my eye than cantilevered in front of my face. In other words, given the "even if," I'd prefer OVF to back mounted LCD in most cases.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 26, 2013, 11:31:55 AM »
If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14