April 18, 2014, 03:45:32 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
61
I am aware that SSD will significantly increase the start up times and read/write times but I have a specific question regarding the the performance of Adobe CS6, Lightroom 4.4, Final Cut Pro etc, with an SSD:
I currently have a Mac Book Pro Mid 2010 (OSX 10.8.3) with 16 GB DDR 3 RAM, 750GB HDD, 2.9 GHz intel Core i7 processor, and all of the above programs work perfectly, I have no issue at all, but what I want to know is will upgrading to an SSD will have a significant performance improvement after those programs have been launched?

That depends on whether those programs are continually reading and writing to that drive (i.e. you don't have an external data drive).

In my system, I have two SSDs. One is for the OS and applications. The other is where I import photo (and the odd video) sessions to, and for application scratch space (e.g. LR, Photoshop, Edius). Lightroom catalogs get created on that second SSD on a per-shoot basis (e.g. I have SSD\LIGHTROOM\2013-04-10\2013-04-10.lrcat and SSD\DATA\2013-04-10\<DNG files>), and they remain there until my workflow is complete after which I push them to my archival library on a large spinning drive.

It's noticeably faster, particularly for large sessions where my memory (16GB) is quickly consumed and I have to rely on swap (but to be fair, my previous methodology had me working from a 5400RPM drive, so the jump to SATA3 SSD may not be representative of your gains). This is all subjective. I've done no testing.

63
Lenses / Re: Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:02:22 PM »

If you're going to rent a 70-200, don't get the f4, go for the f2.8, the sharpness is amazing. You also may want to consider renting an L Prime, as they also produce good results.

My friend doesn't want to use my bodies because he wants to be able to put all the good ones that he took in his personal portfolio. Weird but he doesn't want to get his clients hopes up by using a body that he doesn't have. Its his personal preference.

Yet he wants to use a rented lens?


So if we go for the f/2.8 should we get the non-IS or the IS version?

Lenses aren't a big deal for him. He can rent all the lenses he wants. It's the body that he really wants to wait for. He will not shoot with a FF camera until he has his own. He's set on that ideology. I've tried telling him that 5Dc's aren't that expensive.


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras

64
Landscape / Re: San Francisco Sunrise to Yosemite Sunset in a Day
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:38:42 PM »
Quite a day!

Love the valley in the snow

65
the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.

Maybe for a few months, but when they start moving, they move very unpredictably.

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: April 03, 2013, 01:37:53 PM »
So basically you're saying the ISO50 setting only affects metering, not sensitivity?

If I set up at ISO100, meter dead center, take a photo, and then drop to ISO50 with all else being equal, I'll see the meter move one stop to the left, but the actual picture will be the same?

Metering and the ISO value recorded in the metadata.  Assuming you're in manual mode (since in an AE mode, the change from ISO 100 to ISO 50 will result in a compensatory change in aperture or shutter speed to maintain metered exposure), the RAW data file will be the same - an ISO 100 exposure.  The jpg file will be pulled down a stop, and when you open the ISO 50 RAW file in an editor, it will display darker than the ISO 100 file, because the RAW editor/converter will pull the exposure down based on the ISO value in the metadata.

Seems silly/pointless for manual/raw (how I shoot). Good to know.

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: April 03, 2013, 01:25:32 PM »
I see lots of confusion here.

Except for the EXIF flag indicating exposure, the RAW file you'll get with ISO50 @ f/8 @ 1/400 will be exactly the same as the one you'll get at ISO100 @ f/8 @ 1/400. The only difference is that, if the camera's meter tells you that the proper exposure is ISO100 @ f/8 @ 1/400, it'll tell you that you should be exposing the ISO50 shot at f/8 @ 1/200. And, of course, the RAW developers are programmed to invisibly apply a stop of digital pull to the ISO50 shot.

There will be a difference between ISO50 @ f/8 @ 1/200 and ISO100 @ f/8 @ 1/400 -- and it's that difference that people almost always compare.

BUT!

There won't be a difference between ISO50 @ f/8 @ 1/200 and ISO100 @ f/8 @ 1/200.

And, of course, there will be a difference in the RAW files between ISO100 @ f/8 @ 1/400 and ISO200 @ f/8 @ 1/400.

Hope that helps clear things up....

Cheers,

b&

P.S. A very similar thing happens with highlight tone priority, except in the opposite direction. The RAW files for a given shutter and aperture will be identical between ISO100 and ISO200 + HTP, but the meter will be different. b&

So basically you're saying the ISO50 setting only affects metering, not sensitivity?

If I set up at ISO100, meter dead center, take a photo, and then drop to ISO50 with all else being equal, I'll see the meter move one stop to the left, but the actual picture will be the same?

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: April 03, 2013, 10:36:37 AM »
I've not noticed a marked difference between 100 and 160, but this chart is worth a look.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14


Indeed.   All the recent/current Canon bodies except the 1D X have that sawtooth pattern.


Yep, it's interesting how relatively flat the 1Dx is before about 1600ISO.

The idea that intermediate isos are pushed or pulled makes a little more sense to me than something at the amp level ("The shape of the curve can tell you something about the amplifier circuitry of the camera"), but I wonder why they'd take a completely different approach with the 1Dx.

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: April 03, 2013, 08:43:14 AM »
But I am not sure of my facts on these 'non native' ISOs. I've read that people claim there is less noise at ISO 160 than 100, but I have not found this to be the case. However I have found that ISO 50 (L) can give smoother data than 100.


I've not noticed a marked difference between 100 and 160, but this chart is worth a look.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14

70
Canon General / Re: 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed
« on: March 30, 2013, 11:26:44 AM »
To the OP: Have you checked for looseness with other lenses? Perhaps the spring is too weak.

edit - re-read. Never mind.

71
Canon General / Re: 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed
« on: March 29, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »
Tolerance buildup can cause lenses to be tight or loose on the mounting.

Hmm. I guess so, but it's really just two parts. The body assembly and lens assembly tolerances shouldn't come into play for that joint. They should be able to spec them out such that it's not loose even with worst-case tolerances.

Could be a QC control. Maybe they aren't inspecting toleranced features.

72
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: March 28, 2013, 05:52:04 PM »
I know you went with the 85 1.8, but it is fun posting these shots anyway.


Agreed!

24-70@2.8 near the wide end obviously can't come close to the shallowness of 50@1.2 (to say nothing of the 'creaminess'), but I can live with a little background clutter.


73
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8L II or.....
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:38:10 AM »
Option C:

used  24-70 f/2.8L (here's one for 1050: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=233131)
+ 35 f1.4L

You may be able to get the 24-105 new cheaper than a grand (though taxes may be an issue depending on your location), but not significantly cheaper.

74
Technical Support / Re: Lightroom crashes when I try to import...
« on: March 25, 2013, 06:34:06 PM »
That happens to me occasionally. Also, sometimes the adjustment brushes stop working (or lose intensity, like I can push +4 stops and barely see a change).

I've always traced it back to a corrupt preferences file. Don't know exactly what causes it.

my best practice each time I install a new version is to set it up how I use it and then back up the .agprefs file. Whenever anything gets screwy, I overwrite that file in the user folder, and it goes back to working fine.

75
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:02:25 PM »
Macro traditionally has to do with magnification, in specific a 1:1 or better ratio of size-on-film/sensor to real life.

Somewhere along the way lens makers muddied the waters. I don't know if there is a clear definition as to when they put a macro label on a lens, but suffice it to say that if it isn't a dedicated macro lens, it's not macro.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14