August 29, 2014, 04:04:16 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 26
76
Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:01:58 PM »
Am I the only one who doesn't care what mode random people use? It's one thing to observe what camera someone has (and since manufacturers often put the model name on the strap, it's easy for those of us to don't follow the mass market offerings closely) from afar, but getting up close enough to observe mode-selection dials? That's weird. IJS.

It's kinda obvious when rebel users came to me and asked for photography advice. Not only they were shooting in the green mode, they were also using auto focus(camera focus to nearest point.)

Would that considered as "weird"?

Of course when someone asks you for advise it isn't weird to first observe what they are currently doing. That's appropriate.

I just got the impression (for example from the post above citing a percentage) that people were scoping out random passers by, "haha that dude is on automatic, he must be a total noob," or "lol that chick bumped her dial to bulb and she probably won't notice until it's too late to get the bride and groom kissing, loser."

It's not like I particularly care if people look at the dials on my cameras, it's just kinda a weird curiosity, especially since the dials don't tell the whole story.

77
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:28:13 PM »

Hey, that can't be - Canon has TWO "N"s, Nikon has only one "N".   ;D

I take a lot of "information" on the net with a giant crystal of sodium chloride.

Hmm, I see what you mean about the salt........

In Nancy's defense, people often misspell it CANNON (usually when asking which "lense" to buy).

78
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:39:03 AM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

79
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 08, 2014, 11:44:47 PM »
its' impossible to fully realize the full resolving power of a sensor with a high resolution lens, and to get very close, you rapidly run into diminishing returns. You get to the point where doubling your lens resolution gets you a few line pairs closer.

It's an asymptotic relationship...system resolving power is asymptotically related to the resolving power of the lowest common denominator of the system.

Thus the moral of the story is: if your primary goal is to maximize system resolution (and for the majority of people, that's likely not the case, regardless of what one may read on some fringe forums), always upgrade the weakest component.

Yeah, pretty much. Although that can become prohibitively expensive at some point.

The 7D is a good camera, but it doesn't perform terribly well with the telephoto lens it's most often paired with, the 100-400. However if you move up to one of the Canon great white primes, the 7D becomes a stellar performer at ISO settings 1600 and lower, and becomes viable at ISO settings higher than that in the evenings. It's just that you have to spend a LOT of money on those lenses to maximize the potential of the 7D.

On the flip side, if you upgrade the camera itself, to one with a higher resolution sensor (which the 7D II should have), then instead of spending $6000 to $13,000, you spend maybe $2500-3000. It's still a large chunk of change, but not necessarily prohibitively expensive.

Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

80
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 08, 2014, 09:36:18 AM »
its' impossible to fully realize the full resolving power of a sensor with a high resolution lens, and to get very close, you rapidly run into diminishing returns. You get to the point where doubling your lens resolution gets you a few line pairs closer.

It's an asymptotic relationship...system resolving power is asymptotically related to the resolving power of the lowest common denominator of the system.

Thus the moral of the story is: if your primary goal is to maximize system resolution (and for the majority of people, that's likely not the case, regardless of what one may read on some fringe forums), always upgrade the weakest component.

81
or is the base ISO amplification factor calculated by the camera manufacturer so that the exposure comes out right.

Yes, the amount of gain applied to the signal is targeted at a net brightness according to ISO setting, all else being equal. The smaller the sensor, the more gain.

See neuro's post here:

The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't.  Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal.  ISO is a standard (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness.  How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger?  More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise.  Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree.  Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF.

82
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:35:07 AM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

Yes, I have seen the subforum. It would be a prefect place to speak about things like Sigma lenses or Manfrotto tripods. But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera. Endless discussion about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras doesn't help anyone shooting with Canon cameras and lenses.

It's the perfect place to discuss anything other than Canon.
Here's the description of the forum: "Nikon, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest go here." While endless discussions about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras may not *help* canon users, it's certainly interesting, and having the forum keeps users posting here rather than spreading out to a nikon site for nikon and a leica site for leica and a sigma site for sigma, etc. It's a canon-centric website, but that isn't to the exclusion of non-canon stuff.

83
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 02, 2014, 12:59:41 PM »
Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.

But wait, I thought:

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.

Guess not.

Personally, I'll probably buy this lens. Seems like a bargain for shots where I control the lighting.

84
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: July 02, 2014, 11:01:51 AM »
I place an order with B&H on May 24 and have gotten two emails saying it's back ordered.

I ordered on May 5 and got the same two emails. I have since disabled the email blast in order to prevent the excitement-at-email-from-BH-followed-by-disappointment-at-what-it-says effect.

85
Photography Technique / Re: Shallow DOF vs lighting
« on: June 26, 2014, 02:12:37 PM »
You know, sitting in our hospital room watching my newborn daughter struggle to live it really helps to put in perspective life...

heavy.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. I hope you'll find a way to help her.

86
Photography Technique / Re: Shallow DOF vs lighting
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:30:11 PM »
Hi all, my first post at canonrumours!

For portraits where you have time to mess around a bit, if you had to pick between shallow DOF or off camera lighting, which would you choose?


Don't choose; use high-speed sync or ND filters to allow wide apertures with off camera lighting.

87
Car makers are a stagnant market with very little change from year to year.... mostly cosmetic changes. No real surprises anywhere... As a point in case, with pickup trucks the big thing this year is GM with a step in the corner of the bumper.... that's it!

Or Ford's 700 pound reduction in weight going from steel to aluminum.

Or how about the Toyota Hybrid System announcements, fuel cell vehicle announcements, or other maker's (including Tesla) battery electric vehicle announcements?  Those are hardly "stagnant".
I stand corrected!

The VW XL1 is pretty amazing too. 300+ mpg. It's so efficient the oil dependant USA government have banned it from sale.

How did they find the time to do that what with all the chem-trailing and 9/11 orchestrating?

88
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:53:44 AM »
I'm just pointing out that the 2 aspects, image-quality vs getting-the-shot, do not embody exactly the same criteria as they are generally priorities for different situations, not necessary directly comparable.

'Getting the shot' ALWAYS trumps sensor-dependent image quality. ALWAYS.

Right? I can't quite grasp the notion that they're competing interests.

Do I sometimes stumble into a great image? Sure. Couple weeks back shooting a model on the beach under harsh sunlight, I either overshot or killed the batteries in my flash (don't recall which), and I got a really cool quasi-silhouette with a deep blue hue and gorgeous edge highlights on her shoulders and knees.

So yah, sometimes when you don't get the shot, you still get the shot. As a hard and fast rule, however, if you don't get the image you set out for, the quality is insignificant.

89
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX2 5D4 to be announced in January/ February 2015
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:05:16 PM »
1DX2? That would be a stupid name (assuming my recollection is correct that the X was to recognize the 10th anniversary of the 1D).

90
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 10:30:08 AM »

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.


Ridiculous. In many situations, using base ISO would damage image quality (i.e. when the end result would be unwanted blur, either from motion or from narrow DOF).
I think you're confusing "getting the shot" vs "image quality." They overlap but are not equal.

I'm saying that undesired blur in an image, for example, decreases image quality. There is far more to image quality than dynamic range and noise.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 26