July 29, 2014, 09:42:17 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 179
1501
I'm thinking one likely avenue for future digital camera upgrades is in the way RAW data is captured and/or returned to the user.

For example, as a sensor remains active, light photons hit diodes on the sensor and build up an electrical charge.  I wonder if it's possible in the future for the end user of a '1/50 or longer exposure' shot for example to get a series (or matrix) of various images (binary numbers) recorded to the sensor

Hmmm, you mean like you do with video?

Or similar to what might happen with 14fps on the 1DX?


Quote
and be able to layer and manipulate each series in the matrix individually.

I could see this allowing us to to visualize the evolution of the captured image as it collects on the sensor, and in editing, allow us to pick and choose the most appropriate selection or combination of selections for any given area of the final image.

Unless the exposure time is in seconds, the reaction time of the human being will be too slow.

However the wells that make up the pixels in the sensor are unlike those used for water - you cannot look in them to see how full they are without emptying them in the first place.

If you like, imagine that a sensor is made up of measuring cups that hold rain water and the only way to find out how much rain is in the cup is to open a trapdoor at the bottom and let all of the water out and see how much was collected.

1502
Lenses / Would you get a tattoo of a Canon lens?
« on: June 21, 2012, 07:21:45 AM »
Watching TV tonight, one guy shows a tattoo on his left side of the glass lenses in the 50/1.4.

Yes, a tattoo pattern that is the glass elements of the 50/1.4.

Why? Because it is his favourite lens.

Now that is dedication!

How dedicated are you to Canon and Canon equipment?

1503
sorry OP but this poll is so silly. you need to offer FEWER choices and less silly choices too. you're not even asking if people would buy a high MP body instead that is from canon (not nikon). that is the most basic question and you leave it distributed with 4 other silly options. sorry but try again.

Maybe you shouldn't take everything in life so seriously.

1504
I can't think of any more options to add...

You forgot about every option which would mention a Nikon D800 ...  ;D

Added.

where is the option "i already own a kick ass camera and don't see the need to upgrade"?

Added ("upgraditis")

1505
I use crop and FF bodies. Both are great at what they do, but 3500$ for a 5D3 plus the support it will need will be too expensive for me to justify over my aging, die hard, 5Dc.

5D3 - 3500$
Windows 7 Pro retail - 250$
RAM to run Win7 - 200$
Lightroom 4 to process RAW files - 150$

Total for moving to a 5D3
4100$ + Tax.

Ouch. Too much $$$$ for what i offers compared to just 1700$ for a MK2. Easy choice.

Just curious as to how you process now.  Why would you need all that extra stuff for Mk III and NOT the Mk II?  Compatability?

Windows XP Pro supports Lightroom 3 and the 5D2. <------My old faithful OS.

Lightroom 4 threw that out of the window as they no longer support Win XP. Now i'll need 8gb of RAM to run Win7 smoothly, Retail copy of Win7 for re-installs, and lightroom 4 itself to process.

Added PC centric option to the list.

1506
I can't think of any more options to add...

How about, "I'm not getting a 5DIII because I'm getting a 1D X instead"?

Added

1507
Lenses / Re: Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?
« on: June 20, 2012, 01:22:07 PM »
Oh, add a macro just in case you want close ups of something small.

1508
I can't think of any more options to add...

1509
Lenses / Re: Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?
« on: June 20, 2012, 11:42:27 AM »
I wouldn't leave home without an 85 and 50 prime lens simply because they're faster and very cost effective purchases. Even if you go for both 1.8's. that's a 1.33 stops faster than the 2.8's. So a shot with any of the 24-70/2.8s is 1/60, with the 1.8s you get 1/150.

Or to look at it differently, the 1/25 with the 2.8 becomes 1/60 with the 1.8, 1/80 with 1.4 and 1/100 with 1.2.

Since all of your subject matter is going to be middle of the frame (or it should be), edge sharpness is not likely to worry you.

1510
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 60D & 60Da Firmware Updates
« on: June 20, 2012, 10:25:27 AM »
Quote

*1) If the camera’s serial number is 2147483648 or higher and the camera firmware is Version 1.1.0 or earlier, the images captured with the camera will be affected by the phenomenon listed in 1. above.


LOL! Someone used the wrong type of display formatting and an 32bit unsigned integer!

1511
What you may not understand: even if a lens needs afma, it's bound to focus *somewhere* like in the afma test strips. So I'm interested how afma can improve a lens that it isn't sharp *anywhere*?
Let me get this straight - you went into a store and they let you shoot an AFMA strip with the lens attached to your camera?

*Like* afma test strips - you can shoot at textured round or tilted surfaces, so afma doesn't matter - just compare the sharp zones, wherever they are. Doesn't give you the afma data to correct your lens, but gives a good impression of sharpness - and the first Tamron was so way off in the sharp zone it didn't match what I was expecting from reviews and lens data.

Why don't you attach some uploads...

dilbert, I have already tried to convey my suggestion to drop the attitude. And I'm happy to discuss with fellow Canon users, and there are plenty of nice, polite and helpful people around open to different opinions, so I'm stopping here discussing with you.

Well if you're not willing to upload images that you claim show "everything is soft", how are we to know if you're being truthful?

Generally speaking, if everything is out of focus then the camera hasn't focused on anything.

If you were shooting a textured wall then it is quite possible that the camera couldn't find enough contrast to obtain a focus lock or simply got confused.

1512
There are numerous stories about the importance of AFMA. In the mean time, you should read the articles about "lens softness" on this website and also those about using AFMA (auto-focus micro-adjust)

Thank you so very much for pointing out afma for me - however, I think I have understood the general concept, so no need for patronizing.

What you may not understand: even if a lens needs afma, it's bound to focus *somewhere* like in the afma test strips. So I'm interested how afma can improve a lens that it isn't sharp *anywhere*?

Let me get this straight - you went into a store and they let you shoot an AFMA strip with the lens attached to your camera? Why don't you attach some uploads...

1513
Bob Atkin's review here:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_24-70_f28_VC_review.html
Seems to disagree with your assertions about sharpness falloff towards the edges being an issue.


Of course "issue" is subject to what you expect from a lens in the first place. The problem I have personally experienced and that imho is the cause for different opinions are the Tamron qc issues, for example the first lens I could try in a shop was clearly a dud, the sharpness even in the center was a catastrophe. But we don't seem to be able to agree on that.


There are numerous stories about the importance of AFMA.

This website even hosted a story a couple of stories on "soft lenses".:
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
How to test a lens
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/how-to-test-a-lens/

So what you mean is that the lens you tested in store did not match up with your camera.

Quote
It should not be left unsaid that Tamron will calibrate any lens for free inside its warranty period according to people posting in that thread you linked to above. To me this indicates that even if you do get a lens that isn't right, Tamron will fix it for you for free. What's not to like about that?

I do like that a lot - however I just called my local Tamron service, and turnaround time is no less than 14 days to get my lens + body combination back... but this might be exactly what I'll have to do if I get the Tamron and once I have a second camera body.


In the mean time, you should read the articles about "lens softness" on this website and also those about using AFMA (auto-focus micro-adjust)

1514
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Mirrorless Entry
« on: June 20, 2012, 07:16:22 AM »
The G1X sensor is the best in its class, so I don't know what you're worried about.
it is easy to be "best in class" if class size equals 1, right?

The G1X sensor size is a totally unnecessary oddity. Other alternatives would have been far preferable - and even more so on a coming mirrorless:

A) Either a sensor fully within the mFT specs ... a Canon mirrorless with mFT-sensor and mFT-mount in front to utilize any mFT lens on the market would be really cool. Then we could see, whether Canon can build better small-sensored mirrorless system cameras than Olympus an dPanasonic!

B) Or - if it has to be "proprietary Canon" rather than "open-standard mFT", then a 3:2 APS-C sensor. If Sony can fit an APS-C sensor into a NEX-sized body, Canon outta be able to stick an APS-C sensor inton the more bulky G1X body. AS a matter of fact, I would have liked to see the new EOS 650D sensor with Hybrid-AF in the G1X and in Canon's mirrorless - as long as they are not able and willing to build a truly "class-leading" Hi-End FF mirrorless.

But no ... its gotta be Canon-proprietary, odd and very likely inferior to competitive products.

The NEX-7 is the top of the line Sony mirrorless camera.

If the one being introduced by Canon is just the consumer end then not having APS-C is perfectly fine as neither do any of the other entry level mirrorless cameras.

So we'll have to wait and see if Canon bring out a competitor to the NEX-7 because this first camera is not going to be it.

1515
Ok, some classic FUD that needs debunking.
(a) Is the only real issue here. If you're shooting at f/2.8 or otherwise shooting for scenes where bokeh will need to be considered then you have to be mindful of the potential impact of onion bokeh.
(b) Just about every lens has sharpness falloff towards the edge, including a lot of Canon's "L" glass. If you look at any MTF graph, you'll see this and similarly it will show up in pictures. In this area, Canon's wide angle "L" zooms are atrocious.
(c) If IS is pointless then why does Canon have it on the 24-105, 17-85, etc? For some people that have trouble holding the camera/lens still, IS is a life saver. Lots of people wanted Canon to come out with an IS version of their 24-70, so it is safe to assume that lots of people see benefit in it being there despite it not "slowing the scene down".
(d) nobody has yet come forward with measurements of AF speed, it's all "feeling" based and we're talking differences in 10ths of a second or less. The only people for whom this will be a problem will be the Internet photography experts that shoot from the comfort of their chair at home.
(e) It has yet to be established that there is any significant variation in lens quality from Tamron regarding this lens. Regardless, there is plenty of talk about of people receiving "soft" Canon lenses too. In both instances it is likely a problem solved with AFMA.

No FUD because as I wrote I'll probably buy the Tamron myself for being a lot of "bang for the buck". But I'm sorry to have to correct you...

a) I disagree: the "onion" boekh is *not* an issue because it needs specific conditions to appear, so for many scenes you'll never see it.


Do you see the onion bokeh in any of the sample pictures posted by Tamron for the lens? No.

Quote
b) Just because there are other Canon lenses that show a sharpness falloff, it doesn't mean it can be taken out of consideration - because the alternatives to the Tamron 24-70 are Canon's new 24-70ii or primes, but of course both at a higher price.


Bob Atkin's review here:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_24-70_f28_VC_review.html
Seems to disagree with your assertions about sharpness falloff towards the edges being an issue.

And more to the point he says:
These problems are fairly easy to correct in post exposure processing. Corner sharpness isn't as good as center sharpness, especially wide open, but again that's pretty much the case for all fast zoom lenses in this range.

It looks like Bob Atkins has a good handle on photography and some real experience with various lenses in this category.

Quote
c) The 24-105 has IS because it only has f4 max aperture, and the 17-85 and such are consumer lenses that wouldn't sell w/o IS and are dual-used for shooting still scenes, too. For me, the 24-70 *f2.8* is an event/wedding/docu lens, and since you need about 1/100s min shutter speed for shooting people anyway IS is not needed, esp. if it needs a little time to swing in after af'ing like the Tamron.


On cameras such as the 5D Mark II and those with even more megapixels, the advice is to shoot at 1/2*zoom for sharp results when without IS. So if you've got a 24-70, without IS you would be best advised to shoot at 1/125 or faster in order to get sharp results. What IS does is bring that back a stop or two, allowing you to get sharp results at 1/60 or slower. Of course that doesn't make up for subject movement, but it isn't only the subject that needs to be still, it is the image capture platform as well.

And as Bob Atkins points out:
Is it as good as the new Canon 24-70/2.8L II USM? I don't know since I have not yet had the chance to evaluate the Canon lens. I would not be surprised if the Canon lens was somewhat sharper wide open in the corners, but that's just a guess at this point. However even if it is sharper you have to ask the question whether any additional sharpness would be worth an extra $1000 and whether or not some of any additional sharpness might be lost in hand held situations in low light due to the lack of optical stabilization.

Quote
d) The Tamron is slower to af esp. at lower light, where even a little makes a difference if you use it for wedding/event w/o preflash or af assist - the photozone review says so, see the "nikonguy" side-by-side comparison, and I tried the lens myself next to a Canon mk1. While the dfference might not be large, it may make a difference if you shoot hundreds of pictures in an hour with it like during a wedding or event.


None of the reviews flag it as being a significant issue.
To reinforce that, you yourself don't know if it will or won't be an issue, you're simply speculating.
And yes, I watched the "nikonguy" review ages ago and came to the conclusion that the issue is negligible as it never impacted any of the photographs that they took.

Quote
e) I'm getting my information from Amazon et al customer reviews this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=36


Let me quote one back at you...
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/06/20/review-tamron-24-70mm-f2-8-sp-vc-canon-ef-mount/#more-24771
Quote: This lens, however, has to have been the best I’ve ever tested

It should not be left unsaid that Tamron will calibrate any lens for free inside its warranty period according to people posting in that thread you linked to above. To me this indicates that even if you do get a lens that isn't right, Tamron will fix it for you for free. What's not to like about that?

If this lens had the name Canon on it and had a different colour scheme, everyone would be singing its praises.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 179