October 24, 2014, 08:26:51 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:42:05 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

As I said...not even close.

Oh, I missed the bit where you didn't mention the TC, that was naughty of you. There are loads more FF images out there with 5D MkII/III's with TC's that are every bit as good as yours, I was just looking for 100-400's.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:21:13 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:55:34 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough. My tests between a 5D2 and a 60D using those two lenses showed minimal differences in resolving power of distant objects between crop and FF. Using a 100L, crop definitely resolved distance objects better than FF, but it most certainly was not twice as good... maybe 20 or 30 percent better. (no scientific measurements taken, the percentage is a guess)

I am told, no personal experience, that the second generation "Big Whites" will act the same... but however you slice it, to get that crop reach advantage, you need some of the sharpest glass that Canon makes.

I understand what you are saying Don, but my example crops fly in the face of that.

I used the best techniques possible to maximise the difference including using a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6 (nobody ever argued that isn't a great lens and without a TC gives little, if anything, to the MkII's), I did this to give the crop camera the biggest advantage its small pixels will ever have, it certainly isn't close to a real world situation, and the differences are just not there to any meaningful degree.

As an aside, I have tested my 50 f1.4 against my 100L Macro at f5.6, and the 50 is 'sharper', TDP iso charts agree with my findings.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:24:13 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961

5
Posted and discussed last week.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23222.msg452302#msg452302

If he considers the differences in systems enough reason to change, good for him, we should all do the same, but most don't consider the differences in systems enough reason to change.

I have several key reasons to stay with Canon for the foreseeable future, they are well thought out reasons that are every bit as convincing for me as his were to make a change for him, so what?

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: clown* photographer
« on: October 23, 2014, 12:57:12 PM »
It's not the size of the tool.. it's what you do with it.   ;D

I have an idea of who I think the tool is in this story.

Intimidating people because 'I have a big pro camera' is a dick move, who gives a damn what somebody else is shooting with? Who cares what you are shooting with?


7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 10:38:35 AM »
I don't agree with this "amount of light" argument. Consider a full frame sensor and an APS-C size sensor with pixels the same size as a full frame taking photos with the same lens at the same f-stop and the same distance from the subject. The signal to noise ratio for each pixel in the APS-C sensor will be the same as the S:N ratio as the corresponding pixels in an APS-C sized area of the ff.

True, but the 2.56x greater area of the FF sensor will gather more total light.  Comparing noise at the pixel level isn't the same as comparing noise at the image level.

You lost me on the image level noise, Neuro. It seems that an APS-C sized crop of the FF image and the APS-C image in this case would be identical. The number of photons hitting each pixel is the same and assuming the downstream operations are identical, what's the difference?

If you crop the FF to the crop cameras size they are identical, but that wasn't how your earlier comment was worded. If you crop the ff to the same size as the crop camera they are, effectively, the same thing, a crop sensor.

If you take your first situation and use the entire image from both cameras then the ff camera must have 2.5 times the area, if the pixels are the same size on each the FF camera must have 2.5 times as many, if they have the same number of pixels the FF cameras must be 2.5 times the size.

8
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:07:09 AM »
My YN-E3-RT arrived with a set of batteries in it, which were dead, I don't leave batteries in it anymore, not least because I hardly ever use it, but I have had mine drain Eneloops too, though I have never been 100% certain I hadn't inadvertently left the power switch on, I trusted to my stupidity, maybe I shouldn't have :-)

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:40:49 AM »
No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.
You're right!  :-[
Thanks for correcting me. (Damn! I did it right at the 600 mm and then screwed it up)
Makes it even worse for the MFT system.   :-X

True, and it makes that ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0 at $2,299 a FF equivalent of the 70-200 f4 at a much more modest $1,299. Why do people keep saying crop camera lenses are much better value! Compare for exactly the same photo and they are often not.

Neuro and I have often used the example of the 24-105 f4 IS on FF vs the 17-55 f2.8 IS on APS-C, they are very close equivalents in IQ as well as focal length and apertures, and the FF lens can be had for a few hundred dollars less.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:18:55 AM »
Crop sensors don't require all that glass.
In principle you are right if you leave the DOF point away, but I have to correct you in some terms.

Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"?  In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8
That's wrong as you do not take the size of the sensor into account.
If you want to gather similar amount of light and want to achive the same DOF on FF
a 600mm f/5.6 would be the equivalent.

To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0

If you compare those two, the Canon is lighter, cheaper and even smaller.
Of course, you can take at MFT the new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:2.8 PRO.
This will be lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 70-200 but for the tradeoff of DOF and absolute light gathering on the same area (!) of the sensor.

And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.
...
Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics ...
Of course f2.8 is physically always f2.8 but your comparison here is wrong.
And of course you can take wonderful pictures with MFT.
And I am not a FF fanatic. Indeed and I am very interested in Olympus MFT system (as you probably can imagine by my knowledge about the lenses).
But your argument is physically only correct when you agree in the tradeoff of losing shallow DOF and absolute light gathering.
This you can only compensate by using lenses with bigger apertures and therefore losing the size/weight/price advantage.

No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.

Nothing touches the 135 format for selective DOF control if that is important to you, further, iso takes a two stop crop factor hit when talking equivalence too.



    100mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 100, on a mFT (4/3) camera,

    Gets an equivalent shot on a FF camera as 

    200mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

11
Lighting / Re: Is this dangerous when using the 600ex rt´s?
« on: October 19, 2014, 07:51:20 PM »
It's no problem leaving HSS as default.
Your flash works much harder during HSS, and produces less light while doing so.

So there are at least two problems:  1) the increased power consumption will wear down your batteries faster, and 2) the increased power consumption will heat up your flashes faster.

They would only be an issue if you were constantly shooting above sync speed. Even when HSS is selected it doesn't actually come into effect until you do go over that magic figure, so keeping your flash in HSS just means you don't need to push another button when you get there.

There is nothing wrong and you will cause no additional wear, heat or any other issues if you keep your flash in HSS.

12
Lenses / Re: 50 f/1.2L problems applicable to 85 f/1.2L?
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:10:05 PM »
Why did Canon stop making an f/1 50?

There are a few ideas out there, who knows what is true.

It isn't actually a good lens, the way people moan about the 1.2 is nothing compared to the f1.0.

They only made a couple of production runs of it and stockpiled the lenses, this is not an uncommon thing, but it took years and years as the sales numbers were so low.

It is a very expensive lens to make, not least because it sold so few, compared to an Otus, it isn't expensive, but that isn't the cost base enough Canon users move in to warrant continuing with it.

Canon made it as a loss leading 'look at we can do' type of headlining technology that is outdated.

The glass used needed now illegal amounts of lead to be used in production and a redesign was too expensive.

13
Technical Support / Re: Canon 24mm TS-E Mark II Tilt Knob Replacement
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:19:55 PM »
John,

Stop using it, don't attach it to your camera.

I believe the shaft has fallen inside the lens and is causing more damage. I just took the knob off my 17 TS-E, and I am pretty sure they are the same. The shaft has a gudgeon pin type arrangement, if you take that out the shaft drops down into the lens, which means you probaby only need the knob, washers and screw from the outside, the rest should be on the inside.

Here is a close up of mine.

14
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:55:51 PM »
I know this may be a stretch but how likely would it be for the bodies that Scott tested to not be like the bodies that will be released? I forget the key words that were used something like AS Tested...how likely Canon could/would give him a couple of bodies that have cleaner out put than the ones that come off the production line?

Zero.

In fact the preproduction versions output is not normally not as good as the final production versions. They will keep playing with the code until the last possible minute, which is why a 'first' version is often FW 1.+.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:07:56 PM »
I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side  ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment is...by a wide margin...the best it has ever been.

But that isn't what my original crops, or the gif show. They are 100% and >100% crops and there is nothing in it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172