July 30, 2014, 11:45:21 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 ... 140
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 01:29:50 AM »

There is this constant hi iso issue. When i shoot on my D800 at 1600 ISO and then size that image to 22 meg, or 3000 pixels for an 8x12 print, it's the equal of my 5D Mk3, and superior to my 5D Mk2.

Would it matter if I shot at hi ISO's a lot anyway? The D800 lacks in hi iso DR to the Mk3 by maybe a quarter to half a stop max.

Apparently that is massive to these forum and worth lauding every time the subject comes up, but over 2 stops advantage at 100 ISO (and almost 3 with the D810) isn't worth it?

That's the kind of inconstant debating I'm referring to. Giving more weight to a small Canon advantage, and less weight to a larger Nikon advantage.

You are doing what so many people do here, taking things out of context. Is a half stop DR advantage worth anything?

Half a stop, maybe not. 2 stops? Definitely. That can make a difference between needing to use HDR to get the result you want and being able to do it with one image. So what difference would that make? The time (and thus cost) associated with producing images with the requisite level of detail in highlights and shadows.

If it takes me 1 hour to produce the image that I want with the detail that I want using a single shot and 2 hours to do the same image using HDR then the lower DR camera halves my output and thus income that I can earn from it. (I'm using 1 and 2 hours here figuratively.) And at ISOs less than 800, Nikon's latest cameras deliver that ability to save time and thus money.

So what do you do, take the f!!!!!g comment out of context, that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!.

If it takes you an hour to make an HDR you need to go on an Adobe course, even with a slow computer it takes 3-4 minutes to make a genuine 32 bit file with more than twice the DR of the Sony sensor in PS.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 12:37:10 AM »

There is this constant hi iso issue. When i shoot on my D800 at 1600 ISO and then size that image to 22 meg, or 3000 pixels for an 8x12 print, it's the equal of my 5D Mk3, and superior to my 5D Mk2.

Would it matter if I shot at hi ISO's a lot anyway? The D800 lacks in hi iso DR to the Mk3 by maybe a quarter to half a stop max.

Apparently that is massive to these forum and worth lauding every time the subject comes up, but over 2 stops advantage at 100 ISO (and almost 3 with the D810) isn't worth it?

That's the kind of inconstant debating I'm referring to. Giving more weight to a small Canon advantage, and less weight to a larger Nikon advantage.

You are doing what so many people do here, taking things out of context. Is a half stop DR advantage worth anything? Probably not, but if the camera with the high iso DR advantage also has a handholdable 600, which you need and are using, and it has better AF, which you also need and are using, only a fool would buy the camera system with the half stop worse DR, worse AF, and heavier lens.

You need to keep context, for you the Sony sensor offers real advantages, for many it simply doesn't, for many people other system features are far more important. But nobody here that I have ever seen has questioned the DR advantage the Sony sensor has, just how useful it is in real world shooting for them when compared to other system advantages or disadvantages.

I have some respect for what you are saying, though think you went about it wrong, but that is up to you. As for your being a pro that clears $6,000 - $12,000 per week, I find that a bit of a stretch, I also wonder why you aren't shooting what pretty much every other $500,000 a year photographer is, medium format digital, it seems to me you'd get a far higher IQ increase going to Phase One or Hasselblad with their true 16 bit files, more MP, more DR, more everything, than pissing about with any 135 toys. Oh, and didn't you realise any trade in value for your Canon kit? Last time I knew a photographer who did a large system change from Canon to Nikon it cost him less than four thousand to get a very similar setup.

3
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: Today at 12:16:04 AM »
What's Canon's excuse for not offering a high quality fast aperture 50mm prime--something that is arguably the foundation for any 135 format system?

Well if you discount the high quality fast aperture they do make, and I am not sure why you would, then we could start discussing your other "arguable point" , the 50mm lens has not been the basis of any 135 format system for decades, literally decades. Recent comments suggest that only 4% to 5% of DSLR purchasers actually buy any other lens than the slow midrange zoom that came in the kit. So, we have reduced the people interested in a 50mm lens to considerably less than 5% of DSLR owners, Canon already make four 50mm lenses that all have good product differentiation and they know exactly how many of each they sell, most of those actual potential purchasers are happy with one of the four offerings Canon already make, if not they have the choice of several other manufacturers also at different price and specification points.

Where is the upside in making a new 50? At least a 50 f2 IS fits in with their current prime series and offers yet another feature set to differentiate it from the competition. Time and money is better spent on more interesting lenses with mass appeal, to that <5% of owners, like a 100-400 etc etc.

4
Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 09:59:00 PM »
Black Foamie Thing, best single flash modifier I use.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/the-black-foamie-thing/

And many of you know of my liking for the Rosco Swatchbooks that I get for $2.50 every time I place a B&H order. You are very welcome sagittariansrock :-)

My other cheapy for the longest time was Yongnuo RF-602 radio triggers, 100% reliable and excellent range, I still have them but don't use them now I have the 600-EX-RT's. I have had little luck with my Yongnuo YN-E3-RT though, not that I got it for price as I already had the Canon ST-E3-RT, I got it for the added functionality on pre 2012 bodies but rarely use it.

I am not so much a "cheap" person, as a buy it once and save in the long term, but I do like my 50 f1.4 when I could easily have the 1.2L (but that is another thread :-) )

Oh, I did buy the Canon Timer Remote Controller TC-80N3 for $135, but that was long before the Chinese clones came out.

5
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:30:21 PM »
Since the 50 f/1.4 replacement is rumored to be the f/1.8 mkIII IS, it's entirely plausible that the new 50L will be a 50 f/1.4 mkII IS.

If they followed decades of nomenclature that would make an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, no MkIII, nor, in time, would it become a MkI or a C for "classic". And an EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, also not a MkII, hopefully this would mean people never call the current EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a MkI or a "classic", I live in hope.

My favourite is the 1D, rather confusingly now often referred to as a 1Dc, meaning "classic" but changing its value from $100-200 to around $8,000-10,000, but what's in a name  :D

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:38:36 AM »
I don't know much about DO, but the optics leave a funny looking bokeh?  Does anyone have a picture showing the onion ring effect?


It is mainly specular highlights that cause the problem. I can imagine many shooting with it and loving it they don't shoot that kind of highlight, but if you regularly shoot with those kinds of highlights it is very distracting.

But it can be caused in more situations. Here is a very good example of how DO can impact a shot, the foreground flowers are not over exposed but are rendered into weird outlines which is exacerbated by the specular highlights on the water.


http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/

7
Lighting / Re: Flash Zoom - Difference in Stops?
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:33:07 AM »
Can we actually assume that the flash zoom head is set to the focal length (i.e. the horizontal row labeled "Flash Coverage" in the chart)?

Yes we can.

8
Lighting / Re: Flash Zoom - Difference in Stops?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:38:04 PM »
The second number is the GN in feet, 28 meters equals 91.9 feet.

Take your GN in feet and divide it by your subject distance in feet to get your f stop. So if your subject is 10 feet away and you have the flash set to 24mm then you get an f stop of 91.9 feet/10 feet = f9.2. If your flash is set to 200mm then 196.9/10 = f19.7

9
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:38:45 PM »
I find it helpful to get feedback from reviews for those that review camera regularly and can compare them among others in their class instead of biased comments from those that don't even own the camera.

As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

I find it helpful to compare the images they create, it puts their words into perspective and gives a strong indication as to who is paying the piper, and who is not.

I am not biased for or against either an RX100III or a G1X, I am against unqualified and inaccurate comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" . It's funny, you don't even try to walk that utter nonsense back, you just change the direction of your vitriol to me.

Dude, just buy an RX100III and be happy.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:32:39 PM »
I used the 70-300 DO once, never again. I'd love to know how many 400 DO's they sell and if the people that buy them are legally blind.

11
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:50:27 PM »
As I said, I am not looking to get either.

I was merely pointing out that comments like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" are either bullshit, or don't actually stand up to image comparisons.

But why should we let actual images sway us when we have internet printed reviews that support our preconceived ideas? Enjoy your RX100III.

12
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:42:12 PM »
Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.

To each their own....


" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........

Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.

13
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:46:14 PM »
" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"

Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?

14
PowerShot Cameras / Re: G1x vs. G16 vs. ??
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:40:43 PM »
Thanks for the link and article:

"The RX100 III's 20MP sensor gives it a clear resolution advantage over its most direct rival: the Canon G1 X Mark II. As the shooting conditions become more challenging, this advantage begins to slip away. As you'd expect, the fine detail that's visible in the low ISO shots, is lost as sensitivity rises. This is equally true for the Canon, with a loss of saturation, as well as detail.




The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it.

Here is hoping Canon comes out with an RX100/new LX8 competitor as the days with the 1/1.7" sensor are what they are, but no longer the best you can buy.  Or bring on the G1X III with a new sensor, cut the weight, and address the AF issues.

I'd go for the Sony RX100 Mark III and I will do that myself to compliment my DSLR kit, because it has stunning low-light-capabilities and is pretty much the perfect pocketable compact camera for me (high res, but not too much noise; good AF; good video; good EVF; 24mm at the wide end; very fast lens for a compact camera). If you need the 70-100mm area often, look at the G1X Mark II. If you go for the Sony, be prepared to shoot RAW, as I find the Sony JPEGs to be too aggressively sharpened/noise-reducted. I hope you will make the right decision for you!  :D



I wonder about you guys sometimes, never let actual results get in the way of the hyperbole.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/12



Well if you need 20MP from your P&S, and if you think they are worth having, then have at it. But don't say and agree with stuff like "it has stunning low-light-capabilities" and "The G1X II would be a no brainer had Canon given the G1X II a modern sensor, as it stands the RX100 III still out performs it" when all it actually seems to lack in comparative images is resolution, and considering resolution is a conscious design decision, like I say, if you need a 20MP camera why look at 12MP cameras?

15
Software & Accessories / Re: RRS or Markins?
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:20:51 PM »
Just to follow up, I got my Acratech GP a few days ago.

Welcome to the club. I can't recommend it any more than I did, if I lost mine today I'd order another one immediately.

There are a couple of things I actually spoke to Scott at Acratech about, when the clamp is mounted on the bottom there should be a detent to stop the whole clamp rotating on the base, when it is the "right" way up it has positive locks, when reversed it doesn't, not a biggie but if you are cold and wet, or hot and sweaty you can move the clamp unintentionally, though this is not a dropping hazard. And the pan and clamp knobs come close to each other when it is inverted.

Mine doesn't look pristine anymore either!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 140