November 28, 2014, 04:46:46 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 186
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 03:12:19 PM »
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

And this:
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

Then he needs to come to terms with the unavoidable fact that life is a series of compromises, and always will be. He can use a Canon with native Canon lenses, he can use a Canon with third party lenses, he can use Canon lenses on third party bodies, he can use third party lenses on third party bodies, it isn't like he is stuck for choice, he just wants what isn't currently available and rather than acknowledge that and take the best option for him, he wants to make all our lives a misery.

But make no mistake, when he gets his D810 and 14-24 and Canon come out with a 50mp something and an 11-24 he will be on the Nikon forums making just as much noise, or Canon come out with the body he says he wants but not the lens, or the lens but not the body, he/we will never be offered the "best" of everything in a single package from a single manufacturer, that is just life, and constantly screaming that it isn't fair isn't achieving anything constructive.

Choose what is best for you and your image making from the options available, and we have more options now than ever before, don't see limitations in gear, there effectively aren't any, the only limitation is the one you set up yourself as a way of making excuses for your own short comings.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 02:47:55 PM »
I've always wondered why there's no "Big Whites" on the wide end.

Because the white lens colour was introduced to mitigate the effects of heat on the comparatively large Flourite elements in the super teles. Canon do have at least one Ultra Wide patents with a flourite element, but even then the actual element is much smaller, and therefore less prone to heat changes.

Here ya go, dilbert:

.... a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point........

That's what is often considered passive aggressive behavior, dilbert seems to come by it naturally, don't call him on it though, that makes him really jiggy.

Get out and away from your computer. Go in search of locations and environments in the natural world that challenge you. Let me clue you in on something: nature isn't built with photographers in mind.

Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera ...

Please please dilbert, if you don't yet have an Exmor based camera, sell off all your Canon gear right now and buy one.

I'm already committing next year's tax return to buying Sony.

Hopefully, you'll lose all interest in things Canon and CR, should you then choose to grace us with your absence, the atmosphere here on CR can then lighten considerably.

Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match :D

I suspect that once you start posting in Sonykon/Exmor forums, those folk will soon tire of your continued rants regarding build quality, lens choices, support issues, lack of conservative market stability, menus, ergonomics, flash systems, etc..
Lens choices? There's a huge expanse of lenses that can be used with Sony cameras, including many fine rangefinder optics.
Support Issues? Let me tell you about the time I had to send a lens to Canon 3 times to get it repaired ... now I just use 3rd parties as equipment is out of warranty.
Conservative market stability is not something that I desire. My camera and lenses are tools, not investments. A digital camera (like any other technology product) is obsolete the day it is announced.
Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.

DRoners are very accomplished at rewriting history, forgetting they ever said that, outright denying they ever said that, saying a completely new idea or theory was what they were always going on about, quietly dropping an authoritatively stated equation when it is shown to be faulty,  announcing they will provide 'proof' but never do, loudly decrying 'you just don't understand', saying 'but if the scene did have more DR than that I would have been in trouble', outright refuse to answer simple questions and just produce lengthy replies that repeat old positions and avoid any real discussion, etc etc, it seems to be a subset speciality of theirs.

P.S. And then bitch about how they are persecuted by the "antiDR crowd" (which is farcical because nobody has ever taken an anti DR position, just an anti DRoners position) whenever they are pushed into a corner because their self satisfying and ludicrous comments are questioned.

Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.

Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.

Ain't that the truth, I have forgotten my 300 f2.8 IS collar before and used that perfectly well with the camera mounted on the tripod, I virtually never use the collar on my 70-200 f2.8 IS, just use the L-Plate on the body.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:02:29 PM »
As awesome as this lens looks... I think I'd have to skip it for $3k.

I'm no expert at ultra wides but wouldn't any professional application of 11mm FOV equivalent be better suited by a TSE lens? Or would a TSE stitched photo of the exact same perspective/FOV produce comparable images?

I tend to agree with the below 16mm range, certainly tripods to get nice levels would be better used most of the time.

As for the stitched TS-E images comparing, well the effective 11mm stitch, at 24mm x 60mm (effective sensor size) gives you an odd aspect ratio that works well for some stuff, header images and banner posters, but not well most of the time and the corners are not good when fully shifted, I find the two side by side stitch useful more often for a 36mm x 48mm effective sensor size.

So the two scenarios, a stitched shifted effective 11mm and a single 11mm rectilinear image would be quite different, though like I said earlier, the amount of projection distortion on the native image would be wild!

It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.

There was good evidence right from the start.  The existence of a difference in low ISO DR between Exmor and Canon sensors is not in question.  The general significance and impact of that difference is the issue...for some, it means everything whereas for others, it means little to nothing.  The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

Also, even the loudest DRones are happy to talk of "the detail in the shadows is wonderful, and the shadow falloff is really clean and smooth. " when they think they are talking about an Exmor file, even if they aren't..............

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:30:07 AM »
f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.

But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.

A second body with the 24/1.4L perhaps?

That would be a third body for most serious shooters in that field, the 70-200 f2.8 IS on one, the 16-35 or new 11-35 f4 zoom on another plus a need for a 24 f1.4 n a third, not gonna wash with those guys.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:27:59 AM »
I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...

If it didn't it would be a pretty pathetic lens, but even if it is that doesn't get around the effects of projection distortion, can you imagine even more fov than the Sigma 12-24? For small bathrooms it would be a fantastic lens, and the f4 wouldn't matter, but I just don't see the utility of another f4 ultra wide zoom.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:12:13 AM »
f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.

But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:01:00 AM »
Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
  • The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
  • The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
  • The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

Good Morning ( local German Time  ;D )

Did i read correctly - the YN E3 RT includes second Curtain Sync with 600-EX-RT via Radiolink ?
ST-E3-RT does not support it.

I´d like to buy an Radiotransmitter for my 5DIII & 600-EX-RTs .


Hi Bernd,

5:58 USA Eastern standard time  :)

Yes you read correctly, the YN E3 RT does second curtain sync via radio to three different groups in M mode.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2014, 06:54:26 PM »
Sorry to hurt the fanboys, but Canon is not releasing any DSLRs this year.

I'm inclined to agree that there is nothing new shipping this year, given that the 7DII isn't even coming until late November.

As a result, I gave up the vigil last night waiting for a myth and pulled the trigger to order a D810 + 5 lenses. I'll be putting my 5D3/7D +8 L lenses and a pile of other accessories as well as the Sony a7R+ and other associated accessory items up for sale in the coming weeks.

I'm tired of waiting for a never ending cycle of rumor and speculation and choosing to speak with my dollars. I'd rather be out taking the shots I want with a tool that meets my requirements today instead of settling for compromises or workarounds (for my shooting style and subject) with current gear.

I've been ready to upgrade my 5D3 since the spring and took the a7R route as a bridge but that just does not cut it. I typically look to refresh my primary camera body about ever 24 months but Canon no longer has anything that meets my shooting needs.

I'm sure most here don't care but Canon's lack of competitive products cost them a 15 year customer and CPS member this week.

Why should anybody care? Canon don't believe their products are uncompetitive so they are not going to build a camera just for you.

Get the tools/system that best does the job you have to do, for many that is Nikon, for others Sony, Pentax, Canon, Fuji or any one of a number of other manufacturers, it really doesn't matter to anyone, and nor should it..........

One tricky thing is that absolute extreme ETTR can make processing tricky as most standard tone curves end leaving you with poor highlight separation and a lot of stock color profiles are twisted so you can get weird color tints and problems.

This is also an issue with Adobe's ACR process version 2012 which is "intelligent", unlike PV2010 before it.

In my experience this means that a shot filling the histogram left to right w/o having a nice and cozy "normal" structure with a bump in the middle is a hassle to postprocess. The shadows/highlight controls react in a different way and/or are not strong enough, they need to be dialed at least to 11. So you regularly end up tweaking the tone curve which takes more time.

You can dial it to 11, just dial it to 10 and export as a TIFF, then reimport and put on another 10.

Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 07, 2014, 11:46:13 PM »
Good God you guys are dumb sometimes.

Download the full sized images, a couple have small crops but two are 5472x3648 for 19,961,856 px, a 20MP camera.

Jeez, talk about speculate rather than just think!

The histogram I referred to was LR, looking at the Raw files. If that is incorrect also, I'd appreciate a clarification.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel and I don't know the answer to every combination but as I understand it:
  • The Library Module uses Adobe RGB for it's previews and thumbnails unless the file is tagged with a different colour space, normally sRGB, remember RAW files don't have a clour space attached so are displayed in Adobe RGB in the Library Module.
  • The Develop Module displays the images in a custom Lightroom colour space commonly called Melissa RGB (named after Melissa Gaul an Adobe manager), this has the cromacity, or colours, of the Prophoto colour space but it has an sRGB gamma curve applied to it. Melissa RGB is what the histogram in the develop module is based on.
  • I do not know 100% if the histogram in the Library Module is based on the Library Module's Adobe RGB preview or the behind the scenes Melissa RGB render, but I believe it is based on the behind the scenes Melissa RGB render.
  • Under the hood of the Develop Module Lightroom actually works on the RAW files in another custom space, this has the Prophoto cromacity and a gamma value of 1. We never see images in this space but for internal calculations, apparently, it is simpler to do that on a gamma 1 file.
  • The differences between Adobe RGB and Melissa RGB is the reason you get a colour shift on the same image between the Library Module and the Develop Module with RAW files, you shouldn't with tagged jpegs.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 186