February 01, 2015, 03:43:16 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 205
286
Technical Support / Re: LG 27MB85Z-B
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:27:11 AM »
The resolution is nothing special, many screens have been 2560 x 1440 for years. The current darling is the 5120 x 2880, 5K, panels with 14MP of resolution.

287
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:20:47 PM »
Just to add my two cents;

Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.

No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.

Adobe's linear gamma and proprietary version of ProPhoto, named after the developers wife Melissa Gaul, is still for all intents and purposes ProPhoto. I was trying to provide a simple explanaton for a user who may be intimidated by color management. But, if you need to feel smarter than everybody else on the internet, than by all means say "No it doesn't".

Well you failed.

The request for help was specifically about Adobe RGB and sRGB as selected in camera. Adding a third, and unselectable, colour space into the mix, and mislabeling it to boot did nothing to help anybody let alone provide a 'simple explanation', so forgive me for trying to correct some of your inaccuracies.

If you are using Lightroom you don't have a choice regarding colourspace and it never uses ProPhoto, all internal colourspace handling is automatic until export. If you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it doesn't matter which colourspace you assign in camera as it will ignore them both anyway.

The Melissa colourspace is not proprietary, it is freely published and usable, just take the chromacity values of ProPhoto and a gamma of 1.0. To label Melissa Gaul as 'the developers wife' is also a gross misrepresentation, true she is married to Troy Gaul one of the original developers, but she was also the Adobe QE manager for Lightroom and as such played a key roll in the development herself. Indeed she is still at Adobe but moved from her managers position in 2007 after over 9 years.

Now, having said all that I still don't feel smart, but I also didn't feel the need to bring in spurious misinformation into this thread and then try to put somebody down that pointed out some factual errors.

288
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:28:46 PM »
EyeFi cards are a quaint joke for very many situations. THE WiFi solution, and I have tried them all, is the CamRanger and all it needs is the simple USB tether capability. The EOS-M would be the perfect remote camera, silent operation, lightweight so needs little in the way of support, excellent sensor etc etc, but we can't use it because of the crippled USB tethered support, even though the camera was fairly universally panned (though I like mine) having a very capable small remote that takes EF lenses would have opened up a different market segment for the much maligned M.

are you including M2's wifi - which it already had a year ago?  USB support is for this class of camera far more limited - it would be nice.  certainly not expecting it if ML was right in their assessment.

just to add - did you even read what you quoted?

Have you compared EOS Remote WiFI control to remote use with a CamRanger?

But it wasn't a comment on the M2's restricted capabilities, it was a comment on the M's completely castrated tethered capabilities.

289
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 05:57:16 PM »
This is the part where I get lost.  Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads.

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left:
1. ef-m
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless

Only if you are delusional and completely ignore where the vast majority of the sales, and income, actually come from, EF-s.

You have such blinkers on that you don't see anything but getting rid of 'mirrorslapers' as the answer to any and every question, 'what would you like for dinner?', 'Get ride of mirrorslappers.' 'What time is sunrise?', 'I need a mirrorless.'

Getting rid of the mirror is not the answer to everything, it isn't even the answer to every photography question and there is some doubt that it ever will be.

Some markets may never adopt mirrorless cameras, other emerging markets may never embrace SLR's to the extent they are in the USA. It seems more variation to suit different market is the future,not one or the other.

Steve Jobs said the best iPod Apple ever made was the iPhone, they were happy to cannibalize their own product line because the new model made more per unit, the functionality was dramatically increased but the iPhone included all the functionality and form factor as the iPod Touch. Subsequently people have demanded bigger phones, not smaller. So, what additional functionality does a mirrorless offer other than an EVF and size? Because the SLi is pretty small and people seem to want bigger anyway as can be evidenced by the increase in size of the newer mirrorless models; and including the functionality of the EVF in a hybrid OVF seems eminently doable, as per the X100T.

EF-m is comparatively new, any mirrorless form factor is going to use that mount, it is a clear indication that Canon see their mirrorless involvement to be squarely set in the APS sensor size, and with sensor improvements we will be achieving current 135 format IQ from APS sensors in a few years.

EF-s is the current cash cow and won't be abandoned because there is no need to until such time, if it ever comes, that EF-m completely takes over from EF-s, Canon did a very smart thing in hedging their bets there!

EF is Canon's legacy, it will be the core part of their camera imaging system until such time as entirely different tech is commonplace and the resolution is not up to the job and people are convinced they need much more in the way of capability, which given the current capabilities and camera tech maturity would seem to me to be a very hard sell.

290
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: December 03, 2014, 11:13:42 PM »
And, if it is sea water, vinegar is very good for neutralizing the effects of the salt in sea water from corroding the alloy used in the lenses and bodies. I used to shoot yacht racing and surf events and often got sea spray over my gear. I'd always put a drop or two of vinegar on the strap lugs and a few other places that always corroded first.

I have been pondering the 16-35 f4 since selling my 16-35 f2.8 MkI a couple of weeks ago, I wonder if the even wider lens will become a reality or not, I didn't think I'd miss it but I have already........

291
Software & Accessories / Re: advice asked on EOS for a microscope
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:16:56 PM »
My understanding is because the EOS-M screen refresh rate is higher than the DSLR's it caused issues with the USB tethering, so rather than move it to USB3 or slow the refresh rate down when tethered, Canon killed it completely.

I was disappointed as I use the CamRanger for other cameras and hoped to use the M as a remote via that, it works superbly with practically anything with a USB port, but it is a complete no go and I believe ML have also put it off the table due to the core issue that causes the incompatibility.

292
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 06:21:24 PM »
Eldar,

I have been pondering the same thing, though I am only looking at Apple solutions. The obvious choice is the new Mac Pro but the truth is I think they are overkill for photography and they are unnecessarily expensive when you add in the required storage etc. This may or may not be important to you.

In the mean time my mind has been wandering to an old Mac Pro 12 core, I like that it is self contained, fully upgradeable with USB 3, FW800 and multiple Ethernet connections, as well as up to 7 internal HDD's along with reasonably priced RAM up to 128GB. It can't do Thunderbolt but with the interface options it does have I don't see that as an issue for a specialised photo computer running two screens. There are several companies that will sell you one with 3.46GHz processors with warranties too.

I'd like to know if anybody can point out any glaring issues I am missing by thinking like this, and again, I am not interested in PC or Hackintosh solutions.

293
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony to capture all the non-Canon sensor sales
« on: December 01, 2014, 10:04:57 PM »
Sensors are and will be a commodity. Solid state mirrorless cameras will halve current dslr prices and deliver superior imaging capability. No need to panic. We are the buyers. Them ... Are just suppliers. If We dont buy, we will take pictures with our current cams. They go bust. :-)

So you think that Canon, Nikon, etc, etc going "bust" is a GOOD THING ??? If that happens "buyers" will have no-one to buy from :(

No problem, then we will capture images using sony or samsung cameras. Suppöiers dont matter all that much. We, the customers matter. Suppliers dont make what we want ... They'll go bust! :)


Canon and Nikon going bust would be a disaster for everyone who has untold thousands invested in their lenses and other accessories. Adapters only take you so far. Maybe in some cases adapters may work well enough for most things, but there are special use cases where going with a camera system is better. Canon and Nikon going bust wouldn't be a good thing for anyone. Having used the A7r, I would still rather get a Nikon D810 for the sensor, rather than the A7r. It is just FAR more expensive to get the D810, since you need lenses as well (Canon lenses cannot be adapted)...so I have not. You cannot underestimate the value of an existing kit of lenses (which, if Canon were to go bust, would effectively render my entire kit "worthless"...and thus unsellable.)

Why? If Canon went bust tomorrow it wouldn't directly impact me, a professional Canon user, for years. Service might become an issue but I doubt it as all the hardware and techs will still need work. All my gear would continue to work indefinitely and I could continue taking the images I can now.

Digital cameras, despite all the hyperbole, are relatively mature tech products, we are already seeing size increases in the mirror less cameras because more people want bigger cameras, sure we will keep getting incremental changes and people to differing degrees and markets will change purchasing habits, but the days of having to upgrade cameras every two years to maintain competitive image quality output are long gone, now choices, more than ever, should be based on use, personal preference and personally relevant system capabilities.


If only Canon went bust tomorrow, there would still be Nikon as a backup option (and if you really wanted to, there are glassed adapters that could be used to get more life out of a Canon lens kit.) If BOTH Canon and Nikon went bust tomorrow, I think that would be a pretty serious problem for a lot of photographers. There are some good alternative options out there, but nothing that could completely replace Canon equipment for those who DO plan to upgrade every few years (chasing that so unimportant image quality boost or feature improvement, say better AF tracking), but expect to be able to continue using their existing lenses.


The bust of both makers would effectively destroy any real value in existing lenses for those brands. Collectors might create a market for certain lenses for a while, but in the grand scheme of things, the equipment would lose significant value. I don't think that is a good thing for vested users. Maybe it doesn't necessarily matter if future cameras come out with improved IQ and capabilities, I agree the vast majority of cameras today can produce excellent IQ...but I would be willing to bet that there are more users to whom that expectation (and eventual realization) does matter, than users like yourself.


I also think that loss of continued support for equipment that cost thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars would result in a lot of very unhappy customers. There is an inherent expectation that a company like Canon or Nikon won't simply go bust when you spend huge amounts of money on their products. There is the inherent expectation that they will be well managed companies long into the future. I certainly expected that when I put well over ten grand into a lens, and several more grand into bodies and accessories.

Hat is only a valid point if you need more features than currently available to take the images you need to, and the truth is that is just not true for practically anybody. Sure we will use better capabilities when they come along, but very few need them, that is why we are where we are, people do not need to get the latest camera generation to take the images they want to.

Oh, and the 1DX was the replacement for the 1D MkIV as far as all users are concerned, the 1DX was $6,999 on release, the 1DMkIV was $4,999. Whilst it is true that all 1DS models I through III were $7,999 there is no doubt the 1DX set a new, and higher, price benchmark.

294
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony to capture all the non-Canon sensor sales
« on: December 01, 2014, 09:37:20 PM »
Sensors are and will be a commodity. Solid state mirrorless cameras will halve current dslr prices and deliver superior imaging capability. No need to panic. We are the buyers. Them ... Are just suppliers. If We dont buy, we will take pictures with our current cams. They go bust. :-)

So you think that Canon, Nikon, etc, etc going "bust" is a GOOD THING ??? If that happens "buyers" will have no-one to buy from :(

No problem, then we will capture images using sony or samsung cameras. Suppöiers dont matter all that much. We, the customers matter. Suppliers dont make what we want ... They'll go bust! :)


Canon and Nikon going bust would be a disaster for everyone who has untold thousands invested in their lenses and other accessories. Adapters only take you so far. Maybe in some cases adapters may work well enough for most things, but there are special use cases where going with a camera system is better. Canon and Nikon going bust wouldn't be a good thing for anyone. Having used the A7r, I would still rather get a Nikon D810 for the sensor, rather than the A7r. It is just FAR more expensive to get the D810, since you need lenses as well (Canon lenses cannot be adapted)...so I have not. You cannot underestimate the value of an existing kit of lenses (which, if Canon were to go bust, would effectively render my entire kit "worthless"...and thus unsellable.)

Why? If Canon went bust tomorrow it wouldn't directly impact me, a professional Canon user, for years. Service might become an issue but I doubt it as all the hardware and techs will still need work. All my gear would continue to work indefinitely and I could continue taking the images I can now.

Digital cameras, despite all the hyperbole, are relatively mature tech products, we are already seeing size increases in the mirror less cameras because more people want bigger cameras, sure we will keep getting incremental changes and people to differing degrees and markets will change purchasing habits, but the days of having to upgrade cameras every two years to maintain competitive image quality output are long gone, now choices, more than ever, should be based on use, personal preference and personally relevant system capabilities.

295
I would add you need at least one boom stand, I use a big manfrotto one. :( :o
Sorry my wife is 'helping' me type!

296
Lenses / Re: Can you stack Canon 2X plus 1.4 Extenders?
« on: November 28, 2014, 01:39:54 PM »
You need to put a 15mm extension tube between them.

297
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: For 1dx owners
« on: November 27, 2014, 10:57:50 PM »
I have very deliberately not bought a 1DX because it is not a significant upgrade for me, I do realise it is a much more capable camera than my 1Ds MkIII's, but from a low iso image point of view it is not any better.

I do want a 1DX MkII, by then I will need new cameras, but for me I want/need >20MP <30MP, and improved low iso image quality. Everything else is fine as it is for my uses, indeed I will very much enjoy many of the features I am currently missing, but I need low iso IQ.

298
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Refurb 600's in stock now!
« on: November 26, 2014, 01:48:56 AM »
Sorry guys but it was in the Speedlites, Printers, Accessories section.

When I posted there were 27 left but they never last long.

299
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:21:27 AM »
Just to add my two cents;

Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.

No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 205