February 27, 2015, 09:28:27 PM

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] 4 5 ... 223
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 06:57:27 PM »
Every time there is a megapixel advance some people claim "no one needs that many pixels etc. etc. etc."; they said this at 3 mp, 5mp, 10mp etc.  More pixels is always better if you don't have to give up anything (not sure yet what the 5ds will require us yield).

ISO 6,400 limit with expansion to ISO 12,800 (same as the pocketable S120 with 1/1.7" sensor, by the way).
I suspect that the quality will not be the same  ::) ::) ::)

Right - which is why the 5DS should go much higher, not the same.

As always, comparing completely different technologies and extrapolating, you really should know better.

The S120 has a back-illuminated sensor and is not comparable to the current DSLR sensors.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:50:03 PM »
Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

Unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, I doubt the 11-24 will have as good IQ, it won't be as practical to use, it is much heavier and larger too. The 15 and 8-15 defish very well for an effective 11/12mm rectilinear image as well.

I will be getting the 11-24 if it tests out well, I won't be selling my 16-35 f4IS to get it though, for me they are very different tools and I can't imagine taking the 11-24 on any trip that doesn't specifically require it, whereas the 16-35 is a great general purpose lens. I own the 17TS-E too and see that as yet another tool that compliments rather than replaces either of the other UWA lenses.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:12:31 PM »
but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral.

A far limit of infinity is not shallow.

"Acceptably sharp" is a much narrower concept. Hyperfocal sucks and has been fairly comprehensively illustrated to be practically worthless.

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 01:13:37 PM »
Every time there is a megapixel advance some people claim "no one needs that many pixels etc. etc. etc."; they said this at 3 mp, 5mp, 10mp etc.  More pixels is always better if you don't have to give up anything (not sure yet what the 5ds will require us yield).  The best advances, like the 5dI --> 5d2 double the megapixel count without harming DR, high iso performance etc.  Nikon did this as well when they took d700 12mp sensor to the d800 with 36mp while improving DR and minimally impacting high iso performance.
I shoot both a 5d3 and a d810; I shoot a variety of subjects and I can tell you, having 36 mp and then going backwards  by 50% to 18 mp would be hurtfull.  Both the 5d3 and d810 are great balanced cameras and I would much rather see smooth symmetric increases in mp, dynamic range, frame rate/buffer, high iso performance and features rather than creating highly divergent specialized camera lines.

There is a huge difference between somebody saying 'nobody needs more than x MP' and saying 'I don't need more than x MP'

I'd love a Pentax 645Z, but I just don't need it. I'd probably like a 5DS, but again, I have no need for it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:11:59 PM »
Ah I know you've posted supporting evidence before, so I respect your view more. However, I've seen both sides argued by seemingly respectable parties, and since I'm no technical whizz, I'm still left confused.

Personally, I'd rather have more MP, as I can downsize if I want, or crop if needed. Better of both worlds.

Lee Jay's supporting evidence is rarely what it seems, or he claims it to be. For instance, that comparison uses two completely different kinds of sensor tech so is entirely redundant.

If you are going to 'compare' one metric then all else must be equal, in that comparison nothing is equal so the comparison is not just of pixel size.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 11:47:33 AM »
This link might put the price and speed (aperture) into perspective! http://petapixel.com/2014/10/13/ultra-rare-nikon-13mm-f5-6-holy-grail-lens-shows-ebay/

Of course if Nikon owners want wider than 13 for a fraction of the price they only need to buy a Canon now  ;D

Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 22, 2015, 09:07:28 PM »
Well, its a really hard decision. The 100mmL im very interested in too and it would be the perfect starting lense with a new FF body. But its like double the price than the non-L. And im still not really sure if the cash is worth the L features since IS on a macro lense is not too useful imho since i like to go as close as i can. And i dont use macro lenses for anything else than macro shots. Snapshots okay sometimes but nothing that matters.
I think ill probably go for the 60mm and work the hell out of it and if i go FF ill buy the 100L. Still...there arent many other cases where lenses are this equal haha.


i mostly go for spiders. theyre quite small so magnification is important. more than for like...frogs or such

the picture is about the closes i can go with my old 35mm 2.8 m42 lens. its not even called a macro lens i think.
important for me that i can go closer than this! cropping is not so nice on my 1100D...

Using that reasoning the most important difference between the three lenses is working distance. 60mm is 3.5" very short for live bugs, the 100L is 5.9", the 100 non L is 6.0". Personally I got the L, for me the differences are worth the money, the build, sealing, modern coatings, smoother aperture add up to a comfortably better package than the non L, throw in the IS, however regularly you use it, or not, and the L is a it of a bargain.

The other huge difference between the 60 and the 100 focal lengths is the background blur at same apertures, look at the difference below between a 60 Macro and the 100L Macro at the same magnification, framing and aperture, I prefer the considerably more blurred 100 but others might not. Link here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:31:12 AM »
And criticism of the Adobe uncreative cloud supscription/rental model does not qualify as ranting, but is an absolutely legitimate complaint against Adobe's rip-off attempts of clients who have no desire whatsoever to rent,  purchase or use Photoshop in addition to Lightroom.

Of course it qualifies as ranting because it is not what Adobe are asking of you. If you want LR as a standalone perpetual license you can buy it, if you don't want PS then don't buy it, if you don't want the subscription model or CC don't sign up.

How exactly is that "ripping you off"?

If, to use Lightroom, Adobe forced you to rent software you didn't want then they could be accused of pressuring you, if your old LR catalogs no longer opened unless you signed up and paid for a subscription license that had to include PS, and you didn't want it, then they could be accused of ripping you off. But they are not doing anything like that, so take your vitriol laden hate messages somewhere where complete lies and fabrication are accepted and encouraged, maybe Fox News?

Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you wide-screen frame/crop?
« on: February 22, 2015, 10:36:00 AM »
I never give 16:9 a seconds thought.

Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:52:38 PM »
After releasing the EF 11-24 4L, i am waiting for the new ef 35 1.4 II that outperforms the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. Any hints on that?

None of the three wide angle-to-standard focal lenght 'L' primes (24L, 35L & 50L) can match the resolution and IQ needed for the new 50MP bodies. Particularly the 24L and 35L.

What utter drivel. All three will show comfortably more resolution on the new 50MP cameras than they do on the current 24MP cameras.

Lenses don't "out resolve" sensors, and sensors don't "out resolve" lenses. The system resolution will always be lower than the lower performing part of that system. The 50 f1.8 will resolve a lot more on the new cameras too, just not as much as a 200 f2.

P.S. Even a theoretical 'perfect' lens wouldn't resolve 50MP from the new cameras, it just doesn't work like that.

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:02:56 PM »
I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.

Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.

Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too :)

To all intents and purposes the 17-55 f2.8 IS is a 24-105 f4 IS on a FF camera (technically its ff equivalent is 27mm-88mm f4.48), the difference is that f4 on a ff camera has narrower dof, a greater zoom range and is cheaper. And before anybody says "but I need the light gathering power of f2.8 for shutter speeds", well if you use 400iso @ f2.8 for 1/500 sec on your crop camera you can use 800iso @ f4 for 1/500 sec, you actually get less noise, narrower dof, the same shutter speed and, believe it or not, less motion blur! How is that? Well you are enlarging the same motion blur less with the ff enlargement.

All in all the 24-105 f4 IS out performs the 17-55 f2.8IS in every metric, this is a perfect example of why, when people move to ff, they say there is a difference but they just don't know why, there are small but noticeable improvements in everything even with, on the face of it, more modest lenses.

Addendum: Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon st-e3-rt problem
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:41:42 AM »
The contacts that usually need cleaning are always forgotten. They are not the ones on the bottom of the ST-E3-RT (or any other flash/trigger) they are the grounding springs that are in the grooves on the sides, if these lose their spring or get some dirt on them then you will get misfires. This can usually be confirmed by putting your hand on the hotshoe mounted evice and twisting it slightly, often this makes it fire consistently and is a sure sign the grounding springs are the problem.

I just looked at my ST-E3-RT and noticed there is only one earth spring connector on the right side, camera shutter release side, of it just above the metal shoe plate.

The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated.  ;D



It seems like using AdobeRGB would make the workflow a little more cumbersome in case one wants to share photos online. Is there an obvious difference between prints based on sRGB and AdobeRGB? Since i'm not going to print that often, it needs to be worthwhile for me to invest money an time into the technology.

The problem with 'studying' things like this from places like that is that they are not formally educated and often talk a lot of rubbish.

Do you shoot RAW or jpeg?

If you shoot RAW it doesn't matter which colour space you assign in your camera because the RAW file doesn't honour either, if you then carry on and work in Adobe Lightroom it works in an even bigger colour space that contains all the information your camera captured, you don't assign a colour space until you actually export the image and assigning whatever colour space you want is no more time consuming or difficult than telling it to be full sized or 1200px.

If you shoot jpeg and are editing and printing from that then it doesn't matter as you have comparatively little editing latitude anyway and you have already thrown away most of the information your camera captured.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 08:26:30 PM »
What is aperture using?
No idea, I don't own a mac and aperture refuses to be run in a virtual machine as it requires a real gpu. But as it's discontinued anyway, who cares?

I see. It used to "use" GPU. I've heard that they are preparing something new. Different from Aperture. Any ide what?

Yes, Photos, a review to it was linked earlier in the thread. Here is the Apple page https://www.apple.com/osx/photos-preview/

It is a crossover between iPhoto and a dumbed down Aperture.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 07:38:40 PM »
I stand by my original response and the disclaimer re: Apple.  I was simply pointing out that TRIM is a function of the Operating System, NOT the SSD.   

Russ: re TRIM enabler from Cindori - thanks!!

All SSD's bought from OWC don't need TRIM. I have been running several for years without issue.

Not quite.  The TRIM command is used by the operating system.  The OS uses the TRIM command to communicate with the SSD.  OWC Mercury SSD's don't need TRIM - However, Windows 7 and above enable TRIM by default.  If you're replacing a HDD with a SSD on a system running an OS earlier than Win 7 -- you'll need to know some command line syntax to query the status:  e.g. "fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify."  This command will return a status of either 1 or 0.  0 = TRIM is enabled.   If the status = 1, you'll need to run another command to set it to 0   fsutil behavior set DisableDeleteNotify 0

But as I mentioned earlier, Win 7 and above TRIM gets enabled by default.

If you're running on Apple OS, don't know.

Well maybe you should have referred to the original comment then. It was.......

......I still haven't upgraded from Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (very stable) to Yosemite because of Apple's refusal to allow TRIM to run on third party SSDs (I upgraded my mid-2010 boot drive to a Samsung 512G SSD).......

The point was Apple don't support TRIM on non Apple SSD's after 10.6.8, but that is moot because OWC SSD's don't need or use TRIM, they use DuraWrite via their built in SandForce Processor.

As I said, context. In context to the comment I was replying to my statement is entirely correct and gives NancyP all the relevant information she needs. There is no need for your "Not quite" as a precursor to your additional comments about an entirely different operating system. Yes you are giving more information, but not to the NancyP comment to which I was replying.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 223