September 23, 2014, 10:41:26 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] 4 5 ... 159
31
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 19, 2014, 12:15:12 AM »
There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.

What do you think the term "compression" means?

Quote from: Perspective Distortion Wiki
Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size.

I think the term compression means "the action of being compressed", I believe compressed means "squeezed together".

I also reassert that there is no such thing as "lens compression" and the linked Wiki article is a very badly written and illustrated example of writing by committee.

If you take a shot with any lens from the same place then the perspective is the same, crop the wider angle down to the longer focal length framing and the "lens compression" is identical, ergo, there is no such thing as "lens compression". Change focal length and move to maintain subject size and you have changed your perspective, not your "lens compression".


What do you think the term "perspective" means?
Call it whatever you want.  That extra stop makes different compared to my 70-200. It's compression under my dictionary

Well Dylan you are introducing yet another inaccurate term, and I would be remiss if I didn't try to help.

The only thing one more stop can do is reduce your dof, that has nothing to do with "lens compression" or perspective. DOF is DOF, an 85 f1.2 has less dof than a 200 f2 at the same subject size, so does a 50 f1.8, but what a 200 f2 does give you is a unique combination of DOF and perspective.


32
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 19, 2014, 12:10:08 AM »
Dude, you might want to check the part where it says "when talking about images with the same field size". 

We all understand that it is perspective but when using actual photographic lenses in real world applications, the distortion effects are clearly observable.  Its not really possible to crop a 16mm to a 300mm fov in the real world, nor can you make the 300mm replicate the perspective of the 16mm when shot close up.  That's why real people talk about "compression" when discussing long lenses and portraiture or landscape.  We know that the lens isn't literally casting a magic spell to literally warp the fabric of spacetime and literally crush a model's face flat.  Compression is a photographic term to describe a photographic effect and everybody knows what you mean when you say it.

Why, it is so badly written as to cause half this confusion.

As for "We all understand that it is perspective" well, that isn't true, many don't, and because of that we constantly hear this "lens compression" meme.

No, "compression" is an uneducated term to describe what photographers see when they mean perspective, "compression" isn't a "photographic effect" it is what is seen from the viewpoint you have.

If you want the background to appear larger in relation to the subject make the distance between you and them similar, if you want the background to be smaller in relation to the subject make the distance between you and the subject smaller than the distance from the subject to the background, this has nothing to do with the lens. The "effect" is perspective, another, inaccurate, term for it really isn't needed.

33
Lighting / Re: Basic help: How does Flash exposure compensation works
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:44:54 PM »
Do you guys mean that,

What ever the FEC setting is, when flash is ON, it will always makes the subject "well expose" at least?

Background:

Even if FEC is set to -3, flash will still give light such that 'subject' (refers to background if nothing in between) will be "well expose" (means standard exposure = 0)

No.

With flash on, the camera will try to make two exposure readings, one for the ambient and one for the subject. The ambient will be taken care of in Av and Tv automatically, you take care of it in M, the flash will try to determine the subject and with FEC 0 will assume the subject is 18% grey and send enough power to do that. FEC +3 will make the subject three stops over exposed, FEC -3 will make the subject three stops under exposed, but you have to determine how far off 18% grey your subject is, a bride with a white dress is going to need FEC +1 to +1.5 for instance.

If the camera can't separate a subject from the background it will try to expose the background as you have the FEC set, again FEC -3 will be three stops under exposed etc assuming the flash has enough power.


34
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:51:54 PM »

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:



This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.

Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your game...it's really not difficult.

Not my idea of minimal processing, besides, what you are saying is the appearance of detail in the bird is actually uncorrected noise. Which is a point I have made many times too.

But whatever, if it floats your boat I am glad you are happy.

35
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:43:36 PM »
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?

The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem.  The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same.  Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8  in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.


That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

I'm not seeing any Bokeh or contrast issues with that pic you've posted. Shooting into the light (contre-jour) with sparkly waves regardless of the supertele will pretty much give you what you've posted.
In the image you posted, I would be more concerned with your burnt out highlights than the quality of the Bokeh.
The contrast in this image is particular high and prolly needed better post prod to pull more out of the RAW file.







Careful metering & careful post prod. Notice the quality of the bokeh is very similar and the contrast is less.
These were taken with a 5DIII, ef 400mm f2.8 LIS and with 1.4x or 2x TC's
I choose the far more heavier f2.8 version because it's IQ is a lot better than the f4 DO version (I can use a 2x TC and get amazing sharpness wide open) and I really like the extra stop...sometimes f2.8 is the only way to go!

Well I have hundreds of 300 f2.8 IS shots with and without the 1.4 TC MkIII and 2 TC MkII that don't look like the 400 DO image I posted, which is why I didn't buy it.

36
Well, it betters the Sony A77 and the Pentax K3 at 3200iso nicely, makes the 7D look very bad old too.

As has been said, FF really shows the differences on things like this, the 1DX at 3200 is remarkable by comparison.

37
Lighting / Re: Basic help: How does Flash exposure compensation works
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:48:52 PM »
What the flash will try to do will depend on many things, so a simple answer just won't be correct.

The exposure mode is very important, as is the scenes EV and if there is a subject closer to the camera than the background or not.

Take this example, camera in M mode, flash in E-TTL, a person is standing 5 ft away and the background is dark and 20ft away. Set the EV value to the metered reading (this will be an overall reading to correctly expose the background), set flash to FEC+3. When you push the shutter button you get a pre flash that will send out a set amount of light, it will hit the subject and the camera will recognise that the subject reflects more light than the background, it will set the flash output to correctly expose the subject only, it will also honour your FEC +3 so will put three stops more light out of the flash to do this. The exposure will be subject overexposed by three stops and the background correctly exposed.

Do the same thing without a subject and the preflash will assume the background is the subject so it will over expose the entire scene by three stops (assuming it has enough power).

The brighter the scene the less power the flash will put out, it is a sliding decrease as the ambient goes up, this is proprietary so nobody knows the exact figures, but all it means is that as the scene gets brighter in E-TTL the flash will behave not as the subject illumination but as a subtler fill flash.

FEC just means +/- 3 stops over and under correct subject exposure, even at FEC -3 you will still get some flash output and the preflash and actual flash are so close together it is normally impossible to tell them apart anyway (unless you use second curtain sync).

38
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:31:15 PM »
There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.

What do you think the term "compression" means?

Quote from: Perspective Distortion Wiki
Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size.

I think the term compression means "the action of being compressed", I believe compressed means "squeezed together".

I also reassert that there is no such thing as "lens compression" and the linked Wiki article is a very badly written and illustrated example of writing by committee.

If you take a shot with any lens from the same place then the perspective is the same, crop the wider angle down to the longer focal length framing and the "lens compression" is identical, ergo, there is no such thing as "lens compression". Change focal length and move to maintain subject size and you have changed your perspective, not your "lens compression".


What do you think the term "perspective" means?

39
Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:54:18 PM »
However I highly recommend getting a light meter.
Do you really use a light meter that much these days?  It seems like several people have listed it as one of their least-used items and soon after going digital, I ended up selling mine.  If I was a location shooter with limited time, I think it would be handy, but as long as I have 5-10 minutes to play with the lighting and check my histograms, I haven't found a need for one.
After forcing myself to get into using one again, Its much faster and easier than the shoot/chimp/histo check. It also helps that its built into the Cybercommander but I use my L-508 if i'm throwing speedlites into the mix.
Thanks for the answer and I've been getting back into more studio shooting and have considered a meter, but hadn't thought about the Cybercommander.  It looks so bulky on the website - how is it in actual use?

Its fantastic as when you fire for the meter reading, it automatically inputs that data into your einstein and will tell you what F-stop its at and will update the f-stop info as you power up and down. Genius really as it makes metering that much easier.
Thanks, I think I'll give it a try, especially given the reasonable price.

I'm using the Cyber Commander now too. I actually don't camera mount it, I keep it off camera and do the adjusting with it and keep a CyberSync Transmitter on camera for the actual camera triggering, works really well and is a great piece of kit. I seriously wish the AB integration was as good the Einstein integration though.

40
Lenses / Re: Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:05:44 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

Your entitled to your own opinion, however it's just that, an opinion. I wasn't generalizing anything, and my assessment of the "necessity" of IS is not wrong in a general sense. Statistically and empirically, IS is essential on long lenses for any kind of hand-held use at what are often even very fast shutter speeds. Also statistically, IS is NOT essential for hand-held shots at wide and ultrawide focal lengths.

There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being essential. Usefulness is very often a matter of opinion, resulting from differences in personal style. I would be willing to bet that far more ultra wide angle lens users, if tested, would not find nearly as many reason to ask for IS to be added than those using longer focal lengths. I would be willing to bet that your insistence that IS is so useful as to effectively be essential and vehemently debate my post and pick apart words is a reaction a far, far less significant percentage of the wide angle lens using population is going to have.

My original post was simply offering a reasoning why Canon is less likely to decide to include IS in ultra wide angle lenses. It is NOT as necessary as at long focal lengths, where it is effectively essential for hand-holdability at shutter speeds that most would consider quite fast. It is very likely that ultra wide angle lenses are being used on tripods or some other kind of support, than hand-held in extremely dimly lit places at ultra low ISO settings. Inclusion of IS is also an additional cost, one which will be passed onto the end user, and NOT every user is willing to pay more money for a feature they may not find as necessary as others. I'm willing to bet the balance is tipped more heavily in favor of those who don't find IS useful there. If there was a very significant demand for IS in ultra ultra wide angle lenses like an 11-24mm, I think Canon would have included it.

Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with usefulness. It simply has to do with the likely reasons why Canon did not include IS in such an ultra wide angle lens designed for full frame sensors. If you find it useful, great! I'd recommend sending emails to Canon demanding they include IS in every single lens they make.

That would be "you're"   :)

41
Lenses / Re: Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:04:07 AM »
"IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths."

That is a self contained sentence that makes a fairly blatant claim which for you it might be true, for others, not so much; it is also a massive generalisation and I took exception to it because in at least one case, mine, it is not true (and I don't believe I am alone). Now you can get upset that everybody doesn't agree with you, that is your right, but I didn't crucify you, or twist or misrepresent your words, I just disagreed with them, and that is what a forum is about. Stop the persecution complex and do me the favour of "Please READ what I write, people."

42
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:49:56 AM »
I don't understand  everybody grizzling about the price. In 2002, yes 12 years ago, the 1Ds was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while. In 2004 the 1Ds MkII was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while. In 2007 the 1Ds MkIII was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while.

That is what pro photographers and keen hobbyists have been paying for well over ten years for Canon's top of the line 1 Series camera. There is so much pent up demand for the true 1Ds MkIII successor I suspect there will be unprecedented demand for this camera, if it is real, that they will trade at a premium and no deals will be had for a couple of years.

Personally, even though I am a 1Ds MkIII user and have been for years, I am more interested in the 1Dx MkII as I have no real desire to go over the mid 20's in MP and would prefer the higher fps. But, if it is a killer camera I could see me getting one of each.

43
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:37:19 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

44
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:13:53 PM »

Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc?  It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.

I played with it last couple days. Just like many mentioned, the compression of 200mm and f2 are insane.

My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014  :)

There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.

45
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:58:13 PM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 159