April 20, 2014, 03:51:34 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 107
301
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E3-RT
« on: March 01, 2014, 11:15:19 PM »
So after using my YN-E3-RT in a pro environment for a few weeks I have to say, it sucks. Mine has been unreliable, with regular loss of communication, remote misfires, and very touchy menu interface that only happens when the thing is mounted on a camera.

I now have to take it off camera to make any adjustments to remote or menu settings, once the thing drops a flash you have to go very close to reconnect.

The thing is a frustration, when it works it is fantastic, especially on pre 2012 bodies, when it doesn't, I just want to throw it away. It is not in the same league of reliability as the Canon ST-E3-RT that I also own.

302
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo YN-E3-RT Officially Released
« on: March 01, 2014, 11:14:26 PM »
So after using my YN-E3-RT in a pro environment for a few weeks I have to say, it sucks. Mine has been unreliable, with regular loss of communication, remote misfires, and very touchy menu interface that only happens when the thing is mounted on a camera.

I now have to take it off camera to make any adjustments to remote or menu settings, once the thing drops a flash you have to go very close to reconnect.

The thing is a frustration, when it works it is fantastic, especially on pre 2012 bodies, when it doesn't, I just want to throw it away. It is not in the same league of reliability as the Canon ST-E3-RT that I also own.

303
So after using my YN-E3-RT in a pro environment for a few weeks I have to say, it sucks. Mine has been unreliable, with regular loss of communication, remote misfires, and very touchy menu interface that only happens when the thing is mounted on a camera.

I now have to take it off camera to make any adjustments to remote or menu settings, also once the thing drops a flash you have to take it very close to reconnect, even with fresh batteries.

The thing is a frustration, when it works it is fantastic, especially on pre 2012 bodies, when it doesn't, I just want to throw it away. It is not in the same league of reliability as the Canon ST-E3-RT that I also own.

304
ThinkTank Retrospective 10 http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/retrospective-10-pinestone-shoulder-bag.aspx

Not a sling bag but a shoulder bag, most comfortable strap I ever used, superbly made and very functional.

If you really really want a sling style then I'd look at the ThinkTank TurnStyle 20. http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/turnstyle-20-charcoal-sling.aspx But I haven't used one.

305
Portrait / Re: Brenizer Method First Try
« on: March 01, 2014, 10:32:14 PM »
That only works out to a 66mm f1.3.

But great shot, especially for a first try at the technique.

306
Lenses / Re: removing the tripod collar on the 70-200 f 2.8 II IS lens
« on: March 01, 2014, 09:04:10 AM »
I took the one off my MkI over 8 years ago, it is mint condition and a completely different colour to the lens it used to match exactly.

307
Lenses / Re: removing the tripod collar on the 70-200 f 2.8 II IS lens
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:37:52 PM »
This might help too.


308
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:38:33 PM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.

I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.

Focal length is a function of magnification, change magnification and you change dof. So, if you shoot from the same place with different focal lengths then make same sized prints with the same aperture value the dof is different. The focal length changed the magnification so it did affect dof.

If you use a shorter focal length and move forwards to keep the subject the same size in the viewfinder and use the same aperture value, the dof will be the same because the subject magnification is the same, but the perspective will be different. As per the second LL ink above.

If you shoot different formats from the same place you need to change the focal length to get the same fov and change the aperture value to give the same actual physical aperture and the dof is the same. Did you notice in the above example that 75mm/f2.8 = 26.8mm, 100mm/f3.5=28.6mm and 150mm/f5.6=26.8mm, all three apertures are basically the same actual physical size. In this instance focal length, in and of itself, did not affect dof, as different focal lengths from the same place took images with the same dof.

You need to disassociate dof from focal length, think magnification and it gets a little simpler.

309
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:49:43 AM »
With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.

I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.

310
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:48:47 AM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.

311
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:39:40 AM »
Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in D alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.

The difference in DoF based on D alone between 17mm f/4 and 200mm f/4 is massive.  17mm f/4 with a subject 20 feet away yields a DoF extending from 14 feet in front of the subject to infinity, whereas 200mm f/4 with a subject at 20 feet yields a DoF that extends approxiamtely 4 inches on either side of the subject.
That's for the calculations based on the same circle of confusion, c (0.03mm). These setups have different magnifications, M (1/28 for 200mm, and 1/350 for 17mm), and as c = d * M, that gives us d200mm = 0.84mm and d17mm = 10.5mm. That's a huge difference in d.

If we require the 1mm d for our 17mm image, the DoF will extend 6ft, and not 14, on the front, and 18ft, and not infinity, on the back.

I also have to disagree with the idea that, "d acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure)."  One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV.  In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).
That's what we use tilt for.

However, in your calculations above it's considered OK to have a dot in the front plane of "DoF" rendered as a 1cm blob over the plane of focus.

If the aperture value is consistent crop the 17mm image to the 200mm image and you then have the same magnification, but very different dof. Change the aperture value to give yourself the same aperture area and crop and the DOF is the same.

312
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:33:46 AM »

Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.

No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification.

A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.
DoF is affected by 3 things:
1. entrance pupil ("aperture") size - D,
2. distance from the plane of focus (i.e. from the plane of an object we are shooting) to the entrance pupil - L,
3. diameter of the acceptable unsharpness measured in the plane of focus (i.e. as a property of the object we are shooting) - d.

If lf is front DoF and lb is back DoF, then:

(L-lf) / D = lf / d
(L+lb) / D = lb / d


If lf and lb are much smaller than L (as in macro), then lb ~= lf ~= L * d / D.

That can be derived from simple geometrical optics if we study where rays passing through a point in the front or the back DoF plane cross the plane of focus and the entrance pupil plane. No information about what happens behind the lens entrance pupil (except the information that is already contained in the choice of d) is actually needed or relevant.

The difference in the DoF of 17mm and 200mm lenses (other than from the obvious difference in D) comes from the fact that d acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure).

As for this, aside from the corrected error, I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").

There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.

From a practical point of view CoC figures are moot, people never view from "the correct" distance, they don't intuitively think as they move back and forth whist looking at a print or screen the DoF is changing, but it is.

313
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:13:11 AM »
  One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV.  In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).

That is one very cool and under appreciated uses for shift in the TS-E's, shift so that the important part is covered by the center (or close to) of the image circle. It also works with projection distortion, you can place a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm TS-E shot and if you have shifted they have no distortion.

314
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon fanboy considering switching to Nikon
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:20:07 AM »
1/ Canon has ALWAYS been inferior to Nikon in terms of sensor quality. especially DR (I have seen at least 3 professional lab tests including the famous DXO).  2/ Why do so many pros (more than 50% in a recent poll) own Canon bodies?

3/ If Canon does not release a new camera with better DR, I'll switch to Nikon forever. 

4/ Canon fanboy of 25 years (FD, EOS, EOS-digital systems + 20 lenses)

1/ No they haven't, they wiped the floor with Nikon sensors for years, now the seesaw is the other way. Heck for years Nikon said there was never any point to a FF sensor!

2/ Because taking the images that put food on the table is abut a lot more (a hell of a lot more) than one sensor metric. The difference in DR pales to insignificance when you need in focus images, for instance, ad Canon AF still beats the pants off Nikon AF, apart from that damn 1D MkIII mess up, which temporarily gave Nikon a sales boost.

3/ Bye, nobody cares, especially Canon. They have bean counters that work out how many people are expected to leave over any feature or non feature, you have been accounted for and ignored.

4/ So what? You don't owe Canon anything and they don't owe you anything. If more DR, or whatever you feel would serve you better by another manufacturer, is critical for your images get something else.

ok, guys, I should have said that Canon has been lagging behind Nikon/Sony in the last 5 years (a long time) or so in sensor  DR.  I have seen too many published articles bashing Canon sensor technology and am upset becuase I have invested thousands of dollars in Canon gears.  It is a shame that even the 1DX has a sensor much worse than  Nikon/Sony cameras half its price!

I vote to have you promoted Director of Canon USA Customer Service (**).

For every article published bashing Canon sensors I can link you to thousands of professionally shot and published images shot with that very gear.

Do you want to talk about it or use it? If you want to use it then show me some of your images where the DR of your current Canon sensors has seriously let you down where you have used the gear to its optimal capability. I am not talking flash misfires, incompetent use of M mode or exposure compensation, straight honest images you have shot that are ruined by the difference between Canon and Nikon DR. Until then grow up.

Now, after you have shown me your multitude of ruined images because you can't take a good shot with Canon sensors, I will point out that both Getty and Reuters, the two main shooters of the Olympics, use Canon cameras. I will then ask you how they manage to get better than good images in the highest pressure environments for sports shooters possible, yet you can't in everyday circumstances, what could possibly be the difference between the two?

As for calling me "Director of Canon USA Customer Service", why? Because I agreed with you that Nikon have "better" sensors? Because I said if Canon gear doesn't cut it for you go to a different manufacturer? Sounds kinda lame when put like that doesn't it? I am hardly pitching for Canon with those two comments  :D

315
Yes. But I will try again tomorrow. I even plugged in the cable to make sure. Everyone says they are the same unit, just better.

Can you explain the TX vs TRX functionality?

I know TRX transmits and receives. Does tx only transmit?

I believe so, but the 602's come with a dedicated transmitter, and any number of receivers, they are not transceivers like the 603/603II's, so they don't have the TRX/TX switch.

There were several changes when the RF-602 became the RF-603, most were for the better but some functionality was lost because they became transceivers, I thought all the losses being reinstated, and even more improvements, were the point of the RF-603II's.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 107