November 25, 2014, 04:20:19 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 185
301
The YN-E3-RT and ST-E3-RT both work the same, the information is not transferred to the remote flashes until you fire the transmitter, you do not need to "pre-fire" the transmitter when used on third party cameras, well my one doesn't! The updated information gets transmitted when you do the shutter sequence.

Also, you can use Group Mode with the YN-E3-RT on third party cameras if you put all the groups in M, this gives you the capability to fire five different groups instead of the three you get in M Mode, but it won't do second curtain sync in Group Mode whereas, as you said, it will in M Mode with the three groups.

302
Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 04, 2014, 12:42:18 PM »
Also, with respect to overexposing with the tc engaged. What metering mode are you using?  If you spot meter with center point you will not have the same fluctuation in camera metering with the tc engaging as compared to average metering for instance.

What is your reasoning behind that?

If you are shooting a subject that is darker or lighter than it's surroundings, and you engage the TC, you now fill your frame with more of the subject.  Therefore, the metering points will adjust exposure based on what is filling the frame.  If you are shooting center point and metering off of your subject, cutting out more of the surrounding habitat will have no impact on exposure, while if you are shooting evaluative mode (averaging the exposure for the entire scene), and you cut out more of the habitat the camera will adjust exposure based on what makes up more of the scene... in this case the subject, which will result in different exposure settings and either under or over-exposing your subject.

Think about a dark moose standing in bright green foliage.  Spot metering is the way to go when changing focal lengths if your intention is to maintain correct exposure for the moose. 

Naturally the best way to shoot is in Manual mode exposing for your subject, however this is not always possible if you are in changing lighting conditions or moving around, or shooting multiple different subjects in the same setting.  (Canada geese and snow geese for example)

That is false logic and factually incorrect.

You make a very broad assumption of the comparative subject and background illumination, where there is only an over (or under) exposure problem then all scenes must be similar, and that is unrealistic.

Further "evaluative mode (averaging the exposure for the entire scene)" that isn't how Evaluative mode works, it measures the scene in many different sections (mostly 63 for Canon) and with focus distance and colour info works out what is most probably the subject, it then weights exposure to that subject.

303
Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 04, 2014, 09:31:48 AM »
Also, with respect to overexposing with the tc engaged. What metering mode are you using?  If you spot meter with center point you will not have the same fluctuation in camera metering with the tc engaging as compared to average metering for instance.

What is your reasoning behind that?

304
I understand that this is an area of your expertise, so I mean this as a proposal for discussion, not as a statement of fact.  I think there is a difference between photographing such a space as a pro and as an amateur.  I'm an amateur, and I've encountered the bright window problem.  If you're a pro, you'll try to schedule your shoot when light is favorable, or perhaps you'll bring in some of your own lighting to balance the windows and the existing fixtures and lamps.  As an amateur I don't do that: I stumble upon a scene I like and whip out my camera.  It goes without saying that I shouldn't expect the same quality a pro would get with a properly set-up shot; however, I still want the best I can get with the 2lbs of metal and glass I happen to be carrying.  If brand x sensor is better for that than brand y, then I'd like to know that so I can work it into my decision making at my next purchase.

Would you agree that the pro vs. amateur perspectives on this room are different?

I'd agree that anybody thinking either are acceptable shots is a whole world away from a paying client above real estate listings, yes.

But as an enthusiastic amateur I would say you would get vastly better images in that scenario with either camera choosing the window/exterior view, or the interior as the key point for a single shot, or take the time and trouble to make two shots, even hand held, that can be used together to make a good image that will do the job much better.

I accept that lighting, time of day etc, is often beyond even pros capacity to control, but there it is still an easy way to take the shot much better than it was done with either system.

I will also agree that there will be a rare occasion in that type of situation where you can "get away" with one Exmor exposure rather than two Canon ones, but I'd venture the two Canon ones would give you a much better image anyway!

In truth I did learn something from the files, that was that from my perspective the tonality of heavily lifted shadows is very limited, if the lifted areas only account for a small area of the scene I can see some utility to the capability, but when the areas to be lifted become a larger part of the image, even thought hey have little noise and no banding, I can't see the practical benefit for my uses, if I had I would have had an A7r here by now!

305
Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.

We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.

It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?

To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.

Ah, I see you've missed one of jrista's major points.  My reading is that he agrees with you that, in all but a few cases, you can get indistinguishable results from a Canon sensor.  What he further asserts (and I'd love to see tested in some reasonable way) is that there is a significantly larger number of cases where it's easier and much less work to achieve the desired result with a sony sensor than with a Canon sensor.  That has the potential to be much more important.  If, for example, you can achieve your desired look in 5 minutes of PP on a sony sensor, and that same (or indistinguishable) look would take 30 minutes on a Canon sensor, isn't that also important?

Again, I'd like to see this tested properly, but it requires a well-designed test to account for the variability of PP skills.

Over the course of his rantings, diatribes and lectures he has made many many claims, some of which are quite outlandish. I can't be bothered to cherry pick them, but many of them are just absurd, and that is the main reason for this ridiculous overrun on the subject.

Getting back to the actual interesting bit here is a simple example of how much it really matters. I shoot a lot of interiors with window detail like the first post, severe DR scenes, I follow many pros who do similar work and when you get to the above real estate listings shooters the vast majority of the notable shooters are shooting Canon, why when the DR is always on our minds and often a pain in the butt? Lenses. It turns out that the differences in the 17TS-E and the Nikon? and the 24 TS-E MkII and the Nikon PC-E24mm make more of a difference to full time pros than the differences in post processing.

I would be the perfect candidate for the previously mentioned "huge" and "a lot of the time", but it just isn't true.

It is yet another one of those overinflated features, the small differences between makes and models that some people seem to get so passionate about. The Nikon D750 threads are tearing up the forums with their "not a D700 successor" comments over PC sockets etc.

It won't end and we each have to make our own choices, what jrista and the DRoners seem to refuse to accept is that many of us who own Canon cameras, and use them to good effect, made our choice from the standpoint of an intelligent and educated position, all systems are compromises, I choose to compromise DR/shadow lifting capabilities because it has less of an impact on my shooting than lens availability.

306

....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:

"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."

So?

The first seven points are self indulgent fluff that have been debated ad nauseum, you choose to take the Exmor "high ground" and ignore the extensive rebuttals that have been put forwards to your oversimplifications, that is your choice.

Your closing statement, like many of these comments, has broad support from both sides, but the devil is in the detail, "huge" we disagree on, two stops is two stops, most pros can deal with two stops in a variety of ways, and I can only speak from the point of view of a professional photographer. We also disagree on "a lot of the time", if that were true we'd have people posting lots of images where that difference made a difference, and we don't.

Change "huge" to small, and change "a lot of the time" to rarely or sometimes, and you might be in with a shot.

307
DR/shadow recovery is better with Exmor, well done, we have all known and agreed that for, well, ever. What we disagree on is how much difference that actually makes to most people most of the time in actual shooting scenarios, and your "test" did nothing to further that.

^^ This.

It sounds like jrista proved something to himself about actually using the a7R, so there was some utility to him I hope.

Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.

We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.

It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?

To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.

308
While I'm asking dumb questions... why aren't we just using hdr multiple exposures to capture some of our missing dynamic range... sure if the subject is moving... but it was a living room.

Because, as the example broke down and failed equally, it became about more than the room, it was about the lifting capability of an Exmor file, something we have all agreed on for a long time never disagreed about.


309
..If you're a fan of entirely predictable 'experiments' perhaps you'd like to drop an object – tennis ball, apple, your camera – from a couple of meters above the ground, and verify the existence of gravity.  Be sure to start a new forum topic to educate all of us on your findings.

Yes, I'm sure we' hear from a few anti-gravity types who will tell us that gravity is not really necessary or serves no practical purpose or that the experiments are contrived and have nothing to do with real life

And I am sure the people who conflate "anti" gravity with with practical applications of shadow recovery and the lack of tonality due to noise, or just because there is not much actual tonal value down there, will keep deliberately misrepresenting the views of the "anti" gravity crowd.

It seems the anti gravity crowds point is just to nuanced or subtle for the DRoners to comprehend.

310
Do you really believe the goal was to "preserve the view out of the window".

The goal was to do a dynamic range test BY preserving the view out of the window.

Which would be fine if he had done that. But on what planet is this crop of the widow view considered "preserving the view out of the window"? It is unmitigated garbage.

As shot both images are completely unusable in any real context, the DR was too extreme for either sensor to get a usable image in one shot let alone preserve the view out of the window, nothing was demonstrated very well other than what has been said and agreed so many times, when an image is severely underexposed the Exmor sensor will give less shadow noise. We all know and agree with that. We now also know that when the DR exceeds both sensors capabilities the results are equally unusable.

The issues your seeing around the window blinds were because I ETTRed heavily (attempting to put things in the "best light" for the 5D III). This is something I've argued against, and you can see the reasons why. If I had underexposed more, to prevent the CA from occurring around the blinds, I'd have been lambasted for not being "optimal" with my 5D III exposures. It doesn't matter how the test was done, it doesn't matter that it WAS intentionally looking for a very high DR scene. It really doesn't matter, none of it matters. Those who disagree that Canon DR suffers from their read noise will always disagree. They will always find a flaw with a test. That's fine, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

Yes, it's a contrived test. It was meant to be, as the intent was to push both cameras to the limits within the limited capabilities I had that day (I couldn't just pick up and take off into the mountains for a week looking for beautiful high DR landscapes, I still have a day job that pays all the bills.) My goal was to provide data. The data is there, the RAW images are there, they are still there and they will remain there. If people want to see the differences for themselves, contrived scenario or not, they can. That was my goal. The rest? Well, I'm really sick and tired of debating this. The attitudes people portray over this very clinical subject is ridiculous, and I'm tired of being party to any of it. It's become degrading, to both sides.

Just like always, making S___ up. Show me one person who has ever said that?

DR/shadow recovery is better with Exmor, well done, we have all known and agreed that for, well, ever. What we disagree on is how much difference that actually makes to most people most of the time in actual shooting scenarios, and your "test" did nothing to further that.

311
Do you really believe the goal was to "preserve the view out of the window".

The goal was to do a dynamic range test BY preserving the view out of the window.

Which would be fine if he had done that. But on what planet is this crop of the widow view considered "preserving the view out of the window"? It is unmitigated garbage.

As shot both images are completely unusable in any real context, the DR was too extreme for either sensor to get a usable image in one shot let alone preserve the view out of the window, nothing was demonstrated very well other than what has been said and agreed so many times, when an image is severely underexposed the Exmor sensor will give less shadow noise. We all know and agree with that. We now also know that when the DR exceeds both sensors capabilities the results are equally unusable.

312
EOS Bodies / Re: white balance issues
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:55:28 AM »
but what i mean is:

the camera set ti 2500K was still yellow (warm) under those horrible lights

i know that under those lights i will likely never get a perfect white balance,

what i am asking is, how did the camera set an even colder than 2500K white balance using the custom white balance? and why is this ability not available manually? because if i could i would have set the white balance half way between the coldest i could (2500K) and whatever setting it did using the custom WB, as one was too blue and the other too yellow

In answer to your original question. It is quite possible that the "Auto WB" settings have a wider range than the manual WB options, just like flashes in manual mode can only go down to 1/128 (or 1/64) but in ETTL they can go lower, but I doubt it, just look at the EXIF to see what the camera actually set and I am sure you will see the true difference is probably the tint value.

If you are just using the ºK value in manual WB you are missing the key Tint element to the WB equation. The camera, in auto WB, will assign a temp and tint value, in manual ºK the WB will not have a tint value applied.

As Neuro points out the capabilities of WB adjustments in DxO and PS ACR are the same, but the key to the van shot is RAW, WB corrections do not work on jpegs. If you are shooting in such difficult scenes regularly i would suggest relooking at an efficient RAW workflow, it takes no more time because you have batch and action recording capabilities in ACR/PS, they are much more powerful than in camera jpeg processing.

313
Well, Aglet's not quite as anonymous as you might suppose. http://a2bart.com/

You can browse his website and draw your own conclusions.

I like this one.  It's titled, "9th Street Bridge, SW" but I'd call it "Stairway to Heaven" because of all the artifacts in the sky.  Really speaks to having a high standard for image quality in the way one showcases their work.

I took the high quality outlets that represent him to be a true measure of his creative worth, one farm seed shop in Edmonton.

Apache Seeds, 10136 - 149 St NW Edmonton

With representation in the art world like that I find it very easy to take anything the guy says with complete seriousness. /sarcasm.

314
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 30, 2014, 03:04:49 PM »
Westcott Apollo 50"
http://www.fjwestcott.com/light-modifiers/halo-apollo/apollo/50-mega-js-apollo
Very good softbox for three or six flashes.



The Lightware forusquare
http://lightwaredirect.com/foursquare/index.html
Great modifier with much functionality.

Any Parabolic umbrella, The PCB PLM range are great value.
http://www.paulcbuff.com/plm.php

315
I wish I could go back in time and reshoot some of my images from the 1D, whilst they still stand up well there is no doubt that they would be much strnger images now with more modern gear.

Having said that, there is nothing I can shoot now that I couldn't shoot then. I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic. Yes this is a gear forum, not an image based forum, but surely the true pride in ownership comes from making great images not possession. The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 185