September 23, 2014, 08:28:02 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 6 ... 159
46
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 03:19:50 PM »
The 17 TS-E when shifted makes an 11mm rectilinear panorama. So the front elements should be similar.

47
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:45:42 PM »
The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice.  The 45 and 90s don't have this.

Well, they sort of do.  But you have to remove four screws from the mount end, rotate the shift section, then put the screws back in.  It's a little easier to just push the lever and rotate on the L lenses.   ;)
But it goes much deeper than that, the 24 MkI, 45 and 90 can only have their tilt and shift axes either parallel or at 90ยบ to each other, and as Neuro points out is is a screwdriver job to do it; on the other hand the 17 and 24 MkII can have the tilt and shift axes set at any angle between them, this allows compounded movements the like of which could only be had with field cameras and similar prior to this.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:35:12 PM »
I would buy the wireless addon despite the expense... IF Canon got their act together on the software side.

While the iPhone app is decent...

-There is no Windows phone/Lumia app at all. (i.e. for Lumia 1020 - best photography smartphone that exists)
-The desktop PC version is an all around mess with very obvious spaghetti code
-There is no Windows 8 Touch app (i.e. for Surface and windows tablets) at all
-I heard the Android version needs work too, but I have no experience with it.

Either way, Canon's needs to spend some real money on software development before they get me to buy an addon like that.

You don't use the WFT's via the App, you use the WFT via several modes though I have found the best  to be the HTTP mode, it works on everything that runs a browser, it gives much greater control and just works.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:08:42 PM »
For me, I have no interest in WiFi for streaming images off to the internet. Most of my photography is done outdoors and very little of it is done in Wifi range of anything... probably a quarter of it is done outside cell phone range....

What I was interested in, was the ability to remote control the camera. That will be missed... and no WiFi SD card is going to give me those abilities.

My situation exactly, it's a pity that Canon don't get with the programme, WiFi isn't some new & unknown tech, it's been around for a long while now, Canon seems generally to have gone down the path of least resistance, add on at a reasonably large cost, pity.

I've tried a few work arounds, the only one that I absolutely recommend is the CamRanger, this system via my iPad Mini simply doesn't leave the bag, since buying the CamRanger I've just adapted it to pull those Images that are exceptionally hard to get any other way, great system, works great on the Canon 1Dx & 5DMK III also the 1DMK IV & 5DMK II, as far as I know works on just about anything.

http://camranger.com

The attached Image I'de tried on a number of occasions using different systems, monopod down low etc, but the vehicle scares the Wildlife so the shots are difficult.

With the attached Image I set the 1Dx + 300f/2.8 II on the RRS small Metal Tripod to get the Camera down Low, attached to the CamRanger, in the middle of the Track, drove off 100 meters behind some bush, monitored via my iPad Mini in the vehicle, adjusted Focus via the iPad Mini, shot the Image via the iPad mini/CamRanger as the Mum & Cubs approached the "strange looking" object in the middle of the path.

The Image isn't anything wonderful, but I just like it as all the Animals have that look of being intrigued, although Mum did have a constant frown & look of suspicion. Difficult to get this sort of Image from a Vehicle, not impossible, but the CamRanger opens up new avenues for Imaging that had been almost impossible before.

Edward,

Have you tried the WFT-E6? I ask because I really like the one on my 1Ds MkIII's and the newer versions have much more functionality.

If so how does the CamRanger compare?

50
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:50:22 PM »
I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.

It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus. Also if you can stitch you will get the fov of the 17 at much higher quality too.

I have the 17 and use it a lot, but I need the fov in one shot.

The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading. If you want to play on the cheap the 90 is the only other one I would recommend, the IQ is very high and for product work and it is very fine, it works well with extension tubes too.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »
Blaming the shell for no WiFi is simply a blatant attempt at excusing their crippling the camera. No wireless flash control alone should have ppl up in arms.
WiFi is now a basic feature & cost very little to incorporate.  :o ppl excusing is ridiculous. We ready have WiFi & NFC in every every thing from your phone, car, watches & rings. Heck even your house front door can be opened with NFC.

It does have wireless flash control, optical wireless flash control. It does not have radio wireless flash control.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:07:22 AM »


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

I think your still missing the point we are trying to make, though. It doesn't matter if they aren't "as recoverable" with the default metered settings. If that turns out to be a regular problem, then you have TONS of room to underexpose with a D810 or any other Exmor camera, preserve the highlights and ensure they have detail, and you'll still have tons of shadow recovery ability.

What you guys are talking about is just the default metered, tone-curved response in a RAW editor. The dynamic range of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with that. More dynamic range is more dynamic range. You can have highlights as richly colored and detailed as you want to by properly utilizing the greater DR of an Exmor, without sacrificing the shadows.

You can make all the arguments you want about how incapable the average user might be in regards to actually being able to extract the most performance out of a camera like the D810. I think that's just more misdirection, though. If you look at what people are doing with those cameras, they clearly know how to put that extra DR to good use, how to extract the most performance from them. Especially photographers who know what RAW is and are going to be using RAW (which I think is a much greater percentage of those buying cameras above the $2000 mark than those buying below).

Even for those who start out not knowing much about how to use a digital camera are still capable of learning, and with more capable hardware comes the greater ease of producing amazing works of photographic art. I for one would love to see novices creating photos with rich blacks, instead of photos riddled with vertical banding (a fairly common sight on 500px "Fresh".) (Which I know for some, such as Sporgon, intrudes upon their prized elite status as a "real" photographer, a status for which they would apparently happily give up having better hardware in their own hands if it meant keeping the non-photographer masses non-photographers...a reasoning I honestly cannot fathom.)

I'm not missing the point, and I don't consider Nikon users dumb. I do take issue with constant references to "this is x amount better" when there is limited experience of both, and when that limited experience of both includes the obvious falsehood that both must be exposed the same, I cringe.

I am not saying Canon has more "high end DR" or that it has as much as Exmor, I am saying anybody that is so unfamiliar with the kit as to not know the differences in optimal exposures for both isn't going to get optimal results. Sure it might be classified as meter compensation, I have no problem with that, some cameras allow you to calibrate  your meter; in the old film days we used to decide how far off the iso rating was to what we could actually shoot at, 1/3 stop was common for slide film.

53
After reading yet another hatefest aimed at DxOLabs just recently, I am a bit surprised about the criticism aimed at Roger Cicala and his latest test report. DxOLabs got slammed hard because they measured lens performance together with the camera, and go figure, Canon didn't look good. Now Roger measured lens performance alone, Canon again didn't look stellar, and people throw another tantrum.

The only type of test, however contrived, which would find common acceptance here, would be one that yields results saying "Canon is better, pictures shot with Canon gear are automatically better, and people using Canon are a smart, attractive bunch, unlike users of other equipment."

I hope you are not including me as a criticizer of Roger, several times I have written of my respect for him, his work, his results and conclusions.

I don't care what gear anybody uses, I use my selection because I felt it was the right thing for me to get, and I might point out that Roger is a 6D Canon system owner. I don't care how my gear "tests" I care how it works.

If your comment is directed in part at me I would also ask what is wrong in questioning the value in such a test, especially given that the tester himself has replied that he agrees it is of extremely limited, nay "pointless", value.

54


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

Precisely.

Precisely virtually zero practical value.

55
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

Science require control of the variables. Too many variables and you can conclude nothing.


Photography isn't a science. If you don't include all the variables you end up with purely academic test results that have extremely limited, if any, real world value.

In my opinion, the picture on the page is photography, but the benchmark performance of different optics is optical lens science. http://www.answers.com/topic/lens-1  There is no objective way to measure photography. But, there is, (and needs to be) a way to objectively measure lens performance. And, like all science, the best testing measurements require the best scientific method, which includes limiting variables to (hopefully)- one. Pax.

Why?

The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that the "best" tested lens will give the "best" photograph, when that is patently false. Even if you totally discount the photographer from the photograph making equation your fundamental point is flawed.

For example, you have an assignment to photograph Usain Bolt crossing the line of the 100m at the next Olympics, you can use any camera system, just get the image. For arguments sake the Canon 400 f2.8 tests better than the Nikon 400 2.8, but the Nikon has more MP and more DR, however the Canon has better AF, but the Nikon system can resolve more even though it doesn't test as well. Hm, the Canon can do more fps. Now which do you choose? The lens that esoterically "tests better" or the the other system that scores much better for more meaningful metrics; or the system that "wins" your test but for reasons other than that...........

I'm sorry, sir, but you simply cannot conduct science in the way you have described here. :)  Once again, there are way too many variables. The fact is, that if you photographed Usain Bolt crossing the finish line with two identical situations except, one, with a good lens, and, the other with a great lens, the photo with the better lens will be better. That is simply a fact. About that there can be no rationale doubt or conflict.

Were I a Knight you could call me sir, as I am not you can't.

Were photography a science you might have a point, as it isn't you don't.

If you assume the AF, the AA filter, the demosaicing algorithm, etc etc have no impact on the image output your example might be valid, as they do, it is not.

56


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

Convolution does not allow for lens variation, it can only give you a figure for the lens or lenses tested.

Convolution does not allow for factors most commonly used in actual photography, like auto focus.

Convolution is of limited value in telling you what you will actually get image wise.

Photography, despite the best efforts of many here, is still about images, not equations. Nothing will truthfully tell you what you will get out of your camera until you take an image with your camera and your lens in your shooting situation.

57
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:24:19 PM »
Well, as you say, maybe it's just time to get empirical. I'll be renting another camera soon here...I think probably the A7s and if I can the necessary adapter to use my Canon lenses, so the optics can be the same across the board. I believe, and this is based on my own experience with D800 and D600/610 files, that the differences can be quite meaningful. I believe the shadows are deeper, more richly colored deeper than a Canon file, etc. It's really just come down to the data, though...so I'm going to get some, and share it all. I'm actually not even expecting that to really end the debate...what some people consider meaningful could very well still be considered meaningless by others...but, at least I can put together some concrete, real-world data that can be referenced in the future.

As we are talking about a visual medium ot would make sense to post visual illustrations, unfortunately my hands are tied, the Nikon files I work are not mine and I have no examples of Canon's and Nikon's being shot during the same shoot I can post.

As for shadows, I 100% agree, Exmor sensors have a meaningful difference on screen, particularly if your screen is too bright, I need no "proof" of that. I do question the need to raise Zone II "Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded" up significantly on any kind of regular basis though, to "need" to do that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of core exposure ideas, and any hope of turning even Exmor Zone II exposed areas into meaningful detail with realistic colour, texture and detail is pointless. Yes it doesn't have the noise and banding a Canon file might have before finishing processing, but it still won't make for a pleasingly detailed and toned area of the image.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:11:11 PM »


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:07:02 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.

60
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:54:16 PM »
"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.

Long term yes, short and mid term no, it was a killer time for many, I maintained my FD gear until 2004, so was a very late adopter.

But that was my point, Canon seem to make the decisions, tough though they may be, that actually do make sense to us in the long run. A generation behind here, one ahead there, it pales into insignificance in the long term, but Canon have a proven track record of making the "right" decisions for photographers, not every photographer, but enough to keep a more than viable business running well up until this point, I don't know if anything has changed that we should doubt their future abilities.

The 5D MkIII is two years old now and is generally accepted as the best general purpose 135 format digital camera ever made by anybody, it is just now being "matched" by Nikon, not embarrassed, not left in the weeds, matched, quite how that situation brings about the constant Canon MUST DO THIS, or must do that, or improve three stops to be competitive etc etc just doesn't make sense.

There is a complete disconnect between the rabid critics and the capabilities of the actual cameras available.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 159