April 20, 2014, 11:46:08 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 107
451
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 03:44:57 PM »
I visit this thread every now and then, just to be entertained ;)

But it´s been a while since the D4s was announced and I have not seen an official Nikon specifications yet. Have any of you?

What I found on Nikon rumors was:
- the same 16MP sensor
- higher fps rate
- improved AF
- better low light performance
- improved video
- XQD and CF memory cards

Ken Rockwell (don´t mention his name) said a couple of weeks back: "The Nikon D4s is simply a mid-model refresh of the Nikon D4 of 2012. The D4S is a minor update, as Nikon has been doing since at least the 1980s when the N8008 became the N8008s. The D4S is even less significant than other S models because Nikon isn't even selling it yet as of January 2014; Nikon is still "developing" it."

And there are a few more like that, where one refers to the other.

Doesn´t sound like the killer of anything to me ...

Good to see that someone still remembers what the topic is ;)

Anybody that has used a 1DX and D4 will know the thread is a false question, the D4s is the belated answer to the 1DX.

The more interesting question is what that does to the time frame of the 1DX replacement, I suspect it will delay it as it puts a Nikon 1DX beating camera several years off.

452
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 03:41:30 PM »

That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.

If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.

I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.

well, if I'd be coming from 10 years old written-off 550EXes, I'd also see much more sense to upgrade them to 600EXes. But in my case I got a pre-2012 camera model and Canon speedlites that are either still current (430EX II) or were current (580EX II) when I purchased them only about 2 years ago. Plus a 430EX which is maybe 5 years old. All of them used rather sparingly. Would you jump to an all 600EX-RT setup? btw. where I live, the ST-E3 retails from 270 € (=USD 365) and 600EX-RT runs from € 485 (=USD 650) a piece. The Yongnuo trigger is € 100 and I expect their YN-600EX to come in at maybe € 200 ... just to give you an idea, what I am looking at.

Anyway to me its a very minor problem: a few more weeks of occasional optical triggering until the Yongnuos become available.

Canon however has a bigger problem ... they spent R&D money and managed to create a highly beneficial technical advantage for many (potentially all) users of their ecosystem ... and then they don't distribute the goodness (against reasonable charge of course) to as many of their users as possible, but only to some ... 2012-Camera-model owners and 600EX-purchasers - rather than fully leveraging that USP against all their competitors. And driving nice synergies of scale. That's all I am saying.

I have two $7,000 pre 2012 camera bodies, my only post 2012 body is an EOS-M, so what? Canon is offering the RT system with the functionality it has, buy it on that basis or don't, they don't care which you choose, it is their sandbox and they have drawn the line in it, we can play if we want but only up to the line, don't cry that the line isn't further away as they never said it was. I was happy with the RT performance on my pre 2012 bodies, it gave me everything the optical system did but it did it much more reliably via radio. Subsequently I have also bought the YN-E3-RT and like that, but it is not without its own issues, besides, by your logic are not Yongnuo overcharging for the YN seeing as how all they have done is copy Canon's work, put it in $20 worth of parts and then rip us off for $150?

In your situation I'd get either the Phottix Mitros+/Odin or the 600's, because they are the two "best" systems you can buy today, but then I take photos today, and yesterday, and tomorrow, I don't care what Yongnuo might do in a month, or two........, or when the firmware that actually allows it to work on my camera will be available, another month, or two. You pay more for your gear, so what? You get more for it secondhand, look at the total cost to upgrade, that is what we did in the FD to EOS debacle, such that I didn't buy any new Canon products for over ten years (1994-2004). Or wait quietly for six months, see if the YN-600-RT is any good and get that, but if you can wait six months then I don't understand your anxiety now.

Get what you need from what is available when you need it. If you are just out to bitch about life in general fine, but there are plenty more worthy things to bitch about than Canon's implementation of the RT system.

453
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 02:59:46 PM »

I seldom agree with AvTvM on issues, but on this one, he/she has a point.

Only if you think that if somebody sells you something (including warranty and service) they owe you more than that thing.

Canon are giving us all a choice, buy into the RT system as it is, or not; buy it for what it currently does, or not. The 600-EX-RT does not render the 580 EXII or any other EX going back to my 550's, obsolete, it integrates with them flawlessly with the complete compatibility of the older optical wireless system. You would only have a point if Canon came out with a 650 EX-WT next year that didn't work with either the optical or current wireless system.

Canon have done that in the past, when they went from the FD system to the EF system, that was cause for genuine anguish, the systems were totally incompatible, but that is not what was done with the RT system, it retains all the functionality and integration with your 580EX/II/550EX/430/II/90/120/220/320/II 430/II but it also has more stuff. if we had been able to use our FD lenses on our new EOS bodies we could have made the switchover easier, we couldn't have thrown our toys out of the pram because Canon didn't make a $50 thing that made our manual focus lenses auto focus lenses, that is a farcical standpoint.

454
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 01:58:34 PM »
I would hazard a guess that the 600-EX-RT has far outsold any previous top level flash since the 550EX because it introduced a truly new and innovative feature. I am in the process of selling my last 550EX's, I never saw any practical advantage to the 580EX/II, and have replaced them all with 600's. I don't care about 460-EX-RT's, I don't care about monolights (though I know some do), I suspect Canon are more interested in my speedlite opinion than yours because I am a purchaser, you are not. I don't care if they don't do anything else with the RT system for another ten years, the 550's lasted me that, I bought it for what it can do, not refuse to to buy it because of what I think it could do.

that's all fine and dandy. It would have still been in Canon's better interest to push the RT system out as vehemently and quickly as possibly.  You could still have purchased any number 600EX-RTs at any given price. No damage done. And in addition other pros and amatuers would have purchased millions of 450EX-RTs and RT-tranceivers Millions of them. And the Canon RT wireless ETTTl-System would be ubiquitzuos throughout the Canon-ecosystem by now. More "tie-in" of existing customers (in addition to invstments in glass) and mor lure for potential new customers. Much larger and longer-lasting comparative advantage against competitors without   radio-wireless ETTL-system.  Win-Win-Win.

Under almost any market condition, if a company sells 2 or 3 "similar" products they will sell more in TOTAL compared to selling 1 product only. Even Canon does not only sell 1D-X. And 4 versions of white 70-200 lenses. Same applies to speedlites.  :-)

That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.

If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.

I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.

The choices in flashes have never been greater, you can buy whatever you want or feel is fair. Go Phottix Odin, Mitros+, Yongnuo 622C, 580EXII + PW Flex etc etc, each has it's stand alone features. The Canon RT system is one of only a few systems that offer built in ETTL radio, it is the only speedlite system to give five groups.

Choose by features or price, I don't care, I did and my money, after much consideration, went on the Canon RT system and so far I am very pleased it did. But don't try and tell me Canon is making some huge mistake by not pampering to your childish outbursts for $10 triggers to make their headline radio flash system work on your $80 clone flashes.

455
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:55:51 PM »
With Canon I mean the corporation, run by its executives.

Just to stick with the example of radio wireless ETTL speedlite triggering for one more moment:
Canon could technically crack the Pocketwizard stronghold and some technical challenges to inmplement the RT system. Against what many naysayers her said before, Canon could do it on the 2.4 GHz band [fast enough for 2 way communication flash-triggering] and they can market it globally with only 2 product variants in all important and civilized markets on earth, despite differing radio communications regulations and standards. Yes, there are some markets with such absurd regulations, that the only get 600-EX without RT. I am sure fanbois there will be also to happy to buy those.  ;D

I am convinced, Nikon and Sony were not ABLE to get wireless ETTL speedlite triggering implemented. If they had been able to, they would have done so by now. I am quite certain, that they are working on the issue and will eventually bring it to market. Canon is squandering precious lead-time to get their system universally established.  Becaue their short-sighted greed only lets them think of "potentially lost 600EX-RT sales" for any 100 successful 450EX-Rt sales and for any 1000 successfull RT-transceiver sales that would expand the RT-ecosystem to all existing and still "semi-current" 580/430 speedlites. And possibly even allow their customers to radio-trigger monolights mixed with (ETTL-) speedlites ... all from one and the same RT-master.     

To me that is shortsighted with greed.

And that is why you are a forum nobody and not a high level executive in a global corporation.

I would hazard a guess that the 600-EX-RT has far outsold any previous top level flash since the 550EX because it introduced a truly new and innovative feature. I am in the process of selling my last 550EX's, I never saw any practical advantage to the 580EX/II, and have replaced them all with 600's. I don't care about 460-EX-RT's, I don't care about monolights (though I know some do), I suspect Canon are more interested in my speedlite opinion than yours because I am a purchaser, you are not. I don't care if they don't do anything else with the RT system for another ten years, the 550's lasted me that, I bought it for what it can do, not refuse to to buy it because of what I think it could do.

456
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:39:23 PM »
That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.

A few years ago I worked making content and creating characters for video games. I'm responsible for implementing the first bokeh effects into a best selling video game. I'm personally responsible for creating some of the most iconic images of the last decade, and in doing so I consulted a few people on bokeh which consisted of dozens of optics experts that researched for universities. I'm certainly glad you set the record straight. For years, I've been foolish enough to believe that Ivy League professors were legitimate and knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible. The Canon adds glow to objects that are out of focus. This is a very simple concept to understand.

You can decide if you like this glow or if you do not like this glow personally. However I can tell you that it is an unusual feature. Basically all of the common pro Canon, Nikon or third party lenses do not exhibit this behavior.

Hope that helps.

I admit the word "faster" was too easy to misinterpret, I should have used smoother.

As for your bio, I am unimpressed, as you would be were I to tell you I was the first Westerner to walk the entire length of the Great Wall Of China on my hands and that I also hold four Guinness world records.

But back on topic, anybody with your reputed skills and reputation should be able to understand the lunacy/futility/pointlessness of "proving" lack of contrast in an image that one, they didn't even take, and two, had all the black taken out!

Read the actual words I wrote, I have not said your opinion is without merit, I have said your "proof" is without merit. As I already said, your point could be easily made were you to post an unedited copy of your Bridget's "proof" dog image. Alternatively you can lose even more credibility by throwing out all kinds of subject changing irrelevancies.

457
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Best HDR Software?
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:47:37 AM »
I'm looking to buy PtGui for the pano aspect, but is it also a capable HDR program?  It is advertised as HDR stitching software, but video tutorials I've watched seem to use a work flow that is about blend plains in PtGui, then processing in other software.  Am I missing something before I make the purchase, or is it just a matter of preference and the one program can do the whole thing?

You can take your HDR brackets for each pano shot into PtGui and have it stitch together a 32 bit HDR pano.  Save this Pano and then take the saved high bit pano into Photoshop and use the NiK HDR plug-in on the high bit image to tone map it into a standard tif format image.  I've used this process many times and it works well for me.  You can see some of my sunset panos done this way in the sunrise-sunset gallery at www.ronbrunsvold.com


Both CS6 and Lightroom 5 (and maybe 4) can process the 32 bit file, no need for NiK if you have those.

458
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:26:37 AM »
...
Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. ...


I think you may have found an explanation why I don't like the Canon 24-70's. They're boring, and I think I know why - they're probably not intended as creative lenses but instead are reliable news photographer's tools. The lens that gets the shot 'safely' right every time because it is sharp and has a large aperture. I agree that from what I've seen the Tamron gives the best 'creative' photos and for that it would be my 24-70 of choice. But then as you said (and I agree) the 24-105 has a lot of 'pop' too and this, to me is important. I gladly add the extended zoom range at cost of a stop of light.


That is pretentious twaddle. I'd challenge pretty much anybody to tell the difference between the 24-70 f2.8 @f4 and the 24-105 @f4 when using images like this.

459
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:19:49 AM »
My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:



Right image is from the 24-70mm f/2.8 II L, left image is for comparison to illustrate the problem.

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II L has nearly half as much pop than a comparable lens in the out of focus areas, when the in focus areas are set to an identical level of contrast. That last part is important because out of camera images will show different initial levels of contrast, but every image editor has contrast adjustment so it's easy to adjust the in focus areas. Notice how each number retains a similar level of detail, so we're not experiencing more blur we're experiencing substantial glowiness and lack of pop in the out of focus areas in the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II. This makes images look bland or forces you to crunch the subject, and the fact that this effect creeps up so incredibly quickly with the first number in the background already showing glow, means even areas that are slightly out of focus will basically lose half their contrast. It's a very significant effect.

Note for the math impaired: we subtract the black level from the white level to calculate contrast in the above diagram.

Another example of the bokeh glow that I threw together in two seconds, of the reduced pop on the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, again adjusted so that the contrast of the in focus area matches:



Note, both of these are @70mm f/2.8

Again these are both at f/2.8 and we are not changing the amount of background blur, if you look at the 10 and 8 they both have the same level of detail, but the Canon adds a "halo" around transitions between contrasting areas, which should not be there. (It may be worth mentioning that in comparisons I noticed slightly less of this effect between ultra wide and wide focal lengths - ie the Canon showed slightly less problems between 24-29mm)

As for those people who are saying that the Tamron's out of focus HIGHLIGHT circles are bad, yes they are worse, but in practice this means very little. Unlike telephoto lenses normal lenses render OOF highlights much smaller, so we need magnification to even see their details usually (such as the previous post's examples). Only OOF highlights that aren't blown out will show any texture so really we are talking about something that is rarely seen.  To even see OOF highlight texture issues on the Tamron I had to focus all the way down to macro distance and take pictures of chandeliers and then adjust the exposure so the OOF highlight wasn't blown out and wasn't too dim (which is a very narrow range, and changes drastically if you move the camera slightly), and even then I had to zoom in to see the details, they weren't visible in that test at screen resolution. When I was testing the issue it took a lot of work to make it appear and it's just not that common in the real world. I can't even remember taking a photo with the issue in the last 3 months. That's a much more specific problem than the issue with the Canon, which is basically everywhere, and the Canon has some significant onion bokeh too

You can chose to ignore this issue or you may even like it, but I notice it in most photos I see from the Canon f/2.8 II. It's a very unusual issue not found in many other lenses. (Also it isn't as bad between 24-29mm for the record) It's up to you, but I have a very strong preference and I think seeing unusual amounts of grey and strong glow in the background makes things look very washed out.


That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.

460
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 01:53:30 PM »
You need to check your prices dude,

ST-E3-RT - $286
YN-E3-RT - $148

The YN costs 52% not 25%.

600-EX-RT - $469
Do you really believe Yongnuo are going to come out with the YN-600-RT at $117?

Canon is not over charging for the 600 going by market forces, the Nikon equivalent, the SB910, that does not have radio, is $547, add well over $100 per flash to get you into the PW Flex system that still doesn't have the functionality of the Canon RT system, and Canon have a good argument for raising the price! If you are not in the pro equipment market then stop bitching about the prices.

461
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 02, 2014, 03:46:35 AM »
I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?


I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:



24-70mm Tamron:



24-105mm Canon



Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:



Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

What complete and utter rubbish. The dog photo has no contrast because it has been taken out, the dog has black fur, nose, nostrils, eye lids and pupils, yet not one pixel is close to 0.0.0.

You can get all the contrast in the grass you want if you don't take it out in the first place. Just a quick adjust on the crappy jpeg gets you this.

462
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 02, 2014, 02:12:29 AM »
It seems like the WFT accessories are more robust than the 6D's built in WiFi, using HTTP mode it doesn't matter if the connection is lost, or even if you switch your phone off, when you switch it back on it will reconnect without goig near the camera. I picked up a WFT-E2 on Craigs List for $150 and really like it.

463
Lighting / Re: How would one go about....Macro wireless slave speedlites
« on: January 31, 2014, 11:59:12 AM »
As I search I find more and more 'possible' solutions such as the following

YONGNUO YN-E3-RT
Manfrotto 330 B Bracket
Canon 430EXii x 2 (Own one already)

Total cost $450
ST-E2 for $80 or so
Manfrotto 330 B Bracket $59.00
Another 430EXII for around $200

Total $339

464
Lighting / Re: How would one go about....Macro wireless slave speedlites
« on: January 31, 2014, 11:30:09 AM »
As mrzero points out if you got two 270EX/II's you couldn't separate them in groups, they would always fore the same power which often times isn't ideal, you could adjust the power by varying the distance, but then you are into manual flash only too, you have to drop ETTL for that to work.

The 320EX is the smallest Canon flash that does allow you to assign A-B-C groups, so I'd look to getting those instead.

I am putting my ST-E2 up on eBay this week, having moved to the RT system all my 550EX's and ST-E2 are going to new owners.

Personally I think the 550EX is far and away the best bang for the buck in the Canon range and with the versatility and power it has it is the flash for the cost conscious Canon creative  :) Even if it is a bit bigger than the 320, it is worth it.

465
Lenses / Re: All Canon TS lenses
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:42:50 PM »
The TSE-17mm is an L. Which also means you can change the orientation of the tilt and shift. The 17 with a 1.4 TC is better IQ than the Mk I 24 BTW.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 107