October 01, 2014, 02:00:00 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 164
496
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:18:04 AM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.

Not exactly perfect.  just able to use the full resolution of the sensor.

If they sensor was 8 MP and a lens resolved 8, would you call that perfect?  Just pushes the limit of the sensor.

No that isn't how it works, there is a complex relationship between each individual elements efficiency and a systems efficiency. Pretty much all lenses can actually resolve way more than any sensor, just look at the difference between a lens optical bench tested lens and one that relies on a camera sensor, huge difference.

So if the sensor was a 20MP sensor and the lens and sensor were both perfect then you'd expect to get 20MP of resolution, this is what DXO are claiming for the D800E and Zeiss 135 combo. However if we ignore all other factors and the lens is only 99% perfect it can only possibly resolve 99% of a perfect sensors resolution, and no sensor/camera is perfect. So the perfect sensor and 99% perfect lens could equate to 19.8MP in a simplified form.

For the full equations look here under "System Resolution": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

497
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:43:25 AM »

498
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:34:20 AM »
Oh everything helps, I have posted these three images many times here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21071.msg401008#msg401008

499
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:52:50 AM »
Equivalence is a concept I have been banging on about for a long time and I have posted equivalent images on many occasions, the fact that aperture and iso also have a "crop factor" is so often misunderstood or completely ignored.

But I feel the article is s touch simplistic as I didn't see mention of the key aspect to equivalence, reproduction size. I will still push people towards the grandfather of equivalence articles here:  http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

And the Wikipedia page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field simply lays out the three scenarios where where a crop camera can be shown to have more, less, or identical dof to a ff sensor depending on how you are comparing or using it under the section "Relationship of DOF to format size".

500
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 06:18:31 PM »
Interesting, but not surprising, over 600 views of 24 example images and not one person even ventures to make a guess on one single one of them, even though we had people saying stuff like "Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still." and "shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do."

Kinda funny really..........

501
My local club uses Zenfolio.

There is one login and password that all current members are told, it changes each year when the membership fees are due, $25 for a full annual adult member.

Each member gets a folder with as many galleries/sub folders as they want, they can make them private or public, they can link or copy images to club event/competition galleries etc etc.

It is very cheap for the club.

For a club setup it is very good, easy for those that need easy but can be used to good effect and customised by those that want a bit more.

502
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 06, 2014, 09:02:12 AM »
Would you guys advice against getting the yongnuo st e3 to save a few bucks? Also, is there a reason why you cant get an st e3 receiver/transceiver?

I have both, the saving on money is small compared to your camera and flashes (and lenses) the ONLY reason to consider the YN-E3-RT is if you have pre 2012 bodies, otherwise forget it completely. If you do have pre 2012 bodies get both for when you really want to play with Group mode.

In my experience the YN-E3-RT is not a substitute for the ST-E3-RT, just a compliment for pre 2012 bodies.

503
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:17:14 AM »
With all due respect, this discussion is rubbish. Looking at (over)processed, low resolution images, no exif and no objective comparative information ... It´s like sitting in the next room trying to guess what amplifier your neighbor is using in his hifi setup.

The only reasonable way to compare lenses is to have them side by side, shooting the same subjects, in the same lighting conditions, with the same settings, camera and post processing. I have seen what experts can do in post processing and they are certainly able to fool me.
Eldar, that was my point.

504
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:15:54 AM »

That's not fair ! There's no reference point, such as 'EF 50L gallery" or 'anything shot on a mki 50 1.8'. How are we supposed to appreciate the subtleties of a favourite lens if we don't know which one we are looking at ?

 ;)

505
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 02:36:43 AM »
I do not know why so many people hate this lens... I love it! I don't care what Sigma or what ever present, that 1.2L Glas is so damn lovely! <3
Shot on a 5D Lr + Ps for Skin. (all at 1.2, except the last one at 1.4)


The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.

Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'

To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.

There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.

All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing :)

Quote

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still. PP makes the shot better but not the feel. Something like that. Personally i think the more crappy a lens the more easy it is to notice the PP.

Well if you two guys want to demonstrate your observational skills you will have no problems telling us which of these images was shot with the 50 f1.2. Of course if you can't get them all right I might just have made a valid point.

P.S. For some bonus points tell us which other lenses were used.


507
Software & Accessories / Re: Post Processing help please.
« on: July 05, 2014, 10:03:09 PM »

Technically speaking, the quality of the JPEG compression affects the final pixel count as does the final desired size of the picture. 

It isn't correct. Pixels are pixels, compression is completely separate.


The OOC jpeg has compression applied, that is all there is to it. In DPP use the "Image quality" slider to lower the file size, use the "Resize setting" to change pixel numbers to an appropriate number for that specific use, 700px for forum uploads, etc.

Lots of things impact file size, iso and noise are two major ones, as is detail in the image, for example a leafy landscape will make a much bigger file than a plain background still life.

Sharpening is not only image specific, but output specific too, a file for print can take more sharpening than a screen, there are no magic numbers just adjust sliders until you are happy at the size it will be output.

As for software, Lightroom is the best $100 pretty much any photographer can spend on their photography, you need a very good reason to avoid it, it does 95% of what DXO and way more additional things, it also does around 300% of what DPP can.

508
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 05, 2014, 08:33:38 PM »
The only issue... and this is minor at best... with the 600's and the st-e3 is knowing which flash is a and which is b... I know I can just look... but I get lazy and I say screw it... I just want a 2:1 ratio and I'm good enough.  But I'd like to be able to say... set off A alone... and I probably can do it... but how doesn't come to mind.

Put labels on the flashes, and/or have a system.  A is key, B is fill, C is hair/rim, D is background, etc.  You can disable groups from the master (I use the camera menus) – that's great for setting up, so you can optimize the power for each flash (e.g., the amount of fill) in isolation for each light, all without stepping away from the camera.

I usually put my a's to my left and in the alphabetical order going from left to right... but I was lazy yesterday and didn't feel like getting up from my kneeling position. 

Press "test" button" on ste-e3 and the 600s will fire in sequence according to the groups they are assigned to.

Easy way to find out which group is which

Only in Group Mode, and they fire pretty close together, but it is a nice feature.

509
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 01:48:38 AM »
Well we can only judge on what we can buy  :)

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to cock block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

510
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 01:03:27 AM »
I have no doubt that the push to video in the C line, not their consumer video camera line, along with a plethora of specialist CN-E enses have seriously impacted the stills orientated camera R&D potential.

I believe Canon see video as the DSLR saviour, and maybe it is, but their very heavy push above the stills market has had repercussions.

We have had interminable delays with some lenses where the CN-E line gets major new lenses at the drop of a hat, a complete abandonment of the "studio" stills orientated pro camera when the C line gets massive upgrades via firmware and hardware. Apart from the RT flash system, that is damn good, I can't think of one innovative Canon feature in recent years that isn't video centric. Good but slow IS primes with STM, video, dual pixel AF, video, etc etc.

Sure the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 MkII, and the 70-200 IS MkII are sterling lenses though they are just as useful to wedding video shooters, but where are the 35L MkII (the C line got their 35mm T1.5 ages ago and there is no way that is a tweeked MkI 1.4), the bread an butter stills 100-400 MkII, a 400 f5.6 with IS, the stills market based 45mm and 90mm TS-E MkII's, I'll tell you where they are, they are in B&H under the Cine line banner.

Stills have jumped the shark as far as Canon are concerned, surveillance video cameras, bread and butter TV, documentary and news video are the next cash cows and the niche is studio/movie video. Stills Explorers of Light are getting dumped for videographers, the TV ads are pushing quality video as the core selling point of DSLR's.


Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 164