March 03, 2015, 05:40:06 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 224
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 28, 2014, 05:38:01 PM »
Virtually the same... So how exactly is it that small pixels are better in low light? ??? I remind you that you earlier said: "In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better."

I'll explain it again.

Larger pixels do nothing but block-average versus smaller pixels.  However, modern noise reduction software is far superior at removing noise and preserving details than simple block averaging.  So, after modern processing is applied, you can usually end up with both more detail and lower noise when starting with smaller pixels in larger numbers.  And here's an example.  Everything is the same between these two shots - focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, light, distance, processing from raw, final size - everything I could hold constant I did.  But the pixel size (area) is different by a factor of 16.  This is so that any small other differences are swamped out by the enormous difference in pixel size.  Small pixels on the left, big pixels on the right.  Which has a better detail-to-noise ratio in your opinion?

Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these?

It would be easy to post something similar showing how much 'better' a cell phone camera resolution is than a Hasselblad H5, but I know which will take 'better' pictures.

Photography Technique / Re: Aperture for total sharpness?
« on: December 28, 2014, 11:19:01 AM »
You need to position your camera as precisely as possible, to get the sensor parallel to the flat surface you are shooting, so the DoF plane would cover it. Anything past f/11 is really unnecessary. I would use something in f/5.6-8.0 range, perhaps f/6.3 ;)


Strange. According to my DOF calculation, if OP is 1m from subject, and even if he uses 24mm then everything would be in focus from 0.75m till 1.5m with aperture f/6.3. I think that's to small area to catch the boat or he must really setup his composition that the side of the boat is parallel with the sensor.
If however the OP would take a shot at 2m from object, and aperture f/11 then everything from 1m onwards would be sharp as he has the hyperfocal distance at that moment.

Hyperfocal focusing is a kludge that isn't close to accurate the way we use and enlarge images now.

Photography Technique / Re: Your favorite f-number for landscape shots?
« on: December 28, 2014, 11:12:26 AM »
F5.6 with the 17 TS-E on FF, it is the sharpest aperture and I can get everything I want in critical focus.

Nothing beats camera/lens movements for high quality landscapes, nothing.

There are no benefits to hyperfocal focusing, it is a kludge that guarantees practically nothing, normally including the key elements of a picture, are critically sharp.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 28, 2014, 10:42:07 AM »
You are taking so many things I've said way out of context there, it's unbelievable.

You've developed an unappealing habit of thinking everyone is talking about you.  The cave...remember your failure at the cave...  Like the 'noticeably better shadow IQ of the Exmor sensor' that turned out to be a Canon sensor, I suspect you've been easy prey for the bait in another of PBD's little traps. 

Look back over some of AlanF's posts from a couple years ago, his calculations of the theoretical resolving power of the 7D and his feather test shots with the 7D that apparently confirmed those calculations, then forward to his posts after getting a 5DIII and performing actual comparisons, and his calculations based on the DPR sample images...maybe you'll see some numbers there that align well with PBD's statements.


Darn it Neuro, you unwrapped my Christmas gift to myself.  ;)

Flaming of member removed by Admin.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 27, 2014, 11:54:58 PM »

Agree all you want, you're both still wrong as I've repeatedly demonstrated with shots, math and practical realities.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that, could you point me back to the post where you compared two same generation cameras, a crop camera and a ff one, against each other either as a repeatable bench test (as I have done many times) or in real world shooting that demonstrated a usable and marked increase in resolution for the crop camera when optimal processing was done to both files?

It is funny I have been saying this same thing for years, nearly 7, when I first compared the 7D to the 1Ds MkIII and I used to get no end of crap for saying it. Probably the most vocal maths oriented poster here used to crucify me, he was a 7D owner and insisted that his camera had vastly more 'resolution' than mine, he has since got a 5D MkIII and done the tests, guess what? His estimation of the crop cameras 'resolution advantage' has gone from >60% to around 15% at best on manual focus bench tests.

Photography Technique / Re: panorama
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:54:03 PM »
When you get to this screen select something other than 'auto'.

Or just realign the two sections the merge has given you.

How do I realign?

Just expand the canvas then select the layer for the bit that is wrong and use the move tool to put it in the right place.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:47:05 PM »
There is no problem of pixel size.

<physics>There is. </physics>

Yeah...let's talk about that.

I decided to calculate diffraction-limited resolution.  Here are the assumptions:  Green light (550nm), Bayer full-frame sensor, AA filter, MTF10 cutoff.  Here are the results:

f-stop Maximum MP count
1.4     8,333
2.0     4,167
2.8     2,083
4.0     1,042
5.7     521
8.0     260
11.3   130
16.0   65
22.6   33
32.0  16

So, does that seem like a problem to you for the foreseeable future?

Well seeing as how current lenses, support, lighting, AF, IS, AA filters etc etc seem hard pushed to give us much more usable resolution than current crop camera pixel density even in the center of the image circle, I don't see a problem with your maths, just your idea.

'Resolution' means usable realisable resolution to me, if I can't see it then I can't use it, that is why I never bought a crop camera to 'give me more reach'. 99.9% of the time in real world shooting, outside one or two very narrow fields, the same generation crop camera doesn't actually realise any more 'resolution' despite putting over twice the MP on a subject.

Don't bother showing us your different generation crops again, or the 100-400 shot of the moon. Show me some real world same generation crops from crop and FF cameras taken in real world shooting and I'll show you why there is very little point for most people most of the time in even 36MP sensors. As for >100MP on a 135 format sensor, at this point in consumer optical technology it is either a pipe dream, or a marketing departments wet dream, it has no practical use other than filling HDD's.

Lighting / Re: cheaper flashes with optical slave to Canon 600 RT
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:35:24 PM »
It should work fine, but only in manual flash mode.

Optical triggering within a modifier is very fast and shouldn't cause sync issues, Like Neuro I often use the PCB Einsteins in optical with 600's and have never had a sync issue.

Photography Technique / Re: panorama
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:29:14 PM »
When you get to this screen select something other than 'auto'.

Or just realign the two sections the merge has given you.

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 dropped, no AF or MF
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:24:44 PM »
Pay your flat $119 fee and ship it in.  Its a common issue.

Yeah... it is way too common.  I had the 50 f/1.4 and I just hated taking it out of the bag just because you never know.

As for a replacement... I would send it in to fix it... and provided it worked well after that, I would sell the lens for $250 or so... and then I would seriously consider the Sigma 50mm art.  I don't want to pick that scab about the 50L... but that's what I would suggest. 

And considering he has a 6D, he's probably only using the center AF point anyway... so the focus issues won't be as much of a concern.

I have owned the 50 f1.4 for over ten years, it has been in my bag most of that time during which I have broken L lenses over half a dozen times, the little 50 has never given me an issue, but then I never dropped it on concrete, in a bag or not, like the OP did.

Mine focuses perfectly at f1.4 is sharper than my L macro at f5.6 and is an all around great lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 27, 2014, 03:45:14 PM »
Reading through all this has raised a question in my mind. Sorry if it's obvious. But since we are told resolution is dependent on both sensor and lens, how can you measure the resolution of a lens independently?

You can test the lens and the sensor independently, the lens on an optical bench and the sensor by the numbers, you can also work out theoretical limits for both, but when used together they interact and mean that you can never achieve 100% of the lowest capacity item in the system.

People saying this or that lens is only good for xMP are idiots, if you put a higher MP sensor behind it you will get more resolution, how much more and if it is worth the trade off is the lesson all those clamouring for a high MP 135 format body will learn once they get one.

I believe Canon have held off on a high MP body because they know they will be a comparative disappointment, they know the sweet spots for the formats. Just look at the outright resolution difference between any same generation crop and FF camera, the crop cameras put down over twice the pixels per area but the resolution difference, even in optimal conditions (that we practically never shoot in), is small at best. I have asked people many times to show me same generation crop vs cropped FF images and with a touch of optimal processing to both (that is, not the same processing to both) it is practically impossible to tell them apart, I have shown my own too.

If 35 or 50MP would actually give me something tangible then I'd be all for it, I know it won't so I'll be keeping my money when and if one does come out.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 27, 2014, 11:16:25 AM »
Nikon 810 and Zeiss is probably the best possible combination of digital available today unless you need autofocus. Hopefully this is the quality Canon is striving for.

You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss.  Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras and better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).

What unmitigated hyperbole.

Anybody that believes "the best possible combination of digital available today" is a 135 format Nikon needs to get out more, there is a very reasonable digital medium format market that makes D810 files look like P&S's, but it costs, and that is the reason a Nikon/AF Zeiss combo wouldn't impact anything, there are very few people, some but very few, who would happily pay that kind of money for an incremental step in IQ that nobody could see at most reproduction sizes.

People are generally motivated by a cost/IQ payoff, I could give my clients 10% more for 4 times the money, but none of them want that.

Technical Support / Re: Battery drain
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:19:04 AM »
I have now tried every combination of things to get to bottom of this. Memory cards out, swapped batteries, reset the settings. But I have come to conclusion that the repair was not executed properly. Looking at various forums, I have come to point that it's more than likely a main circuit board issue. So another wait from my dealer, who on the first instance wanted to bin a rather expensive piece of hardware, but I don't want to give up.

Forget the dealer.  If you are serious about keeping it then it would be good to send it back to canon for repair.  Possible they may not since it's an older model but they may be the best ones to evaluate what's wrong and do the repairs.

If it is a circuit board issue, I doubt anyone will repair it.  The labor to diagnose and repair/replace suspect chips or components may cost more than buying another used one.

Canon absolutely do service and carry all parts for the 1Ds MkIII at this time, Dec 2014.

Photography Technique / Re: Time Lapse with a 7D II & a PC?
« on: December 27, 2014, 12:51:44 AM »
You can do it in PS6 easily.

This is as easy a step by step as you will find, just ignore the bits where they go off at tangents.

Technical Support / Re: Battery drain
« on: December 25, 2014, 12:26:30 PM »
No it doesn't get hot, the thing I have noticed though, is that the last 20% of the charging cycle takes longer than the 50% and 80% on the charger. Dead to 50% takes about 3 quarters of an hour, 50% to 80% takes about half an hour but the last 20% can take up to 2 hours to complete a charge and that's applicable to both my LP E4's. But I'm baffled to why I go days or even weeks with my 1d3 and hundreds of shots in the bag and no issues, but the 1ds3 only gives me a day at most. Is the 1ds3 more power hungry due to its resolving power. Seems I have little option to replace both batteries with the LP E4n, what do you guys out there think?

No absolutely not, my 1DS MkIII's can be in the bag for weeks and not run down the batteries. If one body is behaving differently to another it is a problem with the body, in my experience the 1D MkIII and 1DS MkIII should both work the same with the same battery.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 224