August 29, 2014, 10:10:17 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 - DanielW

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17
166
Lenses / Re: Prime Lens for 6D
« on: January 02, 2013, 07:41:19 PM »
You might be interested in what Kai has to say about it (50 and 35 mm, resp):

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/5-reasons-why-you-need/MzI1Mjg0MA_A_A

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/5-reasons-you-need-a/MzQ2MjUzNzk_A

Best of luck!
Daniel

167
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon France Teases New Products
« on: December 28, 2012, 12:04:05 PM »
Come on. She is clearly holding a sub $3000, 50mp, 14 stops Canon 4D.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. She's clearly holding a bottle, pouring beer on herself for us to photograph, trying with some new no-one-no-longer-cares-about Canon camera while her shirt gets wet and beer runs down her body.
(What I find most disturbing is that the guy with the fancy hair seems to prefer table tennis.)
:)

168

.
If this is all you've got to be angry about, I'd say you have a lot to be thankful for.

Suggest you focus on all the good stuff in life -- seek joy!!

Happy holiday season to you!!

That was sure a great #666 post! :)

169
Lenses / Re: New Lens Purchase Dilemma
« on: December 24, 2012, 03:03:34 PM »

LR4 should round off things nicely for you too!

Merry christmas everyone!

Is LR4 so much better than LR3 so you'd take it instead of a new lens?
And what about the complaints on LR4 running so slow? Not an issue anymore?
Merry Christmas to you, too!


I would purchase a copy of LR4 over getting the 40mm pancake.


What can you do in LR4 that you couldn't do in LR3?
Cheers :)

170
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body for $2599 via eBay
« on: December 08, 2012, 12:58:32 PM »
Damn, how can I decide between the 6D and the 5DmIII now?  :)

171
Sadly I don't have the equipment to test this formally, but I will have a 60D and 6D tomorrow for some rough analysis.
Great! Can't wait to see the results!

172
I understand we're talking about focus speed and sensitivity of the central point, but has anyone tested the outer points with fast glass in terms of focus accuracy? Most of the tests I've found on the web, like Roger's, concern the central point exclusively.
I'm asking this because 11 AF points should be enough for me, if they're all really usable. Maybe the only situation for which I actually need the outer points is when shooting with a very shallow DoF and placing the focus zone very off-center, when composition would change too much and the focus-and-recompose technique would sure fail. (If the subject is not so close to the camera, then the angle changes little when recomposing and I can usually take a sharp pic, even with a shallow DoF.)
I sure appreciate -3 EV sensitivity, but in very low-light situations I won't be playing around with composition anyway, and having one reliable, sensitive central point sounds good enough, IMO. The precision of the outer points concerns me the most, for I can't rely very much on them when shooting with my 60D, even in reasonably well-lit situations.
(Sorry if it's been discussed before; I searched, but found nothing.)
Thanks!
Daniel

173
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 07, 2012, 10:37:37 AM »
Wow, most popular thread ever...
Well, who doesn't want to win?! I sure do! :)

174
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Likely Price Trend
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:03:49 PM »
Past performance not indicative of future results, but here's the trend for the 5DmkIII since being available last summer (scroll down to see graph):

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html

And here's the same thing for the 5DmkII (ditto):

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02699/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-price.html

Er...what's the deal with the 5D II dropping to $0 for...maybe a week...in the middle of November? Was Canon simply giving them away for free? And how in the world could I have missed that incredible opportunity!!!  ??? :o ::)
I missed it then too, and would miss it once again, for I can't find the mid-November drop to $0 you found on the website...  :P

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:49:15 PM »
"The camera’s sensor does not give equal weight to all tones. In fact, your digital sensor is heavily weighted to the brightest areas in your photo. (...) Taken another way, the camera has a fixed number of numeric values for describing the brightness of a pixel. Fifty percent of those numeric values are devoted to the brightest f-stop in your photo. Each successively darker f-stop receives one-half the number of the f-stop ahead of it, until the shadows receive only a small sliver of the total possible values. This is important information, because all detail in your photos is a result of subtle differences in tone and color between adjacent pixels. In the shadows, where fewer values are available to describe these differences, it becomes more difficult to retain details. Underexposing photos drives more of the information contained within a photo deeper into the shadows, causing a loss of detail and an increase in noise (unwanted color impurities) in the photo."
(Taken from Perfect Digital Photography, 2nd edition, hopefully not infringing any copyrights.)

That is correct. If you want to know the reason is quite simple.  Humans see light in an approximately logarithmic fashion (as if we were taking the log (base ~2) of the actual light we see).  (We also hear in a logarithmic fashion as well.)  This is very useful to us since it means we can see when there are just a few photons, and when there are tens of thousands of times more photons per until area of our eyes - and yet it looks to us like it's only a few times brighter.

Sensors are linear, they just measure the approximate number of photons per pixel.  So if your images has 9 stops of dynamic range, the brightest stop has half the the available data.  And the darkest stop only has ~0.2-0.4% of the data.

Exposing to the right (as long as you aren't blowing out the highlights), is a very good idea if you want to have more freedom to play with your images afterwards - since you'll have much more data in the shadows.  Just one stop of "overexposing" will give you twice the shadow detail.

However I digress, and still want to know what's going on with those 6D long exposures...
Thanks for the explanation!
Are you familiar with some book or website where I can read more about it? I do enjoy digressions... :)

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 04:18:38 PM »
Well, as somebody in the comments section of that page mentioned, if its underexposing, a long exposure (like the 30 seconds in the night shot of San Francisco on the link) will exacerbate the issue.

The test shots on those links were shot at 1/4 sec.

I am pretty concerned about this issue, I'm really hoping it's just the factory settings, like Auto Lighting Optimizer being turned on.

My T2i overexposes constantly, especially with my 28-135mm. I'd really like to be able to use aperture priority mode without having to mess with the EV settings constantly.
I oftentimes shoot with my 60D overexposing by 0.3 stops (sometimes 0.6), and it has never annoyed me. I just set it to +0.3 and leave it like that.

Are you looking for a brighter look, or does +0.3 look more correct? I'm constantly moving between -.6 and -1.3 just so images aren't totally washed out and clipping.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread a bit. It seems like this could have a major impact on night sky/star field shooting, which I am looking forward to doing when I go full frame.
I see no problem at all in derailing...
I've found myself quite often disagreeing with the camera's meter and increasing exposure in LR, and (although those with better knowledge on the subject may disagree) digital sensors deal better with overexposure than the opposite. I always shoot RAW, so I can bring exposure down if necessary with no loss of detail; on the other hand, I would probably introduce noise if I were to bring exposure back up.
It might sound like it's all good, but I've screwed up a few (too many) shots already by doing like that. When shooting something important, I always overshoot and vary exposure.
I think it's about knowing your camera, too, and having it do what you want and adapt it to your own photographic tastes/needs.
Neuro and others here sure know it in details; I just read it in one of the first books I bought (read quote below) and believed... :)

"The camera’s sensor does not give equal weight to all tones. In fact, your digital sensor is heavily weighted to the brightest areas in your photo. (...) Taken another way, the camera has a fixed number of numeric values for describing the brightness of a pixel. Fifty percent of those numeric values are devoted to the brightest f-stop in your photo. Each successively darker f-stop receives one-half the number of the f-stop ahead of it, until the shadows receive only a small sliver of the total possible values. This is important information, because all detail in your photos is a result of subtle differences in tone and color between adjacent pixels. In the shadows, where fewer values are available to describe these differences, it becomes more difficult to retain details. Underexposing photos drives more of the information contained within a photo deeper into the shadows, causing a loss of detail and an increase in noise (unwanted color impurities) in the photo."
(Taken from Perfect Digital Photography, 2nd edition, hopefully not infringing any copyrights.)

Hope it helps. :)

177
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 03:33:53 PM »
Well, as somebody in the comments section of that page mentioned, if its underexposing, a long exposure (like the 30 seconds in the night shot of San Francisco on the link) will exacerbate the issue.

The test shots on those links were shot at 1/4 sec.

I am pretty concerned about this issue, I'm really hoping it's just the factory settings, like Auto Lighting Optimizer being turned on.

My T2i overexposes constantly, especially with my 28-135mm. I'd really like to be able to use aperture priority mode without having to mess with the EV settings constantly.
I oftentimes shoot with my 60D overexposing by 0.3 stops (sometimes 0.6), and it has never annoyed me. I just set it to +0.3 and leave it like that.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:36:32 PM »
Thank you, PW and Paul! I'm aware that gear won't make me a better photographer (but it sure would be nice, wouldn't it?), so I'm studying a lot and shooting as often as I can.
The answers I've got on this thread have really helped me figure that what I'm lacking in fact is a fast WA. The Tokina is sure worth considering, although maybe a little too much on the wide side for what I'll use it (mainly people). The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the way to go if I stick with crop sensors (27 mm wide should be good enough), but I think it's a tad too expensive a lens when I think I could pay considerably less for a 24-105 f/4L.
Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...
Well, anyway... :)

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 05:14:46 PM »
Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind... :)
Cheers

I usually don't reply to only the OP, I generally read through then possibly reply, but this this one I will take a stab at it before reading the other replies!

IMO - Upgrade should generally come when you've hit the limit of whats possible with what you've got.  With crop vs FF though, it gets a little trickier.  First off though, no amount of new camera will magically make you better!  As I am sure many have also said here, you get better by shooting, reading,m refining, trying new things, etc, etc.  Also, the benefits of FF are somewhat subjective (IE, if you shoot wildlife, with long lenses - your longest lens will appear to have shrunk on FF.  But, if you are shooting in a small studio, you may have hit that wall where none of the focal ranges of your lenses make sense anymore (IE your buying a 35mm because you want a 50, buying a 50 cause you want 85, buying an 85 cause you want 135, and passing on the 135 because its too long on a crop).  Low light work is another factor, if you find yourself shooting in lots of tight low light environments, you may find the light sensitivity of a FF sensor much to your liking. 

I made the transition from crop to FF in early July of this year.  For the work I do, it made sense and I have very much enjoyed the transition.  On my 7d, my go to lens was my 24-70.  my 70-200 sat in the bag more often than not.  And I used the 10-22 quite a bit too.  Transition to full frame though ---my 70-200 is now my favorite lens, with my 85mm 1.8 being the second fav and I just snagged a 16-35vII and i am very much liking that lens too!. 

To a certain extent, going FF is like grabbing a new lens.   I don't know what your lens setup is, but, for me I found that covering the wide end was much more difficult on crop.  I liked the 10-22, but found it to be much less flattering than I'd like for people shots. 

Not sure if any of that helps.   
Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting  the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!

180
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 04:54:39 PM »
I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EFs 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.
I see... That's kinda why I'm stuck. My WA is not very good nor fast (the only option I have is my 18-135 kit lens, my other lens being the 50 1.4), and I miss a better WA lens for indoor shots. The thing is, a good WA for crop means sticking to crop (EF-s 10-22, most likely), because it's gonna be an EF-s lens that's not that cheap. High ISO IQ is also something I consider important, although I can't say I'm totally dissatisfied with my 60d in that aspect.
Bottom line is, I want more lenses, but the 1.6 multiplier is pissing me off! ;D

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17