January 25, 2015, 09:24:47 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 96
406
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/sugar-battery-green-powered-gadgets-three-years
New batteries types may be coming pretty soon.

Interesting, but there is no way that it will be available in 3 years.  When in college, I remember the rage was in using peizos as an way to generate bio-energy or using micro-engines to power laptops using gasoline.  There was money in that type of research but those ideas have largely gone nowhere.

407
Wasn't the idea behind DNG to future proof files from old cameras since just about every new camera that comes out uses a different RAW format? 5 - 10 years from now, will LR or whatever we are using then still support my RAW files from my original Digital Rebel? I don't know how big a problem this is, but do we at some time, reach the point where the software has to support hundreds of different RAW formats? Again, all my files are still RAW, but I think about my old files regularly.

RAW files are data. A hundred years from now you can easily write a small program to convert the files to whatever other format. However ...

Keep in mind, I have Iomega discs that I can't pull data off any more, and a Digital 8 camcorder that can't connect to the latest Macs anymore :(

Herein lies the true problem ... people not updating the physical media on which their data is stored. (BTW, as soon as CD-R became the norm, you should have transferred all the data from the ZIP disks to CD's; just like you must now transfer all CD's to DVD's; and so on into the future.)

Except that CD-Rs relied on dyes that degraded over time...  The CD-Rs I burned 10 years ago are no longer readable.  Magnetic media is more reliable in the long run, but having mutiple copies is essential.

That is what I'm asking. I personally can't write small programs 20 years from now to convert my Digital Rebel, 20D, and 6D RAW files. Are these programs actually small and so easy to write that I should have no fear and that someone will always be there to write or include those programs in their software? Do we ever get to a point where Adobe says enough already, your camera wasn't popular enough and we aren't going to support its RAW format? Or, you have had plenty of time to convert to DNG, we are are no longer supporting the Digital Rebel for example?

Companies will maintain compatibility until they see no value in it.  The newest MS Word can't read Word files made in the 90s and at some point, Adobe or some other company may not see the point of being able to convert 20D files.  At that point, we'll have to convert those original files into the next "standard", whether it's DNG or some other future format.

408
Rules of the consumer market are other way round. :-)

I, the (potential) customer know, what I want. Very preciely, since I am an experienced customer. Any company able to build something meeting all or most of my expectations may show me what they got and nicely ask me whether I am willing to buy. :-)

So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want: 
  • a mirrorless interchangable lens camera
  • not bulkier or heavier than the Sony A7R
  • clean, non "retro" styling and UI. 1 wheel front, 1 wheel back, 1 multifunction ring around lens mount, 1 locked mode dial, no top display, 1 shutter release, 1 on/off switch, 1 Back-AF button, 4 buttons top right for ISO, Drive Mode, Metering mode, AF-mode]
    • nice and strong mag-alloy body shell, IP 67 ingress-protected against dust and liquids
    • with a 36x24mm sensor and assorted electronic circuitry yielding
    • 30+ MP and image quality at ISO up to 1600 as good as or better than Nikon D800
    • IQ at ISO 3200-12800 as good as or better than EOS 6D
    • AF-performance, star-up, shot-to-shot-times and frame rate (6fps)  at least as good as 5D III
    • an EVF that is one notch better in resoultion and lag than the one in Sony A7/R
    • fully working Eye Control Focus 2.0 - allowing control of hybrid PD/CD-AF system in EVF
    • 100% mechanics-free, absolutely silent and totally vibration-free shutter
    • WiFi allowing full remote control and capture over iGadgets, Android-devices and other WiFI enabled gear
    • wireless RT radio flash commander built in including 2nd curtain sync and control over speedlite zoom reflector
    • pop-up fill flash built in
    • truly useful AF-assist light projecting near-infrared laser grid as found in Sony DSC F-808
    • GPS logger built in
    • fully articulated 300+ dpi 3+" touchscreen display at back, fully visible even in direct, strong sunlight
    • all liveview-controls and playback controls as context-aware soft keys on touch screen
    • menu system like 5D III
    • 500+ shots with one battery charge
    • in-body-stabilizer working at least as good as Oly's OMD1's
    • at a launch price of max. 2499 Euros [2999 USD]
    • plus chargeable options: full-HD video @ 500 USD
    • 4k 120fps video ... @5000 USD extra charge
    • direct upload to facebook, flickr, twitter, instagram, Canon image gateway, NSA-cloud server ... @ 99 USD/monthly subscription charge .. per service
    • soundfile with mirrorslpa/shutter noise ... as low as 1,99 [meek and feeble EOS 1000D sound] up to 9,99 [1D-X or thunder-like Nikon F3 slap] - per download

    plus a starting lineup of well-performing. small, light and affordable native short flange-distance lenses:
    • 3 fix focals as small as possible, as good and as cheap as the existing EF 40/2.8:
    • 20mm/4.0
    • 40mm/2.8
    • 85mm/2.8
    • Plus one good, but also compact and reaonably priced walkaround standard zoom 24-70/4.0.
    • and an EF lens adaptor letting me use my existing EF lenses without any compromise in functionality or IQ whatsoever
    • All of the new lenses AF-only, no manual focus gear, no manual focus ring, but with independently certified IP67-grade sealing.

    Everything possible using today's technology. As soon as CaNikon are going to offer products like these, the ratio of mirrorless vs. DSLRs will turn around in a few years. And camera makers will be saved from extinction one more time, as 99.9% of serious photographers will upgrade from their fat old mirrorslappers of yesteryear to 21st century cameras. ;D 8)
You're list of mirrorless requirements gets longer and longer over time.  By the time these requirements are satisfied, I'm sure you'll add more and berate SonCaNikon for not meeting them.

And no, not everything on that list is possible with today's technology, especially with battery technology being a limiting factor.  There is nothing on the horizon that is better than Li-ion (size, weight, cost).  It's basic chemistry.  And yet, you want more processing power to handle more MP, a higher frame rate AND 500+ shots in the same envelope as a A7R?[/list]

409
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:09:25 PM »
I don't have the exact lenses you're talking about, but I have lenses at each of the focal lengths you're considering.   ;)

It really comes down to how you'll use each lens.  Based on what you wrote, it makes sense to get the 35 f/2 IS, and it will largely take the place of your 40 f/2.8.  The 28 f/1.8 can be sold since you're not using it, and the 35 f/2 IS and 50 f/1.4 will be used a bit depending on your focal length need.  The question is what do with the 40 f/2.8.  It's size advantage isn't realized on the 6D because the body is so much larger (i.e. 6D + 40 is not that much more compact than 6D + 35 f/2 IS), and it doesn't give a larger aperture, so it doesn't have a clear advantage over a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom.

However, I think the 40 still has a place if you have a telephoto zoom (70-xxx), as Neuro has pointed out on other threads.  It can be kept in a pocket and used when when the telephoto is too long.  I usually only bring the 70-200 to my daughters' soccer events, but I've been asked to take team photos on occasion, and other parents whip out the cell phones.  At 70mm, it's hard to get a team shot without the cell phone cameramen in the in way.  The 40 would have been handy...

410
I wish they made the modules wider.  The interior is 10.5 wide.  The 70-200 II with the hood is about 4.4" wide, which gives less than 3" (when dividers are accounted for) for two other lenses beside it, which isn't much.

411
Lighting / Re: Canon 270 EX II or...?
« on: January 20, 2014, 09:50:56 AM »
I picked up the 270 EX II for the EOS-M because it is much more powerful than the 90 EX.  The 270 EX II has just enough power to bouce off 8 ft ceilings.  Anything more than that then a 430/580/600 would be more appropriate.

It can be used as a slave, but if you're going to be using it much like this then it'd be better to get an identical flash to the master.  It makes it much easier to adjust power ratios, etc.

412
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: January 19, 2014, 04:12:00 PM »
Thinking of getting this lens primarily for portrait attached to a 6D. It seems a few people are using if for portraits but most of the shots here are macro.
For those of you who own this lens with a FF camera, but aren't using it for portraits, what are you using? I am also at some point planning to get the 85mm but thinking of this one first.

This lens works well for portraits.  Before I got a better tripod, the 100L was about as heavy as I could go with the tripod, which was why I used it over the 70-200 II.  The bokeh isn't as nice as the 135L, but there is a lot value in being to focus close with the same lens.  The max mag. spec for the 135L is low.

413
Pricewatch Deals / Re: LensRentals.com/LensAuthority.com Canon Gear Sale
« on: January 19, 2014, 04:07:22 PM »
The prices when they have sales are good.  During Black Friday, picked up a 100-400 for about 950.  Glass on both ends were clean, with wear on the lenshood and tripod ring (accurate by their description).

414
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon
« on: January 17, 2014, 08:53:15 PM »
A yearly cost of $99 is WAY too much. Adobe has their pricing model jacked way up to 11, and they don't seem to realize it. The average cost of owning Adobe products in the past was a fraction of what it costs today for the average photographer and freelancer. While it maybe as cost effective for monstrous corporations, Adobe is seriously alienating their long term loyal individual customers with this inane pricing model. The per-app prices should be $3 - $5 per month, with maybe a few key apps like Photoshop at around $10 per month (simply because of the sheer volume of functionality they provide, which is indeed rather extensive).

If Adobe sticks with these ludicrous prices, someone is going to realize there is a massive and growing population of potential consumers for high quality products in the photographic editing segment, and they are going to deliver the goods at a reasonable price, at a rather massive long term cost to Adobe's bottom line. There is no way Adobe makes enough off of the big corporate users to support their business model if they lose the majority of their individual customers...which really begs the question:

Why are they trying to suck us dry like this?

It really doesn't make sense...

Perhaps it's just a teaser.  Then they'll offer it for 4.99/mo and people will think what a great deal that is since it's a discount from the 99/year.   ::)

415
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or 24-70 mm II
« on: January 17, 2014, 02:08:13 PM »
For me, 24mm isn't wide enough for landscape, the 17mm TS/E is too impractical and Canon's 20mm is junk leaving only the 21mm Zeis.

TS-E is impractical, why?  Because it doesn't accept filters easily?


Quote from: NancyP link=topic=19117.msg358110#msg358110 da
te=1389982491
Do you find the polarizer useful at 21mm, or does it result in obvious artifact (sky gradient)? Actually, I know that it must, because I have used a polarizer at the 15mm end of a zoom on APS-C, and the effect is noticeable on a plain blue sky. I have been considering whether to buy a polarizer at 82mm diameter, or the 105mm diameter used to mount on the Lee holder - both options are ungodly expensive ($260.00 to $400.00 for B&W XS-PRO Nano "wide"). I suppose that one inconspicuous use of a polarizer on ultra-wide angle lens might be in a shot without significant amount of sky, eg, woodlands shot.

A polarizer can be useful even for WAs.  It can be used for water, but I like using it for snow, and in some cases can be used for the sky depending on where the sun is and what effect you're trying to go for.  Although, you might find youself using it more if you choose to get a canon/tamron 24-70 in the future.   ::)

416
Lenses / Re: 135L or 100 Macro IS?
« on: January 17, 2014, 01:57:29 PM »
I would vote for the 100L.  135L is bit limiting on APS-C.  It shines for portraiture on FF, but it's a bit too long on APS-C to be used the same way.  If you want a more general purpose telezoom, then a 70-xxx makes more sense than either 100L or 135L.

The macro is nice because it allows you to take a general pic and then focus close on details.  You don't have to use it 1:1.  Even using it at 0.25-0.5x will give you greater magnification that most lenses and gives you more freedom to compose your smaller subjects.

417
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or 24-70 mm II
« on: January 17, 2014, 07:55:28 AM »
How many lenses are you considering?  It looks like you're considering 3:  Zeiss 21, a Canon 24 prime (24L II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5 or a 24mm f/2.8 IS?) and Canon 24-70 II.

I've tried a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS, and honestly, I have not found the IS to be that useful.  I can handhold it to about 1/20s and still get good results.  With IS, I can get to to 1/10s and maybe 1/5s on occasion.  In those type of situations, I'd usually prefer a tripod to IS for scenes that are not moving.  If people/animals are moving in the frame then you want something 1/60s or faster and IS makes no difference.

If the Zeiss 21 is wide enough for your needs, then get it.  If you have enough money, the Zeiss 21 and the Canon 24-70 II is a formidable combination.

418
Lenses / Re: Sell 16-35 II for 24-70 II/24TSE?
« on: January 16, 2014, 07:48:05 AM »
I would suggest getting the 24-70 II first and deciding how that works for you, and if you need wider, then take a look at the TS-E 17 as Eldar suggested.  Unless you need the movements, it might not be the best use of your money to have two excellent lenses at 24mm:  24-70 II and the TS-E 24.

Yes, TS-Es make it easier to get panos because of shift, but it some cases, it is not a substitute for a wider lens in some cases.  Most of the time it works well, but think of scenes where there is a lot of movement due to wind or due to animals moving through the frame.  One option is get the TS-E 17 and use the 1.4x to approximate a TS-E 24.  It won't be as sharp as either the TS-E 24 or the 24-70 II but others have used it and it's worked well enough for them.

I too have the 16-35II but rarely use it.  I use the TS-Es most of the time, so I only use the 16-35II when travelling light.  A 16-35/50/70-xxx is an easy way to cover a wide focal length range and handle indoor/outdoor lighting and still get high IQ.

419
Lenses / Re: 17-40/4 L DxO Tested
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:36:39 AM »
This is one potential reason why I've stayed away from their software.  If they can't characterize the lenses correctly, does it affect their software products?

I think that's one of the reasons why people are frustrated by the DxO 'tests'. Their software programs are quite highly regarded by many, in sharp contrast to their 'score summaries' which are joke, and a poor one at that. Trying to condense a lens's performance into a single 'score' is an insult to their programs.

I've never really tried DxO software.  I currently use LR for basic edits and cataloging, Nik for B&W conversion and some HDR,  and PS for focus stacking and photo-stitching.  For others that use the same software that I use, is there an advantage to using DxO software?  If so, which programs do you find useful?

420
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:29:22 PM »
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters.   :o

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 96