July 28, 2014, 05:10:43 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 - BozillaNZ

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
106
Lenses / Re: From 40D to 1D II N - Is this wide enough ?
« on: July 17, 2013, 07:12:46 PM »
Owning a 1D I can tell you that only 16-35 can be a sufficient 'wide' lens on it. 22 as your widest is definitely too limiting. My 24L only acts as a mild wide on it and although it's good, every time I use 24L on it, it re-ignite my urge to get back to FF.  >:( :-X

107
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 17, 2013, 07:07:57 PM »
Test #3.  Same lens, EF 70-200 2.8 II IS, RAW

(1) EOS-M, 125mm, 1/160, f4.5, ISO100, flexizone single, on monopod
(2) EOS-6D, 200mm, 1/1500, f2.8, ISO400, AF, on monopod

I intentionally used a higher ISO on the 6D shot so I could use a faster shutter speed to minimize effects of camera shake on the monopod, so if anything the 6D should have an advantage there.

The white balance was messed up on the shot from the M, but I don't have access to Lightroom or other software to correct it.  DPP probably can do this, but I'm not familiar with it.

Oh noes, you are doing it wrong, M should use lens wide open @ f2.8 to match 6D's stopped down DoF @ f4.5.

1/160 vs 1/1500? That's more that 3 stops difference in shutter speed!

Other than that, I think your 6D is messy at pixel level. My previous 1DsII gives pixel-sharp images and looks nothing like the image you posted.

If you are still keen to do comparisons,  try those parameters:

M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

At those settings pointing to the same scene, the shutter speed should be within +/- 0.6ev range.

Remember to turn sharpness settings to middle for both.

108
Lenses / Re: Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
« on: July 17, 2013, 07:01:18 PM »
The only 2 problems of this lens is 1: not enough reach, 2: it's too fricking long!

It appears larger than 24-105 or even 24-70, a APS-C body looks tiny with it mounted

109
No, don't use mRAW or sRAW, only do it when you run out of storage space in the field, or if that happens you might as well shoot JPGs. In camera RAW cooking is not good. The dinky processor in your camera will never offer same demosacking quality as a modern RAW processing software running on a good computer.

And if you are so obsessed with noise that you are willing to sacrifice half linear resolution, you can shoot (regular) RAW, process it, then downscale 2x in the final output. You will get far better result than using sRAW.

110
1. Shoot good CF card

2. Shoot S-JPG

Problem solved! As other's said, you hit wall on the buffer.

And it's not a poor battery connection. What happens when you have poor battery connection? When you press shutter, it does nothing, all LCD disappears, then camera reboots giving you ERR-03 or ERR-99. I've seen this many times but only in old camera which the battery is dying.

111
Technical Support / Re: Light leak on 1Ds mk3 :(
« on: July 17, 2013, 07:21:34 AM »
Definitely shutter failure, get it replaced soon before the shutter blade busts out and scratch your low-pass filter, or you will be looking for a $1000 low-pass filter replacement job + shutter replacement job

112
I'm glad that you are enjoying the discussion. It wasn't my intent to offend anyone.
I didn't confirm the nonsense. Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you. If you can't see a bacteria, it doesn't mean that there are none. In case with a magic shrinking machine, the details are made smaller so you can still see them by shrinking yourself or maybe using a microscope. However, when you shrink the image on your screen or print a thumbnail, you are just losing the information. Just like for a half-blind person all your images can look same "sharp" or same "blurry". In fact, for him, sharp and blur looks the same. CoC is about perception. DoF is not, it is about information, same as photography. Once the light of an optical image hits the sensor, it is gone, all that's left is the information gathered by the electronics. If you shoot a picture that has nothing in focus, it doesn't matter to what resolution you downsize it, no new information will occur (except the false one). You can manipulate the image in any way you want, but in relativity to reality DoF won't change a bit. If photography is just a form of art for you and perception is the only thing that matters, then perhaps you are not even trying to understand what I'm talking about.

Well by your standard, in reality there is nothing really 'in focus'. The focus 'plane' is a hypothetical thing that has zero thickness. Also on the 'true' focus plane every light point has diameter of 0. Anything in front, or behind this zero thickness hypothetical plane is deemed out of focus because they have a CoC > absolute 0.

The sensor sees something in focus not because they are in focus, but simply because the CoC is smaller than sensor's pixel could distinguish. So what you say? That the image the sensor captures is the real world? It is not.

If above assumption is correct, then take an example, if I shoot a photo with a 320x240 pixel FF sensor, what is my DoF? Even my lens gives a blurry mess I would still get a 320x240 photo that is sharp at pixel level. Does this represent the 'reality'?

The thing is, reality is far weirder than you can ever imaging. We are in a photographic forum, so yes, photography is just a form of art for me and perception is the only thing that matters. I learn from my output photos and prints so I can control my equipment to get the result I want.

Then we leave the underlying physical, electricial or philosophical discussions for some one else or somewhere else.

113
Prepared to shrink yourself 100 times and tell me that I am mad, LOL! I'm laughing and crying at the same time! ;D :'( ;D :'(

Even you have confirm that shrinking picture increase DoF do have a real world implication, BUT

Shrink a picture 100 times? Yes! Shrink a human 100 times? OMGWTFBBQChickenWings!

In the end, isn't photography all about perception?  ::)

114
Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!
« on: July 16, 2013, 10:11:20 PM »
See people have different preferences, some would be happy to take 70-200, 300, 400 and shoot all day, others perfer 16-35 and 14.

To get a all around set you can start with 16-35 and 70-200, then start adding primes later. No need to hurry in buying whole bunch of lenses only to find out you won't use half of them.

115
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D odd behavior after long exposures
« on: July 16, 2013, 08:25:45 PM »
Long exposure noise reduction

Turn it off. What it does is take another exposure with shutter curtain closed, called 'dark frame' then subtract this frame from your photo, intended to remove hot pixels.

If you shoot RAW you don't need it. hot pixels are easily fixable in almost all RAW processing software.

As far as hot pixels go, I would agree. However as far as noise goes, you cannot remove that much noise in post without loosing a lot of detail. Although long exposure noise reduction is annoying (especially when taking 5+ minute exposures) I think it is worth the time to get an almost noise free image.

Dark frame subtraction only removes hot pixels. It can't cancel out RANDOM noise, which is the major noise in modern sensors. Because noise in each shot are different, and you can't subtract noise from noise to get a noise-free image, the math doesn't work that way.

116
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 16, 2013, 08:22:40 PM »
There is no point comparing two different format with different pixel density if you use the same lens and at same shooting distance: The denser sensor will give you more detail in the same real world area.

Now try to frame the same shot, by choosing a longer focal length on 6D and compare the results. M @ 24mm f4, vs 6D @ 38mm f6.3, Now who's sharper?

117
DoF does not rely solely on optics, so badgerpiper's  statement is false. DoF relies on apparent aperture (optics) and subject magnification (optics, reproduction size and viewing distance).

If you look at same sized prints, as common sense dictates you must, the crop camera capture is enlarged more, so the CoC is smaller, so the DoF is less.

Why doesn't everybody who is inclined to post read the links I have provided? It is all in there. Depending on how you make your comparison, and you have to clearly state the way you want to compare the captures, a smaller sensor can be shown to have more DoF than a ff camera, the same DoF, or as in this instance, less DoF than that ff camera.

You cannot separate DoF from subject magnification and viewing distance at the output size.


Finally, someone who knows what I was talking about! I am not crazy,hahaha!

When you enlarge a picture, CoC gets bigger, DoF gets shallower. Don't believe me? Take a mild shallow DoF photo and down scale it to thumbnail image, see, suddenly everything is in focus! Magical isn't it?  :P


Note when you crop a photo, you essentially zooming in and stopping down. On the other post we had a very detailed discussion about what this does to the background blur, in short, when you zoom in and stop down, close background blurs less, distant background blurs more, and life is complicated!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15904.0

118
Lenses / Re: What lens delivers the strongest background blur?
« on: July 16, 2013, 08:02:47 AM »
The OP asked a very general question. With your very nice posted image, taken with a 200mm lens, another focal length prime will not create an identical image. The background blur can be less or more depending on the working distance, focal length, aperture and subject distance from the background. If you hinge on a 200mm then the only way to create a simular isolation is to go closer with a wider lens or further back with a longer lens. If one goes wider, then a larger aperture will be needed to create a clean background.
A 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2 are both perfectly capable of doing this, although the 35mm is better suited to "head and shoulders" portraits and not "head and toes" portraits. The wider lens will be a lot closer and cause a different look to the 200mm image. There will be a different look from the amount of compression difference between the 200mm and 35mm, but that's an entirely different subject. 

I regularly use a 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2 for my professional wedding work and it's very very easy to melt the background, but tricky to get a precise point of focus. That said, my 24-70L is very good at melting backgrounds too. At 70mm @ f2.8 it's min focus distance is very close and more than capable of making clean backgrounds.

That's some nice input. However if you try to take full body portrait using 35 1.4, it cannot achieve the same amount of background blur as a 200mm lens, because background compression plays a big factor on achieving this effect.

I don't deny the ability for 35 1.4 to achieve background blur, but it won't do much at this size of a subject. What I'm trying to get to is wide angle is good at blurring background when shooting small things close up, while telephone is good at blurring background when shooting big things (relatively) far away. So the chart in topic doesn't really tell you the whole picture.

119
When comparing different formats using the same lens and aperture at equivalent distance (same FoV) -

That's just not possible. It is not possible to have same lens (assume prime) mounted on different sensor format and still achieve same FoV. Physics doesn't work like that.

If by 'same FoV' you mean same subject framing, then background would have different magnification. That's my point, different perspective can't be compared.

Also from your above post, you seem to indicate that under all circumstances FF will always have equal or shallower DoF, I and a lot others couldn't agree on that.

120
Lenses / Re: What lens delivers the strongest background blur?
« on: July 16, 2013, 06:54:15 AM »
I'd like to share a photo shot by a pal on another forum:

He used 200mm f2 to do this shot: tell me if any shorter lens can ever achieve this effect:

hint: subject distance: 17.6m



35 1.4? pfff, not even close

Contrary to popular belief, in order to get most background blur (isolation), you shoot head/shoulder with wide angle (35), half body with medium (50/85) and full body with telephoto (>200), not the other way around.

Wide for full body, tele for close up just gives you flat and boring snap shots.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9