September 17, 2014, 01:51:36 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 - BozillaNZ

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark II composition movement
« on: July 18, 2013, 08:11:00 PM »
Now try to shake the camera, can you hear loud knocking sound? If you can then something is loose inside... Time for a trip to service center.

It's good for video where output resolution will always be less than sensor's native resolution.

However for still photographs, you don't lose 2x the vertical resolution, you lose more. Since according to the technical document, it uses ISO 100 for sensor line 1,2, then ISO 1600 for line 3,4, and alternating like that.

It is how the hardware is wired up, two rows for each ADC/AMP. This has the effect of generating worse moire and alias on scenes with high frequency data since the spatial continuity is essential 1/4 that of original resolution.

Lenses / Re: Move from 24-70 f/2.8L Mk I to 35mm F/1.4?
« on: July 18, 2013, 08:32:19 AM »
Used 35L for a short while, got rid of it along with my FF body, just to fund the 24L II. But when I get the next FF body I will not hesitate to buy it again. It's a piece of well engineered and well built lens.

Sigma's focusing motor wears out in several years of use. I replaced my S50 1.4's motor by myself. However I've never encountered a (ring type) motor wear out from Canon, even their 199x manufactured first gen USM lenses.

I only kept Sigma's 50 because Canon's 50 1.4 is an outlier that is very bad in both mechanical and optical aspect and the 50L is too expensive to justify. If Canon can come up with an improved 50 1.4 at least on par with their 85 1.8 I will dump the Sigma in a heart beat.

Sensor Dynamic Range vs. Camera Dynamic Range

1. properly illuminated VF (i.e. previous 1D like)
2. better vertical grip integration to body
Bonus for more dynamic range, maybe 14 stops?

If those 2 can me meet I will be interested in getting a 5D again.

It seems there's nothing constructive I can add to this post now. Everyone except one agrees on the common knowledge about relationship between output magnification and DoF. The post starter can either agree we us, or him or come up with his own conclusion.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 Replacement
« on: July 18, 2013, 01:52:11 AM »
When you do landscape shots, do you manually focus to infinity then stop down to f16? If you have never done it, try it. You will be surprised by how much the border and corner improves.

Reason? Canon's UWA zooms all suffer from severe field curvature. I have used all 4 of them: 17-40 f4, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 I and II, they all exhibit this. The field curves inward from center to corner, pretty heavily.

If you let the AF focus on center frame, the corner will be very out of focus. However if you manually focus to infinity, then corner focus plane will at least be pushed further and won't be so out of focus anymore.

For gear heads, here's a good read:

In short, sRAW and mRAW are not "really raw", they are "partially cooked". LOL! ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ND filters /waterfalls on 5D3
« on: July 18, 2013, 01:31:35 AM »
I borrowed my friend's B+W MRC 10 stop filter, in short, it's a niche product. You will find that you only use it on your 0.001% photos. Also your white balance will get screwed big time and pretty hard if not impossible to adjust back in PP.

ISO 100, F22, with 10 stop filter on cloudy day would give you 15min exposure! Which IMO is way overkill for water shots.

I currently only have a 3 stop square ND filter from Lee, and I think that fits almost all my ND need apart from graduated ones. A 3 stop slows down your shutter speed from say 1/200 to 1/25, or 1/100 to 1/12, which is quite handy most of the times for giving water streams this in motion feel.

The thing 10-stop ND does best is to make sea look like fog, something like that:

It's not good for water falls.

Lenses / Re: Lee Filters for Wideangel
« on: July 17, 2013, 11:31:20 PM »
Glass ND's are multi-coated. That alone would worth the cost. When you stack multiple filters as you do in landscape shot, the reflection between filters are the worst offender to cause flaring

But I'm not sure if I can uderstand the topic, wideangel... that must be some special angel isn't it?  :P

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10