October 23, 2014, 09:53:17 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 - lintoni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Lenses / Re: Night Sky
« on: Today at 06:27:45 AM »
Yep, as the previous posters said : for wide-field astro photo, you'll need a Samyang lens. They're pretty much the only ones to do wide aperture with almost no coma (maybe Zeiss too, but i've yet to see a test for coma with the 18/21mm Zeiss lenses).
The Canon 16-35 f/4L is mostly comma-free, but F/4 is really not ideal.

Thanks, this is great advice. Your sample pictures were amazing.

Is Samyang just making another version of the Rokinon lens or vice versa?

If I am going to buy another L, I'd rather get something I'll use more than the 24L at that cost.

Made by Samyang, also sold under the Rokinon, Bower and other names.

@ Djaff - wonderful photos!

EOS-M / Re: EOS M with Magic Lantern, shutter cannot release
« on: Today at 05:16:17 AM »
It seems to be a known bug. Found this on the last page of ML's EOS-M thread


I may have found a fix for the shutterbug (not sure).
The shutter bug always occurred when using the EF-M 18-55 IS STM lens.
I changed the Custom Function "Release shutter without lens" to "Enable", restarted the camera and the shutter bug was gone.
Since then I have not been able to replicate the shutter bug (not even by changing the setting to "Disable").
It worked for me. I am using the sept 27 nightly build.

Lenses / Re: Night Sky
« on: Today at 04:21:11 AM »
I found this link useful. One of the reasons I bought the Samyang 14mm was for night skies:


EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 With a Liquid Element
« on: October 20, 2014, 12:31:51 PM »
What advantage would there be to have a liquid element in a sealed camera lens?  Does light pass through clear liquids in a differnet way than solids?
You can alter the shape of the lens, thus varying how the light's path is refracted by the lens.

Lenses / Re: Selling my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II
« on: October 19, 2014, 10:24:57 AM »
I was using my 70-200mm today for softball... it would have been tough to limit myself to only 200mm... so I think I may be keeping the lens even if I do elect to upgrade to the 200 f2...
:o What?!?

You've got that all wrong.  PM me and we'll arrange a swap.  I'll send you a really nice bat and you send me the 70-200.  You'll find that your softball is much improved if you use the right gear!

Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:03:25 AM »
Re: Classic Shell - I've found it invaluable on Windows 8.1, unnecessary on Windows 7 - Win 7 has a logical interface, without a steep lerning curve, so... YMMV

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 2mm f/1.4 Lens for Small Sensors
« on: October 18, 2014, 08:14:11 AM »
Just a bit too big for a EOS smartphone!  ;D

Software & Accessories / Re: Hello Windows 10
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:27:30 AM »
Surely UFRaw or RawTherapee can handle 5D3 files, no? The big downside in Linux is the lack of 16-bit final stage editing. GIMP is nearly there though.

early 5D3 user, and there were no OS tools that could handle the raws from my new toy on my Linux PC.

Yes, but not when I first got the 5D3.

Software & Accessories / Re: Hello Windows 10
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:20:59 AM »
Surely UFRaw or RawTherapee can handle 5D3 files, no? The big downside in Linux is the lack of 16-bit final stage editing. GIMP is nearly there though....
Really GIMP, hurry up already, would ya please? I use GIMP on WIN, 16 bit GIMP might finally get me to the Linux camp.
On WIN, UFRaw has always left me wanting, RawTherapee looks excellent in comparison though I do need to spend more time with it, just found it recently.
16 bit GIMP is available, but only in development versions. You can try builds for Windows and Mac OSX from here:


EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 15, 2014, 05:39:53 AM »
I think people are mistaken if they think that Canon needs to expand their range of dSLRs. Given that the market for ILCs is in decline, I would expect their range to be simplified, but with the expansion of EOS-M - possibly including a full frame mirrorless, which would then be the entry point to full frame.

Software & Accessories / Use your phone as a cosmic ray detector!
« on: October 13, 2014, 04:41:20 PM »

Physicists are looking to use the CMOS detector in your phone's camera to detect cosmic rays. Interesting, but they need 1000 inactive phones per square km.  :o Maybe you'd like to help them out?

Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?

What does that have to do with what I just posted? Does simple repetition give people an open door to get personal and be insulting? Really?
Well, simple repetition does become rather tedious, you don't help yourself. 

As far as what you've just posted, you couldn't help taking a side swipe at dilbert, which is a bit hypocritical considering the number of lengthy posts from you complaining that it's getting insulting and personal. Oh dear, he didn't like a couple of your photos, so toss a personal insult his way?

Insulting. Really.

The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.
for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

There are posts that just stick to the facts, then there are posts where you implicitly or explicitly insult, or you make assumptions about what a person will do then tell the community that's what they are going to do in the future, such as when you said I'm just a complainer and Canon hater, and once Canon finally came out with a high DR camera, I'd move onto Nikon forums and find something else to complain about. I take issue with that. I have a specific complaint. I'm skeptical Canon is going to address it any time soon, and Canon's lack of action frustrates me, but that doesn't make me some kind of rabid Canon hater who is just going to hate on Canon because I want to hate on Canon...that's a misrepresentation of me, and yeah, I take that personally.

That kind of personal crap has been flying around these forums for weeks, and a lot of it is based on nothing but pure assumption. There is also the way "DRone" has become highly derogative, and that term is used with a number of members on these forums. There is the insulting and regular implication that "DRones" don't know how to use a camera or process their images. (These things aren't just directed at me, but at everyone you guys have decided to call a DRone.) You can't tell me that there isn't an intentionally personal and insulting aspect to most of the posts you guys write in response to anyone bringing up DR these days. IT IS PERSONAL.  >:( You guys have made it personal...maybe you don't realize you have...but you have. I've never seen so many insults flung on a forum outside of 4chan and reddit.

PBD, you haven't taken it as far as some, although you have made many of your posts personal recently. Neuro and Keith (and a couple others) seem to use the term DRone as a nasty derogative most frequently, alongside other thinly veiled insults. Kieth doesn't seem to be able to stop inferring that DRones are just bumbling idiots who don't know how to use a camera, don't know the first thing about post-processing, and regularly derides the photography of DRones when I'm quite sure he hasn't even seen the photography of most or any of them. There are a number of other members who have gotten quite personal and been deriding people's photography or artistic choices here as well...and that's just flat out rude. NONE of this has EVER been been done in a constructive manner...the reaction to "DRones" has always been a negative one, but lately it's down right rabid. Like a pack of wolves, you guys just pounce and never let up. If it was just about correcting someones incorrect facts, it could be done far, far more constructively...the way you guys go about it, it's (seemingly intentionally) destructive. (And again, I'm not just speaking for myself...there were pages upon pages of you guys and many others circling and attacking Dilbert on the D750 thread, over and over and over. I don't think much of Dilbert's opinions myself, I don't think he understands a lot of what he talks about...but wow, guys...)

It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though. There is a difference between pointing that and incorrect statement, and attacking and insulting those who make a mistake. You guys have added a personal undercurrent to this whole thing. Just the use of the term DRone, the way it's used, is quite insulting...let alone the defamation of character or defamation of people's work or anything like that.
Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?

Lenses / Re: Versatile macro-ish walkaround zoom for dad
« on: October 11, 2014, 06:08:29 PM »
I don't know how steady your father's hands are, but I know that I really appreciate having Image Stabilisation if I've had a long day hiking and am feeling tired - I can still take photos!

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 06:09:22 AM »

You're probably right.

I'm just thinking that a 50Mpix 5DIV with all the bells and whistles off the 5DIII ought be of interest and should command a premium to the 5DIII and stop the leak to Sony.

I can't see the need for a 50Mpix in a 1D.  50Mpix is needed mainly for landscape, and who wants to lug a 1D series up a mountain or whatever?

Maybe what we're looking at is a 3D?..   essentially a derivative of the 6D with 50MPix and 14EV+ DR even if sensitivity is compromised...   a dedicated landscape body.

One thought..''  is it theoretically possible to read a CMOS sensor twice? (same exposure, just read at high and low ISO)..  CCD you can't but I don't see why you can't do it with CMOS..  reading the current sensor tech twice could give you much more than 14 EV DR, but would be slower..  which for landscape isn't an issue.

Just wondering if that route is open to Canon without having to go foveon just yet.

Personally I just want Canon to release a cracking upgrade to the 5DIII so that suddenly 5DIIIs become cheap as chips and I can pick one up for tuppence.
Not quite what you're proposing, but Magic Lantern's Dual ISO samples 1/2 the sensor at one ISO and 1/2 the sensor at another ISO - this is done concurrently, so there are no motion artefacts.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13