September 03, 2014, 03:58:46 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 - kaihp

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 19
76
Landscape / Re: Upper/Lower Antelope Canyon Help
« on: March 12, 2014, 02:18:50 AM »
Anybody here visited Antelope Canyon lately? I will be in Page for about a day and a half this upcoming October. I was wondering if anyone here has any specific advice as to whether to spend time at Upper vs Lower Antelope Canyon. Looks like Lower is less crowded, but why? I was thinking I would probably be happier in Lower with less casual visitors and having more time, since the sunbeams in Upper aren't great in October…..Am I correct? If I only do one, will Lower be a good idea? Also, exactly how do you get in Lower……I understand you need a guide……..anybody have any good or bad experiences or make any specific recommendations?

Secondly, my plan was to try Horseshoe Bend then too………when is best, morning or evening? Is it easy or hard to get to?

Thanks for any help…..have researched this quite a bit but I am sure there are some of us here who know exactly what I am asking…...

I went to Upper Antelope, Lower Antelope and Horseshoe Bend in October 2012.

Since Upper is A-shaped (ie wide in the bottom, narrow in the top) and Lower is V-shaped, I would recommend going to Lower in the morning, and take Upper around noon in order to get more sun in. As far as I recall, October will be too late in the year to get the sunbeams in Upper.

You do not need a guide in Lower. Just show up with a full-sized tripod and your camera - they will allow you to go in alone (the entrance can be hard to find, though - I had to get people to direct me to the stairs down).

Horseshoe Bend is on the other side of Page vs the Antelopes. I went there in the morning before daybreak (bring a flashlight!) and kept shooting for 3-3½ hours, as the sun can up behind me and the shadows moved down into the ravine over the hours. I liked this light vs the light in the evening, when you are shooting towards the sun. YMMV.

Enjoy the trip  :)

77
Software & Accessories / Re: Fail to contact support Reikan (Focal)
« on: March 08, 2014, 07:10:32 AM »
I wonder if just I have this problem.

Reikan is known not to answer support mail or support questions. Maybe mail works(?).
How "known" are Reikan for this - just to you, perhaps?
Your credibility for posting this is not very high, given that this is your very first post on the CR forum.

Personally, I have reported a few bugs and feature suggestions since I purchased the Pro license about 1.5 years ago. Every time, I've gotten a response.
To me, this sounds like a simple website problem.

78
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:20:19 AM »
I don't know how many people out there are waiting for this Camera. It's a very very long wait now. It is still really surprising still not to have a CR3 news on this.
I've really wanted a 7D2 to be released by canon ... Tired of waiting I got a 5d3 in October 2012. Now I'm not sure what the 7d2 will offer which will make me get one after having been spoilt by the 5d3.
+1
I also got the 5D MKIII in October 2012.
+2

79
Software & Accessories / Re: How long a Monopod should be
« on: February 04, 2014, 05:38:51 AM »
I'm 6'6", so I feel the OPs pain. I managed to pester my local shop long enough (I think it was over a 6 month period) for them to import a Gitzo G1564L monopod, which can be extended to 6'7.5" (202cm). The G1564L is no longer available, but Gitzo has a 192cm tall Carbon-fiber monopod, the GM3551 which should be fine for you.

Hope this helps.

80
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Aftermarket upgrading of cameras?
« on: January 04, 2014, 11:53:42 PM »
No, the primary reason for soldering everything is reliability.

Reliability and physical space. Sockets take up space that aren't there.

Laptop and desktop computers are in an entirely different ballgame when it comes to data rates, because they can afford to throw power (consumption) at the problem. A PC can consume 100+Watts with no ill side effects. A Camera cannot, since the heating will affect the sensor noise adversely.

81
EOS Bodies / Re: Do you have a 4K display?
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:41:11 PM »
But profits are only attained when the consumer seesthinks there is a benefit.

There, I fixed it for you  ;)

I will seriously consider a 4K monitor when it comes down in price .... not necessarily for photos, but for the need of "screen real estate" for general usage. I was recently comparing a UHD TV vs a FHD TV for work (as a replacement for a projector), and the ability of the UHD to do render more details just for text etc was quite convincing.
The RMB19,000 price tag for the 65" version kept me at bay, though.

 

82
Included:
--A pouch of reasonable quality -- Seems to be woven nylon, neoprene lining, a touch of pleather trim, velcro

By the picture, the pouch looks much like my genuine Canon ST-E3-RT pouch. I will probably buy the YN-E3-RT when I'm back in China and do some back-to-back comparison. I am not, however, going to do a teardown of the ST.

83
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:37:44 PM »
is an aps-c sensor really cheaper to produce? You would think the 70d sensor with its smaller photo sites and dual pixel tech would be more expensive than the 6d sensor which is about the same mp count?

Pixel size doesn't matter significantly (as long as the density is achievable with the process scale being used (500 nm, 180 nm, etc.).  Area matters - you get a lot more APS-C sensors than FF from a wafer; the larger sensor also means a higher QC failure rate, raising the cost further.
I suppose that's true, I just don't think that it is the huge cost difference its made out to be and if its the sensors area and not pixel count is what makes it expensive then they should hurry up with the high mp ff sensor

Neuro's got it right here.

The silicon wafers used for IC and sensor fabrication have a fixed manufacturing cost per wafer*. So if you can get ten times the number of good parts out of a wafer, the part cost will be - everything else equal - 1/10th the original cost.

There are a couple of things that affect the actual yield of a wafer:
1. How many (rectangular) dies that can be put on the (round) wafer. The "square peg in round hole" problem. See Wikipedia. Plugging in some numbers for a 300mm wafer size, I get 1610/610 = 2.64 times more APS-C sensors than FF sensors.
2. Intrinsic die yield. This is usually modeled as falling exponentially with the die area, so an APS-C sensor will intrinsically have exp(1.62)~=13 times higher yield than a FF sensor. The yield is based on how likely fabrication defects will not impact a die of size X, with an inherent defect density of A0. The defect density is related to the fabrication line itself (it usually starts out high, and then improves over the lifetime of the fab line, as the engineers learn how to control and improve the process line).
3. Feature density. This reflects how dense the wires/transistors etc are, and will somewhat counteract the die yield above. I'll ignore this below, since I don't have data and this has never been significant enough for me to bother about when considering the yield of a particular product.

So for APS-C vs FF sensors, fabricated on the same line, a single 300mm wafer will yield ~2.64 * exp(1.62) ~ 34 times more good dies of APS-C size than of FF size.

I probably forgot a number of details in relation to the yield - apologies in advance for that - but hopefully this shows why an APS-C sensor will always have a cost advantage over a FF sensor.

As a reference, the cost of a processed 180nm wafer for mixed analog/digital designs can be on the order of USD2000 (ex fab cost). Lower geometry wafers are generally more expensive, higher geometry less expensive.

*) This assumes a number of technicalities, such as using the same fab options, metal layers, equipment utilization rates etc etc etc. To the first order and for this discussion, this is a good assumption.

84
Personally, I don't think whether DSLR is around in 10 years matters that much. If DSLR is dead, then it's because something superior has replaced it.

But what I think we can be pretty sure of, is that in 10 years there will still be bodies/sensors that can take EF lenses.

We as Canon's customers have far too much invested in EF lenses to be interested in giving up the EF mount lenses on such a (relatively) short term horizon.  Canon knows this, and will make sure that we are not overly tempted to abandon them (ie jump ship to, say, Nikon).

85
Canon General / Re: Sensor production
« on: November 29, 2013, 02:41:39 AM »
Intel's fabs are geared towards digital logic designs (processors, GPUs, chipsets, flash), not sensors.

Fabs are optimized towards specific uses, so trying to put a light sensor is not likely to be feasible. As an example, significant leakage currents can be accepted in a digital process, whereas the same leakage would leave an analogue circuit heavily compromised: A/D resolution, noise, dynamic range would all be impacted.

As Mt Spokane is pointing out, the digital IC are "tiny" - preferably below 100 mm^2. Compare this with the 864 mm^2 area needed just for the sensor array in a FF sensor (just the pad ring is likely to rack up another 25+ mm^2).

86
Yes but that will get you about as far as "no dear your bum looks big in everything!" :o
"Does my bum look big in this?"

"yes, you have a big bum!"
My Brazilian friend would take that as a compliment :)

cue the yearly "Miss BumBum" competition held there.

87
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 13, 2013, 11:19:46 AM »
With today's technology I'm sure they could redesign the battery bay to be smaller and carry a thinner battery that equals the power of about two LP-E6s and a slightly better voltage to drive the AF better than it's driven on the 5D mark III but not as good as the 1D-X.
Alas, we are up against physics here, so getting towards a ~ half-sized battery (compared to an LP-E6) is not very likely.

88
Lenses / Re: AFMA & distance?
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:11:50 AM »
In practice, I'd expect to see a difference with a +5 adjustment for an f/2.8 lens (but it would be barely perceptable for an f/5.6 lens, if at all).

FWIW, I found that an adjustment of +4 on my 70-200/2.8IS II made a very visible and significant difference. At some point, I want to get around to testing the 70-200 for how much the AFMA varies with target distance because I feel that the portrait-type photos I take don't seem to be sharp where I expect them.

89
DSLR's need to reinvent the CF card
The CF card has already been reinvented. It's called CFast and is based on the SATA standards (instead of the PATA/ATAPI/IDE interface).

90
Kids also swallow memory cards, coins, pins, clips, magnets in mobile phone covers/purses/wallets/camera bags/laptop bags etc and get serious problems, yet knowledgable photogrpahers, who work with the public, still carry/use them ... I do not think the two little magnets in the magmod will cause any serious problems to the public.

The problem with kids swallowing super strong magnets is real.  But it was mostly the Bucky Balls that caused most of the trouble.  Read this... http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/tech/web/apparently-this-matters-buckyballs/

The problem with kids swallowing almost anything is real too. Batteries, in particular (it's a patient/product risk in my line of business, so we provide child locks so they cannot get to the battery).

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 19