April 16, 2014, 04:03:28 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20
151
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 05, 2013, 04:41:18 AM »
lol, that's a nice shot!  :D Makes mine look a bit feeble in comparison.

152
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 01:13:16 PM »
I tried for a shot with Andromeda but was unable to get one.  :)  Nice capture.

A shot of Panstarrs from the UK, noisy and not the sharpest due to being shot at ISO 6400 on a 7D with no post processing, but the comet is plainly visible along with a fuzzy patch of light that is Andromeda up top!

Thanks! Neither Andromeda or Panstarrs are much to look at in the picture but I'm limited with only having a 200mm as my longest lens, plus shooting at such high ISO on the 7D doesn't help detail or noise. Maybe one day I'll get a telescope and an equatorial mount for some serious astrophotography!

P.S- you've captured some nice images also! I'd love a 5D III for better high iso performance. The shooting info from my shot is all contained in the exif, local time was 21.45 I think.

153
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 12:49:20 PM »
A shot of Panstarrs from the UK, noisy and not the sharpest due to being shot at ISO 6400 on a 7D with no post processing, but the comet is plainly visible along with a fuzzy patch of light that is Andromeda up top!

154
It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

Is there not something to be said for a more even resolution across the frame and less vignetting? The Canon 10-22 also has much better barrel distortion than the 17-40 used on crop or full frame for that matter. You might be able to use your 'garden variety' zoom on FF to do better, but that FF body you are using will have cost you more in the first place. Cost is not irrelevent. I would be using FF for landscape if I could afford it, but even the 6D is out of my reach at the moment. Couple that with the cost of a decent wideangle lens to use with it. I own the 17-40 but at it's wide end it's not a fantastic performer on FF unless stopped down a fair bit. So just looking at Canon glass, because I PERSONALLY don't want to use third party lenses, what are my options?

Canon 14 and 24 L primes. 24-70 f2.8/4 L Zooms, all way in excess of £1000. Same for the 16-35 L which isn't massively better than the 17-40 at equivalent apertures. The only other option is the 24-105 which is cheaper I grant you, but not ultrawide.

155
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: April 03, 2013, 06:46:16 AM »
Mostly zooms, but I only own one prime at the moment. I aim to get another wide-normal fastish prime as a compact walkaround lens in the future.

156
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice
« on: April 03, 2013, 05:39:30 AM »
I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well.  I would also like to try a T/S lens.  I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners.  That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40.  The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...

f8-11 may be necessary for decent corners when zoomed out wide for the 17-40 on full frame, but used on crop it behaves better- the corners are decent by f5.6, even wide open isn't really a problem, though used for landscape, corner sharpness/detail for distant subjects is never completely stellar. Probably not helped by the pixel dense 7D sensor!

157
Canon General / Re: Goodbye Cruel Canon
« on: April 02, 2013, 06:11:47 AM »
Does it work for Sports and Birds in flight?!  :P

158
But then, it is good to know if there are major problems in tech land.  My experience is that Canon aren't going to tell you (banged my head against wall with mass CCD failure, 7D CF failure) unless they really have a gun at their heads.

Out of interest, what is the 7D compact flash issue you mention?

159
Pardon me, but I thought the topic was achieving sharp images. Is this the same as resolution?

No, of course, you can sharpen to death and get a sharp image from any original.

Was that the topic of the discussion?  ;)

Nope, not to my knowledge. More about sharpness out of the camera without having to resort to sharpening in post.

160
Quote
Size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.

And what part of your quoted text is stating that a full frame 35mm sensor can capture as much detail as medium format?  ???

The second sentence, in the context of the discussion.

Pardon me, but I thought the topic was achieving sharp images. Is this the same as resolution?

161
If the new models don't offer an improved sensor, I'll keep using my trusty 7D until a new model comes out offering better performance in this area, and put the money towards lenses (Unless I can find the money to go FF, that's a while away yet!).

162
Where was privatebydesign stating that a 35mm size full frame sensor could resolve more/as much detail as medium format?
Size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.

And what part of your quoted text is stating that a full frame 35mm sensor can capture as much detail as medium format?  ???

163
So you upsampled it once, then you downsampled it by a factor that you cannot tell...  and you presented this as a proof that the 1DsIII can resolve as much as MF?

BTW, I confused you with ragmanjin, sorry for that.

Where was privatebydesign stating that a 35mm size full frame sensor could resolve more/as much detail as medium format? As I read his text, his point was more about achieving pixel level sharpness, and that you don't need hugely expensive gear to realise it!

164
privatebydesign- love the signature! (not exactly on topic but probably relevent, given the amount of negativity seen on this forum sometimes)  :P

165
Yes, I think Canon needs to show it hasn't stagnated and that it is able/willing to improve this particular area of it's APS-C camera bodies. Considering how long 4 years is in technology/electronics time, I am surprised it has been this long.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20