November 26, 2014, 09:58:00 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 41
361
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5DIII for $3200 @ BnH
« on: October 22, 2012, 02:39:58 PM »
the kit price has also come down nicely by about $500 as well

362
EOS Bodies / Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« on: October 22, 2012, 02:38:50 PM »
My question, as I'm not an optics expert, is once you get into that realm of 30+ (if not before), how many current EF lenses are going to be able to leverage that sensor fully?

keep in mind that the latest Rebel is like 48MP FF equivalent

I don't have the answer either, but the pixel density of the all the latest 18mp crop bodies will probably eclipse some EF lenses, not to mention field techniques and less-than-optimum support.  Jrista has pointed out that with optically the best (arguably) lens known to man (the 300mm f/2.8) and a tripod he can extract all of that resolving power.  Someone with a deep knowledge of optical resolving power will have to chime in on this topic, but  PerfectSavage you are raising a good point which needs a more precise answer. 

363
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:23:26 PM »
As for the 1.4x TC on 5D2 vs a bare lens on the 7D, I'm not sure. I think the 7D is more like a 1.9x crop factor or so so 1.4x TC would still be a ways off, granted the 7Ds heavy split greens make it a trace softer at 100% for a rtypical 18MP APS-C but I tend to doubt that would make up for that much, but I'd have to check and my numbers may be off, just going by vague recollection.


if the 7D's crop factor deviates substantially from Canons 1.6x, that would be good to know :D .    That aside, the various different results discussed here are interesting to note.  Some are reporting equivalent IQ when the 5D2 image is cropped to match the 7D FOV.  Accepting that, the 1.x4x TC on the the 5D2 would easily outrun a 7D with the bare lens, assuming good optics of course, becasue this approach advantages the FF. 

I think there is some confusion over terms as well.  when I refer to FOV being important in distance limited situations, I refer to the goal of the final output.  regardless of the tool employed, if the desire is an 11x14 print of the moose portrait, then you will crop the image in post to whatever level it takes to acheive the right framing and FOV that meets the objective of the photo, and then you will size the final output to 11x14.  In this situation the FF image will be cropped to about 39% of the original number of pixels, compared to the 7D.  It is astonishing that an 8mp image from the cropped 5D2 can be convincing against the 18mp impage from the 7D. 

When you look at numbers, the 7D wins substantially over the cropped 5D2,.  when you look at photos, the result is apparently much different. 

364
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 03:56:35 PM »
And the thing is, if you say the 7D has no reach advantage over a 5D2 then you must also agree that usage of TCs is always a waste....

First of all, the money shots :D  there can't be compared meaningfully because they are not the same FOV, and therefore do not target the same output result.   For the purpose of advising the OP we are talking about the final output IQ of a 5D2 image that has been cropped to match the FOV of the 7D or t2i.  One has to ignore the pixel count and pixel densities, because these numbers by themselves do not meaningfully predict the outcome of such as test. 

No, the OP is asking about reach, what he can do when distance limited, nobody cares about your FOV when you are distance limited, FOV is meaningless when you are distance limited.

well, the OP was asking about effective reach with existing lenses on a FF body, in the context of cropping the FF image to yield equivalent final output of the crop body.  For this objective, equivalent FOV and IQ of the final equivalent-size output is the measure of success. 
Quote

He wasn't asking about what lens to use to get a certain landscape shot to give him the same FOV shot from the same spot.

correct;   In the paragraph that follows, I point out how different this is from the OP's objecitve.
Quote
Quote
secondly, I have to admit I'm struggling a bit to see the equivalence of using optical multpliers versus cropping the final image.  The comparison is interesting, to be sure, and valuable in its own right, but is not nearly as simplistic as stated. To be sure, optical multiplication introduces side-effects of its own but these are heavily dependant on the TC itself and the native lens to which it is attached.  Taking those into account, the advantage is that with careful choices one can present a larger image magnification to the sensor,  decreasing the FOV opticallly while taking full advantage of the sensor's native resolution and IQ.  This technique will advantage the FF body, and represents a very different test case than the OP has presented.   For example, take a photo, properly exposed and framed of course,  with the t2i and a 300 f/2.8 lens.  Then add the 1.4 III to the lens and mount the combination on the 5D2 body and crop the resultant image to match the 1.6 crop factor of the t2i.  is there any doubt as to which will produce a superior result in more situations?  To take the experiment further -- mount a 2x III to the 300 f/2.8 and take a photo with the 5d2, then take the TC off and take the same photo with the t2i, croping the result to match the FOV.  5D2 wins.

a single 1.4x TC won't even quite make up for teh 7D reach advantage and here is the point if you can manage to get close enough to the subject with whatever lens and TC you have then you are not reach limited

extending the results that have been posted here, the 1.4x TC on high quality native glass will produce a better image than the 7D using the same lens without the TC, even accounting for the necessary crop of the FF image to obtain the same FOV 
Quote

when you are limited then he just pops the 1.4x or 2x TC on his 300 2.8 and shoots with his t2i and then does better than his 5D2 with that same combo being shot on his distant bird or moose or t rex or whatever

thats the point in question:  will the t2i really do better than the 5D2 with the same optical system attached?  The point of results posted earlier is that cropping the 5D2 image to produce the same final output size produces IQ that is remarkably similar to the 7D, with perhaps only a small (if any) advantage to the 7D.  That result may be debateable, but is the basis of my point.

if he has a 1.4x and not using it, then he is not distance limited. You are only distance limited when the same optical system is used on both cameras.   The point of results posted earlier is that when truly distance limited, the FF image can be cropped to the same FOV of the 7D and produce results that are better than the numbers imply.

Therefore, if you are not distance limited for the 7D, and you have a 1.4x in your pocket, then adding the 1.4x to the 5D2  should produce even better results than the 7D because the 5D image requires only a small amount of crop in post to acheive the same FOV.

365
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:43:28 AM »
No crop sensors don't add reach, a 400mm is a 400mm no matter what size sensor it is put on.

To be precise,  you are correct in that the sensor itself does not change the optical characteristics of a given lens, but for the purpose of addressing the OPs inquiry, and for understanding the effects of the crop body as a practical matter  -- I believe it is fair to use the term "reach" because this term is applied loosely and refers only to equivalent FOV.  It does not mean "precisely equivalent result,  in every way,  to using a longer lens on a FF body"
[/quote]

366
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:16:48 AM »
And the thing is, if you say the 7D has no reach advantage over a 5D2 then you must also agree that usage of TCs is always a waste....

First of all, the money shots :D  there can't be compared meaningfully because they are not the same FOV, and therefore do not target the same output result.   For the purpose of advising the OP we are talking about the final output IQ of a 5D2 image that has been cropped to match the FOV of the 7D or t2i.  One has to ignore the pixel count and pixel densities, because these numbers by themselves do not meaningfully predict the outcome of such as test. 

secondly, I have to admit I'm struggling a bit to see the equivalence of using optical multpliers versus cropping the final image.  The comparison is interesting, to be sure, and valuable in its own right, but is not nearly as simplistic as stated. To be sure, optical multiplication introduces side-effects of its own but these are heavily dependant on the TC itself and the native lens to which it is attached.  Taking those into account, the advantage is that with careful choices one can present a larger image magnification to the sensor,  decreasing the FOV opticallly while taking full advantage of the sensor's native resolution and IQ.  This technique will advantage the FF body, and represents a very different test case than the OP has presented.   For example, take a photo, properly exposed and framed of course,  with the t2i and a 300 f/2.8 lens.  Then add the 1.4 III to the lens and mount the combination on the 5D2 body and crop the resultant image to match the 1.6 crop factor of the t2i.  is there any doubt as to which will produce a superior result in more situations?  To take the experiment further -- mount a 2x III to the 300 f/2.8 and take a photo with the 5d2, then take the TC off and take the same photo with the t2i, croping the result to match the FOV.  5D2 wins.

All that aside, in conversations about "reach advantage" the optical vector to the discussion is irrelavent anyway because it misses the point.  the point is that in distance constrained situations, where the limit of optical magnfication has already been reached (think "I'm gonna have to crop even the 7D image just a bit"), one cannot suddenly outfit the FF body with a different optical system to answer the question.

367
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:50:32 PM »
I just think the motivation to carry two bodies is more about broadening the toolset to optimize more situations-- so your best bet is to understand where the two bodies excel and where they are weak.   If it were (just) about the convinience of lens changing, then you could pick up a refurb t2i for less than the 5D2 and achieve your goal.  In any case, as a way of trying to simply some of the comparisons,  consider:

1.  a crop body focuses the image on a smaller sensor (hence the term). Here you get the full number of pixels "on the image" but at an IQ disadvantage in some situations (due to, among other things, higher pixel density) where the larger sensor will produce better results

2. cropping the FF image to match the "reach" of the crop body could be considered starting with "better" pixels but throwing some of them away to match the field of view of the crop body.  Hence Neuro's results showing a wash between the cropped 5D2 (about an 8 mp image) and the uncroped 7D at 18mp (nice information thanks Neuro).  Accepting these data, one can only imagine how much better the uncropped 5D2 image can be compared to the 7D esp in those situations that favor the FF

368
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:40:37 PM »
I have a t2I.  I've always been very happy with it, but I would like to buy a new camera.  Basically so I don't have to switch lenses as much.  I shoot pretty much anything.  Mainly wildlife, nature scenes, and old buildings.  I thought if I'm buying a new camera maybe go for the 5dmrk2.  I worry about losing reach on my wildlife pics.  Would I really lose reach or can I just crop all the way down to what I would get with my t2I?
As far as lenses go, I have a canon 24-70 2.8, 100-400L, 10-22, and 100 2.8 macro.  I think if I go with the 5dmrk2 my 24/70 would be great, but id also have to find an equivalent ultra wide angle.  Are the low light capabilities of the 5d2 really worth me adding that camera, keeping in mind I still plan on carrying my t2I on my hikes?

The short answer is yes, as a practical matter the t2i will provide a meaningfully superior image compared to a 5D2 image that has been cropped to the same FOV -- when the ISO is relatively low, the lighting is good, and the image properly exposed, etc.  This is because in this situation the t4i "puts more pixels on the image".   I mentioned all those disclaimers because  - as the available light decreases and ISO goes up, there will be some point where the cropped 5D2 image will be better (even though the final result may not be worthy of a large print)

It escapes me who provided the comparison on this forum (hats off to whomever that was), but it has been established with reasonable credibility that the 7D (which uses the same 18MP sensor as t2i) provides  "just noticeably better IQ" (my interpretation) compared to a 5D3 image cropped to the same FOV -- in optimum lighting conditions where the 7D shines.  So -- given the small IQ improvement of  the 5D3 over the 5D2 (see http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx) I would say yes you can expect photos from the T2i to be better than those of the 5D2 cropped to the same FOV -- again where the lighting is good, the image is properly exposed and you are shooting at 400 ISO for example.

My observation, however, is that adding the 5D2 to your bag would be more about adding new capabilities to your arsenal, not about loosing reach.  They are different cameras optimized for different situations.   As the above review shows, the 5D2 can provide significant IQ improvement over the 18mp crop (7D/T2i) esp in high iso situations and if  you CAN move in closer. Especially if the light is poor, then 5D2 is a no brainer advantage. 

Bottom line is that the combination of the two bodies will allow you to optimize IQ in many more situations, avoiding the use of the t2i when it is disadvantaged, and reaching for it when the situation calls for it. In well lit distance-constrained situations where you can't get closer, reach for the t4i.  As ISO increases, though, the 5D2 will start to become more attractive, and especially when you are NOT distance constrained (say, old buildings in low light)  it will produce better IQ than the t2i.

369
Lighting / Re: Anyone with experience with WingLights?
« on: October 01, 2012, 06:52:20 PM »
the on-camera modifier market is astonishing to me, and filled with more claims to lighting perfection than carter has little liver pills.  Thing is, they all have their areas of strength, but unfortunately too few of the mfgs are really candid and up front about their weaknesses.  Spotting the over marketed and over-stated capabilities of certain pieces of plastic is even amusing :D  all one has to do is go watch their videos. 

almost any small diffuser or on-camera tupperware or similar contraption works well when there are sufficient reflective surfaces of suitable color.  For example, when confronted with a situation such as found in the wing light video, I would suggest that fongs and stofens would produce similar results (bare bulb diffusers love venues like that).  The possible exception to this may be the floor bounce advantage, and of course having a nice white bouncy floor is clearly commonplace on location, as is the look one obtains when lighting from below   ;) ;)  but I digress. 

Admitting that I haven't used/played with it, what strikes me initially about the wing light is what it could do without sufficient reflective surfaces for direct, on-camera flash.    It would be like holding an ordinary garage trouble light (one of the long florescent ones...) next to your camera.  Horizontally, it is a larger light source.  vertically its nearly as small and horrible as the bare flash head.

As long as folks remember that light always travels in straight lines, the mystery of tupperware and other contraptions is lessened somewhat, as well as the temptation to buy into the many and various overstated claims.  I suspect the wing light will work well in a number of situations and looking forward to seeing some example photos -- especially in less than ideal "many white reflective surfaces" situations. 


370
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 29, 2012, 04:23:42 PM »
Also, I'm not sure about processing files this large.

Unlike the d800 the high mp eos is likely to have "s raw" and "m raw" modes that give you raw files like the 5d2/5d3/6d size. And if downscaled 46mp->22mp files have less noise than the native 5d3, there's really no drawback except for the fps - and even here Canon might allow more fps for downscaled raw files. So basically if you have the cash, Canon will try to make you prefer the high mp eos over any 5d.

finally, relief from the economic egos.  It will be interesting to see the extent to which this is a specialized camera that is disadvantaged when forced out of its comfort zone.  For example if the sensor is so optimzed for low ISO DR that it performs poorly at high ISOs, then the downsampled images won't hold a candle to the 5D3 in the areas where the 5D3 excels.  On the other hand, if the smaller images are in fact reasonable and convincing compared to the 5D3, then we could have a game changer.  Unfortunately I suspect that, given the choice, Canon will want people to buy this AND something else. they most likely won't build a 5D3 killer even if they knew how. 

371
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2012, 12:42:28 PM »
Well, I think he's saying that since someone makes a comment/claim that a sales strategy of a product is, not only wrong, but FUNDAMENTALLY wrong, it would help to see some data that would support that claim.  If there is no data to support that claim, then it's just another one of the many rubbish comments in this thread.

true dat!  its one thing to give an opinion on a site where one is as good as another (after all, this is a rumors site where the signal to noise ratio is, well, not award-winning), but quite another to assert something as true without supporting data.

372
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 24, 2012, 03:48:48 PM »
definately not somethign to pre-order without seeing test results :D  I'm just wondering how much ISO performance has to give in order to get the DR.  its gonna be a good show to watch, but from preliminary indications this won't be seen at very many weddings  ::).  In order to make an industry contribution is appears Canon has to make a fairly sharp distinction between the studio/'scape body and the wedding/event body. 

373
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 03:41:10 PM »
more power thats for sure :D 

yea the important thing to the outdoor strobist (who complains about fractions of an f/stop)  is balance of ambient and flash -- its a contest between the sun and the strobe.  Thats why an ISO boost doesn't help -- for every increase in ISO you have to reduce the aperture.  we want high shutter speeds and low apertures so that the strobe has a fighting chance against the sun.

good thing we arn't still at 60th or 125th sync :D :D

374
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:51:13 PM »
caution is good, me thinks.  my thought is that one shouldn't pre-order this puppy without seeing some test results.  who knows it might be stunning or it might be lackluster

375
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:39:48 PM »
You guys do realize your complaining about 1/20th of a second difference between the D600 and 6D, right? That is 0.0005 seconds difference! It really doesn't matter that much, and given the design of the 6D as a low-light camera capable of ISO 25600 and AF at EV -3, it matters even less. You could bump up the ISO by a third of a stop for pretty much ANY exposure and compensate for the difference if you really, really needed to. Now, if it was a 1/60th sync speed vs. a 1/200th sync speed, that would matter, but thats not the case.

please stop talking about things you don´t understand!!

ISO affects FLASH and AMBIENT exposure.. it´s obvious you don´t know what strobist are talking about.

yes 1/200s was already bad... doesn´t change a thing that the trend to make it even worse is a bad sign.

I think jrista makes a fair point.  I agree that 1/200 s X-sync isn't good, and 1/180 s is worse.  But the difference is only 1/6-stop. 

OTOH, despite the ISO improvement in recent sensors which would allow you to more than make up that 1/6-stop in terms of noise performance, that's not going to help stop action. That 1/6-stop is well and truly gone.

Aye. I don't disagree that 1/200th isn't great, and neither is 1/250th. But since none of the entry-level full-frame cameras have a 1/500th second sync speed, it doesn't make much sense to complain about a sixth of a stop worth of difference. I wasn't thinking that bumping ISO would help stop action...the flash pulse is for that. I was only thinking if you wanted to compensate for the loss of exposure, you could easily bump ISO without worry on a camera capable of native ISO 25600.

That 1/6th of a stop manifests itself to the budget strobist in the form of additional power required of the strobe itself, to compensate for the smaller aperture necessary to properly expose the background on account of the slower shutter speed. Thats why strobists like high sync speeds and are often found complaining about little things like fractions of a stop. 

no its not much, but it will eat more batteries, affect re-cycle time, etc and is  more relevant to those using small speedlites, especially outdoors, as upposed to those packing around larger strobes and battery packs on location. 

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 41