July 29, 2014, 03:41:52 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 40
376
So Canon is behind in low-ISO DR and they optimized the 5D3 sensor for high ISO. No one knew that until the D800 came along.

It can be argued that Nikon caught Canon with their 5d3 (and its price) with their pants down. But the depressing thing about the 6d announcement is that Canon had it really coming this time, they knew the competition, they knew the concerns of their enthusiast customer base. And they still ended up just juggling features (1/4000s shutter, 1/180s x-sync, 11 non-cross af) instead of producing a complete camera that can stand the test of time for the next years - at least for $2000+.

yea no argument there I just don't get the 6D.  it doesn't interest me esp due to the areas you mention;  for example 1/180th x-sync makes it hard to to balance with ambient light outdoors at wide apertures, and taking away 1/8000th max shutter speed is just lame, imho.   I'll reserve judgement re:  AF until the reviewers put it to the test.     what DOES interest me is the 6D sensor and the higher AF sensitivity - I'm anxious for the reviewers to get their hands on this one and offer some insights into the mind of Canon in these areas. 

377
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:47:49 AM »
This is an interesting product.  The wing light, at least, addresses one issue that the fong'alizer doesn't -- the size of the light source:  Well at least in one dimension :D   RL please take some portraits outdoors!  I'd like to see at least the 'horizontal light wrap"  capabilities compared to direct flash when there are NO reflective surfaces.  If you get close enough to the subject,  the horizontal light will be large but the vertical light will still be a point source.  that should produce interesting results.

the thing about any device that is small but claims to produce big light is that they all depend on other reflective surfaces -- and this one is no exception.  look at the product video and note that in every example shoot there is a plethora of wonderful white reflective surfaces that would produce bare bulb heaven for even the lowly stofen omnibounce.  A hallway with close walls and ceiling, for example, as shown in the product slideshow, will  make most any diffuser look good.   Personally, bouncing off of the floor seems odd to me, as not many floors are the right color and not many models/subjects look good when lighted from below.  Typically, ceilings and walls would make better light sources. 

However, if you are in a situation where you do NOT have viable reflective walls, I would expect the Wing to assist with the horizontal size of the light source -- like an event where the room is large, walls are too far away, the ceiling is at a reasonable height and you can get close enough to the subject so that the Wing appears "big".   the other advantage I can see is that the Wing would tend to increase the size of the ceiling light source.  how much of a practical dvantage, compared to a bare bulb diffuser, is not immediately clear.

Thanks RL;  show us some photos!

378
... For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200

yeah not at ISO3200 at ISO3200 it has very good DR (only 1DX and D4 and D3s are better and the D3s is so much lower res it doesn't really count) it's at ISO100-200 or 400 where the DR is bad. The high iso DR on the 5D3 is better than any camera other than the 1DX and D4 basically.

+1.  Unfortunately shooting outside at ISO 100 even with the 1DX which I feel has the best Canon sensor, the Nikon D4 beats it if the scene has brights spots and shadows...  (I did not mention the D800 because that is not really a comparable camera but still...Canon is way behind here)...
[/quote]

right;  no argument there - so:   Canon wins the high ISO DR war, and is the Nikon camp in a stir because Nikon is behind in that department?  Is the Canon camp applauding that achievement?  Not that I can tell --  I hear more about how disruptive the D800 was in the low-ISO DR department and that Canon should have been able to include all of the D800 Advantages and none of its disadvantages in the 5D3.      So Canon is behind in low-ISO DR and they optimized the 5D3 sensor for high ISO. No one knew that until the D800 came along.    Again I think this is canon putting their best foot forward with the technology they have in hand, and they got eclipsed by Nikon/Sony in the studio/landscape arena.  Its time for Canon to address that, along with the wildlife space as well

379
Quote from: dlleno
... For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200

I still hear plenty people wishing it had more DR (and MP) and believe it or not, some of them are pros.

We all wish for better at a lower price,  but you're saying pro wedding togs are disapointed in or expecting better performance at 3200?
Quote


 It's quite good, but ISO100 DR a trace worse than the old 5D2 and worse than the even older 1Ds3 is kinda unfortunate. But if you think that is awesome, then Canon won't ever bother. So yeah I like it a lot, but yeah I sure often wish it had better DR and when shooting wildlife I sure wish more MP and a crop mode and for video I sure wish it had the basics like zebra and focusing aids while live shooting and raw hdmi out and crop modes for wildlife.

Indeed we are still left wondering what card Canon will play in the wildlife space, imho.  If Canon stays silent on this topic for the remainder of this year it will be disapointing, thats for sure.  Again, for the 5D3 I suspect they optimized the technology "in-hand" for the market they targeted, and I agree that for studio/landscape/wildlife there are (or should be) cards yet to be played.  tt would have been nice for all those things to  have come together in the 5D3 at the same price :D

380
Now that all of Canon's cards are on the table for this year...

First of all we don't know this for certain -- Canon could play another card between now and December 31 ,as unlikely as that may be.  Also, there is one card that, while it has been played, its still face down on the table -- the 6D sensor . I suspect after the real cameras appear and folks get a chance to put this puppy to the test we will know alot more regarding Canon's sensor strategy -- at least the strategy that gave birth to the 6D, however long ago that was hatched.  It will be interesting to see what this sensor reveals and what it does not. 

381
I guess I see things differently than the OP.  Put the 6D aside for a moment -- all I can say is they weren't targeting me with that design... lets wait and see how the sensor itself performs which may be telling.  Anyway, I see  Canon putting its best foot forward with the technology that they have.  ok, so they don't own the low-ISO DR  war at this time, and this allows the geeks and gearheads to pull out the charts showing the D800 with a DR advantage below ISO 800 or whatever it is.  so what?  if thats critical to one's work, i.e. if that advantage will distinguish you from others, and you can show it with real photos, and if all of that is more important than 1DX style AF, high-ISO performance and 6fps for example  then halleluiah thats what capitalism and free market competition is for.  The D800 is for sale. 

What I find amusing re: the 5D3 in particular is that because the D800 stole the marketing show with high MP and because some geeky chart shows better low-ISO DR, people thought thats what they needed, and so they ragged on the 5D3 because I guess it doesn't win the dxo score war.  Then when folks took another look they realized how good of a camera the 5D really is for its intended market (at least thats my observation).    For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

I view the D800 as disruptive in the sense that it might cause Canon to take a few Red Bulls and tweak  their R&D strategy in the studio/landscape arena, to be sure.  That can't be done in a few months time. Reading in between the lines, I suspect Canon may be scrambling to produce a product that segments the market further -- a camera that is optimized for studio/landscapes.  Their R&D folks are probably working overtime.  That aside   I guess I could "blame" Canon because  it appears they didn't see the D800 coming -- or by the time they did see it, it was too late.  But  that doesn't mean the CEO should resign, although it could mean they should hire a better technology strategist.  Or that Sony kept a good secret and surprised the pants off of everyone. 





382
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 16, 2012, 09:56:15 AM »
the thing about light toys and graveyards is that you must first understand both your needs and the nature of light beore you select the tool.  light travels in straight lines so no amount of diffusion will soften the light coming from the strobe itself. a controlled  combination of direct vs reflective light is better accomplished with a bounce or partial bounce device insread of tupoerware imho.
And what is a bounce device? Obviously ceilings and walls are your best bounce devices as they'll always be bigger than what you can get on a camera. In which case the tupperware works pretty. Don't get me wrong it's far from perfect and I'm always looking for alternatives but it's the best I've found so far. One thing I will say is that I've tested just shooting the straight flash up into a ceiling vs with the tupperware and I liked the look of the tupperware better. But one advantage of shooting directly off the ceiling is the balance in light level between near objects and far objects is improved somewhat since less light is being directed straight forward. For this reason I'm looking at trying out this technique some more.

by "bounce device" I mean a gadget that you put on the camera.  sometimes the fong is great for this -- I've used one in a small room for example, with white walls . fantastic, because it really didn't work as a bounce device per se it worked as a bare bulb diffuser, which spreads the light around everywhere including behind me, where it could reflect off of a wall which became a huge light source.  a free softbox if you will!.  So when you need a bare bulb diffuser, the fongs are great,.  otherwise you are just wasting light by throwing it in directions that won't ever reach the subject in a useful way. 

a "bounce device" is something (to me) that can control the light;  just just spread it around in all directions.  a directional bounce device is perhaps a better term.  with these you can control the ratio of light directed forward versus upward. 

383
EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama is selling 5d3 for $2745 on eBay now
« on: September 16, 2012, 01:35:42 AM »
 does adoramacamera have any lenses out there too?

384
whatever the crop body is , it will need to produce convincingly better iq than cropping  a FF to the same fov.  in other words better than todays 7d vs cropping a 5d3 image in post from what ive seen posted anyway

385
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 05:13:40 PM »
the thing about light toys and graveyards is that you must first understand both your needs and the nature of light beore you select the tool.  light travels in straight lines so no amount of diffusion will soften the light coming from the strobe itself. a controlled  combination of direct vs reflective light is better accomplished with a bounce or partial bounce device insread of tupoerware imho. 

386
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 12:19:25 PM »
I've also struggled with this. I think metering and exposure are critical to getting good shots with on-camera flash. Whenever possible, I think on-camera flash works best when used to fill in shadows and not as the primary light source. The only exception is when you can bounce the light off nearby surfaces and diffuse the light.

With regard to flash toys, I don't think there is a silver bullet. All of the various manipulators seem to have their pluses and minuses. I've used cards, diffusers, bouncers, etc. Like most photographers, I have a flash toy graveyard.



+1 on that. the first thing to go in my graveyard was a particular piece of tupperware that works good as a bare bulb converter.  it is  marketed with true but incomplete information and i now use another more convinient and less expensive solution.

Are you talking about the gary fong for what you got rid of or those really tiny translucent pieces of plastic that you put over the head to diffuse it? What'd you go with?

I found that the gf was over marketed and in the situations I was faced with it didnt' provide near the benefit that the videos show, which of course (what they didn't emphasize) had plenty of reflective surfaces and studio like conditions in that regard.  the chief shortcoming is that the device itself does not enlarge the light source which of course diffusers don't do. 

for a bare bulb diffuser I ended up with the stofen omnibounce cause its just a lot more convinient. 

all in all, the folks at lumiquest and strobist are among those that give the straightest and most helpful information so you can taylor your strobe utilization to fit the need. 

387
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 14, 2012, 10:50:01 PM »
I've also struggled with this. I think metering and exposure are critical to getting good shots with on-camera flash. Whenever possible, I think on-camera flash works best when used to fill in shadows and not as the primary light source. The only exception is when you can bounce the light off nearby surfaces and diffuse the light.

With regard to flash toys, I don't think there is a silver bullet. All of the various manipulators seem to have their pluses and minuses. I've used cards, diffusers, bouncers, etc. Like most photographers, I have a flash toy graveyard.



+1 on that. the first thing to go in my graveyard was a particular piece of tupperware that works good as a bare bulb converter.  it is  marketed with true but incomplete information and i now use another more convinient and less expensive solution. 

388
Lighting / Re: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT - I'm impressed!
« on: September 13, 2012, 05:55:57 PM »
any issues getting the 600 and a 580 EX ii to play together?

389
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 $2700 MSRP??
« on: September 13, 2012, 05:09:31 PM »
It's official...

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm


yay for the competition, this is an interesting show to watch.  I especially like the "advanced basic camera performance"  marketing verbiage :D

390
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 10, 2012, 11:04:13 PM »
incidentally, more to your question sparkle999 according to this review:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

the 5D3 has an additional fluorine coating intended to provide additional incremental improvement, compared to the 5D2 The comment is buried deep inside the review, so here is the text (emphasis mine):

"A clean sensor is a strong contributor to good image quality. The 5D III inherits the 5D II's Integrated Cleaning System with the addition of a dust-avoiding fluorine coating. I have read in Canon documentation that the 5D III's self-cleaning sensor system incorporates a more efficient ultrasonic vibration but I'm not certain that this is correct. It was perhaps copied in from 1D X documentation...I have changed lenses on my 5D III a huge number of times and have not needed to clean the sensor since I blew the single factory dust bunny out when the camera first arrived."

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 40