September 02, 2014, 11:16:14 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 - Bob Howland

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17
136
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:23:09 AM »

For the billionth time, more pixels does not mean more noise.  In fact, given the same basic sensor performance, more pixels means less noise (given the same total sensor area, of course).  This is because bigger pixels do nothing but simple block averaging while noise reduction software uses far more sophisticated approaches to reducing noise than that.

Think of it this way - a perfect sensor would record each photon's location.  This is sort of equivalent to "infinite" pixel count.


There are a couple factors here. Hand-holding ability suffers when pixel density is too high,

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Quote
On top of that is encountering diffraction earlier on.

That's also baloney, and for the exact same reason.

Quote
There are several drawbacks to cramming more pixels on small sensors. You can take as many shortcuts as you like, but eventually physics will emerge victorious, thus the booming full frame market.....

The only drawbacks to more pixels are that better manufacturing is needed, faster processing pipelines have to be included, more storage is consumed by the final files, and more processing power is needed to post process the final images.  There are no image quality disadvantages except in certain extremely way out there edge cases no one ever mentions anyway.

If all that is true, why does the 1Dx have only 18MP and the Nikon D4 only 16MP?

137
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries
« on: November 07, 2012, 01:34:12 PM »
Low self-discharge NiMH batteries and a battery charger that charges each cell individually, not in pairs, at a relatively low current. I use Eneloops and a LaCrosse BC-700

138
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 04:05:11 PM »
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

If it's intended for video, my guess is that it would probably be STM, not USM, especially if the eventual goal is to allow lens focusing while recording video.

The new 24mm & 28mm have USM, rather than STM.

OK, do the 24 and 28 IS lenses focus quietly enough that a camcorder/video DSLR could continuously focus them while recording without the associated noise being picked up by the built-in mics or a mic mounted on top of the camera? My Panasonic HDC-TM700 Camcorder, with a built-in lens, can do that and I believe that the Canon XF 100/105/300/305 camcorders can do it also.

139
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 08:17:19 AM »
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

If it's intended for video, my guess is that it would probably be STM, not USM, especially if the eventual goal is to allow lens focusing while recording video.

140
Lenses / Re: Trip to Namibia next year... what gear?
« on: November 03, 2012, 09:49:15 AM »
5D3, 24-105, 100-400, lightweight tripod, flash
or
7D, 15-85, 100-400, lightweight tripod, external flash

141
1973 - Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II (manual metering, with the lens stopped down. Ugh!)

1975 - 1997 - In order, (2) Canon FTb, AE-1, A-1 bodies and about 10 lenses. The primes were good but the zooms sucked.

1997 - Canon EOS Elan II Film body (Sold all my FD MF gear. Started buying high quality lenses, taking a "systems" approach, instead of what I could easily afford. Currently own 17 lenses and haven't sold any. However, the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 zoom I bought with the body died in 2004.)

2002 - EOS-3 body, which I still own, but never use. I still love how this handles, but the 5D3 is fully its equal.

2004 - 10D body, because I couldn't stand scanning negatives and slides any more. "Sold" the body to a friend in 2006

2005 - 5D body, because I was photographing bands at the time and the 10D wasn't good enough.

2007 - 40D body, because I was photographing auto and motorcycle racing at the time and the 5D makes a terrible sports body.  A FF body and APS-C body together make a superb combination.

2012 - 5D3 and 7D bodies, because I wanted something better at high ISO than the 5D and the 40D shutter release button is getting flaky. The 5D3 is so good at high ISO that I may sell my five high speed primes from 24mm to 135mm that I used to photograph bands. The 5D was given to a friend who uses it with a 28-200 and has far more camera than she knows how to use. I still own the 40D and use it as a remote triggered with Pocket Wizards.

Oh yes, I also own a Panasonic HDC-TM700 video camera and a G10 P&S. Given enough light, the TM700 is a much better video camera than either the 5D3 or 7D, and the G10 is just so convenient.

142
EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?
« on: November 01, 2012, 08:55:34 AM »
Last Spring and Summer, I replaced a 5D with a 5D3 and 40D with a refurbished 7D. The 5D was 6-1/2 years old and the 40D 4-1/2 years old. Both still take great pictures. The 5D was given to a friend who attached her 28-200 and now has far more camera than she will ever need. The 40D was replaced because the shutter release button is becoming increasingly flaky. It will probably be used primarily as a remote camera triggered by Pocket Wizards. The 5D was replaced because I needed the better high-ISO image quality and wanted the much better focusing of the 5D3.

I'm set for another 5 years or so.

143
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:23:13 PM »
Pure speculation here, but this could be a video-oriented lens.  It will likely be parfocal, possibly with an internal zoom mechanism.  To do this out to 105mm would make it a lot more expensive, heavy, and not necessarily more marketable to the video crowd.

Again, this is just a guess.

Hmm, that actually makes sense. Maybe it's an STM lens.

144
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS-M in Stock at Norman Camera
« on: October 30, 2012, 07:26:21 AM »
Does anyone have advice for me.  I have a rebel t4i budget but I found this site while determining whether to wait for the t4i and then was swayed by the critics of the autofocus not to pull the trigger.  I am trying to upgrade from a rebel xsi so this will be my first camera for video too.  I want a camera that does both well.  I don't know if I can wait for the t5 as I suspect I'd have to wait a year.  If I don't use the af feature is it hard to do manual focusing?  I am tempted to get the eos-m just to bide my time until something better shows up.  What should I do?

Re: a DSLR for video, you might want to read this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/photo-lenses-for-video-there-is-no-free-lunch

145
Can anyone explain the particulars here what this means with regard to video with the 5D3.....?
It's only relevant for professionals. There are no consumer grade hdmi recorders because it would mean digital video copying on a humungous scale. The cheapest recorders you can find are in the $5K region, I think.

Uncompressed does mean that you can achieve a higher bit rate than what is stored to the cards, but I couldn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference.

For me, this is a forgettable extra, anyway. Ymmv :)

I think this will do it. It isn't $5K but it isn't cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759453-REG/ATOMOS_ATOMNJA001_ATOMNJA001_Ninja_Video_Hard.html

What I find puzzling is the 6-month delay. It's almost as if this really is a reaction to the most recent Magic Lantern announcements.
Not recommended as a solution for recording the live HDMI output of DSLR cameras.

How about this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/858661-REG/ATOMOS_ATOMNJA002_Ninja_2.html

146
Can anyone explain the particulars here what this means with regard to video with the 5D3.....?
It's only relevant for professionals. There are no consumer grade hdmi recorders because it would mean digital video copying on a humungous scale. The cheapest recorders you can find are in the $5K region, I think.

Uncompressed does mean that you can achieve a higher bit rate than what is stored to the cards, but I couldn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference.

For me, this is a forgettable extra, anyway. Ymmv :)

I think this will do it. It isn't $5K but it isn't cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759453-REG/ATOMOS_ATOMNJA001_ATOMNJA001_Ninja_Video_Hard.html

What I find puzzling is the 6-month delay. It's almost as if this really is a reaction to the most recent Magic Lantern announcements.

Update - Correction: Wrong Ninja: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/858661-REG/ATOMOS_ATOMNJA002_Ninja_2.html

147
I'm sure this has been said before but...


I'm not sure I see the issue either way. Sure sure, maybe Canon could have technically built the 1Dc for the same(ish) price as the 1Dx. But it doesn't really matter. I'll be labelled an "evil capitalist" but the market has determined what 4K is worth. Canon could leave money on the table and sell it cheap but they don't have to because they are Canon. A lesser known company might be forces to sell it at a lower price.

*shrug* Or maybe it's just so far outside my budget that I don't care.

Or Canon might sell it cheap and sell more units amortizing the R&D (also called Non-Recurring Expenses or NRE) over a larger number of units and making a higher profit.

Or a competitor, such as Blackmagic, might introduce something as good but at a lower price and produced with less NRE and lower recurring production costs, and reduce the numbers sold of the Canon product so much that Canon can't fully amortize the NRE at their selected price, causing Canon to take a loss on the whole venture.

148
Sports / Re: Rodeos
« on: October 16, 2012, 02:20:10 PM »
Yes money is an object.  I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 and am seriously looking at the 5D III.  Just wanted opinions of how you think it might do in low light conditions.  Generally the rodeos are outdoors and you just have lighting from above, not as good as high school football fields.  Can you all recommend a flash, taking $$$ in mind, if I purchase the 5D III?

My 5D3 at ISO 12800 is about as good as my 40D at ISO3200, shooting raw. If you go to Imaging Resources, you can compare still life images using the two cameras at various ISOs.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/E40DA7.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA7.HTM

Raw images of the still life are available from thumbnail pages.

149
Sports / Re: Rodeos
« on: October 16, 2012, 12:23:42 PM »
I currently use a 40D and am looking to upgrade.  What does everyone recommend to me as I shoot wildlife and rodeos.  Generally the lighting in Rodeo venues is horrible.  Thanks all!

Are you inside the rink or outside? If outside, how far up in the stands? It's been several years since I shot a rodeo outdoors during daylight, shooting through the fence. As I recall, I used a 40D and 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-400. Given your lighting conditions, I would recommend a 5D3 and 70-200 f/2.8 or 120-300 f/2.8.

150
Well whoopee! Now where is the 200-500 f/4 or, better yet, 200-500 f/2.8-4, something that would actually be useful and not a joke?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17