September 18, 2014, 08:12:30 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 230
16
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you crop (and why)?
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:49:39 PM »
yes...of course I do...I do the best I can when I am shooting...but many times once I look at the final product in Photoshop, Lightroom, DXO...or one of the many...I make adjustments.  I have no shame in it and make absolutely no excuses for it!
  Oh..and I use B&W MRC, Clear, Nano  filters on ALL my lenses except my Canon Fisheye and 17mm TSE....so if you want to dice me up..you can now do it all at once!  :P
  ...oh..but ...wait...you have to show me examples of your photography BEFORE you say one word about MY preferences, so that I get to judge who is scolding me!!!!!!!   ;D ??? ::) :'(

(YES, I cropped the image!)
Your photo doesn't have at least 14 Stops of DR in a single image with the shadows perfectly clean with lifted +3 stops and isn't at least 36MP.  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Features on the iphone 6+
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:44:50 PM »
Yes because all we need is more slow mo 240FPS 720P cat footage shot in portrait orientation because the previous 120FPS 720P cat footage shot in shaky portrait orientation will look like garbage now.  ::) ::) ::)

With that built in IS?  You bet.  I want smooth, ultra slow mo, portrait-oriented feline goodness from my telephone

Then by all means the Iphone 6+ is the product for your type.

18
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you crop (and why)?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:16:15 PM »
You have to crop if your publishing. Layouts vary in aspect ratio and that's why i'm slowly coming to love the 4:3 aspect ratio more and starting to dislike the 3:2 ratio.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:06:27 PM »
How much better can you get a sports orientated cam to be? I mean, I'm no sports shooter but I'd imagine you would be at ISO 400 or higher most of the time to get some DOF and Up the Shutter Speed. ISO performance would be more important than DR in a cam like this. It has the most Advanced AF on paper ever on APS-C, It shoots as fast as a 1D4, it's much lighter than a 1D4, it has awesome Video DPAF and at a price point that's reasonable.

It by all means is a worthy successor to the 7D and will be the semi-pro sports cam to beat.

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Features on the iphone 6+
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:57:39 AM »
240fps is neat but something I rarely use.

You may not but everybody else in the world will. Slow mo cat videos (in portrait orientation, of course) will dominate the internet for years

Yes because all we need is more slow mo 240FPS 720P cat footage shot in portrait orientation because the previous 120FPS 720P cat footage shot in shaky portrait orientation will look like garbage now.  ::) ::) ::)

Or maybe because I'm more of a dog person and likewise wouldn't be using the 240FPS feature as much. XD

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Features on the iphone 6+
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:47:15 AM »
I dig the Phase detect AF but OIS and even 4k video shooting has been on android now for awhile. 240fps is neat but something I rarely use.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:43:06 AM »
Sweetness. This will be the semi-pro sport cam for the next 4 years like the 7D before it.

20mp.
65 point all cross type AF.
10 FPS.

I was close enough to predicting those specs. Chalk this one up canon, you've got it right.

23
Lenses / Re: The New EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:38:28 AM »
Cool. A great video lens that if it's sub 500$ and sharp, we will see the slow wane of the old 24-105L.

24
My original point here is sony will sell a 50MP 35mm sensor, now will you ever get close to getting the full 50MP out of it with most of your lenses? Probably not, and the differences in practice will be similar to the current A7R. The only way you'll be able to resolve the majority of those 50MP to Definitely SEE the differences, is with the Otus or other lenses like it. Also don't forget we don't always shoot our lenses at F/8 and have to use wider apertures which makes the difference even less so.

You won't ever realize the full 50mp...however, you could indeed realize more resolution than the 22.3mp or 36.3mp of a lesser camera. That's the point, right? Look at my numbers above. Theoretically, a 50mp at just f/4 could at best resolve over 37% more than a 22.3mp sensor. That's pretty much guaranteed if you slap something like an Otus on, but any other diffraction limited f/4 lens, of which many come very close to, will also perform better. Maybe not 40%...but a 10% difference is enough to be meaningful, and a 20% difference would be excellent.

It's not about resolving the maximum that any given sensor is capable of. It's about resolving more (in the output image) than a lesser sensor is capable of. You won't ever achieve the maximum sensor resolution so long as the sensor is the limiting factor...but you can and will realize useful gains by moving from a lower-resolution to a higher-resolution sensor. If that was not the case, we wouldn't clearly see such a HUGE difference between a 5D III and a D800. The difference in the smallest resolvable details between those two cameras is quite stark...even with lenses less than a Zeiss 135 or Otus. I have seen marked differences in the sharp in-focus parts with fast 85mm optics wide open...the periphery of the photos may be soft or totally OOF boke...but for the parts that are sharp...i.e. the center of the lens (which pretty much performs ideally on the majority of lenses)...the differences between a 5D III and D800 are massive. (And no, I don't mean in terms of DR...I just mean in terms of raw spatial resolution.)

The d800 vs 5d3 resolution wise one shot with a 600LII and the equivalent Nikkor equal about the same total resolution in the image. That reflects my weekend with the d800 vs 5d3 with my L primes. The difference isn't as great as I thought it was going to be. The shots that were at f/8, the difference is more noticeable but at best marginal, like you said 10-15%. (Hardly massive.) To see the stark difference between the two, otus or better. (Then it's obvious, like 30% or more.)

And you cut out my biggest original point here, the A7 native lenses are not up to getting the majority of those 50mp yet. Sony should address there lens lineup before jumping ahead with more MP.

Maybe it's just a difference in perception. I'd need to see the photos you took with the D800 and 5D III to see if I personally could see a difference. I never said anything was massive...just that 10% is meaningful, 20% is excellent. If anyone could actually realize a 40% difference, THAT would be massive...but you would really need a diffraction limited lens. I figure the Otus could do it. I think there are a few Canon normals and short teles that could do it. I think that many lenses, in the center of the frame, can do it as well. If you want that kind of performance corner to corner...then yeah...Otus and maybe some of the Canon great whites are probably some of the very few lenses that can do that.
I wish I had them still. :P It was work for hire as a 2nd photog and we switched each others equipment for the wedding. We reviewed the files on his mac and we didn't notice the difference until the formals @ f/5.6-f/8 and it wasn't a huge difference either. He expected more from the d800 but it wasn't the E version either.

In short, he kept his gear/cards and gave me back mine. I don't have the files but I remember it wasn't that impressive with our tamrons and L&G primes at most of the working apertures we used.

25
My original point here is sony will sell a 50MP 35mm sensor, now will you ever get close to getting the full 50MP out of it with most of your lenses? Probably not, and the differences in practice will be similar to the current A7R. The only way you'll be able to resolve the majority of those 50MP to Definitely SEE the differences, is with the Otus or other lenses like it. Also don't forget we don't always shoot our lenses at F/8 and have to use wider apertures which makes the difference even less so.

You won't ever realize the full 50mp...however, you could indeed realize more resolution than the 22.3mp or 36.3mp of a lesser camera. That's the point, right? Look at my numbers above. Theoretically, a 50mp at just f/4 could at best resolve over 37% more than a 22.3mp sensor. That's pretty much guaranteed if you slap something like an Otus on, but any other diffraction limited f/4 lens, of which many come very close to, will also perform better. Maybe not 40%...but a 10% difference is enough to be meaningful, and a 20% difference would be excellent.

It's not about resolving the maximum that any given sensor is capable of. It's about resolving more (in the output image) than a lesser sensor is capable of. You won't ever achieve the maximum sensor resolution so long as the sensor is the limiting factor...but you can and will realize useful gains by moving from a lower-resolution to a higher-resolution sensor. If that was not the case, we wouldn't clearly see such a HUGE difference between a 5D III and a D800. The difference in the smallest resolvable details between those two cameras is quite stark...even with lenses less than a Zeiss 135 or Otus. I have seen marked differences in the sharp in-focus parts with fast 85mm optics wide open...the periphery of the photos may be soft or totally OOF boke...but for the parts that are sharp...i.e. the center of the lens (which pretty much performs ideally on the majority of lenses)...the differences between a 5D III and D800 are massive. (And no, I don't mean in terms of DR...I just mean in terms of raw spatial resolution.)

The d800 vs 5d3 resolution wise one shot with a 600LII and the equivalent Nikkor equal about the same total resolution in the image. That reflects my weekend with the d800 vs 5d3 with my L primes. The difference isn't as great as I thought it was going to be. The shots that were at f/8, the difference is more noticeable but at best marginal, like you said 10-15%. (Hardly massive.) To see the stark difference between the two, otus or better. (Then it's obvious, like 30% or more.)

And you cut out my biggest original point here, the A7 native lenses are not up to getting the majority of those 50mp yet. Sony should address their lens lineup before jumping ahead with more MP.

26

The benefit between 22 and 36mp bodies is negligible when using let's say the Tamron 24-70mm. Once you get the zeiss 135mm APO, the difference is stark.

However, doesn't change my point that even at 36mp it's hard to get the detail out of it and let alone a 50mp sensor in 35mm format.


Funny you should mention that lens, inasmuch as Roger Cicala reports that the Tamron 24-70 on a D800 outperforms in terms of resolution the (superior) Canon 24-70II on a 5DIII, a combination that outperforms the Tamron 24-70 + 5DIII.  You can't attach the Canon to a D800, but you can (and people do so) to a Sony A7r, so.... 

I'm not sure what you really mean by "get the detail out of it".  You seem here, and in other posts, to suggest that unless you own lenses that can make the most of (whatever that means) a higher resolution sensor, there's no point in using a camera with a higher resolution sensor (other things - such as noise, dynamic range, etc. - being equal, presumably).  I'll leave the science to others, but have you tried this yourself or is your argument based on speculation?   I've attached a fairly wide array of lenses to my A7r, mostly Canon EF (including some rather inexpensive ones) but a few others as well, including some fairly elderly inexpensive manual lenses even older than those you sneeringly (or so it seems) invoked in another post, and with only one exception so far they are capable of sharp detailed images when viewed at 100%, probably more so than when I use them on my 5DIII (which is not to say the differences are significant).  Is your experience different?

But of course the appeal of a sensor, let alone a camera, isn't just its resolution - it's other aspects of its performance; when Sony (or whoever else) releases a 50mm FF camera the other things mentioned above won't be equal.  E.g. there are reasons to like the Sony A7 line independent of sensor resolution - noise, dynamic range, that fact that the sensors are housed in mirrorless bodies to which you can attach just about any lens and which have good EVFs, and so on.  Given all the other benefits (they're not for everyone, of course), it's nice to be able to attach EF lenses and obtain images that look at least as good as they do via their native bodies.  Whether those lenses "gets the most out of" the sensor doesn't matter much to me, and I suspect it won't to lots of others too; you can always supplement them with lenses that perform better.   It would be disappointing if the images looked worse, but no-one has provided any reasons to suppose that they would.

In short, yes. My 50L in particular is a great example, It looked really good on my 5Dc but on the MK3 it was less than stellar wide open and stopped down it was sometimes hard to tell the difference between them. The 135L saw a marginal improvement and the 24L II saw it alittle bit wide open. Stopped down performance 5Dc vs 5D3(ISO 100), There is a gain but I sometimes would edit a 5Dc file that I thought was 5D3 file. In practice, then going to print, it was a wash 90% of the time.

The biggest differences were with the 135L between the two cameras. That lens get much much closer to resolving the full 22mp of the 5D3. (which it never will but it gets closer)

My original point here is sony will sell a 50MP 35mm sensor, now will you ever get close to getting the full 50MP out of it with most of your lenses? Probably not, and the differences in practice will be similar to the current A7R. The only way you'll be able to resolve the majority of those 50MP to Definitely SEE the differences, is with the Otus or other lenses like it. Also don't forget we don't always shoot our lenses at F/8 and have to use wider apertures which makes the difference even less so.

Can sonys native A7 Lenses do the job? I don't believe they will but they'll sell alot of cameras advertising those 50MP.

27
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:27:45 AM »
+1 He really should RTFM because I tried a d800 for a weekend and it's AF sucked like a vacuum cleaner compared to the 5D3. I don't know about the 810 but it still uses that multicam backbone that was in the d700, which I also used before. Also I remember the G 1.4 primes being a slug compared to my 24L II 50L and 135L.

He probably didn't RTFM and I haven't seen any photos from him either.

Thank you for that very mature and descriptive dialogue; it really added to the conversation. And by that I mean it continues to spread the very misinformation that misleads people into buying into, and then themselves propagating, erroneous myths.

What about the AF? I'm talking about subject tracking in 3D AF vs. Canon's '61-point auto point selection' in AI servo mode.

  • What AF mode were you in?
  • Did the D800 you tested have the completely miscalibrated AF sensor (with the left AF problem?)
  • Were your lenses microadjusted? You don't shoot primes at f/1.4 without 1st checking that they're calibrated to your body properly.

And the D700? The improvements made to that module going to the D800 helped low-light focus significantly, and the dedicated RGB sensor increased 91-fold in resolution going from D700's 1005-pixel sensor to 91,000 pixels.

You think maybe that 100x increase in resolution might, just might, have helped the D800 at subject recognition and tracking?

#facepalm
I think your mesuabating to the point where your blaming gear for your shortcomings. Even if the Nikon is better at tracking, of what good is it if real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others here are already getting the results with the superb 61pt system in the situations you described. That just shows you don't know how to get the frames you want.

Now if you want to complain about something legitimate, then point out the lack of AF point metering because that really does suck at times but saying the 5D3s AF is bad at tracking means that you didn't RTFM.

and yes, the nikkor G primes still AF like a slug and that alone shifts AF speed to canons for weddings. (And I've shot a lot of them only with primes.)

28
Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: September 10, 2014, 01:02:18 AM »
.
I like the composition. It is simple, clean and very effective. I hate to admit it, but those colours are a tad too saturated for my liking - might just be that I very rarely find such intensely sunny days and the colours that follow with it.
I did use a polarizer and that along with the processing made the colors look unreal but my photos have always been on the quirkier processing techniques.

29
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:57:22 AM »
Perhaps you'd do wise to UTFC (use those freaking cameras)...Just b/c your photography doesn't stress your system, doesn't mean that generalizes to all users.

Look at who is a special little snowflake, the only one to ever use these cameras or stress his system, with babies and brides no less ::)

Canon doesn't dominate pro sports with cameras that can't track. But getting the AF settings right for the subject is critical. Now which is more likely? That you didn't set up your camera correctly? Or that Canon's AF is the worst of all?

Hmmm...
+1 He really should RTFM because I tried a d800 for a weekend and it's AF sucked like a vacuum cleaner compared to the 5D3. I don't know about the 810 but it still uses that multicam backbone that was in the d700, which I also used before. Also I remember the G 1.4 primes being a slug compared to my 24L II 50L and 135L.

He probably didn't RTFM and I haven't seen any photos from him either.

30
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 09, 2014, 06:54:57 PM »
B/c the 5D3 simply won't track across the frame, while the D800 will do so marvelously.

User error.
+1 pretty much. RTFM.

Nope. Not user error.

The 5D3 only has the 'capability' to track across the frame using depth information from the AF sensor, which might work for subjects that don't change depth much (e.g. Birds), but doesn't even remotely work for erratically moving subjects that change significant distance from camera (the case when shooting with wide angle fast primes, for example). In other words: doesn't work AFAIC.

Let me put it this way: if the 5D3 were perfectly capable at this, why would Canon have released iTR in the 1D X? Do any of you understand the idea behind using the metering sensor for subject recognition? Or the entire principle behind Sony SLT?

You know what's better than RTFM? Using the freaking camera. It's quite clear none of you responding have actually compared Nikon's latest 3D AF tracking to Canon's, so the authoritative voices with which you speak are rather comical.

But as someone else stated, perhaps that's exactly what makes CanonRumors so entertaining.
Sounds like your upset for your shortcomings of using the equipment and blaming the camera. The 5D3s AF is superb and there are thousands of users who prove you otherwise.

Please RTFM on how to setup your 5D3.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 230