October 24, 2014, 06:05:42 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] 5 6 ... 234
46
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:36:27 PM »

Hyper sync - long duration flash over the entire curtain movement

True high sync speeds - standard sync method but @ above 1/250th. (Which is still the best and most efficient but expensive.)

HSS - pulsed flash over the duration of the curtain movement.


Agree on all counts, I'd just point out the often overlooked problem with flash duration and power output for "True high sync speeds", at this point in time full power flash pulses are not that fast, the Einstein for instance, which is often used as a perfect example of short flash duration, has a full power discharge duration of 1/588 of a second, and when we are opening up our lenses for narrow dof and balancing ambient and flash that full power can easily be used.
Which at full power durations are slower, you will lose some power depending on how fast your strobe is (slower the worse), and will eat up your VML battery quicker.

47
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:24:10 AM »
We really need to stop calling lights with long durations and tuned to cover the time the shutter blades are exposing the sensor HSS, the two work in a fundamentally different way, long duration is not HSS, and both cost a massive amount of power.
Hah! Interesting point. HSS...strictly technically no but practically yes. What is it that defines "true HSS"?

We may have strayed from the strict HSS definition, but it's a useful terminology that people understand.
Think of it as living language. The acronym HSS communicates a function....High Speed Sync. Simple enough.

So what do we call it? We're achieving flash sync at a high shutter speed. We understand the limitations such as significant power loss, but it's still a very useful, relevant creative tool. Sounds a bit HSS-ish to me!

-pw
That is a grey area but let's call it what it originally was called Hyper sync. That version of sync causes you to lose tremendous power out of the strobe, flash duration and will eat through your VMLs quicker. In a sense, it's a work around but not a solution if you still need maximum power and short durations.

True high sync speed out of a x100/leaf shutter cameras is actual HSS. One pop within the full opening of the sensor and closing at above normal sync speeds.

Only if the flash duration happens in the time that the shutter is fully open, which at close to full power is never the case. Leaf shutter sync above "normal" speeds relies on very short flash duration. It is easy to prove because raising the flash power won't increase exposure (or even worse uneven exposure/heavy vignetting), leaf shutters work like an effective second aperture.

And I'd probably disagree with your definition of HSS, because it isn't "one pop within the full opening of the sensor", HSS is multiple flashes timed such that the exposure is even across the frame. I am not looking for a fight, just laying out the way it works.

I think the key is the difference between relying on very long (hypersync) or short (leaf shutters) duration flash, and pulsed "HSS" flash via modern IGBT circuitry. Hyper sync relies on long flash duration and no flashes give off even light across the duration of the exposure, though it is often even enough to be good. Leaf shutter sync relies on very fast flash duration which doesn't happen with high flash outputs.

This core difference in newer and older flash tech is where so many doors have been opened, but they have been workarounds and kludges. The plethora of new battery powered "studio" strobes like the Profoto B1 and the Phottix Indra 500 TTL, a Yongnuo version etc, all have genuine HSS IGBT pulsed flash capabilities, as could the Einstein if PCB ever decided to write the firmware.
Hyper sync - long duration flash over the entire curtain movement

True high sync speeds - standard sync method but @ above 1/250th. (Which is still the best and most efficient but expensive.)

HSS - pulsed flash over the duration of the curtain movement.

I think you misread my comment, all of these methods are ways of syncing at High speeds, hence HSS but the most true form is the traditional method and the others are a workaround.

48
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 29, 2014, 09:19:23 AM »
We really need to stop calling lights with long durations and tuned to cover the time the shutter blades are exposing the sensor HSS, the two work in a fundamentally different way, long duration is not HSS, and both cost a massive amount of power.
Hah! Interesting point. HSS...strictly technically no but practically yes. What is it that defines "true HSS"?

We may have strayed from the strict HSS definition, but it's a useful terminology that people understand.
Think of it as living language. The acronym HSS communicates a function....High Speed Sync. Simple enough.

So what do we call it? We're achieving flash sync at a high shutter speed. We understand the limitations such as significant power loss, but it's still a very useful, relevant creative tool. Sounds a bit HSS-ish to me!

-pw
That is a grey area but let's call it what it originally was called Hyper sync. That version of sync causes you to lose tremendous power out of the strobe, flash duration and will eat through your VMLs quicker. In a sense, it's a work around but not a solution if you still need maximum power and short durations.

True high sync speed out of a x100/leaf shutter cameras is actual HSS. One pop within the full opening of the sensor and closing at above normal sync speeds.

49
Photography Technique / Re: Can Recommend Ready made website
« on: September 27, 2014, 07:12:50 PM »
Squarespace or viewbook. I'm currently using a viewbook but I've been looking hard at moving to squarespace.

50
Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:03:53 PM »
I think Leica had something to do with it but... I'm slowly starting to dislike the 3:2 ratio the more I shoot MF. 4:3 feels and crops much better for my work.

51
Looks like the a7r will be your landscape cam. Now you can shorten your posts to a link to this thread when the issue rises.

As for Lee jay, I would say a bounce flash.

52
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:54:52 PM »
Explain.

I added a MF system but I don't think that counts as jumping ship.

53
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:50:47 PM »
I have 5x 600rts + yougnuo ste3 transmitter. I decided that if I needed more than that setup, the subject matters needs to be lit with a big light system IE: my PCB Einsteins.

You'll hit a point of diminishing returns on speed lites once you go beyond two lights per softbox. To gain a stop, you'll need 4x lights and so on to 8x lights... etc.

I found five+transmitter is enough for me.

54
Thanks for telling us what we already know.

55
Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 21, 2014, 07:01:05 PM »
I especially keep all my boxes.

56
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:26:48 PM »
Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?

Did you just call all my photography glorified snapshots?  ??? I like to think I'm at least a step above that. I don't consider my work to be the best, but neither do I consider it to be the worst...

Sheesh...I really don't understand this community anymore.

I think he was referring to northrup.

57
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:49:46 PM »
I would like to add the return of the EG-s Screens again. I did like them alot in my 5Dc.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:42:06 PM »
Canon and Nikon didn't flinch one bit at sonys attempt to take a chunk of their sports market, I'm positive they aren't any more intimidated by samsung.

59
Lighting / Re: Looking for recommendation on light kit
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:32:08 AM »
I think you should start with strobes because your shooting indoors on products most of the time. Paul C buff equipment is vast, affordable and will supply you with 99% of all the mods you'd ever need. Their service is top notch too.

but you should also study on the basics of how light works and how to shape light. You can be amazed at what one speedlite can accomplish.

60
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:03:26 AM »
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.

No, it means that a system without scene recognition for AF doesn't allow me to get the shots I want for some of my photography. Are you suggesting that 'real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others' represent the entire sample pool of photographers & potential types of photography in the entire world? It really takes some perverse logic to think you understand the needs of every photographer out there so well that you can say 'even if Nikon's AF tracking is better... it doesn't matter.'

Doesn't matter? So the entire focus problem has been completely solved in the industry? Everyone is able to get 100% hit-rate with any prime at f/1.4 under any circumstance?

And - measurebating? Really there's no winning with you. When we're talking about numbers and equations, we're measurebating. When we're talking about real world experience with fast primes and ability of the camera to keep up as a subject moves around erratically, we're still measurebating! I'm saying that a scene recognition system is so good at tracking a subject accurately in 3 dimensions that after you've used it, you just cannot say the 5D III is good at it. Yes it can do it, but it gets confused very easily. And if you just took a minute to think about how the 5DIII is doing it, vs. how the 1D X and 7D II and Nikons are doing it, you wouldn't be at all surprised either. Go back to my thought experiment I posed to jrista in one of my responses, and see if you can understand why an image sensor is much better at tracking than the algorithm the 5D III uses. For your convenience, I've posted it at the end of this post.**

Btw, here's the new Samsung NX1 doing it, with PDAF sensors all over the sensor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMYhZ18tKk4

But I suppose that's useless, since the 5DIII is obviously good enough for jrista & a myriad others and therefore every photographer in the entire world.

By the way, did you know that most current Nikon DSLR can focus on faces outside of Live View* (using traditional PDAF and OVF viewing)? Down to the D5200, I believe. And any Sony SLT, of course? Meanwhile, up until the release of the 7D II, only the 1D X could. Because it was the only camera with a separate color sensor for scene analysis. If your face happened to be the closest subject, sure a 5D III would focus on it in 'auto AF area' mode. Have a flower, or any other subject in front of the face, and the 5DIII focuses on that instead. Switch to a 1D X with iTR, and it'll focus on the closest (or biggest, I'm not sure) face, and track it as well. Not a big deal for me, but great when I hand off the camera to a family member to take a photo.

So now with the introduction of the 7D Mark II, do you think the inclusion of iTR with the RGB metering sensor is just a bunch of marketing hype? A 'me too' feature? Or do you think perhaps Canon is including it now b/c its actually of some utility?

Because, at the crux of it, you're essentially arguing that iTR is completely useless. And I completely, radically disagree.

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.

I did point that out. Almost every Nikon camera, down to the D5200, has spot-metering linked to the AF point. Because that's yet another thing the RGB metering sensor enables.

Just b/c you don't think the metering sensor 'seeing the scene' and providing face-detection & subject tracking isn't useful, doesn't mean it's not, or that I didn't RTFM.

What's your point of repeating the phrase 'RTFM' other than to incite me? Do you think that phrase is conducive to intelligent discussion? 

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.)

Demonstrably false, and yet another blanket, unsubstantiatad statement. The Nikkor 24/1.4 keeps up no better than the 24/1.4 on a 5DIII in terms of speed of Z-axis tracking in my limited testing of them side by side. Perhaps a very controlled scientific study might demonstrate otherwise, but like a slug? I don't think so.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is even better (and meanwhile retains full 3D focus tracking ability, since it reports distance information).

And why don't we talk about 85mm primes now, a workhorse for weddings? The Canon 85/1.2 is so slow to focus that I've missed many shots, finally opting to go with a 85/1.8, only to find its focus precision was quite poor. The Nikkor 85mm primes, OTOH, are great in terms of focus speed. Why would you leave that out of your 'Canon primes are faster for weddings' blanket statement?

Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:

Here's the Canon 85/1.2 vs Nikkor primes wide open:


Here's the 85/1.2 at f/2.8, where it's still not as sharp/uniform as the Nikon 85 primes at f/2 and f/1.8, respectively.


If you want to talk about advantages of the 5D Mark III focus system, talk about its cross-type points all over the frame, and its wider baseline diagonal points in the center of the frame.

*But to be fair, it's doubtful the D5200-D7100, with their 2,016-pixel RGB sensors, do it anywhere near as well the more pro-level bodies with their 91,000-pixel sensors. The higher the resolution of the metering sensor, the better. Then again, I was surprised even the 2,016-pixel metering sensor in the D7000 could aid subject tracking well, but it does a reasonably good job. Certainly much better than my 5D Mark III.

**Here's an example of how the 5D Mark III focus system works. Let's say the center point of the AF system detects a subject 10ft away, then you recompose, then the camera notices a subject 10ft away is now over the left-most AF point, and meanwhile there's now nothing at 10ft away at the center point. Therefore, the camera decides your subject has moved (or you've recomposed such that the subject is now at) the left-most AF point. But what if your subject moved to 9ft away during this time as well? Well, with some clever algorithms you could analyze all the focus points and see if there was some progression of a subject like this (I've assigned letters to specific focus points for ease of discussion):

  • Subject in center point (C) 10ft away
  • Center point C no longer detects anything at 10ft, but the point just to its right (D) has a subject at 9.8ft
  • Point D no longer detects a subject at 9.8ft, but the point to its right (E) detects a subject at 9.5ft.
  • Point E no longer detects a subject at 9.5ft, but a point 6 points to the left (F) now detects a subject at 9.2ft.

... and so on and so forth.

Are you starting to see how incredibly complex this can get, and how prone to failure this might be if the subject is moving like this in 3-axes and/or the movement is convoluted with you recomposing? Or another subject entering the frame at a similar depth?

Are you starting to see how using an image sensor (Sony SLT, or all mirrorless ILCs really), or a color sensor with some finite resolution to recognize color patterns (enough to detect a face, which we know RGB sensors can do given their face-detection ability) that communicates with the PDAF sensor might have the potential to perform significantly better?

Incidentally, many types of bird photography are unlikely to stress this type of system much, since you typically have one subject at a very distinctly different depth from everything else (the background or sky). And when the bird moves, its typically going to move along the depth-axis with measurable acceleration or deceleration - which allows the predictive AF to work quite well (and I've already said Canon does this very well). Also, keep in mind the DOF for extreme telephoto lenses at large subject distances. For example, 300mm at f/4 for a subject 30m away has a DOF of 2.3m, giving the AF system more room for error compared to a subject 1m away shot with a 35/1.4 where the DOF is 6.4cm (and where it's very, very easy for the subject to fall out of that DOF or for the photographer to move more than 6cm).
TLDR;

This post in itself proves my point of your measurbating. Please move along.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 234