December 22, 2014, 07:58:33 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 - TrumpetPower!

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 64
631
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sandisk QC lacking?
« on: September 12, 2012, 09:07:01 PM »
Where did you buy the cards from? 'Cuz I'd be suspecting that they just might be counterfeits....

b&

632
EOS Bodies / Re: Revolutionary digital camera?
« on: September 12, 2012, 04:52:56 PM »
It'd be nice if people would realize that video reduces the cost of cameras.

What, you think a 5DIII could push a couple dozen megapickles at six frames per second if it weren't for all the R&D that went into video in the first place?

Or that any camera that does live view isn't also capable of video?

There's no marked for a modern camera with the limitations of old ones. It'd cost more to produce -- R&D would have to start from scratch. And nobody would buy it at any price, rightfully claiming that it had been crippled. It certainly wouldn't sell at the inflated prices manufacturers would have to charge to offset all that R&D.

Besides. Canon just released a camera that does everything you really want, and more: the EOS-M. And they released it with lenses that mop the floor with anything they ever made in the FD days. What more could you ask for?

Cheers,

b&

633
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Second Curtain Sync - Design Flaw?
« on: September 10, 2012, 10:07:34 AM »
How Canon handles that... speculative, but... its not unreasonable to think they take it into account, and vary the actual synch in relation to the 2nd curtain movement, based on the predicted flash firing time (not HSS).

If that's what Canon is doing, then it is, indeed, unreasonable.

Second-curtain flash has worked fine for decades without trying to cut it as close to the wire as possible. Presumably, the timing is based off some sort of standard flash duration. If the curtain happens to still be open for a fraction of a microsecond after the flash extinguishes, that's never been a problem in real-world shooting. Similarly, I've never heard of a real-world problem with the second curtain closing too soon -- and, if that did happen because you were using a really, really slow flash, you'd presumably know enough about your exotic equipment to cut the power a bit.

Whatever the reason for this bug, it is a bug, and inexcusable.

Cheers,

b&

634
Not bad, but the eyes look like they don't belong in that face. A big part of it is not just the selective color processing but also that they're the only things that're sharp due to the shallow depth of field. I'd like to have seen the shot stopped down a bit more, at least enough to have the whole forehead sharp. Really, this particular shot would have been perfect for f/8 - f/11 so you could be hit by the full impact of all the grittiness rather than have some or much of it safely softened and eased out of your mind. I'd even have done so if it meant boosting the ISO -- grain would help, not hurt, this picture.

Just because you can shoot wide-open at a low ISO with only a sliver of the frame in sharp focus doesn't necessarily mean you should....

Cheers,

b&

635
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Second Curtain Sync - Design Flaw?
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:30:01 PM »
Either by way of direct mounting, or coupled external flash (cable, wireless), there needs to be an TTL flash "known" by the camera.

No, there doesn't. Second-curtain sync is much, much older than any form of TTL; it's as old as electronic flashes, period.

The problem with high-speed sync is due to the speed the shutter curtains travel, not due to the flash duration. All flash durations are much shorter than the fastest of shutter curtains. When you shoot at a speed faster than your flash sync, what happens is that the flash pulse has shot its wad while one of the pokey shutter curtains still hasn't cleared the sensor.

With a slow shutter speed, the one curtain completely moves out of the way of the sensor, the flash signal is sent, the curtains remain stationary for the duration of the exposure, and then the second curtain covers the sensor. With second-curtain sync, all that happens is that the flash signal is sent just before the second curtain starts to close rather than jut after the first curtain has finished opening.

With a fast shutter speed, faster than the rated sync speed, the shutter speed is shorter than the time it takes the curtain to get out of the way. So, even before the first curtain has fully cleared the sensor, while only a partial slit of the sensor is exposed, the second curtain already starts to close and chase the first sensor. Again, the flash is fired as soon as the first curtain has fully cleared the sensor...but much of the rest of the sensor is already obscured by the second curtain that's hot on the heels of the first.

High-speed sync gets around that problem with some sort of precision-timed jiujitsu that fires the flash multiple times while the curtains are only exposing part of the scene. How, exactly, the engineers figured out how to do that in a way that doesn't look weird is beyond me...but they did manage to pull it off.

And TTL metering is completely unrelated to curtain travel. These days, I think it's mostly accomplished by some sort of high-speed preflash, but there've been so many other sorts of methods used that I wouldn't quote me on that.

Cheers,

b&

636
Lenses / Re: Upgrading a 300 f2.8
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:16:01 PM »
Pretty much every supertelephoto ever made by anybody has superlative optics. Sure, newer ones are almost always better, but it's not like there's a whole lot of room for improvement in the first place.

The significant improvements in that field were first with stabilization, and now with weight.

Unless you're unhappy with the image quality you get from your current lens, there's no need on the basis of IQ alone to upgrade. On the other hand, if you are unhappy, then it's likely you'll also be unhappy with modern ones -- just not quite as unhappy as with the one you have.

Cheers,

b&

637
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Second Curtain Sync - Design Flaw?
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:26:49 AM »
I haven't yet needed anything other than first-curtain flash with the 5DIII so I haven't gone looking for it. But I couldn't quite believe that the only way to get to it was by attaching a Canon-branded flash...so I just pulled out my 5DIII, and, sure enough, no way to set first- or second-curtain flash.

This is a bug, plain and simple -- and one that Canon really should fix in the next firmware release. As others have mentioned, first- or second-curtain flash isn't some sort of exotic function that requires special communication with a proprietary flash, it's something basic that dates back to the earliest days of electronic flash and works just fine with even the dumbest possible of PC or hotshoe flashes. If I didn't already own a 580 and thus have a workaround available, I'd be really pissed to learn about this.

b&

638
Software & Accessories / Re: Are Ultrabooks Fast enough?
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:21:18 AM »
I'm typing this on a maxed-out MacBook Air that's computationally more than ample. The display is excellent for a laptop this small and lightweight, but it's of course nothing you'd want to use for real work. But for remote shooting or first-pass or quick-and-dirty editing? Bring it on!

Cheers,

b&

639
Lenses / Re: 400, 200 or...?
« on: September 08, 2012, 10:37:31 AM »
Moving from the 600D to the 5D3 will convert your current "112-320mm" lens into a 70-200mm lens, due to going from 1.6x crop to FF.

Agree. The change to a FF body is going to change your field of view significantly (like removing a teleconverter). On a FF body, your 70-200 will become a very versatile and effective portrait lens indoor and out.

For longer reach, I would recommend a 300mm f2.8 L IS and a 1.4x II teleconverter. The 300 will capture back the focal length you lose changing to the FF body while maintaining your 2.8 aperture. The 1.4x II will give you a 420 f4, fast and very accurate, especially when compared to the Sigma.

Luoto, since you're determined to make a snap decision, I gotta say, this advice from IIIHobbs is the best you've gotten so far.

You'll still have 200 mm covered with your 70-200. Yes, the 200 f/2 is a much better 200 mm lens than the 70-200, but the 70-200 is still a superlative 200 mm lens. The 300 f/2.8 is still fast and will give you the reach I have a hunch you'll be wanting most of the time, and you can turn it into a 400 f/4 that'll give the DO 400 f/4 a run for its money with the teleconverter.

If, after shooting with it for a while, you discover that you really wanted something with more reach or more speed, you can sell the 300 for likely as much as you pay for it, and maybe even a couple pennies more. Big Whites hold their value superbly, and any depreciation you might eventually suffer will be significantly less than it would cost you to rent it.

Cheers,

b&

640
EOS Bodies / Re: Any Nikon D3x to Canon 5D MKiii converts?
« on: September 07, 2012, 09:26:04 PM »
My work is in landscape photography, and I do not use (nor like) HDR---so digging shadows out is part of the normal work flow.

HDR doesn't automatically mean tonemapped surreal oversaturated poster art. HDR can be as simple as doing a two-shot bracket and using a graduated mask to composite the one onto the other, with results indistinguishable from what you'd get with a graduated neutral density filter.

If your horizon isn't a straight line, you can use a big, fat brush on the layer mask to create a virtual graduated ND filter that's a perfect match for the shape of the horizon -- think of it as having a high-end custom graduated ND filter fabrication shop right there on the spot.

And, from there, the sky's the limit. Do a three-shot bracket, one for the sky, one for the foreground, and one for the shadowed forest on the side of the mountain, and use that same broad brush to mask in each. (The 5DIII will automatically do those three shots for you at 6 FPS, and even give you a not-miserable preview on the LCD.) Use a harder brush for your architectural work, and so on. Just keep your shadows dark (with detail), your highlights bright (with detail), and make sure that no two parts in the middle come out with their tones reversed, and you've created a high-quality, natural-looking HDR photograph.

Oh -- and even the simplest of two-shot HDR landscapes processed like this, even if shot with a first-generation DSLR, with have dynamic range that blows away even medium format.

More dynamic range never hurts, but there are damned few scenarios where a 5DIII doesn't have enough dynamic range but the D800 does. Almost always, either you'll get far superior results with HDR on the 5DIII than a single exposure on the D800, or what you really need to do is fix the light. And the exceptions are generally fast-paced reportage (including sports and wildlife) where the D800's autofocus system and shooting speed might not be enough to get the shot in the first place....

Cheers,

b&

641
Lenses / Re: 400, 200 or...?
« on: September 07, 2012, 05:28:21 PM »
They're entirely different lenses, intended for entirely different purposes. And, honestly, if you don't know which is right for you, then neither are -- it's rather like wondering if you're better off getting a forklift or a dump truck to supplement your SUV.

Use the gear you've got, and wait until you're regularly complaining to yourself, "If only I had such-and-such, I could have gotten that shot." Then go ahead and buy whatever such-and-such was.

Either that, or, if this is just a toy, go with whichever one you think will be more fun. Nothing worng with that.

Cheers,

b&

642
Canon General / Re: Photo quotes - can you live by them all?
« on: September 01, 2012, 12:45:56 PM »
I'm surprised he left out, "f/8 and be there."

b&

643
Lighting / Re: Soft Boxes for Flashpoint 1000w Hot Light?
« on: August 31, 2012, 09:11:55 PM »
The thought of putting a kilowatt of heat into a softbox would scare the...shot out of me.

Paul C Buff ships the Einstein lights with both 250 and 150 watt modeling lamps, and strongly cautions against using the 250 watt lamps with any sort of modifier that restricts airflow -- and explicitly includes softboxes in that caution. In the case of the Einstein, the concern is over the unit overheating and shutting itself down before it can damage itself, not over fire.

But a kilowatt? I've seen hairdryers with less heating power -- and you want to put that into a softbox? Hell, I've seen toaster ovens that don't draw that much....

And, safety aside, there's another factor at play. Even a kilowatt bulb isn't anywhere near as bright as a flash, and a softbox can suck up a good amount of light. Even if you did figure out a way to put that torch into a softbox without burning down the house, I don't think you're going to be very happy with the results.

My advice? Splurge for the $280 for a B800. (Actually, I'd advise saving up a bit longer to get the $500 Einstein, but the B800 is still a superlative light.) If nothing else, think of it as a dirt-cheap fire rider on your homeowner's policy.

Cheers,

b&

644
IMAX's frame size is 69.6 × 48.5 mm, so it's hardly surprising that it should be higher resolution than the 24 x 36 mm of Canon's 22 megapickle camera. And, last I heard, just the support rig for an IMAX camera costs significantly more than any stills camera makes, and you can't exactly go buy an IMAX camera at B&H.

And, you know what? A Formula One racer absolutely smokes anything you can buy at the local auto mall -- even the upscale ones that sells Porsches, BMWs, and Ferraris.

So...your point is...what, exactly? You want to wave your hindquarters in the air so everybody will notice how smelly they are? Because that's about all you're doing....

Cheers,

b&

645
I'd also like to know what it is that makes cinema lenses so superior to still ones as to command a five- or ten-fold (or more!) premium. Or is it just that that's what the market is used to paying?

And...it'd also be nice if it were common to provide both T/ and f/ numbers for both types of lenses. For cinema lenses, it'd help give an idea of how shallow you can get the depth of field; for still lenses, it'd let you know how much light loss, especially when using a handheld light meter.

b&

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 64