July 26, 2014, 01:35:59 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47
61
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 27, 2014, 07:18:47 AM »
Can someone (I am thinking of you, jrista) explain why no low-pass filter is better than a non anti-aliasing one (except to Nikon, who can probably save some money).
Thanks

No OLPF is better in that there are fewer layers of material over the photodiodes (the OLPF is two layers of lithium niobate plus a 1/4-wave plate, not sure of the material, maybe quartz?).  Same idea as using a top quality UV/clear filter vs. no filter – probably not much of an IQ hit, but maybe some under certain circumstances.  With the D800/E, the 'inactive' OLPF was in there so everything else could be the same (image sensor mounting, piezo drive for the self-cleaning sensor, etc).  Standardizing on one model means they can eliminate the OLPF entirely.

There's still the IR cut filter over the sensor to protect from dust and to vibrate for the self-clean.


Thanks, Neuro.
I was also under the erroneous impression that it is the OLPF that does the dance.

I'm not sure about Nikon, but on Canon cameras it's the IR-cut filter and one half of the OLPF that are moved, while the other half of the OLPF stays with the fixed sensor.

Yep and Canon will end up selling about 10 cameras to us lot on forums and totally kill their regular sales with such a niche product. The beauty of the 5DIII and 1Dx cameras is that they are increadibly versatile, more than any other DSLR in history...is it no wonder they are selling so well and for such a premium?

62
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 27, 2014, 05:12:44 AM »
The 24-70mm is sharper in the corners too.

when ever has wedding client moaned or passed on a sale due to slightly soift corners? never....it doesn't happen and I've never lost or gained sales based on extream lens optics. The 16-35IIL offers clear advantages over the f4 variant for weddings...none of them are sharpness related. The modern obsession with lens charts and web site reviews over real world application and shooting is worrying.

63
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:54:52 AM »
I've noticed that a lot of 24-105 f4 LIS wedding shooters, they are either in a sunny part of the world or they use a lot of flash. I have nothing against using a flash and there's a lot of really good photographers out there with amazing flash useage. It's just not my style. I prefer the available light approach and certainly one I aspire towards. Although there's often one wedding per season which needs some extra lighting, even with f1.2 glass and iso 6400!

I used to use a 17-40L but found that the extra stop was really needed for the light levels I encountered on UK weddings. I don't know how this translates to weddings in your area. But a lot of guys get by with a 24-70 f2.8 as their main lens and i've seen a lot of strong work using that range.

The 17-40L f4 came to the market in may 2003, while the 16-35 f2.8 mkI was still widely available. In fact that lens stayed on the market for some time and was eventually replaced with the mkII in April 2007. Which brought the f2.8 version upto the f4 design and optical standards. So I'm assuming a simular thing will happen with the 16-35 III L? Give it a few years and Canon will probably release an updated version with simular mft charts as the f4 variant.

64
Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:44:32 AM »
..
Hate me for loving that 1.4 sharpness, I REALLY don't care  :P
..
Great photo of your beautiful daughter - turning a "snapshot" into a true photograph!  I don't hate you for wanting the sharpness wide open - I'm sure nearly all 50L owners would be beyond excited if Canon came out with a 50L II that was razor sharp at f/1.2!
+1 Exactly! And then they would forget about the previous L "unique" characteristics and they would enjoy their new sharp 50mm L lens  ;D

I'm sure there will be some, but If I need a 50mm, I'll use the focal length on a zoom. This year i've had a prime lens consolidation, selling my 50L, 24IIL, TS-e 45 lenses. I even sold my Siggi 12-24 too. I just wasn't using them any longer and they were expensive assets to have lying around the house gathering dust.
My wedding mojo works well with a smaller kit than before. So i'm being really well served with my 16-35IIL, 35L and 85IIL. I take along a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 24-70L for the reception speaches but that's pretty much my regular kit. For landscapes I use a 16-35IIL, TSe 17L, 24-70L, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and tele converters with a 100mm macro LIS for occasional use. I currently have no shooting need for a 24IIL or a 50L.

65
I had an R1800, a good printer for sure. Although it's ink useage was a scandle.
I fitted mine with a CIS system and after a lot of prints...the printer was end of life.
I replaced it with a R2880 which served me well, again i fitted a CIS system to it, but after 2 years I got head clogging issues. The yellow channel completely died on my and I decided to abandon the CIS route and replace it with a R3000, which is easily the best printer I've ever used. I wish i had more money at the time for a R3880, I think it would have served me better, but I wanted the ability to print onto CD's (important for me at the time) and that was the swing vote for me along with the price.
I've been using it with  a Marrut / lyson re-fillable cartridge solution and i have to say, the results are fantastic. the best prints I've experianced and easily match the OEM colours. I'm on my third set of inks for it and I've had it now for a year and a half. It's messy to refill the cartridges and clear the chip, but I only have to do this every 3-4 months or so and I do them all in one go. It's a lot more reliable than the CIS systems I've used in the past and the colour vibrancy is the best i've used. It easily matched the Epson colours when profiled. I tend to use semi matt papers, I like the wedding / photographic look, so I was a big fan of the ilford perl papers until that company folded earlier in the year.

I hope this helps! 

66
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600-ex-rt upgrade?
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:11:50 AM »
I suspect that small flash technology with the 600RT has reached a relative peak and is leveling off. It will be difficult to get more photons out of it as that's fighting physics. The wireless technology isn't going to change, again physics and band regulation. That just leaves firmware and features. At some point they might go to a color touchscreen which wouldn't hurt, of course that would eat more battery too.

Maybe they can make a flash with adjustable light temperature.

That's what the supplied gel holder's for. Mine came with a few gells too.

67
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:55:28 AM »
I feel sorry for Nikon owners.
It doesn't matter what model they buy, even when first released, as a few months down the track, Nikon will bring out a new and improved version of it making your current model obsolete and now worth substantially less than it cost you. Remember the D600 then the 610?
Canon does hang onto models much longer, and hence they have better re-sale value later on as say, after 3 years, your Canon may be just superseded, but if you had an equivalent Nikon, it would be 3 models old and practically worthless.

I'm not saying that Nikon cameras are no good, in fact, they are very good indeed, but constant model updates is not how you keep up the perceived and resale value of products.
It also makes it more difficult regarding spare parts too, as many models mean lots of parts and distributors only have so much space and money for parts.

I feel sorry for people who buy cameras based on how much they can sell them for.

If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.

While I can understand this for lenses....for camera bodies, they are a depreciating asset. Every camera body I have bought has dropped in resale value over the three years I have owned them. The lenses i have bought have generally been worth more over time due to inflation and increasing prices year on year. My 16-35IIL cost me £850 new, it's still worth close to that S/H and new they are nearly £1200. My 85 f1.2 II L cost me £1200, it's worth nearly that S/H and it's new price is between £1500 and £1800 depending where you buy it. 

68
Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:01:43 AM »
Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement.
Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement.

The thing that kills me on the 35L is the straight aperture blades... If only they'd update it!

It's only an issue if you stop down. If you don't then the inside of the lens is circular and bokeh takes on that charector. To be fair, it's not an issue I've experianced with this lens but I have seen it with the 135mm f2 L when shot at f2.8. I think it's becuase the Bokeh circles are quite small with a 35mm lens, so their slight irregularlity is quite small and not so obtrusive. The out of focus rendering of the Canon 35mm f1.4 L is really quite flattering and a joy to behold....but that never replaces the need fro a great photo in the first place. Creamy out of focus renderings don't make a great picture on their own. But the ability to diferentiate focus and isolate a subject at tools in a skilled photographers repertoir. This is why I love the 35L and 85IIL as a specific combo on two camera bodies. 

69
If this is true, and Canon feels that this "new technology" about to be debuted in the 7D2 is so good that the rest of the lineup must have it, it must be something big!

That is quite optimistic. 

Launch price for the mkiii was 3500... so I suppose $4000 seems like a reasonable bump up in price... with the 1dx's selling at $5000... it really raises the question of whether a 1dx for an extra grand is worth it more than a new mkiv.  Interesting question.

There are many reasons to buy the 5D line over the 1D line, regardless of how much better the 1D line may be. No battery grip (BIG reason for many people), more megapixels, less read noise, quieter mirror, cheaper (even a thousand bucks is more than "cheaper enough"), etc.

It depends on your shooting needs, if you need 12fps and top tier Ai Servo tracking then the 1DX is the way to go. If you want a camera with simular built quality, simular AF capability (but not quite as good tracking), a near silent shutter and a smaller foot print then the 5DIII is your camera. Two prefectly placed cameras fulfilling two very different roles but with a big overlap between them.

70
When Canon switches to CFast then I can see them switching to USB 3 from USB 2.

Apple dropped Firewire altogether because of the bandwidth limitation of the standard at 40MB/s and 80MB/s. These were fast during the time of USB 1.x and USB 2.x but Firewire pales in comparison to USB 3 speeds of 500MB/s

Thunderbolt 1 & 2 are spec'd to 1,000MB/s & 2,000GB/s respectively.

What probably restricted Canon from transitioning to faster I/O is size, heat, power draw, price, usability, demand & workflow.

It is possible that SDI is too high end or it isnt as popular as HDMI. If you do want a pro video camera then get a Cinema EOS and not a EOS?

just curious what you guys think the next cameras will have in regards to their connection for tethered shooting?  Will Canon put USB3 or Thunderbolt and if it's Thunderbolt could there be a new version of Thunderbolt that doesn't coincide with today's version?

I have not kept up on the computer news but I do remember when Apple dropped firewire 400 that a lot of cameras were using for tethered shooting

thanks for any insights

p.s  any reason why they won't put SDI connections verses HDMI?

Ah yes...apple and their curiously bizarre support for unloveed and unadopted standards. Look how many devices have usb 3 compared to either firewire or thunderbolt. There's loads of USB 3 but hardly none outside of Apple who have supported thunderbolt. Who cares if it's theoretically a faster port if you can't get many devices to connect to it?

71
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 04:48:42 AM »
Ah...another Nikon warm over...nothing new here, no revolution and erm lets hope it sells better than their last few models.

72
You think it might just be an economies of scale issue. Maybe the 7DII will have a sensor built on a new smaller say 50nm production line and to get the most out of the new line Canon needs to produce all it's new sensors on that line and retire the old 500nm line(s). This would make economic sense no? The "new revolutionary" sensor in the 7DII I think will point out where ALL EOS cameras are going.

Canon used the 7D as a development mule for camera ergonomics and User Interface updates, which is why the camera's handling is still so fresh. Nearly all of it's design changes went into the 5DIII and 1DX. So much so many people called the 5DIII a full frame 7D than a 5DII replacement (which is what the 6D eventually became). The AF redesign paved the way for the 61 point array and control and apart from the sensor, there is still a lot to like about the 7D. So it makes sense for Canon to use the 7DII as a development tool to updaqte the sensor technology and design. As long as the 7DII breaks even in the market place then the develeopment and lessons learnt from this model are effectively free to Canon, who can then incorporate it's features into the next gen of camera models...ie 5D4, 6DII, 1DXII ect. If the sensor is fantastic, then it's hype will generate a natural desire for full frame variants...and the next gen camera models will pretty much sell themselves with little marketing. In my view, that's the wise application of innovation which leads to market dominance.
If I rememebr the 40D introduced Live view to Canon, which was later incorporated into the 1DsIII and 5DII models. For landscape work, it was a game changer...somehitng which Nikon have never fully engaged with.

I think you are missing my point. I was just throwing it out there that new 1D & 5D next year could be because Canon  have retooled their sensor production lines and will no longer be able to produce the current sensors. We will have a very good idea if this is the case when the 7DII is released.

It's a fair point you make, I think Canon will want to move away from it's existing sensor design because it's their most complained about feature in the current generation of cameras. If Canon has to introduce new silicon etching equipment due to the need to move forwards, then that can only be a good thing for photographers. Canon have a history of slow but accurate change, they were slow to introduce AF, but they did it right and when they did, most other camera manufacturers moved over to a simular system. Nikon with their awful screw drive...Minolta / Sony had a simular system. Canon held off Digial sensors and pretty much went stright for cmos when every one else was playing with CCD chips...again, a few years later every one copied Canon because they got it right first time. A classic case of measure twice and cut once.
So when this new sensor tech lands....it'll be a wonder and an eye opener.

In the mean time, I'm still enjoying my 5DIII's

73
Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 08:09:51 AM »
There is an upward trend in weight with the L lenses. I'm ignoring the newer mkII super tele's here. But generally there is an upwards trend. The mkII 70-200 f2.8 LIS is heavier, the 16-35 f4 LIS is heavier and larger than the 17-40L. While the newer 24-70IIL is lighter and smaller, it's a different optical design and the old one was over engineered for sure.
The 70-200 f4 LIS vs the 70-300 LIS....that new lens is actually quite heavy compared to the old 70-200 f4 LIS. The 70-200 f4 LIS is a really sweet lens, it's so impressively light. But I don't think it's upto the ruggedness of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version has a number of metal parts to it's casing, where as the f4 is all plastic, including where colar to which the hood fits. I'm not putting the f4 lens down, just stating a few observations about it. I think the newer and heavier L's are being built to a higher robustness and are heavier as a consequence. I don't think adding an IS unit to the formula adds much weight, but adding lots of new elements to make it sharper and then making the mechanism stronger by using more metal must increase the weight significantly. 

74
Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:11:54 AM »
I think people want absolutely IS, but don't know why..
Hi endiendo!

I could also live without IS (most of the time) and so I can understand your opinion.
But if useful tech is available at a reasonable price, size and weight, why avoid it?

I can remember a picture I took of a young Siberian tiger in really dim light at the zoo.
It was at ISO 3200, 400 mm and 1/20 s, handheld.
I still don't know how I and/or the IS could manage to get it quite sharp.
But I am sure that it was not my (non existing) sniper ability but more to the IS.

Which again shows that the IS merit is stronger at the longer focal lengths and less so for the wider focal lengths.

75
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS macro performance
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:09:59 AM »
I've not tried this particular lens, but from my understaning is that you have to get pretty close to get to large magnifications. From my experiance of macro work, usually the longer working distances tend to work better (100mm, 150mm or 180mm come to mind).

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 47