December 20, 2014, 07:40:43 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 240
166
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:58:27 PM »
I was using the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 and was roughly 3 feet away, sitting. I was using the focus assist on the flash. Using the latest DPP (4x) that was downloaded today.... it looks soft on the camera screen as well.

looking at the picture, I would guess that your lens was around 35-40mm.... At 35mm, F2.8, 3 feet away, and with a 7D2, your depth of field should be 2.76 inches.... 1.32 inches before the focus point to 1.44 inches behind. I think that is your problem.....

Going to F8 would get you +/- 4 inches from the focus point. Try using a single focus point and on her eyes...

BTW, you can find lots of online DOF calculators.... http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

hope this helps

167
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:17:55 PM »
Here are two photos, hand held while sitting.

Manual Mode, F/2.8 @ 1/125, Canon 600RX-RT mounted to camera. Two consecutive shots. I can set it up on a tripod but I barely ever use one and may just ask B&H for an exchange, I don't have time to mess around with tests or micro adjustments, etc.

What lens did you use, what was the focal length, and how far away was the subject? That would help in debugging....

168
EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon EOS 7D Mark II Jumps Out of a Plane
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:58:27 AM »
so how come we dont see nikon,samsung,panasonic,sony cameras taken too extremes like this???

Maybe because you are not looking?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/19/nikon-middle-east-sends-a-d5300-skydiving-with-photographer-juan-mayer-vide

http://www.usairnet.com/2012/08/30/new-sony-camera-for-skydivers-hits-shelves-in-september/1002361/

I hope you don't think that skydivers only use Canon cameras.
GoPro is the camera of choice.... size matters :)

In this frame from the 7D2 video we see 4 people with something other than GoPros mounted on their heads... ( in other frames they looked like the Sony Actioncam,  but most definitely not 7Da or even 1Dxs :) )

169
EOS Bodies / Re: do you hope for sony sensors in the 5D MK 4?
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:33:52 AM »
I went with Canon because their mount was designed as a digital mount from scratch, not bastardized from a mechanical mount to make it work.... That means that it is more likely to stay around.....

A lens is an investment. A camera is a consumable. The camera will be around for a few years and then replaced while a good lens will still be a good lens 20 years from now.

In that camera are many systems... arguably the two most important ones are the AF system and the sensor. Although both are critical for a great picture, if the AF system can not handle the task you end up with blurry out of focus pictures, and who really cares what the sensor IQ is of a blurred picture....

With that sensor, we have the perpetual Canon/Sony tradeoff. Yes, the CURRENT Sony sensors have advantages over the Canon sensors, but it isn't a slam dunk... At high ISO Canon pulls ahead. The only thing that you can be certain of in the long run is that BOTH will improve. The question of who is the best is becoming less and less important as realistically, both are fairly close under most circumstances... too close to tell the difference without pixel peeping or heavy manipulation.

And back to the glass... as both companies improve their sensors, the limiting factor starts to become the optics... and this is where Canon definitely holds the lead. As Neuro is fond of mentioning, we are talking about imaging systems, and it is the total package that determines the final result... Look at some of the things being discussed on various forums.... Bob switches from Canon to Nikon... Dick switches from Nikon to Sony... Jane switches from Sony to Canon.... Shouldn't this be a clue as to how close they really are?

So to answer your question, NO! In the long run, it makes no significant difference in imaging quality but it does stifle innovation.

170
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala cracks open 7D II!
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:42:15 AM »

Def agree that the toughest and prone forms of weather damage are ones that no sealing can really protect like internal condensation from swinging temps.

actually......

I just installed three Panasonic cameras.... they have a heater to keep the inside warm on those cold winter days and they have a mini dehumidifier to keep condensation under control.....

But I certainly would not bring one of them on a photo shoot :)

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:12:31 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

Yeah, so am I.  Alas, the real world isn't always rational.  Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.   :P
and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....

First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.

Second strip is with anti-flicker off... I took ten shots and they were all over the place

all shots manual and same iso, aperture, and shutter speed... no processing other than to shrink the size down.

So for me, flickering lights are a problem that hits close to home :) and I don't have to look very far to find them.

172
7D MK II Sample Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 7D MII
« on: November 05, 2014, 07:48:07 PM »
a test with High ISO... shot a few minutes after sunset. These are the jpgs out of the camera with the only editing being WB set to auto in lightroom. (I hope they update for 7D2 RAW files soon)

The first shot is at ISO1600 and the second at ISO6400

173
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:56:16 PM »
  And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:


Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.
Just cooked my supper in a kitchen that still has them... as does the building where I work, and the gymnasium in the local community center. Yes, they are going away, but by no means are they gone yet...... and there is still flicker (just not as much) with electronic ballasts so the problem is not going to go away.

174
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:02:29 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too.  Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons).  I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes.  If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.

Quite true.... they use a fairly crappy linear power supply so the power output does fluctuate with the line voltage...

And incandescent bulbs also have a small amount of flicker at 120hz...
Not a very scientific test... but here goes.

Camera set to manual, 1/400 second, ISO3200 and shooting a burst of about 20 shots.

Old style ballasted fluorescent - about 3 stops of variation....
electronic ballasted fluorescent - about 1/2 stop of variation.
Compact fluorescent - about 1/3 stops of variation.
500Watt tungsten studio light - 0 stops variation

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 05:44:31 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too.  Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons).  I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes.  If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.

Quite true.... they use a fairly crappy linear power supply so the power output does fluctuate with the line voltage...

And incandescent bulbs also have a small amount of flicker at 120hz...

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 05:36:54 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"


177
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 03:54:00 PM »

Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.


For you they may be peripheral features, but for others they speak to the core of what they are looking for. If your use is landscape, who cares about the AF system.... if your use is capturing tiny birds in flight, the AF system is the most important aspect of the camera.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: 46MP body rumor is hoax?
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:07:24 AM »
Okay, that was worth reading. ;D

I just want to know where "off planet" is?

Perhaps Vulcan, Alberta.....
http://www.townofvulcan.ca/


179
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 05, 2014, 08:54:31 AM »
Nice, I was just saying how a collection of little things can make a big difference. I am sure many will never use the flicker feature, but for those that do what a difference in keeper rates!
I tried it last night. Without it, the brightness of my test shots varied by about two stops. When I turned it on, they were all the same. Nice feature!

180
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala cracks open 7D II!
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:16:43 AM »
Maybe not putting my 7D mk1 away in the bag when it rained last month wasn't such a good idea (now I've seen all the extra places the mk2 has sealing). Rain covers will be on Santas wish list this year I think.

Impressive upgrades and an impressive dissection.

Most people can probably get away with not using rain covers. I mean the 60D has been rubbished so much in build and sealing but despite being dropped and rained on quite a bit it still lives. I mean it's all probabilities, but some people make it sound like it's super fragile if it's not magnesium alloyed and sealed like a 1-series.
I heard that the 60D was better sealed than the 6D and the 5D3....... But I freely admit that I didn't trust it in the rain and an umbrella was a standard part of my kit....

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 240