April 23, 2014, 07:29:57 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 164
31
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:11:28 AM »
The world needs more people like you. Happy birthday!

32
Same story if you setup a wildlife trigger and a wild animal trips the shutter.  The deer or whatever is not the photographer!
Good example!

33
I got into a debate just recently with my upcoming wedding photographer. I asked if I could have a small handful of RAW files and they politely but firmly refused - stating they are the owners and it is their creative vision that makes the photo. HOWEVER, my fiance and I have chosen the time of day, the location, the venue, the clothing, hairstyling, makeup, props etc...in essence a huge proportion of the creative element that will go into each photo. I also plan on processing those RAWs myself - a further large creative input. Granted there is still a lot of creative scope on the part of the photographer but it felt kind of weird to be told that the photographer owns the RAW pictures of me and my partner and can use it anyway they see fit, citing the creative angle. I dont know how you measure who put more creativity into the photo but it isnt clear cut from my perspective.
When I take pictures for where I work, they own them and control them. I do not even have the right to put them in a portfolio.... but that's what the job is defined as.... I am paid to produce a product. Photography is unusual because by convention, the photos belong to the photographer and you are paying them for use of the image. If you want the image to belong to you, put it in the contract and make sure the photographer signs.

As is said, "the devil is in the details", and when you hire someone for any job it needs to be made abundantly clear who does what, and in the case of photography, who owns the images.....

34
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:47:16 AM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.

I agree to the extent that IS is frequently not needed at these FLs, and that it certainly is not a cure-all for poor technique. However, I have made quite a few shots where IS has undoubtedly helped, and have never had a shot ruined by it. I leave it on always, needed or not.
I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...

35
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:54:09 PM »

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

I agree. The APS-H sensor has 1.7 times the area of the APS-C sensor and that's a lot of ground to catch up on.

Even if it did catch up, it doesn't really matter because the 1DIV is now the 1DX and the bar is raised further.... and if there was some magic tech that made it better, just watch what happens with the 1DX2 :)

As someone who has been shooting digital for 20+ years, I remember when high ISO was 1600 and you didn't shoot 800 or above because the noise would ruin the picture... and now I can shoot at 51,200 with less noise on a camera that is four years out of date. Tech has marched on and to compare the new and the old becomes meaningless after a while.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:39:21 PM »
Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins. The 1D line also gets extra attention to all the fine little details, the small things that require a lot of extra hands on time to tweak and tune and refine. It's a large part of the reason the 1D models cost more...they are highly and optimally tuned. You can ask almost any 1D owner regardless of generation, and most will tell you they love the out of camera quality in every respect...higher sharpness, lower noise, better color fidelity, etc. etc. The same fine tuning applies to all the other non-sensor aspects of the camera as well. The 1D IV had a much better AF system that performed much better than the 1D III and any other Canon camera of the time. It had the high frame rate, the higher performance shutter, etc.

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.
And the quality of the build!
Better materials, tighter tolerances, hand matching to specs, all adds up to greater consistency. Another reason why the 1D lineups outperform the rest, particularly after a few drops and tumbles.....

37
Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.

Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.
That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning :)

If we compare old tech and new tech... yes a new tech (70D) will outperform an old tech 1D (ISO 1600 max?!?!) but it is blatantly unfair... Compare a new tech 70D to a "bit out of tech" 1DX and the 1DX kicks ass! I would expect an even more severe ass kicking if the 1DX and the 70D where the same level of tech.

Whatever the last camera is that was released, that's the new tech... it makes comparisons unfair because there is no such thing as both being exactly even in tech. The APS-C line is improving by small steps.... the FF line is improving by small steps, but nowhere do current models "overlap".

Pixel size matters. With 2 1/2 times the area, as long as there are somewhere around the same number of pixels, the FF pixels will be larger and assuming anywhere near the same tech, the FF pixels will be better.  If you went to a high megapixel FF camera with the same sized pixels as a 70D and the same level of tech as a 70D those pixels should act the same and one would expect the same performance. but even at that, there is also resolution to consider... smaller pixels resolve more detail than larger pixels, but at the expense of sensitivity. Everything is inter-related.

So yes, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. To my mind, the most important factor is the AF system. As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture :)

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:55:27 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.

39
Lenses / Re: Sharpest EF Lenses (according to DxO)
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:37:04 PM »
In your opinion, is this accurate?

I'm curious because they rank the 190 dollar 40mm well over the 2200 14mm f/2.8 (Canadian prices).

It is easier to make a long lens sharp than a short lens.
It is easier to make a narrow lens sharp than a wide lens.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:30:48 PM »

There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen.
If we assume a similar number of pixels and similar level of technology, you are right. However, take a 50 megapixel FF camera and a 20 megapixel APS-C camera and you can expect similar levels of performance.... but go the other way and make a 12 megapixel FF camera and now you have a camera that shoots ISO 409600 like an APS-C camera shoots ISO 12800.... And likewise, compare a 7D2 to a 1D and see what happens..

Now, assuming Canon did somehow manage to improve the Q.E. of their sensors to 82% at average operating temperatures (pretty much not possible, dark current is going to be very high at operating temperatures of 60°F and above) but just for the sake of discussion, let's assume they do. At 82%, they can double their noise performance (reduce noise by half). That still doesn't cut it. The 1D X has a total sensor area that is 2.6x greater than the 7D (and any potential 7D II), so you would at least need to increase the 7D II's Q.E. by 2.6x instead of just 2x. Well, that isn't actually possible. To double Q.E. again beyond 82%, you would need 164%...but you can't have better than 100% Q.E. (quantum efficiency is the ratio of conversion of photons to released electron charge in a photodiode...you cannot convert more than 100% of the incoming photons.) You can't even get that .6x better than 82%, because that would require another 50% Q.E....or 131%.

Also, even if some new magic technology comes out that makes some new APS-C sensor outperform the current FF sensors, that same magic technology would get applied to the new FF sensors and you are back to the same 2.5 times difference.

41
Lenses / Re: Landscape lens for backpacking
« on: April 17, 2014, 01:29:34 PM »
My recommendations would be the EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 10-22 and maybe a fast prime like the 35mm f2 IS for low light or shallow DOF shots.  When I had a 550D and 7D, I had both lenses and used the 15-85 for the vast majority of my landscape and other outdoor or flash photography.  Its a terrific lens.  I borrowed a friends 17-55 2.8 quite a bit and loved it, very sharp and f/2.8 came in handy for lower light photography.  To me its focal range was just too limited compared with the 15-85 however.  For most landscape photography the wider aperture of the 17-55 will not come into play.

The 10-22 is a really good UWA and I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities when it will be useful.  My oldest son (age 15) and I do a lot of 3-4 day hikes (nothing like your 221 mile adventure however) and I took the 15-85 and 10-22 on most of them and really felt I had everything covered.  A few times I wished I had more reach for wildlife, but otherwise these lenses covered 99% of what I wanted to shoot.

I agree with NancyP and Don on the extra batteries and SD cards!  A small, really light weight tripod would also come in handy.

If you do stay with a crop camera, the 17-55 is a better lens for landscape than the 15-85. It is faster and it is sharper on the wide end....


Sharpness looks pretty close to me in the TDP crops at f/4 and f/8.  However, the 17-55 does control distortion better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

When I did my comparison of the 17-55 and the 15-85, I observed that the sharpness was a bit better on the wide end of the 17-55 and was a bit better on the long end of the 15-85. The differences were noticeable if you looked closely, and in the long run, I would call it a tie... one a bit better wide, one a bit better long... It was the faster lens that won out in the final decision as I would be using it at sunrises and sunsets, and also in some poorly lit areas...

Ultimately, you can't go wrong with either lens.....

42
Neat, a camera in Canadian winter camouflage.....

43
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:25:05 PM »
Constance Creek, near Ottawa, Canada.... The ice is finally out so I am going canoeing this weekend!

44
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:22:10 PM »
Ring-Necked Duck...

45
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:01:33 PM »
Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo? 

 ;)


Well, while it appears the Dodo was fairly swift. Using a modern proxy, the  ostrich (as a large, land bird) runs about 40 mph, I'd put an uneducated, non-scientific guess at about 25-35 mph peak speed.

Assuming that the origination of the Unicorn is from people seeing Rhino's, the White Rhino can run about 31 mph at peak.

If, instead, the Unicorn is really someone's great practical joke and it was simply a horse dressed up, a Quarter horse can run about 47.5 mph.

So, if a Dodo and a Unicorn made a bet as to who would get the land-speed record, if it's a Unicorn based on a White Rhino, it might be a toss-up. If it's a Unicorn based on a dressed up horse, pretty much the horse would win.

And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.

That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 164