July 31, 2014, 02:05:56 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 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 190
946
Lenses / Re: wide andgle lens for a 60d
« on: January 30, 2014, 06:01:28 PM »
If you are shooting on a crop camera, wide angle zooms are down to 10 mm....

947
Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results released
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:24:28 AM »
There is the best, and then there is the best you can afford or carry. None of us shoot with the best......

Again, what is 'best'?  Which takes better pictures - the camera/lens that you can afford and therefore purchase, or the one you can't afford and therefore don't have the opportunity to use?  Which one is 'best' for you?

The best is something like the camera on the Hubble telescope :)

None of us shoot with the best, we shoot with what best suits our individual needs.

Well the Hubble suffered from a very embarrassing quality control issue on first use that necessitated a trip into space to change a load of it. Also the "body" has been upgraded several times along the way. So even "the best" can suffer quality control and IQ issues.
And it's not very portable. I wouldn't bring it to a portrait shoot. What about AF?
Somehow I think focus is set to infinity......

As I said above, none of us shoot with the best, we shoot with what best suits our individual needs.

948
Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results released
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:34:32 PM »
There is the best, and then there is the best you can afford or carry. None of us shoot with the best......

Again, what is 'best'?  Which takes better pictures - the camera/lens that you can afford and therefore purchase, or the one you can't afford and therefore don't have the opportunity to use?  Which one is 'best' for you?

The best is something like the camera on the Hubble telescope :)

None of us shoot with the best, we shoot with what best suits our individual needs.

949
Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results released
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:22:40 PM »
Unlike all the subjective opinions spewed across the internet and elsewhere, yours and mine included, it is an objective fact that more people have decided that Canon dSLRs and lenses are the best, for them…and have done so consistently for >10 years.

The only fact is the sales number, the reason (best for them) is speculation on your part unless you mean that whatever people buys is always the best for them at that moment, but in that case I smell a petitio principii.

You don’t have to universally define “best” to understand that “best selling” is not equal to “best product” in the same way that “best dynamic range” is not equal to “best product”.

We buy what we buy for a whole bunch of reasons. Wants, needs, budget, knowledge (or the lack of it), ego, status, indoctrination, propaganda, reviews, expectations, dreams, beliefs, even facts sometimes.

Excluding the small number of people extorted or otherwise coerced to purchase a 'luxury' product not of their choosing, I'd say it's a pretty reasonably assumption that people but what they believe is best for them at that moment.  All of the factors you list, and the myriad of unmentioned factors, are consistent with that assumption.

You're right that the only real facts are that Canon has led the dSLR market for the past 10 years, and has sold more dSLRs and lenses than their competitors during that period.   Latin logic aside, I'm sure there are reasons for their success.
There is the best, and then there is the best you can afford or carry. None of us shoot with the best......

950
Software & Accessories / Re: Nanuk cases vs. Pelican/Storm ones?
« on: January 29, 2014, 12:27:51 PM »
Have lots of experience with Pelican, and love them! They're just damn sturdy cases. I do see what people mean about the latches, but I open and close probably 100 latches every day at my work, so I'm rather used to it. Also worth noting, is that they do soften over time (but we're talking quite a bit of time). Pelican used to have their padded dividers made by Lowepro (they were a light grey colour) and they were much superior to the black ones currently sold by them, something to note...

I don't have any hands on experience with Storm, but it sounds like people have some good stuff to say about the line. I believe they Storm originally came about as a copycat brand, that Pelican then bought and turned into their more budget line.

As a Canadian, I wish I could show support for the Nanuk brand (which is from here), but I've never been impressed with their cases the few times I've handled them. They simply feel flimsy, with much thinner plastic. The lid flexes quite a bit when open... Just not impressed, and I'd rather spend the extra on heavier case.
Plus 1

We use Pelican cases a lot for work... never had one fail. They have been dropped, banged, drug, loaded with 300 pounds of tools, and one memorable occasion fell 75 feet off of the deck of a frigate into the north atlantic and recovered with the gear intact and dry... In my personal life they have been on hundreds of canoe trips and have floated down a rapid or two.... (get the yellow ones, WAY more visible than black).

The storm cases seem almost as good... slightly thinner plastic and nicer latches. Unless you are really going to torture the case I'd go with storm....


951
Hi,
The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.
    WOW... handheld Astrophotography on Orion Nebula...  ;D

     The IS must be quite good or you must be very steady... 4s at 600mm...  :o

    Have a nice day.
To be fair, I tried about 20 shots, and this was the best...

952
The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.


953
Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

Jack's image appears sharper, but also, mine was shot handheld with a 60D at a slower shutter speed and deliberately at the softest spot of the lens.... and there are no AFMA adjustments on it. a good comparison would involve the same body taking the pictures at the same distance, with both lenses properly calibrated.

954
I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?


It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm.... :)


Come spring, squirrel pictures are going to be high in my priority list.

That lens is looking mighty good. I have to wonder how 600mm on the Tamron actually compares with a crop off the 500f4ISII.

Shot with the 150-600.....

955
I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?
and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D

Don's shots look pretty good. What more do you want from a $1000 lens? to keep it in perspective, the 2 canon extenders will cost you about the same
I'm deliberately playing with 600mm and F6.3 because that's supposed to be where the lens is worst.....

956
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 28, 2014, 08:04:44 PM »
I suspect Canon will venture into the c. 40mpx market but not for any of the reasons yet mentioned. I think they will do it because it will sell lens. You put some of the older L-series lens (let alone non-L) onto a 40+ mpx body and you will soon be screaming for better lens.

And no I can't scientifically back that statement up but I experianced first hand the IQ "old" lens could produce on the 18mpx 7D when I upgraded to that  :o

I am not sure this makes any sense. Whether you stick a 300mm ii 2.8 L lens on a 5 MP body or 22 MP body it is a great lens. Stick it on a 40 MP body and I think the same result happens.

I can see IQ being a factor for some bodies (mirrorless more than anything) but for SLR's I don't think current lenses with higher MP count sensors (40+ as you alluded to) would alter IQ.

Am I wrong here?

Increased pixel density means the sensor is putting more stress on the resolving power and aberration correction of the lens, in other words: more pixels reserved for showing each and every bit of aberration. Furthermore, the lenses have a resolution limit expressed in lpm (lines per millimeter) or lppm (line pair per millimeter). Take a 36mm wide sensor and put 8000 pixels on the wide side, and your lens will need to resolve 1.425x as many linepairs as it would for a 21 MP sensor or the image will look softer. Someone else can probably explain it better, but the basic idea is: pixels / sensor size = pixel density. The bigger the pixel density, the smaller the pixels. What comes with smaller pixels you can look up elsewhere, I don't know how to explain it without writing a thousand pages on it.

LOL

I don't know how many times I'll have to debunk this myth. But here it goes again. First off, let's define a few things.

Lens resolution: The spatial resolving power of the lens (in lp/mm)
Sensor resolution: The spatial resolving power of the sensor (in lp/mm)
System (or output or image) resolution: The measurable spatial resolution of the images produced by lens+sensor (in lp/mm)

System resolution is the result of a convolution of what the lens resolves with the spatial grid of the sensor. Both components have an intrinsic blur. This blur is generally approximated by a gaussian function, a spot of light that follows some kind of bell curve (peaked in the middle, falloff as you move away from the middle of the spot). To actually compute the REAL system resolution of a lens and sensor, you would need to know the actual PSF or Point Spread Functions of both. That kind of information is difficult to come by, and greatly complicates the math to get a small amount of additional precision. We can approximate system resolution by using this function:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
Where:

ir = image resolution (output resolution, system resolution) lp/mm
lr = lens resolution lp/mm
sr = sensor resolution lp/mm

This function is a modification of a simpler function:

Code: [Select]
ib = sqrt(lb^2 + sb^2)
Where:

ib = image blur
lb = lens blur
sb = sensor blur

To convert a blur size into lp/mm, you take the reciprocal and divide by two. If we have a sensor with 5µm pixels, its spatial resolution in line pairs is:

Code: [Select]
res = (1l / 0.005mm) / 2l/lp
res = 200l/mm / 2 l/lp
res = 100lp/mm

If we invert this:

Code: [Select]
blur = 1l / (100lp/mm * 2l/lp)
blur = 1l / (200l/mm)
blur = 0.005mm

So, to directly derive the measurable spatial resolution of an output image from the spatial resolutions of a lens and a sensor, we simply combine these two formulas. First, let's assume a diffraction limited lens at f/8. Since it is diffraction limited, the lens will be exhibiting perfect behavior, so we'll be getting 86lp/mm. We have a 5µm pixel pitch in our sensor...let's just assume the sensor is monochrome for now, which means our sensor is 100lp/mm. If we run the formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000059)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0077) / 2
ir = 129.9 / 2
ir = 64.95

The image resolution with a diffraction limited f/8 lens and a 5 micron pixel pitch is 65lp/mm. That is a low resolution lens. One which most people would claim is "outresolved by the sensor". Such terminology is a misnomer...sensors don't outresolve lenses, lenses don't outresolve sensors...the two work together to produce an image...the convolution of the two produces the output resolution, the resolution of our actual images, and it is that output that we really care about.

So, let's assume we now have a diffraction limited f/4 lens. Our lens spatial resolution is now 173lp/mm. Quite a considerable improvement over our f/8 lens. It is actually double the resolving power of an f/8 lens. Same formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(100*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/200)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.005^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000025)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000033)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0057) / 2
ir = 175.4 / 2
ir = 87.7

Our image resolution with a diffraction limited f/4 lens is 87.7lp/mm. That is a 35% improvement. In this case, most people would say the "lens outresolves the sensor". But again, that is a misnomer. The two are still working together in concert to produce an image. The results of the image have improved. Now, lets say we still have our f/8 lens, and we now have a sensor with half the pixel pitch. Were using 2.5 micron pixels. Same formula:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(86*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/172)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0058^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000034 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.00004)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0063) / 2
ir = 158.7 / 2
ir = 79.4

Our image resolution jumps to 79.4. Well, supposedly, the sensor is "far outresolving the lens" at this point...and yet, the spatial resolution of our images has still improved considerably. By over 22%, to be exact. The fact that our sensor is capable of resolving considerably more detail than our lens does make the lens the most limiting factor...however it does NOT mean that using "the same old crappy lens" is useless on a newer, higher resolution sensor. Our results have still improved, by a meaningful amount. It is not necessary to build a new lens to take advantage of our improved sensor.

Lets take this one step farther. We are using our same f/8 lens. It isn't a great lens, it's decent, for it's generation. At f/4 it is not diffraction limited, but it performs pretty well. Let's assume it is capable of resolving 150lp/mm instead of 173lp/mm. If we run out formula again:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(150*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/300)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0033^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000011 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000017)) / 2
ir = (1/0.0041) / 2
ir = 244 / 2
ir = 122

Wow. Our crappy old lens which isn't even diffraction limited at f/4, combined with our greatly improved ultra high resolution sensor, is still giving us a lot of bang for our buck! Our image resolution is up to a whopping 122lp/mm! That is an improvement of over 53% over our f/8 performance. Well, let's say we finally break down and buy a better lens, one that is diffraction limited at f/4:

Code: [Select]
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(lr*2))^2 + (1/(sr*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/(173*2))^2 + (1/(200*2))^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt((1/346)^2 + (1/400)^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.0029^2 + 0.0025^2)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000008 + 0.000006)) / 2
ir = (1/sqrt(0.000014)) / 2
ir = (1/0.00374) / 2
ir = 267.4 / 2
ir = 133.7

Hmm...well, things haven't changed much. Relative to our older lens, we now have 133lp/mm. Unlike the previous jump of 53%, we have now gained a 9.5% improvement in resolving power. Ten percent improvement isn't something to shake a stick at, but our previous older lens that isn't diffraction limited at f/4 still performs remarkably well on our ultra high resolution sensor. To eek out any more performance, we would have to get a lens that was diffraction limited at a wider aperture. At apertures wider than f/4, optical aberrations begin to dominate, and achieving significantly improved results is more difficult. Additionally...you only get the improved resolving power at apertures wider than f/4...if you regularly shoot scenes at diffraction limited apertures of f/4 and smaller, then the only real way to improve the resolution of your photographs themselves is with a higher resolution sensor.

Pushing sensor resolution to obscene levels is a lot easier than pushing lens resolving power to obscene levels. Upping sensor resolution is the far more cost effective means, and therefor the one that tends to appeal to the masses (regardless of whether they know why.)
WOW!
Good explanation....

Now I just have to wait for Canon to make a FF camera with the same pixel size as an iPhone... 445Megapixels!

957
I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?


It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm.... :)

958
Canon General / Re: Upcoming trip, any can't miss spots?
« on: January 28, 2014, 07:41:45 PM »
I hate to be the wet blanket here but unless you are getting paid for exceptional photos at these locations, why not reduce your weight and stress loads and just take something simpler and lighter?  I know I'm inviting a lot of flaming on a photo equipment love site like CR but common sense dictates that when travelling in risky areas, simpler is better. ... Again, I don't mean to rain on your parade but does this make any kind of sense to you??

I have to agree with Rusty on this one. I'll lug a lot of gear with me when I'm on a road trip, but when I'm flying anywhere, I go with minimal gear. I would take one body, one lens (or two max), a flash and a small, light tripod (mine is the Oben CT-3410). If I were to take any filters, I would limit them to one each CPL and ND.

I don't know what your itinerary is in Athens, but if you have time, take a day and hop over to the island of Crete. Amazing scenery everywhere!

[I don't know how to caption the attached image, but it's a shot I took it in Crete in 1976, with a cheap 110 camera (plastic lens), scanned from a print and cleaned up in Photoshop.]
Plus 1!
Never let your gear get in the way of photography.

If you carry oodles of gear it will slow you down, it will stop you from climbing those stairs or walking up that hill... it will distract you from seeing what you came there to see.  I'd bring something really wide, something sharp and midrange like a 28-70II, and a 1.4X teleconverter.... and if you really want a backup body, bring an EOS-M and a kit lens...

959
I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?
and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D

960
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 28, 2014, 01:21:18 PM »
If Canon cannot compete on quality, they can only compete on price. So, then the question becomes, what percentage of the large format market is price sensitive? I'm guessing that few current users of either Phase One or Hasselblad

I don't have the answer, but I don't think you're talking about the large format market. Heck, 33x44 isn't even real medium format?

All that said, the digital medium format market is tiny, I don't think it's something Canon is worried about very much at the moment.
Exactly. MF is for specialized use, it's not for everyday shooting. It's slow and big, you absolutely cannot reliable cover sports or anything with quick action using a MF camera only, and MF will NEVER be that camera, unless technology develops in such a way that you can miniaturize and speed up MF to the current FF specs (but by that time the speed and resolution advantage of the FF will have far surpassed the current MF standards).

If you want to speculate about MF cameras, try shooting with one first.

Large format is only useful for professional landscape photographers and for VERY slow and deliberate portrait work, and there are no digital LF cameras.

I think many people here would be greatly disappointed, if digital LF cameras existed, and they did get to shoot one and then asked "why does the burst mode only take 1 picture every 10 seconds?"
Exactly!

Plus lens size.... they get huge in a hurry...imagine shooting FF with a 200mm F2.8 lens.... then go medium format and your equivalant field of view comes from something like a 400F2.8 ( a lot less easy to carry around) and if you go large format, imagine carrying around (and paying for) an 800F2.8 lens....

It's not the sensors, it's the glass that will kill you...

Pages: 1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 190