September 16, 2014, 10:02:31 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 560
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: Today at 02:48:40 PM »
I take photos in low light, and I'd like to have the illuminated AF points back.  Blinking black AF points are worthless if you can't see them.

The advantage to a DO lens is that they can be shorter and much lighter than a conventional lens because they can bend light at sharper angles without increasing CA's. 

DO technology has been expensive, difficult to manufacture, and the lenses have less contrast, which most people equate to less sharpness. The older models have elements made of two layers of gratings rather than the one layer found in Fresnel lenses.  This is a press release related to the original DO lenses from Photokina in 2000.

Canon has been trying for 14 years since to improve the lenses.  New technology for manufacturing DO lenses, bonding them to glass elements, and cutting costs.

The newer technology they have been patenting involves dispersing particles in a molded resin lens.  Its hard to get those millions of particles to go where you want them, but they are apparently confident and making progress, lots of patents have been issues in the last 3 years.

I look at it a different way.  Competition is good for the consumer.  If companies are nipping at your heels, then you are going to be forced to up your game.

So, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid bashing camera companies.

I'm always learning, and pickup a lot of good tips here (Some bad ones too :))

New equipment does help me with things that I can't control like high ISO photography where supplemental light is forbidden and there is fast motion.  That makes for less noise, but does not make better photos.

I'd certainly hope for some ISO improvement after all these years.  Images taken at high ISO in good lighting almost always look good.  The challenge comes in low light images where blue light levels are usually weak.  Since blues are the weakest, the gain is boosted a extreme amounton the blue channel, and noise becomes a issue.  DPR takes sample images at low light levels using incandescent lamps.  That's the real test of high ISO performance.

I reviewed some of my ISO 3200 images from my 7D, and found a lot of detail gone, so these are definitely far better. 

Imagine if this were full frame!  I'm sure they are holding back the good stuff for the 5D MK IV.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II or 6D
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:51:07 PM »
For the type of thing you are doing, the 6D will be great.  There can be a big difference in full frame, but it depends on your use.  Portraits on FF with their shallow depth of field are nice.

I have no issue with using almost any camera for sports, just as long as I can set my shutter speeds.  I long ago learned to anticipate the shot and to be ready for it.  I tried 10 fps with my 1D MK IV, and got hundreds of shots to wade thru when one would have done it.

The tracking feature of the 7D MK II is going to be nice for following a bird in flight, but you don't need it for everyday type photos.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV announcement on March 2015 or later
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:43:39 PM »
Canon is not going to change their ways.  They evolve each model, making improvements, but seldom any big changes.  The DPAF is new, and still evolving, so it would be a big change, but not a revolutionary one.  It can be used for most of my still images as-is, since I seldom need super fast AF, but do like accurate AF.  Canon also has a list of what they consider pro features versus consumer features.  If a feature is in demand, they will include it (except flash).

I really don't care a whole lot about video, but if its there, fine.  I might actually find it useful with the DPAF.

Wi-Fi that worked to remotely tether and control the camera might be nice, but I think that Wi-Fi is pretty slow to make it work well.  I've started using a eye-fi card for internet type shots with my 5S Mark III.  It takes about 1 second to transfer a large jpeg, so its not too bad.  Its nice to find my photos already there in my computer when I finish shooting.

PowerShot / Re: Official: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:15:38 PM »
I've ordered one.  No Wi-Fi (HAS NFC which is worthless to me), but I can use a eye-Fi card.

The Zoom Framing Feature sold me, I returned my SX50 because framing was so difficult.  No GPS either, but based on my use of the SX50, it has the potential to replace my 100-400L for a camera to carry in my car to shoot wildlife that I frequently see in the fields and trees.  Supposedly, the difficult to frame zoom issue is fixed.  Canon is very predictable, they make improvements but do not re-invent something that already works.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV announcement after March 2015
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:01:05 PM »
The CR rumor last July was for early 2015, whatever that means.  Some twisted it into believing it would happen at Photokina.  If it had the same photosite spacing as the 7D Mark II, it would be 51.7MP :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Strange pattern on long exposures
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:53:06 PM »
Lens makers use Newtons rings to fine tune grinding of lenses.  They are far more sensitive than the best direct measuring tools.  I've had the same issue with measuring tolerances in certain parts, they need tighter tolerances than is possible to measure, so clever people have found indirect ways to check the accuracy, and to create "Gold" standards where measuring is impossible.

EOS Bodies / Re: So no new EOS M for Photokina
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:38:52 PM »
There were no rumors for a M at Photokina, but a new one might still appear in the next 6 months.  The big market for them is in Asia, so a announcement in China at some future point seems likely.

I'd think that Canon would want that dual pixel sensor in the next new model, but Canon Marketing types may not. 

EOS Bodies / Re: What about this new battery- the LP-E6N?
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:29:55 PM »
They'll work, the N designation is just changes in safety circuitry to comply with Japanese regulations.  I suspect even the charger is the same in this case.

I assume that there are similar changes to the LP-E4N

What’s new in the LP-E4N?

Aside from the gold-colored labeling, there are two fundamental differences to be aware of:
• Higher battery capacity
 The new LP-E4N is rated at 2450 mAh, vs. 2300 mAh for the LP-E4 pack. In spite of this difference, it remains compatible with the EOS-1D Mark III, Mark IV, and the EOS-1Ds Mark III (as explained below)
• Compatible with new Japanese safety regulations for Lithium-Ion rechargeable batteries
 Some minor changes have been made in the interest of safety, to conform with the latest laws in Japan for rechargeable Lithium-Ion battery packs

Nikon has been trying everything they can to get their train back on the tracks.  Their stock value is in the dumps, and sales are dropping even faster than other camera makers.

Sales on the P&S front are dropping faster. I haven't read everything yet, but it looks as though Nikon's ILC sales are still in growth, including their MILCs. They grew a ton last year, and are talking about continued growth to the point where they own 45% of the market for ILC cameras by 2016.

Where did you get numbers sold for Canon ILC's, I've just seen dollar values, and they lump in products that may be different from those in the figures Nikon gives.

Nikon does give numbers, and their ILC sales (Numbers of Cameras plus lenses) dropped a significant amount for the latest quarter (1st 2015).  From 3,830,000 last year to 2,710,000 this year. A 29+% drop!

I checked their fy financial reports for 2014 and for 2015 to date, there has been a significant drop. 

attached are the FY 2014 reports (ILC + lenses)  dropped for 2014 from  16,690,000 units in 2013 to 13,980,000 units  in 2014 a 16+% drop.

and the FY 2015 report (to date) shows a drop of  29+% so far. 

The only thing that's growing is the amount of drop in sales.

Site Information / Re: Noisy obtrusive ads
« on: September 15, 2014, 02:13:08 PM »
Even if I want the article they are selling, and even if the price is the lowest, I will never order anything from a pop-up ad. 

But clearly I am in a minority as these ad companies would not invest in such technology unless they got back a good return.  So some people (probably many people) are using these pop up type ads to order stuff.

The problem I have is that with a "traditional" pop up ad, the person has to deliberately click on the ad.  This generates a report back to the advertisement company and they can, in turn, report that their ads generated so much interest because a number of people were interested enough in the product to click on the ad.

Hence the term click-revenue.

Since I have no interest in any pop-up type ad, I never click on them.

But these mouse-over ads are a way for the advertisement companies to report higher interest in the ads by reporting mouse-overs as interest in the ad.  Unfortunately, a mouse-over does not always indicate interest.

But as a customer of a website, I don't really care.  As long as product manufacturers can be conned into paying to support websites that I can access for free, I am happy. 

I think that the product manufactuers might have a problem with the advertisement companies, but advertisement companies are in the business of manipulation and lies.   ;D

Someone has to pay for my access to these websites.  I am not miss-representing anything so morally I am in the clear.  But if some ad company can scam a product manufacturer/seller into paying so I don't have to pay, more power to them.

At the end of the day, I am still getting something of value for free so I really can't complain.

The ads we see are tailored to each user using the cookies placed on your computer from previous visits to other web sites.  If you look at a Nikon D810 on Amazon, you will likely see ads almost everywhere you visit.

You can turn off some of the annoying ones by clicking on the tiny icon in the corner of a ad and then selecting your preferences.

CR can, or used to be able to block a few ads (Limited number) and they used this to block obvious camera scam ads).

Site Information / Re: Noisy obtrusive ads
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:46:26 PM »
I am generally opposed to the whole shift towards video content.  I hate how many news articles are available as video only,  I can process information so much faster as text, I don't want to spend 3-4 minutes to learn what I could read through in less than one.

I agree video ads are particularly obnoxious, especially if you are like me and open 4 or 5 tabs at once, and they all start spewing the same video ad, slightly out of sync.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 560