January 26, 2015, 01:48:47 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 4 ... 622
EOS Bodies / Re: Purchase 5DIII now, or wait for 5DIV?
« on: January 22, 2015, 10:49:23 PM »
Folks keep asking the question.  The answer is "Do not Make Purchasing Decisions Based on Rumors"  A exception might be a CR III rumor with photos of the product.  Rumors are not reliable in general, they are great for discussion, but don't take them too seriously.
Some have been waiting thru 7 years worth of rumors to get a 100-400mm MK II.

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

Exactly my thought, in many cases, perfect white balance is nice, but in many cases, I prefer to balance colors to suit the way I saw them.  I photographed a event last week where the director used a lot of colored lighting.  White balance makes no sense.


EOS Bodies / Re: Buying second hand, avoid low shutter count.
« on: January 22, 2015, 03:46:21 PM »
This is a badly flawed study, since you claim to be a engineer, you should recognize that. 
There is no testing, just info from random people with failed shutters searching for information about them, and then signing up to post.  How did the information get confirmed?  Anyone can post anything they want to make up, and a data point of 1 or 2 is less than useful.  There is zero reliable data here.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
« on: January 22, 2015, 03:38:44 PM »
I've always thought this lens was more appropriate for Nikon shooters who only have the less than stellar 24-120 which is overpriced.  It should be mopping up the floor in Nikon land.
As far as for Canon, The Sigma was no bargain, with Canon 24-105mm L lenses readily available new from USA Authorized sources in the mid $600 range.

EOS Bodies / Re: Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: January 22, 2015, 12:35:56 PM »
Some of those Canon patents were supposed to deal with situations like this.  The issue gets much more difficult as the sensor gets larger.  Maybe they were able to improve on the patent, or figure out how to reliably mass produce FF sensors with the technology.

Software & Accessories / Re: Mr Adobe and CC
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:31:06 PM »
I have been told that Mr Adobe has broken what many here in Australia considered a cast -iron g'tee,you can no longer sign up for lightroom and 2014 CC for Aus$9.99 p/m,I am told it is up to around $40p/m.If true it is just another example of the world domination and lack of respect for Aussie photogs,please tell me it is not true[small hope I know]

Why not show us the evidence, anyone can make up a story and find someone to believe it.  Its not possible for us to prove a negative.

Windows 10 will be out later this year as a free upgrade to windows 7 and 8.  Adobe needs to be working on support for that.

Press 25, Light up the world.  If that doesn't blind you, a Mazda 75 will.

Lenses / Re: Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Stigma?
« on: January 21, 2015, 08:16:32 PM »
The issue that makes AFMA difficult is understanding the limitations and issues with phase detect autofocus.  The concept is simple, just adjust your camera body so that it focuses either closer or further away.  You can adjust it in small steps.
However, there are some pitfalls.
1.  The Target.  In order to adjust the AF accurately, you must be certain of the point the camera focused on, and that can be a challenge, since the camera AF system does not always focus where the little red square indicates.  Targets specifically designed to assure that the camera grabs focus at the right spot will eliminate the issue.
2.  Light Levels.  The AF system has a lot more variability in low light.  In very bright light, it will not have as much, but its always there, so take several shots and ignore the outliers.
3.  Detail in the target can affect the Focus, the AF system generally prefers horizontal lines and will grab those rather than vertical ones.
4.  Light color also affects AF.  I don't know why, but perhaps its due to the lens.
5.  Vibration.  You can't detect the best focus if vibration is present.
6.  Lens variability.  Always start your autofocus at either the mfd or infinity.  This will help with lens variability, but some lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 never quite focus at the exact same point.
Software like FoCal takes those things and more into account, even so, its not perfect.
That's not to say that adjusting the AFMAS by trial and error or dot tune is bad, it is going to improve things in most cases, but may not provide a optimal setting.
The final thing to consider is that a error of +/- 3 points is probably not going to make much of a difference.  That's because AF does not change much.
Here is a curve from Focal that shows this.  The curve is pretty flat near the center.  You can see that just keeping the lens set to "0" is not going to make a big difference, even though -2 might be best.

Here is the curve for my 85mm f/1.8.  A adjustment of -9 or -10 was definitely a improvement.

Lenses / Re: Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Stigma?
« on: January 21, 2015, 02:14:51 PM »
Are people really saying they are returning lenses that needed a simple micro adjust?  Or are people saying they are sending lenses back because AFMA does not fix the problem.

The two are quite different.

I would not have thought it bizarre for somebody to return a lens that couldn't be tuned up with a little AFMA.  I'm amazed that somebody with a camera that can AFMA thinks a lens is "bad" when a little fine tuning is needed.  I can see from your reply you are as surprised as I am!

A quick look through this and other forums backs up what I'm saying...I didn't see a need to quote and embarrass somebody specifically, or start something personal with such a person.

Mt Spokane, good point about AFMA to the limits, but I see people saying even with +/- 6 they sent the lens back.

I've seen the posts, I think they are a minority, after all, its like those returning cameras that don't autofocus accurately, a few are definitely camera issues, and a few are operator issues.
The same with AFMA, its not easy to do it correctly, and its easy to come up with results that are far off.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body $2149
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:42:05 PM »
I noticed their $4100 1D X as well.  The strong US dollar coupled with a weak market for luxury goods means that Cameras can be purchased overseas for a huge discount, and sold for a profit in the US.  This is why Canon is making noises about gray market goods.
Canon is going to be forced to lower prices even more if it keeps up.

Lenses / Re: Inconsistent reviewing of lenses
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:35:49 PM »
I tend to prefer actual data and properly done tests rather than my or someone else's calibrated eyeball. 
I come from a technical job running tests in my lab for clients like NASA, and I'd have lost my job if I did tests like those.  "Real World Targets", meaning a bookshelf with natural and varying amounts and colors of light falling on it, and then comparing other products under almost certainly varying conditions.
To properly compare products, they need to be tested under the exact came conditions, which includes light levels and colors. 
A sloppy test procedure only causes me to wonder if any of the other parameters were properly controlled.  Maybe the solid tripod was affected by every truck rolling by, that's real world, after all.
Most of the online lens testers are limited by funds and test equipment, but some of them at least manage to turn in consistent results.
I have no reason to say his results are right or wrong, but I do not trust the test procedure he reveals.

Lenses / Re: Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Stigma?
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:16:59 PM »
A lot of people don't understand AFMA, and return a lens when its the camera that is also a part of the issue.
However, if A lens shows excessive error, needing 17 or higher to correct it, I'll return it, because the next camera I buy might need even more, and I'd be required to pay to have the lens adjusted.
That happened with my 35mm f/1.4, it needed about 7 AFMA on my 5D MK II, but required +17 when I bought a 1D MK IV, likely due to additive errors in the MK IV.  I sent the lens in for adjustment under warranty, and it was right-on for both cameras after that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D wi-fi question
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:36:24 AM »
I don't think its possible unless you hard wire the camera to a tablet or computer, or hardwire the projector to  computer or tablet (Most tablets do not have ethernet).  A Tablet or computer can generally only connect to one Wi-Fi device at a time, but you might be able to add multiple Wi-Fi cards to a computer.
A possibility is using a Canon Wi-Fi adapter which can connect in a peer-peer situation without special software.
The the Wi-Fi cards and Wi-Fi enabled cameras need to have software installed on the device receiving the images, they do not just transmit to a folder on a computer or tablet.
Your 6D can automatically transfer images to a tablet, and a tablet can connect to a Epson projector.  But, probably not at the same time, so that's the issue.  Also, someone will have to operate or setup a slide show app to transmit images to the projector.
Assuming its one of the popular Epson projectors, you can likely figure it out how to do it here.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Language problems with the manuals.
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:29:54 PM »
Having worked for a large company that sells products all over the world, I quickly found that writing technical manuals that can be understood by everyone is a impossible task.  Even within the company and English Speaking and well educated people, we could never find a wording that everyone could understand.  We used a simplified form of English to eliminate all but a reduced set of words, but everyone thinks just a little differently and can't understand why its so difficult to understand.  Every time a new QA person was assigned to a shop, we had to change instructions so he could understand them, even if the workers could not.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 622