January 27, 2015, 11:44:04 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 ... 281 282 [283] 284 285 ... 622
4231
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tutorial on Auto ISO
« on: March 24, 2013, 12:08:30 AM »
The ability to do this depends on the model of camera.
With a 5D MK III or the 1 Series bodies, you can do it.
 
The others have severe limitations.
 
Which body are you using?

4232
Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 24, 2013, 12:06:01 AM »
Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...
 
I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to.  It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."
How much do you use your 16-35mmL?  That was the question.
 
I did not ask for selling advice, I'll be able to make that decision.  I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.

Don't sweat his posts.  They are typically combative and difficult.

I understand, the situation, it does not really bother me, just hoped he might be willing to provide the information, assuming he has the lens.

4233
Canon General / Re: The need for backup equipment (again)
« on: March 24, 2013, 12:02:51 AM »
I'd suggest that you do not tether your camera to LR4. 
Try Canon Utilities.  Its much more reliable.  You can also turn on liveview and view the image on your monitor before you capture it, that is a huge saver, because the image is captured just as you want it.
If you wish, You can configure Canon Utilities to open the images in LR4, but there is no need, you can view a live histogram and 5X magnification on your monitor.

4234
I'm waiting for a low level format to complete on my 64GB Lexar 1000X (It takes about a hour).
 
I'll check tomorrow to see how many raw shots I get on high speed shooting before the buffer fills and the slowdown begins.

4235
Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:53:32 PM »
Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it. ...
 
I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to.  It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.

Lenses are simply tools, if you don't need this tool sell it.

You have fallen into the trap of "everybody has one so I need one too."
How much do you use your 16-35mmL?  That was the question.
 
I did not ask for selling advice, I'll be able to make that decision.  I was merely wondering if my 1200 some images over the past 7 months was sufficient usage.

4236
Technical Support / Re: Lightroom crashes when I try to import...
« on: March 23, 2013, 10:53:13 PM »
i'd reinstall lr4
Installing the latest version should do it, however, you may have some bad disk sectors, check out your ssd or hard drive.

4237
Technical Support / Re: Lightroom crashes when I try to import...
« on: March 23, 2013, 09:37:20 PM »
I have seen it crash if I was importing a bad image file.  Try just one file , you might have to do a few files at a time to find the bad one if that is the case.
 
Aside from that, it seems to work fine for me.
Be sure that your video driver files are up to date, they are very high on the list of problem causers.
 
If all else fails, check the Adobe forums.  If its a common issue, there may be some hints of things that can cause a crash.  Things like bad memory can crash if a lot of ram is used too.
 
Good Luck.

4238
I recommend the H4D-31.... Today Hassy is the best studio camera money can buy.

nah i would go for a phase one back.

IQ180 or IQ260.... yummy....  :)

Its only money :D

4239
Not using Raw.  You can shoot jpeg all day long with a fast card.
Take what you read with a grain of salt. 

4240
Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 23, 2013, 07:08:35 PM »
On 16-35 lens, I only shoot at 16 to 25ish. If you shoot alot from 24-35mm, I highly recommend the new 24-70 f2.8 II. You think your 16-35 sharp at f2.8? wait until to shoot 24-70 at wide open;)

I've been planning to buy the 24-70mm MK II.  I had five of the MK I versions and hated them all, so I'm a bit gun shy.
I have far too many lenses, so I am selling some off.  I sold 5 lenses this week (two of my 50mm f/1.4's, a 50mm f/1.8 MK I, my 85mm f/1.8, my old and unused 100-300mm USM, and have my 70-200mm f/4 IS listed).  I just bought my third 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII, and I'll keep it. 
My main concern is low light, images shot at over ISO 3200 suffer noticeably, but look fairly good up to ISO 12800.  Higher is problematic and needs a perfect exposure.
 
I might go for a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 if the 70-200 is not fast enough.  My 135mm f/2 is my favorite, but I'm getting so I cannot move around well in the dark of a theatre going up and down steps.  I'm diabetic and have no feeling in my feet to feel the edges of the steps, so I look down or go slowly.  A zoom would minimize moving around.
 
I shoot at dress rehearsals and can move around a lot, even walk up on the stage, but its getting unsafe for me.
 
Here is the theater from the stage (one of my few 16mm shots)!  The steps are not bad, but when you can't easily see or feel them, its a problem.  I use that table in the center and line up all my primes and then move around to get different perspectives.  I'm pretty good at changing lenses quickly in the dark.
 

 
 

4241
Buy the Hassy quick, they are discontinued any hard to find.
http://photorumors.com/2013/03/19/hasselblad-h4d-31-is-now-discontinued/
 
 
You will be happy with the D800 too, unless you use liveview, it doesn't work well.  The main issue with my D800 was lenses, it is very difficult to take advantage of the high resolution unless you have the best glass, and are extremely careful.  I tend to take images quickly, and my camera often was not in sharp focus when I squeezed the shutter.  In good light, it was great, but my 5D MK II and 5D MK III did better in low light, merely because they were in focus.
 
Nikon finally has a good telephoto 80-400mm on the way, it looks to be a little better than my 100-400L, but last may, they had only the horrible old 80-400.
 
There are also some good primes around for the D800  that were not available then.  You still may have to go to a third party for some lenses.
 
 

4242
Lenses / How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 23, 2013, 03:52:25 PM »
Last July, I bought a new one for $1350 on a impulse buy from Newegg, but haven't really warmed up to it.  I previously found the same thing with my 17-40mmL.
 
I use it on my 5D MK III.
 
I do low light photography, and have analyzed the photos I've taken.  Almost all of them are at f/2.8 and fall in the 24-35mm range of focal lengths.  They also required that I boost my camera ISO to very high levels, often 25600.
 
 
I'm thinking of selling it, but I hate to.  It is a very sharp lens, no problem there, I just find that I have little need of super wide angles.
 
Perhaps a 24mm L to go with my 35mmL, or a 24-70mm f/2.8 to replace it?
 
Here is a example taken at 35mm, ISO 25600.  It was in blue light, which explains the tint.  There is lots of noise, but it prints well at 8 X 10.
 
16-35mmL @ 35mm ISO 25600

 
 
 
I think I like the one taken with my 85mm f/1.8 at f/2 and ISO 16000 better.  Maybe a 85mm f/1.2?
 

4243
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Replacement
« on: March 23, 2013, 03:05:14 PM »
The main issue for updates is the cost of a new model.  By that, I mean the cost for Canon to release a new 1 series model.
Canon does a extreme amount of testing for potential new 1 series models, and the cost is very high.  They are always testing new technology, but the cost to actually tool and produce one is high.
 
This means that they will wait as long as possible to release something new.  That will depend on multiple things.
1.  Sales and profit. 
 
2.  What does the competition have.
 
3.  What new technology exists that will attract buyers, and what will the cost be to produce it.  A selling price is set first, and then designers have to compromise until they can meet it.  It may very well be possible to do more with a $10K selling price, but if that's not the target, it doesn't matter.
 
So, we may well see another 1 Series camera this year or next, but it might not be a replacement.  A 50mp body, for example, is not going to do as many frames per second, but maybe the rumored Digic 6 will change that.
 
The rumored 7D MK II mini 1 series might be the next high end model at a lower price than the 1D X.  Its probably not a good time to produce a $10K body.
 
 

4244
MtSpokane, thanks for your words of wisdom.  It turns out you're not telling me anything I don't already know.  I disagree with your sentiment that they all work the same way.  The object of noise reduction, is not to blur detail.  It is to preserve detail and eliminate noise.  They certainly do not all work the same way.  Some are better with chrominance, others with luminance.  If all they did was blur detail, then we could get the same results by simply applying softening to the image.  The results are not the same at all, though.  So for you to assume there will be no further advancement in noise reduction algorithms, or approaches, is rather absurd and wrong-minded.  No offense.  You might as well just suggest that deleting the image would be the simplest and best way to clean it.  There's always a better mousetrap.  As for changing to a better performing camera, I'm already planning to add a terrific one to my tool collection.  But as a fan of low-light photography, and shooting at ISO higher than the base level...new noise reduction is especially interesting to me.  Since noise reduction does not interest you, perhaps you need not even waste your time commenting.

I apologize if I hit your trigger, I did not mean to.
 
As you said, NR software will get updated every year. Undoubtedly, there will be more and better algorithms as more powerful computers are able to handle it, but you can also apply what there is today selectively to make the best use of what is out there. 
 
As far as what is best, I find that the different packages are better for a certain type of image, so it really depends on the subject as to what is best, and I've not been to define that.
 
NASA has super computers that are able to do a much better job of noise removal than we can.  I believe that our computers are the limiting factor, someone editing 500 images may not want to wait if NR takes a excessive time.  With my low light D800 images, I had to wait far too long for NR to complete with a ISO 12800 image, I just could not spend the time for a large shoot.
 
I also do a lot of low light photography and use NR, so I'm quite interested in NR, and have tried them all.  I have also read all their hype, and find it to be just that.  You have to try it, and when they limit you to 8 bit trials, the results are not usable for me.
 

 
Good Luck!
.

4245
MtSpokane, thanks for your words of wisdom.  It turns out you're not telling me anything I don't already know.  I disagree with your sentiment that they all work the same way.  The object of noise reduction, is not to blur detail.  It is to preserve detail and eliminate noise.  They certainly do not all work the same way.  Some are better with chrominance, others with luminance.  If all they did was blur detail, then we could get the same results by simply applying softening to the image.  The results are not the same at all, though.  So for you to assume there will be no further advancement in noise reduction algorithms, or approaches, is rather absurd and wrong-minded.  No offense.  You might as well just suggest that deleting the image would be the simplest and best way to clean it.  There's always a better mousetrap.  As for changing to a better performing camera, I'm already planning to add a terrific one to my tool collection.  But as a fan of low-light photography, and shooting at ISO higher than the base level...new noise reduction is especially interesting to me.  Since noise reduction does not interest you, perhaps you need not even waste your time commenting.
You can believe anything you want, that does not change the fact that NR blurs detail, its just a matter of which detail gets blurred. 
 
Apparently you missed the part where I said that  "some of it has better algorithms to decide which pixels to smear, but that's how its done, smearing pixels to reduce detail and eliminate the grainy look."
 
Undoubtedly, there will be more and better algorithms as more powerful computers are able to handle it, but you can also apply what there is today selectively to make the best use of what is out there. 
 
NASA has super computers that are able to do a much better job of noise removal than we can.  I believe that our computers are the limiting factor, someone editing 500 images may not want to wait if NR takes a excessive time.  With my low light D800 images, I had to wait far too long for NR to complete with a ISO 12800 image, I just could not spend the time for a large shoot.
 
I also do a lot of low light photography and use NR, so I'm quite interested in NR, and have tried them all.  I have also read all their hype, and find it to be just that.  You have to try it, and when they limit you to 8 bit trials, the results are not usable for me.
 
In general, I have found that the different software packages do a good job with certain types of images, and poor with others. 
 
Good Luck!
.
 
 
 

Pages: 1 ... 281 282 [283] 284 285 ... 622