September 22, 2014, 08:43:20 AM

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] 5 6 ... 563
46
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:03:45 PM »
Got any links to support this, or is this all just seat-of-the-pants common sense reasoning?
 
I covered many things in your quote.  All are factual.
 
As for the way SD cards work, you can look it up, there are plenty of links.  That's why there are two modes of formatting for SD cards in your camera, a regular format and a low level format.
 
I thought most users knew that formatting a card with a regular format does not actually erase the photos, it merely marks the FAT table to indicate that the files can be overwritten. 
 
The thing that many do not know is that when the flash card decides to over write a file, it must first erase a much larger memory block, and this takes time.  The Flash controller may also fragment a file due to the wear leveling, so a file is spread to different places on the card.  This operation for a SD card does not happen until you go to write a file.  It can slow a SD card down so much that Video recording stops.
 
There are many different factors in play.  Start with Wikipedia, the section on Real World Performance.

 
Also, be aware.  Card speeds are rated by saving a huge file to a completely erased card, there is no erasing of used memory blocks, and no fragmentation.  As you'd expect, real world performance is slower than card rated speeds.
 
CF Cards handle erasing differently with a process akin to that used for SSD's in your computer.

I've had two cameras with bent CF pins.  One was a used Minolta DSLR that I had bought (Just before Sony bought them).  I was able to straighten the bent pin out, and it was fine.

The other was a used Canon P&S that I bought for a dollar.  The charger, battery, and CF card were worth more than that.

Many SD card advocates are not aware that you must do a low level format on a previously filled SD card in order to get rated write speeds.  If you just do a regular quick in camera format, the write speed slows to a crawl.  If you do a low level format every time, then the card gets lots of write cycles, since a low level format writes a 0 to every memory cell.

With a AD card, its best to buy a big one, and do a low level format whenever you have saved enough files to reach the card capacity.

For example, you have a 64GB card.

You do 4 photo sessions using 16 GB and doing a regular format(does not erase the cells or data).  The card software tries to equalize card usage, so it tends to not over write cells with data in them until it has to.  Thus, by the 4th 16GB session, the entire card has been written to, and now data must be erased to save more.  This is very slow, so your right speed drops.  Time to do a low level format to get the speed you are paying for.

47
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:35:15 AM »
I've had two cameras with bent CF pins.  One was a used Minolta DSLR that I had bought (Just before Sony bought them).  I was able to straighten the bent pin out, and it was fine.

The other was a used Canon P&S that I bought for a dollar.  The charger, battery, and CF card were worth more than that.

Many SD card advocates are not aware that you must do a low level format on a previously filled SD card in order to get rated write speeds.  If you just do a regular quick in camera format, the write speed slows to a crawl.  If you do a low level format every time, then the card gets lots of write cycles, since a low level format writes a 0 to every memory cell.

With a SD card, its best to buy a big one, and do a low level format whenever you have saved enough files to reach the card capacity.

For example, you have a 64GB card.

You do 4 photo sessions using 16 GB and doing a regular format(does not erase the cells or data).  The card software tries to equalize card usage, so it tends to not over write cells with data in them until it has to.  Thus, by the 4th 16GB session, the entire card has been written to, and now data must be erased to save more.  This is very slow, so your right speed drops.  Time to do a low level format to get the speed you are paying for.

48
Canon General / Re: Canon Developing New-Concept Photo-Storage Device
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:11:35 AM »
I think that tablets and smart phones do this already, so I'm not sure who needs another viewer.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 16, 2014, 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.

50
Lenses / Re: Canon Reveals Details for future Telephoto Lens Line
« on: September 16, 2014, 02:45:05 PM »
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. 

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/multi_layer_diffractive_optical_element.do


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.

51
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.

52
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Did you peak and what did you do about it?
« on: September 16, 2014, 02:04:05 PM »
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.

53
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 02:00:38 PM »
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.


54
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.

55
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 5D 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.

56
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.

57
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 :)


http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=5D+Mark+IV

58
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.

59
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. 

60
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

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/lp-e4n_battery_pack.shtml


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

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 563