April 20, 2014, 01:07:08 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46
16
Software & Accessories / Re: My DIY " Muti-Flashes portable rig"
« on: October 22, 2013, 09:00:59 AM »
That is an incredible piece of work, that gives me some great ideas.

Bravo sir!

17
Canon General / Re: What's Next for Canon?
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:47:22 AM »
Antigravity:  Because that's the only way you'll be able to handhold all day with a mirrorless, lenses which are quite hand-holdable with a gripped or pro body.  Even something relatively dainty like a 100-400 would be unbalanced and awkward on a mirrorless.  Unless you think it would be humorous to see people with a 70-200/2.8IS II on a gimbal head shooting a wedding... actually, that probably would be humorous for most of us :P

I checked and my mft Olympus E-P3 with a 14-150mm (equivalent to a 28-300mm on full frame) is actually smaller than my 6D with a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It's quite easy to hold by hand.

I'm sure it is.  But that tiny sensor will preclude it from serving many current DSLR rolls.

That's why I think mirrorless cameras work best with smaller sensors: the lenses can become much smaller too.

With the current state of the rest of the system, I totally agree with that.  Unless it has a smaller sensor and corresponding lenses, or larger sensor and nice pancake primes; the size advantage is lost.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Strange overspec metering results with Canon 5D Mark III
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:11:45 AM »
I haven't played with the exposure ramping in ML, can it ramp with ISO instead of Tv/Av?  I know it doesn't directly address your issues with metering at extremely low light levels (and an ND... eek) but it may achieve your goal of a smooth timelapse.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Strange overspec metering results with Canon 5D Mark III
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:07:33 AM »
simplest way.... get a good lightmeter...

For one shot, yes.  For a timelapse, that wouldn't help him much.

20
Canon General / Re: What's Next for Canon?
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:10:24 AM »
Maybe I'm weird (Ok, I KNOW I'm weird, but that's beside the point), but I just don't have any serious desire for a mirrorless camera.  They're ok for what they are, and I don't begrudge anyone that does want one, I just personally don't find the trade off worth it.  If the M2 or whatever it's eventually called has all the 70D goodies like everyone hopes, and falls to the sub-$400 level, I'll probably pick one up for times I REALLY don't want to drag a DSLR along, and as an emergency back-up-to-my-back-up body.  And that's due to mirrorlesses current, singular, advantage... size.  Unless it's for a use case where size is the absolute top priority, I don't see the draw.  But hey, to each his own.

What would it take to change my mind?

Full Frame:  Currently slim pickings, and very expensive
Good AF:  The best mirrorless AF is almost up to yesteryears Rebel, but maybe some day
EVF:  No lag, no visible pixels, and galmut as good as the best human eyes (and doesn't need to be calibrated).  That one will be a while.
And last but not least...
Antigravity:  Because that's the only way you'll be able to handhold all day with a mirrorless, lenses which are quite hand-holdable with a gripped or pro body.  Even something relatively dainty like a 100-400 would be unbalanced and awkward on a mirrorless.  Unless you think it would be humorous to see people with a 70-200/2.8IS II on a gimbal head shooting a wedding... actually, that probably would be humorous for most of us :P

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Holidays 2013: Where the Heck is Canon?
« on: October 17, 2013, 09:21:16 AM »
What innovation I need is a blinky LED to light up my AF point in my MK3.
I vote for:

• Release updated versions of the 35/1.4L and 100-400L.

Ditto & Ditto!  Then... Happy Holidays!!

+4 & +2 to your respective dittos...

22
Lenses / Re: 1 Good lens vs a few crap lens's?
« on: October 14, 2013, 11:47:55 PM »
I love to have lenses, and love to have a lot of them, but I like your idea, and I think you'll do great with that setup.  The 17-55 is a great lens, but it's and EFS.  With the 17-40 you can move to a FF, and keep shooting.

Don't buy a lens for a body you might have someday, buy one for the one you have now.  Any of the higher quality EF-S lenses, like the 17-55, 15-85, 10-22, and 60 macro; all hold their value well.  If you buy used, and it sounds like that's the budget range you're working with, you'll probably get back what you paid for them anyhow.

23
Lenses / Re: 1 Good lens vs a few crap lens's?
« on: October 14, 2013, 11:44:32 PM »

Is the 17-55 a big drop in build quality and optics compared to an L lens that iv'e been talking about?


Build quality isn't up to L standards, but optically it is.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2013, 11:22:46 AM »
My guess - greater than 22.1 megapixels. That gives you 3x1920 pixels across, allowing for easy bining of a 3x3 pixel block from the sensor into a single pixel of 1920x1080 video... add a few pixels to each side for video stabilization and the 24MP sensor looks very likely.

How is binning at 3x3 on a grid that repeats at 2x2 easy?


Photosensors are in a 2x2 grid, but you're not binning a quad of photosensors; just the reds together, greens together (x2), and blues together...  So yes, it is easy.

In the attached image you bin the following:
r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1=r1'
g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1=g₁1'
g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1=g₂1'
b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1=b1'
And you bin down right back into a bayer pattern which you can than save as-is, or demosaic, or whatever.

That method throws away half the light collected.

The 2x2 approach bins the 2 greens, 1 red and 1 blue in the block into 1 RGB pixel.  Simple and no light lost.

Rather than do the above, why not demosaic and interpolate with a simple interpolation method like bilinear?  That way, you'd at least keep all the light.

I'm sorry, but you apparently don't understand what binning is.

You're saying instead of demosaicing just use each 2x2 block of subpixels to create one rgb pixel.  That is not binning, and would really gain you nothing.  It should probably be better than line skipping, though.  However this is not binning.

Binning is adding the signals from all the same colored subpixels a square block (the way phase one does it is slightly more complex, each color is in a square, but the squares for each color that are combined are offset).  Binning reduces noise (main reason for doing it), and should improve low light performance (since the "metapixel" collects photons like an equivalent size pixel would. The tradeoff is reduced resolution (which is not an issue for video) and increased moire/aliasing because the AA filter is effectively nullified.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2013, 01:25:04 AM »
My guess - greater than 22.1 megapixels. That gives you 3x1920 pixels across, allowing for easy bining of a 3x3 pixel block from the sensor into a single pixel of 1920x1080 video... add a few pixels to each side for video stabilization and the 24MP sensor looks very likely.

How is binning at 3x3 on a grid that repeats at 2x2 easy?


Photosensors are in a 2x2 grid, but you're not binning a quad of photosensors; just the reds together, greens together (x2), and blues together...  So yes, it is easy.

In the attached image you bin the following:
r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1+r1=r1'
g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1+g₁1=g₁1'
g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1+g₂1=g₂1'
b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1+b1=b1'
And you bin down right back into a bayer pattern which you can than save as-is, or demosaic, or whatever.

26
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 09, 2013, 02:09:03 PM »
I've had a 5D3 since shortly after it was available, and I can honestly say I haven't shot a single second of video with it.  I also have a 60D, also since shortly after it was available, I think I've shot maybe two short videos.

I just have zero interest in video. Stills are way more interesting to me.

I don't have any illusion that a modern DSLR without video would be cheaper, in fact the opposite is more likely true.  I would bet however, that compromises in stills performance have been made to accommodate video.  But complaining about that would be pretty pointless.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

27
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 11:27:04 AM »
The funniest one I ever heard wasn't towards me, but a friend that's a professional photographer.

He was knee deep in a stream taking some long exposures of a waterfall, tripod, 10 stop ND, etc... and some older gentleman came down to the waters edge to tell him that he'll never be a professional photographer if he keeps using a tripod.

Lol, what?

At that point all you can do is smile and nod.

28
Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:35:27 PM »
Has anyone had experience with the cine version of this lens? I understand that it does have a slightly narrower maximum aperture, but its ring is declicked which could provide dual purpose for video if the build quality and optics are comparable.

The aperture is identical, it's just given in t-stops instead of f-stops.

29
Landscape / Re: Stars...how to focus in pitch black...
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:33:52 AM »
i tried some star shots over the weekend with limited results, see two pictures. These were taken with 5DMKIII, 24-105, tripod and 30 sec exposure, 100iso. My questions is how to focus in pitch black :-\ :-\..there is probably a really simple answer about this but i struggled to get any infocus. any advice, suggestions would be great as i want to try again...and hopefully get  better pic's

The hyperfocal distance at 24mm f/4 is only 15.8 ft, so (greatly simplified) if you focus on anything farther than that, everything behind it will be in focus.  If you have foreground elements you want in focus, as long as they are farther away than that, just focus on them and the stars will be fine.

If you're only worried about the stars, then what I'll usually do is set the lens to infinity, and then back it off just a tiny bit.  Take a test shot, and check for sharpness at 100%.

30
Landscape / Re: Stars...how to focus in pitch black...
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:23:47 AM »
I don't know if 30 seconds is long enough to matter but at some point the (relative) movement of the stars will make them look soft focused or not.

Jim

The rule of thumb to get star pictures without trails is to divide 600 by the focal length, and use that in seconds for your shutter speed.  e.g. 600/24mm=25sec

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46