November 27, 2014, 07:29:16 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46
46
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D vs D7100 ISO Comparison at 100%
« on: September 03, 2013, 10:23:31 PM »
Mikael, you are hereby banned for life.  Don't make a new account, don't come back.  You will be noticed, and we're not going to give you another chance.

You are knowledgeable and and can bring a much needed voice of dissent at times, and because of that we regret doing this, but you bring out the worst in everyone here, and your behavior can no longer be tolerated.

EVERYONE ELSE....

Your behavior in this thread has been no better.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Act like adults, and have civil discussions.

47
Technical Support / Re: Using IR function in Yongnuo 622's
« on: September 03, 2013, 07:28:43 PM »
ok,  problem solved.  I  had the right settings within the camera menu,  but I did have a ai  servo on.   thanks for the help y'all.

Awesome, glad you got it sorted.

48
Lenses / Re: De-centered 17-40L - worth repairing?
« on: September 03, 2013, 10:32:15 AM »
Are you a CPS member?  It may not be that expensive to fix.

49
Technical Support / Re: Using IR function in Yongnuo 622's
« on: August 28, 2013, 10:14:11 AM »
Quick note, not sure if it applies in your case...

I assume you're talking about the focus assist beam, which turns off automatically if you're in servo AF.  Like I said... not sure if it applies in your case, just thought I'd throw that out there since many people don't know that.

50
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:53:25 AM »

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge).  Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so.  Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt.  None of these things make it a bad lens though.  I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny.  But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.

51
Side note/question... Has anyone had any experience with the cine and non-cine versions of the same lens?  They're optically identical, but is there any build quality improvement on the cine version?

I'm looking at the 14/2.8 and the extra cost for the cine version would be worth it for a focus ring that isn't sloppy.

52
Like it's 16mm f/2 brother, this lens is unfortunately crop only.

53
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 07:40:35 AM »
My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots.  Looks natural to me.  Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.

54
Canon General / Re: Thrown in deep waters... throw me buoys pls..
« on: July 28, 2013, 01:41:21 PM »
Sanj, who are you kidding? You are a cinematographer. You can teach them stuff till the wildebeest come home! :)

hahahahhaha. BUT still photography has its own processes. Besides on a set I work with over 6 assistant and 15 lighting guys. Here I will be alone. What if they ask me a question I do not know the answer to? Eiks!

Admit you don't know, or that have an incomplete answer, but that you'll look into it and get back to them.  People that think they know everything and will give a false answer to maintain the facade, are the worst people to be teachers.

You had the humility to come here to ask for help, so I already know you're not that type of person.  And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone else when I say you produce magnificent work.  If you can impart even a tiny fraction of that on your students, they will have gotten their monies worth tenfold.

But that's the difficult part, isn't it?  Giving them the tools (rules/fundamentals) is easy, helping them understand and find their own vision is quite difficult.

I wish you the best of luck, I'm sure you'll do a wonderful job!  Don't forget to take some pictures for yourself and have some fun :)

55
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 24, 2013, 02:08:02 PM »
what do you mean JRISTA that smaller pixels will be noisier?

The snr on an individual pixel will get worse as it's scaled down, the snr of the sensor as a whole will (should) improve though.

56
waiting for an 85 actually. I have the 35 and the EF 135L so all I need is a better than 85 1.8 and faster focusing than 85 1.2 for my atheist trinity

Lol, LOVE IT, I'm so stealing that term.

57
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 23, 2013, 10:00:40 PM »
The engineering of production equipment, and product testing equipment most often is a larger task that the original product development. Leading edge semi products are the worst, especially considering "leading Edge" is a fleeting concept. Add site development, personnel training, and local "government influence" two years to create a high tech fab facility is the best you could expect. (Mind you, these facilities are now constructed in what were/are 3rd world countries).

Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.

You're assuming they'd be standing up a new fab to create this chip, or at least a new process, both would almost certainly be incorrect.

They almost certainly will be using their existing fab, and existing 500nm process.

Granted, this still isn't something you can stand up in an afternoon, but there's NO WAY it would take years.

flanderscamera has said his opinion is based on professional experience in manufacturing.
What are your counter-opinions based on?

Sure, they could retro-fit an old fab with a newer process, but this is rarely done (the value of keeping the old fab running and the cost building a new one is higher than stopping the fab and retrofitting costs).

flanderscamera: I would have thought that Canon would put a new fab inside Japan, but I'm not exactly familiar with their fabs. Sounds to me you are suggesting to put a fab in countries like Indonesia, Philippines, or Vietnam.

They've been using the same process in the same fabs for a decade for their DSLR sensors. Even at 75MP, 500nm is plenty fine enough for any feature, unless they move amps & ADCs on die (which would be awesome btw), or did fancy stuff like on die binning, in either of those cases I'm not even remotely qualified to make a statement of whether 500nm would be sufficient.  So my position is based on historical precedence, and simple logic.  If flanderscamera has evidence to the contrary I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, myself included.

Migrating to a new process, or even just to a larger wafer size in the same process, is incredibly expensive.  And a whole new fab with modern tooling is in the neighborhood of $1-2bn.  I would love to hear they are making that investment, and would love to be proven wrong.  And if that is the case, then flanderscamera's timeline would be just about right.  I just haven't seen anything to support that, so I'm skeptical.

58
Yes I too was expecting about 2.2
DXOMark said it's 1.8, although that is pretty unusual

Oh, wow... that is quite unusual.  If correct, bravo Sigma, bravo.

59
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 23, 2013, 05:09:33 PM »
The engineering of production equipment, and product testing equipment most often is a larger task that the original product development. Leading edge semi products are the worst, especially considering "leading Edge" is a fleeting concept. Add site development, personnel training, and local "government influence" two years to create a high tech fab facility is the best you could expect. (Mind you, these facilities are now constructed in what were/are 3rd world countries).

Japanese companies are blame/credit centric. Before the start of any project, a chain of blame (in the case of project failure) and credit (in case all works out well) has to be established. This is very time consuming.

You're assuming they'd be standing up a new fab to create this chip, or at least a new process, both would almost certainly be incorrect.

They almost certainly will be using their existing fab, and existing 500nm process.

Granted, this still isn't something you can stand up in an afternoon, but there's NO WAY it would take years.

60
I may sell my Canon 17-55/2.8 to get this lens.  I'm very interested.  T-stop of 1.8.  They weren't fibbing....

The F-stop is 1.8, the T-stop will probably be in the 2-2.1 neighborhood, possibly 2.2 with that many elements.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46