Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 01:31:39 AM »

Guys, I'll probably ask a very naive and somewhat a silly question... What exactly is the difference between different generations of Canon sensors? I mean, let's say Canon 5d ii and iii share the same sensor (correct?) however 5d iii overall has a better signal/noise ratio. That means that the improvements in the image quality do not necessarily require a new sensor technology? So, why do we all want Canon to have a new generation of sensors in their DSLR? Just curios 

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.  Ask yourself this:  have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo?  If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Something else you might want to ask yourself:  If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed?  Where are the stunning examples of what can be done?  Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point?  Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

If this represents such a huge advance in the state of the art of making art, where the heck is the art?  Galeries won't hang your DxO curves.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can anyone explain what on Earth DXOMark is on about?

« on: April 05, 2013, 02:12:43 PM »

It's simple.  The D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII. Canon, in aggregate and on average, has better lenses than Nikon (in terms of sharpness, at least).  The resolution we care about is the system performance = sensor + lens.  So, while the D800 has a better sensor than the 5DIII, once you slap a lens on both cameras and take pictures, the resolution differences are a wash (on average across a large set of lenses, obviously specific lenses will vary).  I and others have made statements to that effect before, DxO is just quantifying those statements.

Yep... I think it really just comes down to that.  People need to think in terms of the system and not just the individual components.  That is probably the only take away from all of this.

I found it interesting that with the so-called "Holy Trinity" (which is what most pros would be packing or at least lusting after) i.e. the 16-35L II, the 24-70L II and the 70-200LII,  produces better performance when combined with the 5DIII than the Nikon equivalents do when combined with the D800.

18

Canon General / Re: Resources on bottle photography

« on: April 01, 2013, 01:11:19 AM »

Hi guys,

Does anyone have any good resources / links to information and tips on bottle image photography?

I am shooting wine bottles, and my current gear includes
- Light Tent
- 2 lamps
- Tripod
- Speedlite for fill

Several here have recommended the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Magic-Introduction-Photographic/dp/0240812255/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364792450&sr=1-1&keywords=light+science+and+magic

As they have said -- this is the first place to start on the science of lighting.  Additionaly, Syl Arena's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Lighting-Digital-Photography-Snapshots-Portrait/dp/0321832752/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364792551&sr=1-1&keywords=syl+arena

Has an entire section dedicated to your exact problem -- lighting a wine bottle (or a whole collection of them).  It sounds like you have the right gear.  You want to light what the bottle can see with the equivalent of a strip light on the sides of the bottle to define its shape.  The light tent should do this perfectly.
Post your bottle shot when you get it, it will be cool to see what you come up with.

Be sure to clean the darn thing first and make sure that there are no other extraneous light sources that the bottle can "see".  You want to define the sides and the shape of the bottle with strips of light (which will be the reflection of the sides of your light tent in the glass).  It won't look good if the reflection of the kitchen window is there.  This is best done in a darkened room so that the sides of your light tent are the only thing your bottle can "see".

No fair emptying the bottle until after you have a proper image :-).

19

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Nik Collection Bundle for $126.65

« on: March 29, 2013, 11:31:25 PM »

I think I read on this sight the other day..that if you have purchased one or more Nik software previous to this offer (which I have), that there will be an opportunity from Nik/Google to acquire the rest of the bundle for free. Does anyone have info on this offer???
Thanks.

Yes, that is the case.  I got an e-mail from them with a link to download teh SW.  Hopefully they have fixed the link by now since it was missing the .exe extension.  Once you stick that on there it works just fine.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]

« on: March 25, 2013, 01:21:58 AM »

7DII having more pro features. ?

Such as ?

No pop up flash.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Frustrated with Canon

« on: March 17, 2013, 03:03:35 PM »

Am I alone in feeling that Canon has, perhaps, lost its way at the top end of the market, albeit temporarily ?  The new top end models simply don't provide what I want. The EOS1DX is clearly a sports camera body, not a studio camera, and I resent Canon for trying to pretend that it is.

I've been with Canon now for years, having used their EOS film bodies before digital . Time spent with Nikon !DXs confirmed my view that Canon had far superior ergonomics, and five years ago, the Canon EOS1DS Mk III was a game changer. However, since then Canon seems to have lost touch with its professional customers. As a result, last year, I bought a Nikon ( D800E) which I currently run along side my Canon equipment. It is a fine camera. Nikon seems to have priced this camera very competitively indeed, and I gather that it is making large inroads into what should have been the preserve of the 5D3 market.

Now we're told that Canon have no intention of producing a higher MP camera until next year, and given Canon's habit of announcing cameras long before they actually become available, the reality could be some time after that.  By which time the Nikon D4X will be out.   

How frustrating. I want to stay with Canon, but they sure are making it difficult.

The only reason I'm still shooting canon is the prime lens selection is better and AF. That's about it.

Oh and Flash is better on canon now.

"Oh and Flash is better on canon now."

I absolutely agree with that.  I always admired the Nikon flash's ability to "just get it right" in the automatic modes.  What I find amazing with the 5DIII / 600EX combination I am using now is that I now have the same feelings about Canon.  I no longer have Nikon "ITTL Envy".  The new stuff just seems to work.  It may be in part due to improved metering in the 5DIII as well.  I used a 5DII / 580 setup before.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: Frustrated with Canon

« on: March 17, 2013, 02:59:33 PM »

I'm frustrated with Nikon so I bought Canon

Ok, then... what was it that frustrated you with Nikon?

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK iii - Help a n00b select AF modes

« on: March 14, 2013, 01:37:29 AM »

Hi guys,

In the hunt for becoming a better photographer, my new camera is bringing me all sorts of joys.

But, I am a little confused as to the general consensus of what AF mode to leave my camera in is best. I started using Single Point AF, then surround and even grid.. But I am unsure as what you guys use and whether or not there is a specific 'general' mode you leave it in?

I leave mine in single point mode with the 8 assist points surrounding.  I use the dials and joystick to move that cluster where it makes the most sense for what I am doing.  I have been a center point and re-compose shooter for so long that most of the time the thing is in the center.

24

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

« on: March 13, 2013, 12:03:07 PM »

This is not the first time that such claims from this dxo company seem unbelievable. I don't have the physics background to dive into this. But this seems rather a very singular approach to what is clearly a sum of multiple parts. I don't own a Leica (unfortunately) and I don't own a Micro 4/3rd either. But the real life results that I see are pretty obvious in favor of the Leica system. And I'm just talking about the various test shots that I've seen and should not include the "Leica buyers are more serious about photography" factor which may or may not be true.

Maybe the Leica sensors are technically "inferior" in this or that way but I still like looking at the results some folks are getting. And I have to admit that I wish I could afford the M system. It would work well with my preferences.

You seem to be doing the error of believing that "if camera A has better DR than camera B, then camera A must produce better images. If it does not, then DR must be wrongfully measured".

This is not so. People make wonderful images using low-DR capturing.

Just like a 36 MP camera does not in itself make better pictures than an 18 MP camera. The photographer makes pictures, the camera facilitates. A high-resolution camera can enable some images that would be hard to do on a 18 MP camera.

-h
-h

That sums it up right there IMO, there seem to be way too much focus on minutia, IMO.

25

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

« on: March 13, 2013, 11:59:12 AM »

True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.

I think that I have a some understanding and experience in digital photography. While I agree that for general photography, the differences tends to be minor, when the shot depends on a large capture DR, I find the work-arounds to be clumsy, time-consuming and possible shot-ruining.

Not something that newbies or professionals would want to do if they could avoid it.

-h

I think that I have a some understanding and experience in digital photography.

As do I and I have never found the so-called DR issues of any of the Canon products to be a significant limitation -- nor have countless thousands of others who use the stuff on a day-to-day basis for both professional and amateur work.
 
The particular value of this feature (like any other) is clearly dependent on what you shoot and how you shoot it (as you seem to allude).  Over the years of discussing this stuff, and having significant personal experience with the gear in question, it has been my observation that most of these differences are significantly over hyped by individuals who seem to have specific agendas to promote.  This is probably not the case with you, but there has been plenty of it about.

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

« on: March 13, 2013, 09:48:03 AM »

Interestingly, the low marks didn't seem to have affected the brand's prestige or sales.  The same might be said of Canon's marks vs Nikon. It would seem most people view DxO Mark as little more than a scientific curiosity.  Not something you'd base a serious purchasing decision on.

Most people, even most photographers, probably does not even know about DXO mark. I believe that primarily people reading forums like this knows about DXO mark.

The DXO measurements (and similar data produces by others) affect my equipment choices. But they are far from my only source, since they cover only a part of what makes a camera "good" to me.

I think that DXO have seriously shifted landscape photographers towards Nikon. Those who chose a 5Dmk2 in the previous generation might have chosen a D800(e) today partially motivated by DXO. Unless their lense needs (or investement) keeps them back.

-h

True for newbies, perhaps but anyone else especially someone with a bit of understanding and some experience in digital photography knows that the differences between what the two brands are offering are relatively minor and easy to work around.

27

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: About Cross Type Focus Points

« on: March 01, 2013, 01:50:02 AM »

Hellow

I need some about the cross type focus points.
The cross type focus points (combination of phase detection & contrast detection) are they mostly useful in the Live view mode for Video/Stills?
And If I consider stills only, I mean using the viewfinder will the focusing be lot faster?
For Example, the 600D/T3i' focusing system only has 1 cross type..So does this matters for stills?

A cross type focus point is a focus point that is responsive to detail in two dimensions.  It consists of two co-located line sensor arrays arranged like a "+" sign or an "x" that are capable of responding to details in the scene which are oriented horizontally or vertically.  A non-cross type point (visualize it looking like a “-“ sign) is only sensitive to detail in one orientation (the orientation perpendicular to the layout of the sensor array).  All of these work by phase detection.

28

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT

« on: February 26, 2013, 10:04:06 AM »

Never had any problem with PocketWizards and Canon flashes but then I don't life in an FCC area. I life in an EC area were different frequencies are used to communicate with the PocketWizards.

In short it was an problem caused by Canon who produced interference in a bandwidth that used for communications. 

Read more on FCC on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
Read more on EC on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking

From PocketWizard self: http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/technology/range/

All I'm saying is that if Pocket Wizard produced a product for a pre-existing Canon product, then it should have been thoroughly tested in all the markets.  Did Canon make a flash with too much RF interference? Yup. Did Pocketwizard do their due diligence to make sure this wouldn't affect their customers? nope.

Did Canon make a flash with too much RF interference? Nope.  If you look at the device there is an FCC compliance logo stamped right into the plastic this means that the device met all FCC requirements at the time of its manufacture.  If you read the FCC part 15 requirements you will see that the onus is on Pocket Wizard to make sure their device works with the devices it is supposed to work with.  "Did Pocket Wizard do their due diligence to make sure this wouldn't affect their customers? Absolutely not."  Canon is not at fault on this one, the fault lies entirely with LPA Designs, the PW manufacturer.  I have been through quite a number of FCC, part 15 qualifications for various products over the years.  BTW: it also caries an EC sticker and tehir requirements are even tougher.

29

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT

« on: February 26, 2013, 09:49:53 AM »

Never had any problem with PocketWizards and Canon flashes but then I don't life in an FCC area. I life in an EC area were different frequencies are used to communicate with the PocketWizards.

In short it was an problem caused by Canon who produced interference in a bandwidth that used for communications. 

Read more on FCC on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
Read more on EC on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking

From PocketWizard self: http://www.pocketwizard.com/inspirations/technology/range/

This is Pocket Wizard's fault for not testing the product properly.  The Canon flash is fully compliant with all of the international regulations that were in force at the time of its design and manufacturer.  That is what all of those little logos that are plastered on them mean.  Radio Popper, other PW's etc. work fine it was LPA Design's responsibility to make their product work with Canon, not the other way around.  The simple fact is that LPA did a poor engineering job and did not test their product properly. 

30

Software & Accessories / Re: Suggestions on how to organize all my years of photo's in LR 4.3?

« on: February 18, 2013, 01:52:02 AM »

Currently they are in windows

Year
      Month
              Date taken folders

I tried the iphoto thing years ago and it ruined years of phot's so very hesitant to do something that will not leave them in their original repository on my server. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

What you have is fine.  Now since you are in LR start tagging your photos.  It is unlimited what you can do using the database driven architecture of a program like LR.  Start with people’s names; organize these in terms of Friends, Family, etc.  My folders are Year -> Quarter -> YYYYMMDD_Description.  The whole point of LR is that you don’t need a folder structure any more complex than what you have.

You have to be religious about tagging though.