September 21, 2014, 10:21:57 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:29:55 PM »
Guys, if you were recommend one CF model for the 7Dii, what would it be?
It depends on what you shoot, but the I'd go for at least 32GB and probably 64GB and the latest 1066x / 1067x cards from Sandisk or Lexar.  They aren't cheap, but will last you for many years.  Also, Adorama runs really good sales on the Lexar cards pretty frequently.  The 1000x cards are a good compromise if you don't want to spend so much, but make sure you don't fall for the 800x cards.  They are a lot cheaper, but they only read a 800x, and write far slower.  It's great to download, but lousy for burst shooting.

I don't know, maybe UDMA6 or UDMA7 (133+MB/s) card makes a lot of sense for large amounts of data transfer through USB3 reader, but I think that anything with ~60+MB/s is fine. Sandisk, Lexar, Kingston, Transcend... doesn't really matter. I would go for better price.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:12:49 PM »
I prefer CF.
Both formats can be fast enough and 7D's big memory buffer makes it even more irrelevant for most users. However, CF cards tend to work faster, even when compared to higher rated SD cards. That depends on your camera as well.
SD cards are cheaper, because they are more popular and have wider field of use (because they are smaller, simpler, use less power and because they became cheap). They are not really better in speed or data safety. CF cards (even dual slots) are used in professional gear for a reason. Just don't buy cheap counterfeit pin-benders.

EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:37:04 AM »
Excited? - Mostly :)
New 65-point AF system, 10fps, deep memory buffer for RAW series, f/8 AF, DPAF, excellent build, ergonomics and view finder.
Disappointed? - Yes, a bit.
It seems like Canon gave up on video competition - no 4K, no focus peaking, no zebra (maybe magic lantern will fix that), no vari-angle touch screen. Instead, they are only now catching up with Sony's 1080@60p from 2010.
I'm afraid that we are going to see the same 20mp 70D sensor in all upcoming APS-C bodies for the next 3 years, like it was with the old 18mp.
Mixed memory card type slots (SD+CF) make little sense to me and I'd rather take WiFi and no GPS. That's just me, not a deal breaker. After all, the SD slot may be used for Eye-Fi card.

Built-in RT (+WiFi) module would have been nice :).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro Photography - APS-C Vs Full Frame
« on: September 15, 2014, 04:07:59 PM »
Superb clarity and noise free image Neuro. It's that kind if IQ I'm looking for.

Sorry to say, but you're not going to find that on any current APS-C camera at ISO 6400.   ;)

I think they are quite noisy even at ISO 100 :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro Photography - APS-C Vs Full Frame
« on: September 15, 2014, 11:19:11 AM »
Specifically for macro photography, APS-C has the advantage. The shallow depth of field in macro, becomes even more critical with full frame. In practice, a photo you are used to doing with F11 aperture with APS-C, will need F19 apertura to get the same depth of field with full frame.

In fact, that's not true.  It's one of those 'you can't have your cake and eat it, too' situations...

If you match framing, you do get deeper DoF with APS-C as in your f/11 vs. f/19 example. stop the lens on FF down to f/19, problem solved.  For the sensors under consideration, diffraction will be no different at those apertures (you'll lose a little bit of sharpness with both).  If you need the same shutter speed with ambient light, you raise the ISO to compensate – there's no noise penalty with the better high ISO performance of FF, and if you don't need to raise the shutter speed you have less noise with FF. 

If you match magnification (same distance to subject), the DoF with APS-C is actually shallower than FF at the same aperture.  You have to stop down a bit with APS-C...and if you're at f/11, the FF image isn't being softened by diffraction, but the APS-C image is losing sharpness, and it loses more if you stop it down to match DoF.

So, APS-C really offers no advantage over FF in terms of DoF.  However, there are potential advantages in other areas.  If you match framing, you're further from the subject with APS-C.  The greater working distance is an advantage when shooting skittish insects.  If you match magnification, you get more pixels on target with APS-C (assuming your subject is smaller than the APS-C sensor).

The OP mentions an issue with noise in the ambient background of shots with the T1i/500D and ring flash; the 7DII might be slightly better in that regard, but a FF sensor will bring noticeable improvement.

Personally, I prefer FF for macro work (based on my experience having the 5DII and 7D concurrently).  Here's a shot with the 100L, no way I'd have used this ISO with APS-C...

EOS 1D X, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, 1/160 s, f/11, ISO 6400

Given the OP's stated uses, I honestly think the 5DIII would be the ideal choice.  It's the best of both worlds (great AF, great high ISO performance, costs less than the combo of 7DII and 6D).  If that's out of budget, the 7DII is probably the better choice.  The AF should be great for BIF, but it's worth noting that BIF requires high shutter speeds, which often means pretty high ISO, especially with an f/5.6 lens – APS-C is fine if there's ample light, but with heavy overcast or at sunset, often not so much.

Yes, and if you are using the MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x Macro, then FF is definitely the one you want to put it on. APS-C is usually too small for a proper framing of an average size insect.

Photography Technique / Re: Benefits of IS in fast shutter speeds
« on: September 10, 2014, 04:07:55 PM »
The IS with fast SS helps getting better framing when using really long lenses. Nothing more.

+1   I find the jittery frame without IS very disturbing and distracting in telephoto lenses. The IS helps a lot to see what is happening, especially if you are trying to capture a precise moment or any subtleties. The IS stabilizes the viewfinder.

To which focal lengths does that refer?

Let's say 300mm+ on FF and 200mm+ on crop

Photography Technique / Re: Benefits of IS in fast shutter speeds
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:58:47 PM »
The IS with fast SS helps getting better framing when using really long lenses. Nothing more.

Lenses / Re: Input on building a prime lens kit
« on: September 08, 2014, 11:55:41 AM »
40/2.8STM is basically my do-it-all FF prime kit lens (aka body cap pancake :) ), but sometimes my mood changes and I use my Sigma 150/2.8Macro for everything, specially outdoors (yes, I do mostly macro and people). So, I could live with these two. Stitching and cropping works well for me. Otherwise I would use Samyang 14/2.8UMC and 85/1.8USM. However, before buying any new lens, I would wait for Photokina. Some say Sigma will bring some new toys, like 24/1.4ART and maybe 85/1.4ART.
For 1 prime kit - a single 50/1.4 should do.
For 2 prime kit - your 35/2 IS USM and 100L Macro may work fine (I'm not a fan of this 35mm bokeh).
For 3 prime kit - I would add something wider 14, 20 or 24, your choice.

Lenses / Re: Is there a need for a 50mm?
« on: September 07, 2014, 04:14:51 PM »
I love walking around with my 70-200 with the 40 in my pocket.
You really need big pockets to put in the 70-200 should you want to switch to the 40, though.

That's doable, actually. All you need is a strap for your 70-200, instead of the body. :)

Lenses / Re: Is there a need for a 50mm?
« on: September 07, 2014, 04:11:56 PM »
I'd just be interested in knowing of a fast zoom that's faster than f/2.8 regardless of the make/compatibility.  I've never seen one to my knowledge.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8...generally considered an excellent lens.  It's for APS-C only, though.

Yeap, no need for fast primes on crop since 18-35/1.8 arrived, unless you have some kind of pocketability fetish ;).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Guessing Game- Canon or Nikon?
« on: September 04, 2014, 05:37:28 PM »
Sorry but this thread would only make sense if one were posting unedited RAW files taken under controlled conditions. Once processing is allowed we are looking at the skill of the person processing the image not just the capabilities of of the camera + lens.
I really don't understand the constant Canon vs Nikon squabbles - for my uses Canon is better but for many others Nikon is a better choice.
So the best advice is choose - don't waste time on endless and pointless discussions which resolve nothing and inform nobody.

Interesting. That is the entire point of this thread. You are a quick study. :-)

The camera brand is irrelevant. Many people here on cr argue vehemently for one brand over another... Trying to convince each other through theory, physics and math. Bottom line... None of it really matters. Whether a camer has 10 stops of DR or 11 or 12... Doesn't matter!

Also, to further my point... No one shares raw files. They are not finished products. It's the capture and the post processing of these files that makes an image. The intent of this thread is not to actually compare sensors or brands... It's to point out that while those details can make a difference to some... In the big picture it really just doesn't matter. Even the people who an extra stop or two of DR makes a HUGE difference, it is only in a tiny percentage of the images they make.

I applaud the point you are trying to make.

I've never gotten the Nikon vs. Canon thing myself. Just as I've never gotten the APS-C vs. Full Frame fight.

I've tried to make the point many, many times that the most inexpensive DSLR today is light years ahead of what could be produced during the film era.

But, the reality is: 1) people need to justify their purchases, so they "see" differences that either don't exist or don't matter; 2) some people have a deep seated need to have the "best" and they take offense when they perceive that someone else might own a product that is "better" even though it may be in some small, insignificant way; 3) Some people just like to be argumentative and get their jollies by making outrageous statements and watching people react; 4) Some people are unable to reconcile the reality that they may not be the greatest photographer who ever walked the earth and think that if they just had the other guy's camera they would be a better photographer; 5) Some people just need to be on a "team" and root for their side.

Camera brand matters mostly before shooting and while editing the image, not after all the work is done.

I think you miss the point. Camera brand doesn't matter.

Sure it does. After all this is CanonRumors, not WhateverCameraRumors :).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Guessing Game- Canon or Nikon?
« on: September 04, 2014, 03:31:03 PM »
Camera brand matters mostly before shooting and while editing the image, not after all the work is done.

Here is a way of calculating the effective extra reach or resolving power of a crop body versus FF, which will amuse the geeks among us...

MTF is not a measure of resolution, it is a measure of a lenses ability to transmit contrast of the original scene through a lens.  That's all it measures.

If what you really want is true image resolution, then there are two correct ways of measuring it.  The first is a measurement of the performance of the lens itself.  This measurement can be found in using something like a USAF resolution test chart and a microscope to perform aerial inspections of the image of the chart after it has passed through the lens.

Problems with this approach include difficultly in setting up a test bench (it's not easy at all).  Additionally, the final result will not include measurements of chromatic aberrations, image distortions, field curvature, etc.  The most important missing element in this kind of test is the exclusion of the imaging system itself.  However, if the question is about real optical resolution, this test will give you the right answer.

Which leads to the second way of measuring, well, actually calculating real image resolution.  This is diagnostic and very simple to perform.  Simply take the number of image points ("pixels") in your file, divide by the size of your sensor (in millimeters), and divide by two.  This number will represent the number of Line Pair per Millimeter (the measure of the ability to go from one white line to one black line) that your sensor can resolve.

This is rather interesting in that you can quickly see that a Canon 7D 18 mpixel sensor is capable of resolving 116 line pair per mm.  The Canon 5D MkII is capable of 78 lppmm.  As a comparison, Sony's 36mpixel FF sensor is capable of resolving 102 lppmm and Phase One's monster 80mpixel IQ180 returns 97lppmm.

Taking this a step further, look carefully at the physical limits (as in optical physics) of optical resolution, as measured in lppmm.  You see that at f/2, an optically correct lens will return 695lppmm in the center of the scene where the light's wavelength is 589.3mu (green).  At f/11, an optically correct lens will return 123lppmm, dropping off to 92lppmm at 25 degrees off-axis tangential.

Looking at this over the years, I have come to realize there is seldom a lens in-capable of resolving so poorly that a sensor (or old film for that matter) could out-resolve the lens.  Sure, there are other optical effects, but we are talking pure resolution here.  Nothing more.

Think about this for a moment.  MTF does _not_ measure optical resolution.  While useful, it does _not_ tell the story of resolution, no matter how much "math" you throw at it.  Secondly, and perhaps most interestingly, optical physics show diffraction limited resolution at f/11 EXCEEDS currently manufactured sensors ability to return that resolution in all cases. 

Rather shocking, don't you think?

Back to the original poster's point: Canon's 7D sensor outresolves (using the correct application of the word "resolution") the FF sensors from any manufacturer.  It does so, however, for reasons other than those that were brought up.

Correct application of rational thought and real world science can help us properly understand and identify the errors and misleading comments widely published by marketeers and critics of optical imaging systems.

You see, if Canon had made a FF camera with 7D's pixel density, then there wouldn't be any questions - FF wins, period.
Nikon did that with their D7000/D7100 vs D800/D810. You crop FF and you get almost exactly what the pre-cropped D7000/D7100 produce. In fact, you can just shoot in DX mode on D800...
So there is no global question about crop winning anything vs FF other than price.
The question is why Canon didn't make that 46mp FF camera?
Was it because consumers didn't ask for it? - Maybe.
Why didn't they ask for it? - Because they are too ignorant in How-It-Works department. They are affected by this ... More_Pixels=More_noise=Bigger_Files=My_Old_iBox_Can't_Handle_it
 ... virus :).

Lmao, +1

You forgot the part about how the equipment doesn't matter, and a good photographer could take a photo better than the hubble deep field with their iPhone.

Thanks for reminding about that one. Actually, there are plenty of them (like - "macro lenses are too sharp for portraits" or "I shoot JPEG, because I'm no pixel-peeper" or "look at these 300x200 images, 1DX and a Rebel both look the same, so why pay more..."), but who's counting :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43