October 20, 2014, 06:39:05 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 145
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:33:42 PM »
So much hand-wringing and over-the-top comments over basically a "filler" post that doesn't even carry a CR rating.

This is pure speculation folks. Nothing more.

However, I do particularly enjoy all the people who swear the won't buy a 70D unless it has the same sensor as a 7DII. I'm sure Canon would be quaking in their boots for fear that all those people who want to buy a 70D would have to buy a 7DII instead.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Noise Reduction Tips
« on: January 23, 2013, 04:11:37 PM »
Getting some good tips here. I hope it continues. One aside on sharpening. Lately I've been playing a lot with Scott Kelby's technique of using the high-pass filter.

For those unfamiliar with this filter, it is in the "other" submenu in the filters menu. A quick summary: duplicate the layer (cntl-J) select the duplicate layer. Go to the high-pass filter. Set it at a low level (just enough for the edges to show up -- usually somewhere between 2-4)

Apply the filter. Then in the layer's panel, using the drop down list at top, select hard light to start. If that is too intense, try another choice (soft light).

But don't quit there.

Add a layer mask and then, using a soft edged paintbrush, paint out the details where you don't want them (oftentimes, with a person, I may only leave the mask visible for the person's eyes and lips, giving them soft skin but sharp eye features. For shots of things or nature, I will usually paint out the layer mask in the sky or background -- in other words, any areas where you don't want every little detail to show up.)

Anyone else use this technique? I've saved several shots where my focus was just slightly off. With careful masking and painting, only the details you want to pop will really pop.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 01:33:31 PM »
Okay, this discussion has gotten me intrigued by those who get such great results at higher ISOs. I've started a new thread asking for tips and tricks. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12529.0 Please take a few minutes to share with your fellow Canon 7D users.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 7D Noise Reduction Tips
« on: January 23, 2013, 01:30:30 PM »
Reading this discussion http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12519.0 and seeing some of the great examples of higher ISO on the 7D I thought I'd start a new thread and ask people to share their tips and tricks for getting lower noise at higher ISOs on the 7D.

I consider myself reasonably competent in Photoshop and Camera RAW, and as long as I keep the ISO around 400 (I'm an old film guy and that good old Tri-X film speed remains my 'standard') I have no problem enlarging prints to as much as 24 x 36 with no visible noise. But, once I go above 800 everything seems to fall apart.

I'm very impressed with some of the work shown in the other thread by those who shoot at higher ISOs and I'd like to know more about their post-processing techniques. Please share.

Sports / Re: Tenpin Bowling
« on: January 22, 2013, 02:13:35 PM »
You are using ISO up to 4000 and your pictures still looking great. What kind of software you are using for de-noise? Never got such results on my 7D, even with Topaz Denoise.

Kind regards, eL

Yes, please tell us a bit about your post-processing. I've never had much luck with anything above 1000 and I'm a real advocate of the 7D.

Lenses / Re: Dust Donut - Add Weather Sealing to Any Lens
« on: January 18, 2013, 09:55:50 AM »
I think people are being a bit harsh. This doesn't seem any worse than those overpriced lens sleeves that are so popular.

On the other hand, I'd want to make sure it doesn't do more harm than good. I'd have two concerns:

Is this going to mess up the tolerances between the lens and the body? Probably not, but I'd want to read some reviews before buying; and,

What kind of plastic is being used? I ask because I had an Otter Box that was a real dust magnet. Something about it's surface just seemed to draw dust and hold onto it like glue. It worked fine for protecting the phone, because the dust stayed on the outside, but it would be a disaster for something like this.

Lenses / Re: History behind the white lens
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:40:03 PM »
...why is the 200 f2.8 prime black while the 70-200 f4 is white?

Not denying that some of this is marketing, but in the specific case above, the 70-200/4 has a fluorite element, while the 200/2.8 does not (fluorite is more thermally sensitive than glass).  But then...the 70-300L has no fluorite, nor do the 300/4 IS or 400/5.6 (although the 100-400 does), which is why I'm not denying some of this is marketing...

As usual, you know the technical specs far better than I ever will. But you also get my point. If I'm paying $1,300 for a lens, I want it in white and with a red ring, dammit!

Marsu- tak all the time you need- it's a big decision...

Thanks for understanding!

It is indeed a decision that should last for some time...

...Unfortunately, unlike in the US in Germany there are nearly no "deals" or "instant rebates", just the regular Canon rebates (more limited than in the US and not including the gear I want) or eBay EU imports that aren't much cheaper either...

Well, if I were you, I'd hurry, because it sounds like the rest of the EU is going to empty the pockets of everyone in Germany before too much longer. :)

Lenses / Re: History behind the white lens
« on: January 17, 2013, 02:10:47 PM »
From the source: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/black_or_white_lenses.do
This is the correct answer .

I don't know, I kind of want to call b.s. on some of the official explanation.

I'm sure that the original purpose was as stated, but I'm also pretty sure that Canon uses white on lenses like the 70-300 "L" , 70-200 f4, and probably even the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, as a marketing tool so us mere mortals can own a "white" lens.

After all, why would the non "L" versions of the 70-300 zooms be okay in black but the "L" version require white, when they all use the same aperture and why is the 200 f2.8 prime black while the 70-200 f4 is white?

Canon is a smart company. They know their white lenses are a good marketing tool and, regardless of the original reason, it's clear they are now using it for marketing purposes as well.

Lenses / Re: New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:26:13 AM »
That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....

Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means......  it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.

Let's all sing the praises of the FF sensor. They are better than APS-C... that's a fact and not debateable... but why not continue this discussion on to it's logical conclusion and skip past medium format sensors and go straight to large format sensors.... a large format sensor could be made that would anahilate the specs of any FF sensor. Ok, the camera and lens(s) would be insanely large, heavy, and expensive, and only the photo elite could use it or afford it, but the pictures would be better.... I used to carry around a 8x10 with glass plates....did that mean that every other film camera was a piece of S___???? of course not! Same logic holds with sensor sizes.

The reason for APS-C (and smaller) sensors is to make cameras of a size and cost that will appeal to the masses. It is a cost and ergonomics thing at the expense of image quality. A lens that covers an APS-C circle is smaller, lighter, and less expensive to manufacture than a FF lens. The vast bulk of people will never understand why you would pay $500 for a lens.... and $5,000 for a lens is unthinkable. these are the same people that buy hundreds of rebels and point/shoots for every "pro" camera sold.... these are the people that are paying for the R/D to keep new inovations coming, these are the people that are paying to keep the lights on at the Canon factory.

Next time you want to start a rant about something, think before you type.....

Good post with some excellent points. I would go a little further though: film technology was much more mature and improvements much more incremental. Thus, there were much larger differences between image quality in various formats.  Digital has narrowed those differences significantly. A properly exposed and processed APS-C image can easily be printed at sizes that would have been unthinkable with 35mm film of the same ISO.

So, while bigger may always be better, it isn't that much better and the differences are often noticeable only when pushing the envelope.

Finally, this "full frame or nothing" mentality reveals a mindset that puts superficial appearance over true quality of the images. There is no more influential and significant photographic work of the past 60-70 years than Robert Frank's "The Americans." Many of the images were grainy and the focus was certainly not razor sharp, yet the images changed the course of photography and continue to inspire and influence photographers nearly sixty years later.

If your main objective in photography is to produce a picture with no visible noise when enlarged to the size of a billboard, 40 stops of dynamic range and a millimeter of depth of field, you're missing the point of photography.

Lenses / Re: Question about variable aperture
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:22:43 AM »
Thanks Neuro: Does it mean that the 70-200 mk.ii could possibly do 70mm @ f/0.98 ? (200/2.8 = 71.4, and 70/ 71.4 = 0.98) Since the lens element is large enough?  So the lens potentially could be a Variable 70-200 f/0.98 -2.8L ? If they so chose to build it with similar glass elements?

Chuck Westfall answers that in the link above (the answer is 'no', BTW).

What Chuck seems to be saying is that they design it this way. Not sure it fully answers my question. Chuck is saying that the Iris changes (becomes larger when you zoom to 200mm) .... well don't make it go larger, just let it sit there at 71mm when we zoom at 70mm, not make it go smaller when we go to 70mm. I am sure it is not that simple as i made it out... but I am curious what happens if they do not vary the "virtual" iris at all?

Agreed, I read Westfall's response and I don't think he ever answers the question. He "explains" how constant aperture lenses work – sort of; but he doesn't answer the question posed to him, which seems to be: why not a variable aperture lens with 2.8 at the long end and f1 at the short end.

Canon General / Re: refurbished Canon 5d mk iii
« on: January 13, 2013, 06:32:33 PM »
You are asking a question that no one can answer.

No one knows what the re-sell value of a 5DIII might be in two-three years, refurbished or otherwise. Based on recent past, DSLR bodies depreciate rapidly once a new model comes out. Will that be the case with the 5DIII? Probably, but it depends on what features the 5DIV has or if you wait until the 5D V to re-sell it.

I don't understand why anyone cares about the re-sell value of their camera bodies. Camera's aren't investments, they are tools. When it's time to replace one, replace it. If you choose to sell the old body, you'll get whatever the market it commanding at the time. If you want to increase the re-sell value at that point, send it in to Canon before you sell it and have them give it a thorough going-over and cleaning.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D weatherproofness, tested.
« on: January 13, 2013, 10:38:15 AM »
As this thread indicates, cameras may be weather-resistant, but no camera should be considered stupid-proof. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: whats up with 5d2 used pricing?
« on: January 12, 2013, 02:23:46 PM »
as a 450D user I'm on the hunt for a good deal on a 5d2 or save for 6D or 5d3   

however I always see people selling bodies with 5-25K clicks attempting to sell the 5d2 for 1500 or even more, because they spent 2 grand on it a year ago. 

I dont think I'd pay more than 1400 with body and kit lens.   Is everyone crazy hoping we don't know what the market looks like or just hoping to find a sap.

First off -- the people who sell them can't sell them for more than people will pay. It is the buyers that determine the price, not the sellers. When I want to sell something like a piece of camera gear, I look on e-bay to see how to price it.  If I were to do that for a 5DII, I would see that they are typically closing between $1200 and $1600 depending on condition etc.  $1400 -- $1500 looks like the going rate right now.  I sold mine for $1350 to a friend and to arrive at the price I watched 10 e-bay auctions and took the average.  Then I subtracted the fees that I would have to pay and that was my cash price to her.

+1. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing. These days with eBay it is very easy to determine the market value of almost anything. Just watch for a week or so and see what the selling prices are. On almost any used product, whether it is cameras or anything else, there tends to be very little variation in price, unless there is something unusual about a particular item.

Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:29:27 PM »
I wonder what percentage of their sales will be Canon branded t-shirts, coffee mugs, backpacks and other souvenirs.

Go in, play with a lens for 15 minutes. Leave looking like a walking billboard for Canon.

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 145