April 19, 2014, 12:17:39 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 117
EOS Bodies / Re: Rumors roundup by Jarred Abrams concerning Nov 3rd
« on: November 01, 2011, 04:35:54 PM »
I learned my lesson with the 1Dx. Never second-guess Canon Rumors guy.

If he says no DSLR, then there will be no DSLR.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: November 01, 2011, 04:31:21 PM »
For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro

I'll probably get this massively wrong and I'm sure the lens experts here will correct me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

In your example, I believe a lens with longer focal length could actually be better. Here is the way I understand it: there is a relationship between depth of field and the distance of the subject to the lens. The further you are from your subject the greater the depth of field in actual distance. To give you a gross example: when you are shooting with the lens on infinity, subjects that may be hundreds of feet apart will be in focus. On the other hand, if you are just a few inches from the subject, the depth of field is going to be very narrow.

Using your football example, a sort focal length lens that is close to the football may mean that only the stitching is in focus even with the lens stopped down because the relative distance between the front and back ends of the football are much greater. With a longer lens, (and presuming you have enough room to back up and still get the image framed) the relative distance between the front end of the football and the back end of the football is much less. So, it may be possible that by stopping the longer lens down you can get the whole subject in focus. 

To use another example, many photographers prefer a longer lens for portraits because the relative distance between, say, the subject's nose and ears is effectively compressed by the longer lens, making it easier to get the entire face in focus. With a wider lens, that relative distance increases. (There is, of course, another major advantage to the longer lens, because it flattens the facial features, making the nose less prominent, whereas the shorter lens places the nose in much closer relative proximity to the lens than the eyes, making the nose appear bigger. Since most people think small noses are more appealing, the longer lenses are preferred).

Now, as I understand it, if the camera were to remain fixed, and you switched lenses, the shorter lens would have the same depth of field as the longer lens. But, since you are unlikely to be doing that, getting further away from your subject increases the depth of field. (As I understand it, this is why a crop sensor has greater apparent depth of field, because the actual distance to the subject is greater than with a full frame camera).

Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 31, 2011, 12:42:52 PM »
When I first saw this topic, I expected the usual "full frame is professional/APS-C is amateur" rants. Thankfully, it hasn't turned out that way (although there have been some, "my sensor is bigger than your sensor" postings)

Still, I'm not sure I'm any closer to coming to any clear conclusions. Granted, it can boil down to personal preferences and needs, but I still have a difficult time parsing the thread for obvious distinctions between APS-C and Full Frame.

It sounds to me that the differences are rather subtle and seem to have as much to do with the "look" of the image and shooting style (narrower depth of field, for example) than with any clear, visible difference in image quality.

Many of those posting have indicated that they feel full frame offers superior performance for landscape and other static or semi-static subjects. But, I wonder if that translates into practical or theoretical differences. If one shoots with the idea of enlarging the images to 16x20 or larger, are the differences visible? What about 11x14 or 8x10. What about those who shoot primarily for publication? Are the differences visible once an image is translated into print?

I shoot with a 7D and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining that the practical differences would be that great with a larger sensor. But, then I don't really go for the oversize prints and my ultimate objective is to get work published in books or magazines.

The main problems or complaints I've had about the 7D in terms of image quality has been that I do feel that certain areas of an image under certain conditions can have visible noise on-screen. (Although this does not always translate into being visible in print). For example, if I have an image with a large amount of plain, cloudless blue sky, upon close examination, some of the images will appear mottled in the sky (instead of completely smooth.) But, some of this results from the wide differences in brightness between a sky and other portions of the image (exposing for the one means under or overexposing for the other and attempting to repair in processing).

My other frustration has been chromatic aberration. Back lit subjects with sharp edges that have significant fringing that can't always be fixed (minimize the magenta and you maximize the cyan, for example). Again, I don't know if that would be improved by a different sensor or not.

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:58:41 PM »
c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

That is a valid analysis of those who use Flickr.

Perhaps 7D and 5DII users post on to their own websites as I expect they have more money and perhaps looking to sell their images.

Good points. There are so many variables that extrapolating anything meaningful from that kind of data is impossible. Some irony here in that seven's own data would indicate that there are 3.6 times as many APS-C owners using Flicker as full-frame 5D II owners. One could make an argument with equal validity that the market for full frame bodies is shrinking and they are in danger of disappearing.

I'm not suggesting this, I'm just pointing out that with statistics, like with most things, the rule of garbage in/garbage out applies.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 06:10:51 PM »
All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

Can you document this? Amazon lists the 7D body at #9 (5DII is #14) and indicates it has been in the top 100 DSLRs for 787 weeks (which roughly coincides with its entire lifespan) This does not include two versions with kit lenses that are ranked #29 and #34.

Granted Amazon is just one dealer, but it is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonably representative sample of the relative sales rankings of products.

If you have access to better sales figures, please share them. I have never come across anything that would indicate that the 7D has not been a very successful camera for Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 28, 2011, 01:39:49 PM »
To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels...

... It also sends a clear(and honest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.

Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compared to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competition with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.

Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.

I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.

Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels. 

Don't know. Just speculating.

Sorry for the double-posting here, but I also wanted to give you the advantage of learning from my experience with strobes.

I have two 580 EXII's and one 430 EX. All three can be fired from the 7D on-camera trigger (with or without the on-camera strobe affecting the shot) No advantage or disadvantage there.

The 580s are more powerful, but you need to consider whether or not you will need that power.

The 580s can take an auxiliary battery back which reduces their recycle time and extends battery length hugely. No similar option for the 430.

One thing I learned the hard way -- the 7D on camera flash is a great trigger for the strobes, with one major disadvantage. It has a tendency to overheat and shut down at the most inconvenient times. When it happens, the camera won't fire. You push the shutter button and nothing happens. You have no idea what's going on, just that you're screwed. 

Thanks to some great insights on this forum, I figured out what the problem was. I've since bought one of the cheap Chinese infrared trigger knockoffs (about $100). It cured the problem.

You may never need the auxiliary trigger, but I just wanted to mention it because if you get seriously into additional lighting and are relying on the 7D trigger, you can expect to run into this problem. If you get really serious, you'll probably want a radio trigger. So far I haven't needed one. Never had any problem with the infrared, even in bright daylight. Others may not be so lucky and if I were getting paid for the work, I'd buy a radio trigger.

I'm going to add a minority opinion on Lightroom.

I bought it about six months ago. I really wanted to like Lightroom. I tried it a few times and was greatly disappointed. I bought Scott Kelby's book on it and will probably get back to it one of these days, but here is my take:

I'm used to the Bridge interface for file management. I don't need or want an elaborate file management system, so I'd rather stick with what I know for something mindless like file management. I can double-click on an image in Bridge and it brings it into the Adobe Raw editor from Photoshop. Everything I've read indicates that there is no difference between the Photoshop Raw editor and Lightroom's Raw editor (the same adjustments are available in both).

I'm very used to the Photoshop Raw editor. It's what I know and use and I am comfortable doing my adjustments there. As part of my personal workflow, I usually open the file as a "smart object" in Photoshop, duplicate it one or more times and then go back into Raw to adjust specific areas of the image on these various layers. (later using a mask and the brush tool to overlay the layers).

One of the problems I found with Lightroom, was that when I double click to open a smart object in Raw, Photoshop defaults to its own Raw editor, so I end up working in the Photoshop Raw editor anyway. There may be some way to change that, but from my perspective, as long as I was going to be working in Photoshop Raw for half or more of my layers, why bother with a second interface?

I did not find any advantage to developing the image in Lightroom as opposed to Photoshop's Raw editor, so I guess for me, I haven't felt a strong need to change my workflow. I intend to make an effort at some point to go back and really give Lightroom another chance, but I've found I'd rather spend the time shooting and editing photos than learning a new program at this point.

On the other hand, for about the same money and at about the same time, I bought a "pro" version of OnOne Software's Photo Tools (Actually I think I got a free stripped-down version with Photoshop and then upgraded to the "pro" version). I use it almost daily. Yes, there are tons of cheesy effects that I would never use, but there are about a dozen really useful tools that I have come to absolutely rely on to save time and give me the look I'm after. For the money, I'd pick this over Lightroom any day (yes they are two different animals, but that's the point -- you already own a Raw editor with Photoshop, while the OnOne plug-ins give you something new.

Bottom line: If you own Photoshop already, Lightroom gives you a different interface and a different file management tool, but it doesn't give you a different Raw image editor.

I'm just one user, and I'm in the minority, but I just thought you ought to hear another opinion.

Lenses / Re: Realistic wish lens
« on: October 27, 2011, 05:20:41 PM »
EFS 15-85 f/4 IS USM...

+1  I'd gladly sacrifice the partial stop at the wide end for a constant aperture. I'd even prefer this to a 15-60 f/2/8.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mark III on November 3rd? (VOTING POLL)
« on: October 27, 2011, 01:45:05 PM »

Change the letter.

Instead of a poll, we should have a pool.

Kick in $5 or so and pick a date. If a 5D3 is announced on that date, you win the pot. If we get enough people in, the winner should have enough to buy the camera.

Pools are a lot more fun than polls!

I'm in!

EOS Bodies / Re: How weather resistant is a 5DMK2 really?
« on: October 26, 2011, 10:53:25 PM »
Even on the eos-1 manuals they say that " this camera is a precision instrument. Do not drop it or subject it to physical shock" and the working temperature range is 0-45c (32-113F)and humidity is 85% or less.

Well, this brings up another, maybe more practical question. I've always wondered about the temperature tolerances/guidelines that Canon (and others) publish. The range seems very narrow to me. (I mean, who actually keeps their camera above freezing in the winter. And, while going above 113 F is a little less likely, it's pretty easy to do on a hot summer day if you have to leave your camera in a car for even a short period.)

What are the consequences and are they permanent or temporary? I've certainly done plenty of shooting at below freezing and never noticed any ill effects. I don't regularly leave the camera inside a hot car in the summer, but I've probably thrown it in the trunk on occasion when traveling.

Is it the electronics, the sensor, the battery, the lubricants, some combination of all? Will the camera recover once its cooled down or does it permanently fry something?

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii
« on: October 26, 2011, 08:45:31 PM »
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Multiple-Exposure Feature something new for a Canon Dslr!? I'd love to see this feature included in the 5D iii.

Just curious. What does in-camera multiple-exposure offer that couldn't be done with layers in Photoshop? When Canon announced this, I admit I was scratching my head thinking this sounded more like a gimmick than a 1D series feature. I must be missing something here.

EOS Bodies / Re: How weather resistant is a 5DMK2 really?
« on: October 26, 2011, 11:58:18 AM »
Pardon my ignorance, but does anyone know of a good source (whitepaper/backgrounder/etc.) that explains weathersealing and shockresistance.

I know Canon doesn't say much other than vague statements (no doubt to avoid liability) and I've watched the great video of the low-end Canon and Nikon cameras being absolutely destroyed, but I do get a bit confused about this whole issue.

Do people seriously take their cameras out in rainstorms and shoot with no protection? Are we talking about just getting a little surface moisture on a camera from a light mist, or are we talking about full-on downpours? I think I remember seeing an article once about a National Geographic shooter covering a dye festival in India and then hosing his 1 series camera off afterward.

I admit I tend to baby my equipment as far as moisture goes, although I've hard my share of accidental drops, bangs and bashings.

Just curious what the parameters are or if there is any knowledgeable source of information on this subject.

Lenses / Re: The price 300mm 2.8 IS--is just greed--maybe?
« on: October 25, 2011, 07:58:44 PM »
I may be missing spmething, but it looks like Canon sells 1.5 lenses to every EOS camera on average since 1987.  It would be interesting to see what specific lenses sell in a given year.

I know we'll never see those figures from Canon, but if I had to guess, for every 1 EOS camera, the breakdown of the 1.5 lenses would look like this:

  • 0.95 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (various flavors)
  • 0.30 EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • 0.15 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
  • 0.05 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • 0.0499999999 all other lenses except the supertele primes
  • 0.0000000001 supertele primes

I think you're probably pretty close. Don't forget the various flavors of 75-300 zooms that Canon has sold over the years.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 5D Mark III on Novemeber 3 [CR2]
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:03:32 PM »
Why do people participate in stupid threads like this?

Dilbert, you are on a roll today.

Seriously though, I'm kind of with you on this one.

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 117