December 22, 2014, 05:45:03 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 - tapanit

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: buying suggestion: a 5D3 or 1Dx?
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:59:58 AM »
I've never had any wildlife/birds scared off with the 1D X shutter (although I've startled a few kids at school events!).  I have never shot wildlife from a car or a boat with my 1D X (or any dSLR, for that matter), always hiking/walking in the field.  I also don't use blinds
I'm not surprised. Shooting from a blind is precisely when noise matters. If you're walking and the birds &c have already seen you, they won't be startled by shutter sound.


2
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:50:55 AM »
The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.
While I strongly disagree on the first point (I really like push-pull zoom) and wouldn't use anywhere near as strong words on the others either (having taken thousands of pictures with it and been happy with the results), I would definitely like better optics and IS and while the extra weight worries me (as I'd be hiking with it in the wilderness), I probably will upgrade mine if the new one is good enough. I'll wait for reviews first, though.

3
without a tripod, your test is just a random result and is not "repeatable" as tests they should be.
That is true enough, but:
Quote
Blur when holding the camera in hand prevents the AF system to work properly. :-\
If that is true, the camera is all but useless. Many, indeed probably most people will use it hand-held most of the time, and AF definitely should work properly then, even if it's harder to test.

4
I really like my voitlander 20mm, it's small enough that I can throw it in my bag "just in case" and I've been pleased with the results. 
Here's another vote for the Voigtländer. I use mine primarily for scenery shots (including stars and Northern lights) during wilderness hikes, where size and weight are a major consideration (having to carry also camping equipment, food &c) and lack of AF is irrelevant, and I've also been quite happy with the results.

5
I'd kill for a 100–400L that wasn't any longer than my 70–300L (or even better, smaller than that) without sacrificing too much quality.
Yes. I would at least kill my budget for that. Indeed the one decisive factor for me is the length of the 100-400. I could handle (a little) more weight and width, but not length. The current 100-400 is just about the maximum length I can carry in a waist bag on a long hike, the Tamron 150-600 is already way too big for that.

6
If you haven't downloaded the RAWs and taken a look at them, then I encourage you to. Lifting the shadows a couple stops doesn't render the 5D III image unuable, however it does exhibit banding before you even lift three stops. The "utterly unusable" image is the +5 stop 5D III image. Maybe it's not as obvious in the small JPEGs I shared in the first post...but when you see the RAW, I think you will understand.
I think I do understand, but perhaps you don't get my point.

Whatever can be seen from the raw file doesn't matter to non-photographers.. Only the end result matters, in the context where it will be actually used. If it used as a small jpeg in the web, then that's what counts, nothing else.
Quote
just from a simple empirical standpoint, the +5 stop 5D III image is....really poor.
Well, if I could have gotten that good results pushing underexposed slide film even just two stops 20 years ago, I would have been ecstatic.  :)

It may be poor in comparison with the state of art, but hardly "really poor", let alone unusable: much worse pictures have been used and are still being used, and are paid good money for. Even totally lost shadow details may not matter if the object of interest is not in the shadows. Most photos are not used to make big prints or anything with artistic intent: often it is enough that the object is recognizable.

7
Interestingly, I don't really see any significant difference between them, even in the +5 ones (calling the 5D3 one "falling apart" is totally ridiculous, it's a perfectly usable picture). Admittedly my eyes are old and I'm looking at the pictures with a relatively lowly monitor, but that's what I'd mostly do anyway. I guess it means the DR difference isn't a good reason to go for Sony, *for me* - your mileage may vary.
Well, you must be blind, then. :P Sorry, but the difference is night and day obvious with the +5 stop pushes.
I'm not quite blind, yet. :-) I didn't say I can't see any difference, just not a significant one. Not when viewed on screen without magnifying or deliberately pixel-peeping. And I'm pretty sure most non-photographers would agree.
Quote
The 5D III is completely and utterly unusable, period.
That would depend on the intended use, I should think. Even and indeed especially professionals should be able to adjust their standards depending on client's needs.


8
Interestingly, I don't really see any significant difference between them, even in the +5 ones

Seriously?

The +5 ones are from a professional standpoint completely unusable compared to the Sony shot.... look how the chair is muddying up on the side.
The Sony retains the detail to a degree where even the shadows are somewhat acceptable. The Canon shot... I would never present that to a client and pretend that it would be ok.
Well, I'm not a professional photographer - but as a potential client, I can say I could well consider paying for a photo of similar quality to the Canon +5 one, if the content of the image was what I wanted. And I'm willing to bet most non-photographers wouldn't see the difference even as well as I do.

9
Just to see how far I could push things, here a couple more versions, not particularly "realistic", but still a good demonstration of what's possible and how the raw data reacts. No interpretation of the data needed here...5D III totally falls apart. A7r...noisy...but manageable.
Interestingly, I don't really see any significant difference between them, even in the +5 ones (calling the 5D3 one "falling apart" is totally ridiculous, it's a perfectly usable picture). Admittedly my eyes are old and I'm looking at the pictures with a relatively lowly monitor, but that's what I'd mostly do anyway. I guess it means the DR difference isn't a good reason to go for Sony, *for me* - your mileage may vary.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF Guidebook Available for Download
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:50:00 AM »
Hi just open it with Adobe reader.....simple...
Doesn't work. Apparently you need a very new version of acroread and an operating system where it's supported (excluding all of mine). :-(

(The full manual opens easily enough, however, as does the old 5Dmk3 AF guide.)

11
If you're shooting medical images, stamp collections, etc., the ring light is the way to go.  If you're shooting more with a creative rather than a documentary intent, the MT-24EX twin lite is a much better choice.  You can position the heads around the ring, or what many users do is mount them on brackets (I use a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets) for complete flexibility on where you position the light in relation to the subject.
Indeed. For that matter, a pair of 270EX's or even 90EX's and ST-E2 (or some master-capable flash) in a suitable bracket should also work well in many applications. And even a single flash with off-shoe cord and bracket would often be better than a ring flash for things like insects and flowers. But if money is no object, the MT-24EX is better, no contest. Also, note that the MT-24EX is itself master-capable flash, so if you want to add a third light source or more, just add a 270EX (or almost any recent Canon flash) or several in the bracket or wherever.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:44:10 AM »
FYI, if you put both RAW & JPEG files in a single directory and sort your files by date, it should make identifying the JPEGs you need to delete easier.  Some apps like DPP & Zoombrowser, I think, allow you to view RAW+JPG as a single file, which may be a way to identify which files are just JPEGs.
Or if you are at all comfortable with the command line, it pretty trivial to copy just the JPEGs that have matching RAW in another directory. Something like this should work with Linux and MacOS (and other Unix-related systems), assuming JPEGs are in subdirectory called "jpegs":

for i in *.cr2; do mv jpegs/${i%.cr2}.jpg .;done

(It's been too long since I've used Windows to know offhand how to do it there, but I'm sure it could be done.)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:57:02 AM »
I'm sure canon will produce a stellar camera on all features except sensor. It's possible that the sensor is something new and revolutionary, but this is te one piece that really matters. This could either be a game changer like I believe the 5d3 was... Or it could just be a hyped up 70d. I'm hoping for the former, as I am looking for a great camera to pair with my current 5d3.  8)
My feelings exactly. The sensor will make it or break it for me. If it is at least as good as the 5D3 cropped down with same lens (in a focal-length-limited situation), I'll get one pretty much regardless of anything else (as long as it still costs significantly less than the 5D3). Otherwise, I'll probably pass.

14
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:48:04 AM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body [...]
The size is important for transportation, not for use. I have the 40mm as well as Voigtländer 20mm, and use them when I need to travel light - as in, hiking in the wilderness with already overweight backpack or struggling with airline carry-on restrictions.

If the rumored 24mm pancake becomes reality and is good enough I'll probably get it and start carrying it instead of the Voigtländer, even though I'd sorely miss the 4mm. A *good* 20mm EF pancake I'd pay serious money for.

I'd also love a bit longer pancake, say 70-100mm, especially a close-focusing one so it'd double as a portable macro.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:58:25 AM »
I still think the missing piece for the SL1 is the wide angle pancake.  The pocketability of that camera lives or dies with a tiny lens (as it does the EOS-M), so pancakes are vital.  But the EF 40mm pancake scales to 64mm FF equivalent on a crop, which is functional for portraits but too long for general walkaround, IMHO.
Yes. I've been using the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 complementing the 40 as a light-weight travel kit, but as a manual-only lens it is not as convenient as more modern lenses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5