April 25, 2014, 12:47:40 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 - Skulker

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 21
121
Any question like this is going to attract lots of heated debate, that will deteriorate into Drivel with lots of quotes and comparisons that the author is absolutely convinced makes perfect sense.

Ultimately you will be able to take good pictures with either camera. If you work with the limitations of either you will be able to take great pictures, if you are capable.

I'm a canon user and very pleased with the equipment I have. But I have no doubts that if I used nikon no one who looked at my images could tell the difference.

The differences are not very significant. Use what you like, and don't listen to the pixel peepers or the people who play top trumps with spec sheets.

122
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:56:54 AM »
I've been thinking of taking some star shots. I've just been playing to see what comes out. But I quite like this one.


nice shot skulker... I'd like to learn more about how you shot this...could you briefly describe?

Thanks for the compliment  :-[ and also thanks to  RPT,Click and bornshooter.

This is a composite of 50 shots taken over 25 Min.

1) Each shot was 29 sec exposure, f4.5 ISO 1600. Tripod mounted 1Dx with 24-105 @ 24mm. using remote control.

2) Exposure, contrast etc adjusted on one and all the settings copied to the other shots. All shots made into small Jpegs.

3) open Jpegs in PS and record an action to select next image, copy, delete (this also takes you back to the previous image), paste in place, finally set the opacity to lighten.

4) play the action 48 times.  ;D

123
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 17, 2013, 05:26:50 PM »
I've been thinking of taking some star shots. I've just been playing to see what comes out. But I quite like this one.

124
Technical Support / Re: Canon 5D3 at airshow
« on: August 17, 2013, 03:13:20 PM »
Some more shots from East Fortune airshow that I processed last night - only another 300 to do!

Enjoy!


Burrrrnnnn! by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Clean lines by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Sky by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Vapour! by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Tailz by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Tailz 2 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Up! by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Over! by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Up again! by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


Love seeing these shots - I used to work on these for several years.

I'm no longer a designer and now work in management of an unrelated business that's all about customer  :-X and staff  :-X :-X relationships. Boy do I miss engineering  >:(

125
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders
« on: August 15, 2013, 04:17:03 PM »
A Canon 12mm tube isn't cheap and I don't know how reliable the el cheapo ones are so I don't want to do an experiment myself.

So what do you think would give the better image:

A good f/2.8 lens with a 2xTC at f/5.6 on a 7d (e.g. the f/2.8 300mm II + the 2xTC III)?
Or the same lens plus 1.4x and 2xTC at f/8 on a 5D III?

Both have a similar reach.

There is no glass in the 12mm tube. I have an el cheapo and it works find. Mind it wasn't that cheap. Having had all that kit I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 5D3. In fact I think you will find that the 5d3 + 2xTC + 300mm f2.8 will give just as much reach as the 7D + 2xTC + 300mm f2.8 because you can crop harder for the same IQ.   And of course you will still have the 1.4TC to add for a bit more reach.

Not everyone will agree with this and will be convinced that the greater pixel desity of the 7D will make up for the improved IQ of the 5D3. Guess what I won't lose sleep over their opinion.

126
Lenses / Re: AF dead on my EF 200 2.8L - thoughts?
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:15:57 AM »

So my aversion against anything AF - and my decade long resistance against it has finally proven not completely unreasonable, unfortunately.



I guess that depends on what you consider unreasonable. But as long as you are happy with you thoughts that's probable all that really matters.

127
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders
« on: August 13, 2013, 05:38:02 PM »
Very cool, but let me ask this:  Is this combo getting you better results than just cropping?  I'm not saying it is not, but that is the thing about a teleconverter, or combination of converters is it has to outperform just cropping the image.

If you shoot the moon with just the 2.0X and then crop, is there less less detail?

After reading the original post I gave it a try just for fun. And yes the results were really quite good and better than cropping.

128
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 05:02:51 PM »
Well Carl that was a long post  ;D

however you seem to have misunderstood my meaning.

I was not describing or promoting a speed booster, although that would, be one way of making use of the photons that are wasted when you put a bigger than needed lens (such as FF) on a smaller sensor (such as APS)

I would redesign the lens so it did not collect light that was not used. So it would be either lighter or brighter. Or maybe a bit of both.

Please don't try to imply that I'm thinking to break, fool, or in any way mess with the laws of physics.  8) cos I ain't. If you think that is what I'm trying to do then you are misunderstanding me.

The main reason that I'm not talking about this or that f stop or focal length is that as an engineer is that to me it is irrelevant what sensor is behind a lens, when it comes to describing its physical properties.

129
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 10, 2013, 07:00:17 AM »
What a lot of people want - myself included - is a camera that produces great colors, and sharp enlargements to 12"x18".  Digital APSC cameras do just that. 

Little point-n-shoots produce flat colors and blow out highlights, and digital 35 mm is beyond the point of diminishing returns for most folks.
+1

APS-C cameras and lenses even dating back several years have been capable of producing some simply stunning images in the right hands. Anyone not happy with the level of perfection APS-C gives is likely to suffer from some sort of gear acquisition syndrome (which I guess I have).

Got to agree with both these posts.

I bet most people would not be able to tell if an image was taken with a FF or a Crop body. Heck many would not know if it was taken with a phone.

130
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 06:55:54 AM »
The issue of a cropped 2.8 and equivalence to 4.2 FF is sure to get some folks wound up and may well produce some long posts.  ;D

My view would be that with any lens designed to be used on a crop sensor, most of the photons entering the lens will hit the sensor, subject of course to the rectangular sensor reading a round lens. In contrast only 40% of the photons that would have hit the sensor on a full frame body will be used in a crop body (assuming a 1.6 crop) with a FF lens.

I'm getting more convinced that long lenses specifically designed for crop bodies would have a weight benefit. I still can't see Canon or Nikon making them. But maybe someone like Sigma might just do it to give themselves a USP.

131
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:41:24 AM »
and whats this 80MP camera you're on about? I certainly don't want that.

Well that is the latest rumor. Anyway you'd need 48MP FF just match the same reach as a 7D has.

A rumour isn't much to use to consign a format to history.

What you are really saying is that you get the same pixel density with 48MP on ff as with the 7D. As I understand you. You won't find the 7D gives extra reach over the 5D3 or 1Dx. The extra quality of those two ff's makes up for the lower pixel density. The7D2 may be better, but it's just a rumour.

132
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:28:26 AM »
The OP's got a point, and there are systems out there that fit the bill. Look at the Pentax 50-135 f2.8. It is much smaller and lighter than the FF equivalent 70-200 f2.8. The FF producers don't seem inclined to produce this kind of kit, probably for the reasons others have mentioned.

Thanks Sporting. That's what I was thinking of, it's half the weight for an equivalent image, I guess I really mean field of view. The quality may not be big white equivalent but nor is the price.

This example makes me think it would be possible to have much lighter systems that were close in quality.

I still don't think it will happen but I would like to see this more than a high megapixel camera.

133
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:40:28 AM »
If you get a few more FPS, then yes I can see the point of that. But I have to say that I'm fine with my 1Dx's frame rate. In fact I'm finding I end up turning it down much of the time as it just produces so many flipping files if I don't.  ;D

And some of us would like to get a little closer to that framerate without having to pay for a 1Dx. :)

I can see that makes sense.

For frame rates much higher you can use electronic shutters, that saves money to but unfortunately at the expense of not being an slr anymore. And I like my optical viewfinder, although I'm sure I could live with an EV.

134
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:24:58 AM »
So now we do a little experiment....

Take a full frame lens and mount it on an APSC camera. Point it at a constant light source.... Something like a white wall under constant illumination.... You don't want something that requires precise positioning to get the same exposure... Set the camera to manual and adjust settings for the proper exposure.....

Now cut out a circle in a piece of dark paper with a hole in the center about 60 percent of the radius of your lens filter.... Place it over the end of the lens and see what happens to the light meter reading.... It drops.....about 1 stop....

This is what happens if you make the lens elements smaller.... It is light from the whole lens surface that gets focused onto the sensor, not just the center part of the lens surface... This is why a 300mm F2.8 lens is the same size no matter what size the sensor is.... Try this yourself if you do not believe me.

A crop sensor does not change the properties of a lens.... What is does is to sample a smaller area of the image circle and thereby reducing the field of view, but at the gain of a higher sampling density. The effect is the same field of view as if the lens was 1.6 times longer. A 300mm lens on a crop sensor would have the same field of view as a 480mm lens on a ff camera would have.... And yes, a 300mm F2.8 lens is a lot smaller and cheaper than a 480mm F 2.8 lens

Sorry Don but I don't think your experiment makes sense. All you are doing is reducing the efficency of the lens.
How about a different approach. Think of a magnifying glass. The smaller you make the images the brighter it becomes. This is the opposite of what we see with converters. They magnify the image so even more photons miss the sensor.

The way I would look at it is that of all the photons that enter a big white a fairly high percentage hit a full frame sensor. Just a few are lost as we use rectangular sensors behind a round lens. But when that sensor is cropped to 1/1.6 of the size then only about 40perecent of the original photons are captured. (that's 1/1.6 squared for the mathematically inclined)

135
EOS Bodies / Re: Crop sensors need cropped lenes
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:07:34 AM »
I used to have a 7D. A camera I took many pictures with and really enjoyed. But I was using it mainly behind L series lenses because I wanted the quality that those lenses provide. This has proved to be a good investment as I now have a 5D3 and a 1Dx and the lenses work with them.

I don't want more megapixels, I've got more than I uses almost always. And before anyone suggests it I certainly don't want more just so I can crop them away.  :P

One of my main problems with all this kit is the weight, carrying 40Kg on a trek to a wild life photo opertunity can be a pain.

When the 7D2 comes out the thing that would get me to buy one would be if light weight lens were available with similar quality to the L series but making use of the reduced diameter needed for the smaller sensor. (While they are at it they can reduce the price as the elements aren't as big.  ;) )

I know its not going to happen but it would be nice if it did. ------- Just think a nice quality 200-400 with built in 1.4x at about 1/2 the weight and cost in front of a crop sensor giving equivalent view to a 300 to 900 on a FF.  8)

( BTW There can be little doubt that someone who thinks they know better will ridicule this idea. If they convince me that they are right I will claim I was being sarcastic  ;D )

You must have quite a outfit to weigh 40KG (88 lbs).  Most bodies and lenses are in the 2-3 lb category, the big whites weigh more, so if you used a lot of lenses like the 400mm f/2.8, the weight would add up. 
 
 
A "L" quality 70-200mm f/2.8 EF-s will be smaller, but the "L" treatment with high density glass and fluorite elements will add weight.  It takes more and stronger material to hold those heavy elements securely, and soon there is little weight savings and no cost savings. 
 
IMHO, I really doubt that there is a market for a $1800 70-200mm f/2.8 EF-s lens.  Most would pay the $400 extra for a FF, because they intend to get FF in the future.
 

I agree with much of what your saying and don't expect it to happen.

But although I would expect  the saving in money would not be much I do think the saving in weight could be significant, and in size as well come to that.


Also forgot to say, yes I'm carrying a couple of ff bodies and several big whites plus tripods flashes a hide a chair, it all adds up.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 21