July 23, 2014, 04:08:51 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 218
1786
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 10:26:06 PM »
Canon cameras don't suck nearly as bad as this thread does.

I agree with that!  ;D

1787
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 10:25:17 PM »
whatever did we do back when we had to properly expose.

If you knew how to properly expose you would realize that talk about wanting more DR is not primarily about 'proper exoposure'.

1788
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 10:24:24 PM »
I fully understand the point of normalization for comparison. I also think its a fundamentally flawed concept.


You think most of engineering and science is flawed then.

Quote
You need to get some new material, because repeatedly trotting the "Well you have to compare on an equivalent playing field" argument out over and over just becomes abrasive after a while.

And what about your non-stop repeatedly claiming that this basic concept it flawed?

Quote
I KNOW your argument. Listen to mine: What you do in post with scaling DOES NOT TELL YOU what the hardware can do IN TERMS OF DR. It only tells you what SOFTWARE can do in terms of SIMULATING a DR gain. Mucking with an image in post doesn't change the capabilities of the hardware though. ....
I'm a printer. ....

No need to 'play' with software. Just print from the two cameras and stand far enough back from the higher MP print until it looks the same size as the smaller print or the details captured become equal.


Quote
Normalized comparisons tell me about SOFTWARE. They don't tell me anything about DSLR HARDWARE.

Not really true at all.

Quote
I can't photograph a scene with 14.4 stops in a single shot with the D800.

Not maintaining 36MP of detail you can't.

It just lets you give a fair RELATIVE comparison between the two cameras. It's not so much about the actual numbers, unless you do scale to the exact sized used.


1789
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 09:20:42 PM »
This morning I noticed Spammer listed the lens in stock and I purchased 1 of the 3 units they were expecting to receive this afternoon.  It was shipped this evening and the lens is now again listed as backordered.  I believe today's was the fourth shipment they have received in the last few weeks so they seem to be getting a steady supply.  Very friendly and helpful staff.

So I guess they did get them in so the In Stock notice was real, but I got shafted when they sold my copy to someone behind me in line while they were waiting to personally verify my CC with me.... kinda poor policy IMO. Don't say it's in stock for a certain delivery date with fast shipping and then bump someone aside just because you need to do a CC verification and have it sell out on them in the meantime.

Anyway proves the point to always call and never bother with website ordering, who knows what is really going on when you do that.


1790
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 09:16:44 PM »
Spammer?  Spammer = Spammer

hah, the bulletin board is obviously hating on most vendors, you need to mispell the store just enough to trick the filter but let people still known who you were talking about

1791
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 07:47:16 PM »
PC Nation thing was a bust. If you were a new customer they waited on verification while selling to others who ordered later apparently and you got shafted or maybe they were just slow in updating stock status and never had them left for most of the time they said they still did today. I think only a few of the first callers got them, at best. Everyone else will be in for a bad surprise even if you chose expedited shipping methods. Glad I called to verify what was going on or not. Kenmore did have them though! Nice service.

1792
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 06:06:33 PM »
So the Mark III has less DR than the D800.  Does this really affect everyone THAT much?  Seems to be really exaggerated.  I guess if a scene demands it, I like to do an HDR.  I try to process it as minimally as possible, with the goal of only trying to reproduce what my eyes saw during that scene.  This seems to work well for me.  It just seems everyone arguing about a few digits of DR is pointless.  IDK maybe i just dont get it.

Have enjoyed reading  jrista's posts.

3+ stops usable looking difference can be noticed in the real world (it is funny that some have raved about 1/2 stop better SNR than Nikon a times as a huge deal and then toss off 3ish stops of DR at ISO100 as nothing, will it still be nothing if the rumors about the new cam having great DR turn true?)

You can take two shots but:
1. If the subject is moving, sometimes even just branches swaying or if mists are moving about or it's a person etc. it doesn't always work so well, or even at all, sometimes you can try to get it away with fixing modest motion and combining and masking various parts and so on but with hours of post processing and a long struggle and waste of time and it doesn't always work out all that well anyway.

(2. That won't help for the times the exposure was way off on a one of shot.)
(3. It is nicer to grab a shot with less effort, if lighting is changing maybe you can have more time to get more nice shots or you can simply have more fun and not bog down as much, not 100% tripod locked into either.)


That said you can't get TOO carried away, I mean you can take millions of great shots without any issue at all with a 5D3 and it's a very nice cam to use, just there are some shots it won't do as well, which is quite a shame for some at times but not that big a deal for others.

I like it a lot, it is a very good camera, but i really do wish they had improved the DR since i very much could be making use of it.

1793
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »
Please read my answer at #95. Maybe then you'll finally get my point. All your doing when scaling images in software is manipulating existing levels, which really doesn't improve DR. It might mitigate noise, making detail in the shadows appear more accurate....but that has nothing to do with the camera. That has everything to do with software, and software is effectively an infinitely subjective thing. Lets eliminate the subjectivity here, and focus on what the physical device we put in our hands and use to take a photograph can do.

You are missing the point about how to carry out a fairer relative comparison. But if you want to believe a 1DX tech based 36MP FF sensor would do much worse for high ISO noise than a 10D tech based 4MP FF sensor be my guest....

1794
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:36:54 PM »
Also in stock from buydig/beachcamera and Kenmore camera via eBay

Watch out for Beach, they have no local stock and their web page has it for $2999! So don't make a quick order expecting $2299 and not realize that.

1795
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:36:01 PM »
Do you have a link to onecall?  I could not find it on their site.  They are local, only a few miles from me, so I was going to see if I could get one. Its much easier to return if it is not up to par.

Yeah it doesn't seem to be on the OneCall site. Maybe only if you call them?

1796
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:40:47 AM »
canon won't have a problem with ML.

Canon *will* have a problem with ml if ml isn't helping their sales as a unannounced big feature but makes people not buy the 1dc. I gather Canon will make this position clear one way or another, and I hope the main ml devs will make it as clear that they do not want to cause Canon losses or profit from hacking the 1dx.

Isn't it that ML is just running beside Canon's software?  It's not modifying the code or any hardware.  Right?  It's just like some software running inside your OS.  E.g., if I make a program that runs in Windows and uses the intrinsic OS commands like showing the clock time, even hacking into memory management, does that make my program illegal?  For me 1DX can be looked at as platform.  Why do you think Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang were able to make those 3rd party lenses?  They even had to reverse engineer the way the lens is communicating with the body.  Isn't this a higher form of hacking into the system?

If I read it right, another reason why Canon is differentiating 1Dx and 1Dc is that tax laws in some countries are different for stills and movie and even the size of the output for movie cameras.  Of course you can't discount the fact that they will earn more through introducing a different software for the same hardware.  That's why I'm looking at ML like an open-source 3rd party software something like JAVA.  :)

not illegal but it doesn't mean they'd like it and they could do stuff to make ML type things harder to pull off perhaps if a quick ML made the 1DC utterly pointless for anyone to buy

(again, unless they noticed that giving the 1DX more value made it sell so well as to make the 1dc look like a dumb idea even with insane margin per copy, and who knows, maybe it would)

tax laws hardly make a $6000 difference, that;s got to be just pure garbage, and do 4k people need to shoot over the time limit more than 2k shooters? maybe less on avg, if anything



1797
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:36:38 AM »
I believe Alex is doing the 5D3 but g3gg0 is doing most of the work for 7D.  As for 1DX, I think somebody will lend it eventually.  I don't know but I get the feeling that the 1DX hack will include making it into a 1DC.  If this is a probability, some guys in the movie industry will certainly sponsor this.

Concerning 1dx/1dc: If someone really hacks the 1dx and backports the 1dc firmware, ml imho will be in real trouble because Canon will change the "ignore" policy to "hostile". So I could do w/o 1dc features on the 1dx, I cannot afford one anyway. Magic Lantern is a community project to beef up low- to midrange dlsr, not saving money for rich people.

You could be right (unless they end noticing 1DX selling, suddenly, many multiple times more, enough to make up for the insane 1DC profit margin, I suppose that is a possibility). ('m sure a 5D3 could sell more than enough times extra to make up for C100, we'd have to see about a 1DX though).

+1.  or maybe if somebody can get the 1dx work like 1dc without exactly copying the source code from 1dc, canon won't have a problem with ML.  I mean ML is currently running beside the canon software.  Of course this is pure hypothesis, but what if? :)

However they did it or with what code they woudn't care so long as it gave it a nice 4Kish or quality like the 1DC they might get uppity about it all. (unless, again, the 1DX then flew off the shelves like madness, then they'd learn something)

(although they didn't lock things down on the original Rebel after the unlock)

1798
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:33:32 AM »
You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...).  I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms.  So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?

I think you just made a really good argument for leaving the camera set to sRGB. It's the smaller color space so if you don't see any clipping in the tiny, questionably precise histogram in sRGB, you damn well won't have any clipping in the image when processing the RAW file.

Nah it just means you crippled RAW even more than you had to (although if all you ever care about is final sRGB output I suppose not).

1799
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:32:26 AM »
Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB matters, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG.  If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.

You are right, I set mine to Adobe RGB but use raw, so it really made no difference.  I use Lightroom 4 which has a prophoto gamut that is even wider.
 I can do a soft proofing to my printer / paper profile and bring the colors into gamut as required.

You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...).  I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms.  So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?

That is why many set AdobeRGB and lowered contrast and slightly lowered saturation in neutral profile when shooting RAW to make the jpg histogram a bit closer to RAW while still making the the image look somewhat normal and not crazy flat and hard to judge.

1800
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:41:14 PM »
anyway i have sooooooo many shots to edit and am growing tired of this thread, so i will go

Lair, liar, pants on fire.



Am I serious this time?  Hmmmm...better have a fire extinguisher handy and look down - right now - just in case.

Dang it! This time I thought you were joking and now I'm suffering second degree burns.  :(
I'm always wrong!

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 218