September 02, 2014, 06:14:23 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 236
However, I've been saying for months that the 5DIII would only have improved video in an effort to not eat into the Cinema DSLR sales.

I still think that was a mistake. It's much harder for them to compete at the Cinema level or maybe more like it's harder for them to really stand out there as something remarkable even if they can compete there. But a full out effort on the 5D3, THAT would've kept them on the top of the raves heap and the 5D3 would've flown off the shelves maybe even faster than the 5D2. Instead you have people eyeing new Sonys at the somewhat higher end and giving the 5D3 (for video) meh reviews. They had a revolution, a gold mine, but I wonder if that is now over.

(if it truly was not technically possible to get a sharp, actual 1920x1080 out of then it is not a mistake though of course, but just a fact of life, it seems hard to believe that at  least a cropped 2x2 sampling like the C300 does couldn't have delivered 1920x1080 on the 5D3 and the mode would have be useful at times even regardless, the other makers all see the point in cropped video modes, only Canon holds back as Canon is so in love with doing.)

Had they added a true-res 1920x1080 1.6x cropped 2x2 block mode, zebra stripes and focus check zooming while recording I bet they would've have all the video bloggers going nuts and raving like mad about it. Instead all I saw were rants, although some of them have no tempered to meh or not bad at all, but I still don't see the sort of raves they could've had.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5DIII users beta testers?
« on: April 02, 2012, 01:10:34 PM »
I was wondering why the 5DIII came out BEFORE the 1DX camera, while having a similar AF unit...

I'm now wondering if Canon wanted people to figure out the quirks of the AF before releasing these features into their more professional body.

Just idle speculation on my part, lot's of companies do this sort of thing.  Usually in reverse though, they take the exotic new technology and put it in top tier expensive equipment, and there the bugs are worked out, then production is ramped up and prices come down, and it trickles down to the more mass market people.

With the Olympics and the 1DX AF being critical after the 1D3, part of me did wonder, even before the announcements if they might not toss in the new AF and test it first on a non-1 series body. But who knows, it could as easily or more just be how things happened, random, no correlation.

EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: April 02, 2012, 01:07:51 PM »
if we had to use single point AF for the camera to focus properly to achieve a sharp image, then what's the point of putting  61 pt. AF when it will be useless other than a maketing strategy. As far as I understood, those points when selected will be the basis of the camera to focus on regardless of other settings. What's the point of having zones or expansion points if focus cannot be achieved? Does this mean we will need to use the 61 points individually?

Well, more points could help you to avoid "focus and recompose".  The problem with the 5DII focus points, is there weren't many and they were all clustered around the center of the VF.  And more focus points could help with bright situations when using AI Servo with moving targets.  It just depends on what you are shooting, and what AF mode you need to be in.  For weddings, I normally use "one shot" drive mode, and might only switch to "AI-Servo" when bride is walking down aisle and that sort of thing.

How does using assists help you not to do focus and recompose? It's actually FORCING that to happen at times.
If you are shooting fast lenses, wide open, close in, I'd think it might make more trouble, since it has a larger area over which to decided to toss the focus on and it might say make the eyes end up OOF I'd think.
It seems like a weird choice to use expansion points for the type of shooting you were doing, although I could be wrong no having been there.

That said, it sounds pretty worrisome, since that is what you would do for shooting sports at night and 2-3 seconds would make it ridiculously bad for shooting sports under poor lighting. I hope that is not the case.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 02, 2012, 01:01:54 PM »
Woah, one delay and you declare vapor-ware. That's strict.

Try counting again...

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - delayed
EOS 1D X - delayed
EF 600mm f/4L IS II - delayed
EF 500mm f/4L IS II - delayed
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II - delayed
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II - delayed
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - delayed

For the 500 and 600mm supertele lenses, the delays have exceeded 1.5 years...

The $400 kit discount on a pro kit 5D3 is also pushed back to July now (if they even bother with it now ever)....

it's show that 24-70mm f2.8L II USM EF Lens on sale  at camera Canada and the shipment within 2 days are they real ?????

 any one order or preorder from them  ?????

Top story on CR today is 24-70 II may be delayed until July! So I wouldn't trust that Camera Canada.

I guess it also means no way to get a kitted 5D3 for a discount for a long while now too, so forget 5D3 then.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Eye-Fi & 5D3
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:32:41 PM »
I got an Eye-fi card to use in my to-be-delivered-today 5D Mk3 kit but I couldn't wait to try it out so I put it in my Rebel T1i and used the Direct Connect mode to stream photos directly to the iPad.  I even powered off my wireless router to verify that I can stream directly to iPad regardless of where I am.  It works great!  About 7 seconds to stream a photo.  I was impressed with the product.

So it does work even if you were way out in the woods and not connected to internet. It can go straight to the ipad? I heard in some places that wasn't possible and in others that you at least need one of those $70 wifi portable hotspots.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3+GPS Receiver? VOTE!
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:13:45 PM »
As a professional photographer, many of my travels take me overseas to remote and often desolate 3rd world countries.  Places where GPS data in the metadata would be very, VERY nice. 

Since I started shooting with my first Canon DSLR, the 10D, I thought with each revision, THIS TIME, canon will put the GPS receiver IN the camera, rather than a hot she mount that is big, expensive, cumbersome and not realistic to keep on the camera device.  So here we are, a dozen cameras later, at the 5D3, and the best we have is a $270 GPS receiver?

My thoughts... GPS Receivers are wicked small, incredibly efficient, and present in just about every single handheld device we carry.  From a financial and business perspective, I cant imagine that Canon actually sells too many of these external GPS units.  Who wants to pay for this cumbersome thing?  Instead, Canon should put this modern GPS technology directly into the camera body itself.  Marketing a new DSLR with "GPS Receiver built in!!!" would be far more attractive to buyers, and end up selling far more camera bodies, and ultimately make more money that trying to sell an external unit.  Even if they were to mark the cost of each body up by $5 (the cost of a VERY good GPS unit, the kind we find in iPhone4) They would make more money than trying to sell this GP-E2! 

I am a little frustrated that we are this far with technology with no Built in GPS. Id like your opinions!

the price is crazy, no way for me
their unit costs as much as an entire ipad practically, crazy

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »
Having owned a Nikon D70 waaaay back in the day (my first DSLR - I've still got it somewhere, because it'll get me nothing if I sell it) I can say with absolute confidence that the notion that this camera has better Real World DR than my current Canon 7D is utterly, utterly risible.

So much for DxO, then.

it doesn't which is why jrista is totally wrong claiming that the screen measurement is the one to use, using the print measurement, as you should, it no longer has the stop advantage

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:09:50 PM »
However I entirely expected them to come out of the gates claiming the D800 scored 13.97 on their Print DR tests, not some mysterious, magical nonsense like 14.4! I REALLY expected them to say the D800 nailed 14 stops right on the head, but instead they are basically making a claim that the D800 and only the D800 offers photographers the magical ability to GAIN ADDITIONAL DR simply by DOWNSAMPLING. Then Mt. Spokane came along posted a DXO link indicating that Nikon...but not Canon...was a big time paying supporter. Sorry, but I go where the evidence leads, and there is some evidence of very fishy behavior about DXO and Nikon these days.

Enough with the area 51 stuff  ;D they 'magically' make ALL of the cameras that have more than 8MP do better, not just the D800 and not just Nikons, note the 5D2 is like 11.2 unless you look at the print plot and only then does it hit the 11.8-11.9. No black helicopters here.  ;D

If you run into a real life scene with MORE than  13.8 stops...the theoretical possibility of using a digital algorithm to "stretch out" 14.4 stops from your RAW file isn't going to help you. A real life scene with 18 stops of DR is going to outpace even the D800 sensor, and your only option is going to be to compress the blacks into less space (and therefor less recoverability)...or use an ND filter, just like all the rest of the photographers on the great and beautiful earth.

a print viewed from farther away might seem to have better DR
anyway as we've both said the absolute numbers don't even matter, it's the relative numbers that matter

Thanks to DXO's new D800 rating of 14.4, I am now a firm believer that Print DR is a useless measurement.

No it is not, it is the one that makes sense since it normalizes things. Without it you'd penalize a D800 vs a 5D AND a 5D2 vs a 5D etc.

Digital wizardry can not and will never be a replacement for native, hardware-level dynamic range. I now believe DXO's sole "accurate" measurement of actual hardware-level DR is their Screen DR measurement. I'm unwilling to accept Print DR measurements for any camera now as being even remotely realistic. As such, I believe the following are accurate dynamic range estimates for Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras:

no the screen may make sense for looking at an individual camera or even for seeing how you do when you maintain full res of each, but it is not a fair way to compare different cameras in general at all


well EXMOR is not EXMOR R.

the sensor in the D800 is not backlit.



I can't believe D800's sensor is not backlit, seeing its high ISO score on DXOmark...
When 36MEG is scaled down to 8x12, or 8MEG, its noise performance is vy close to D3S.

Well, Canon has to double hurry up, if Sony can achieve this kind of ISO without backlit technology.
Astro, do u have a reference quoting D800 is not using a backlit sensor? Tks!

D800 is not backlit. I believe they only just figured out how to get exmor backlit relatively recently. Supposedly it would currently cost quite a bit to produce it in FF size, but maybe for the D900 or D1000.

EOS Bodies / Re: BG-e11 Hand Grip Gripe
« on: March 31, 2012, 12:06:04 AM »
Where the heck is this thing?? You can't even find it on Canon USA's site unless you go to accessories in the 5dm III page. I wish it came with a battery so between the 5dm3 and the grip you are covered.

I've heard April 15th in stores.

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality
« on: March 31, 2012, 12:04:55 AM »
I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?

Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis :P

Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade :D

I take DXO results with a nice, big, honkin grain of salt most of the time. I like the ability to include consistently-generated (hmm, grain of salt there?) low-level hardware statistics as a factor in comparing like-brand cameras (i.e. I am looking forward to seeing if they measure any hardware-level improvements between the 5D II and III), as most of the time I figure that stuff should be pretty accurate. However when it comes to some of their numbers and some of their customers (i.e. Nikon), I become more and more skeptical. With their claim of 14.4 stops of "print" DR for the Nikon D800, some 2/3rds of a stop better than the sensor itself is capable of, I've become extremely skeptical of their numbers, and usually try to have a few big, honkin grains of salt handy at all times.

Not what you said before they posted D800 results....

When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14. DXO's DR ratings are only useful if you are shooting a scene with extreme DR to start with, and you push the "expose to the right" (ETTR) technique to the absolute limits. Even then, human error and caution will prevent you from actually achieving the maximum possible DR as indicated by DXO. The only way to actually use all of a camera's available DR is to expose a scene you simply can't expose properly no matter how much headroom it has, in which case you'll always end up with unrecoverable blocked blacks and blown highlights.

Who cares what those details are the point is to use it to compare cameras relative to one another.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is DxOMark Delaying publishing the 5DMkIII Results?
« on: March 31, 2012, 12:01:42 AM »
If I am not mistaken, they carry out the testing with RAW, so maybe the issue with DPP is holding them back...

They don't use RAW converters, that's not an even test. They just look at the RAWs themselves, not converted or touched by anything.


I kinda feel like starting a new blog page and requesting a press pass from the university as being a professional photographer with a website dealing with their school... Wonder if it will work haha.

hah, no, not for things like Texas Tech football

certainly not unless you really built it into a huge thing and had like half the school following your blog and it became as big a deal as the school newspaper and established as the go to site (and you proved you knew what you were doing on the sidelines and had some proof to provide)

So last night I was all excited because I add ring seat to an NHL game in Montreal so I thought lets bring the 5D mkII with my 135mm and take some cool shots right!  I see so many sports pictures being posted here that I thought this would be fun!

Well when I got to the door the security denied me access to the sport center because my camera has detachable lens (the G1X would have been handy!)!  The guy was fairly rude so I could not figure out why except that I was not a certified journalist.  So I had to bring back the camera to the car and come back empty handed to get in  :-[ !

Is it like this for all professional sports?  What is your experience shooting pro sports?  Do we need some kind of accreditation or did I just stumble onto a bad security person? the way two rows down from me was a professional photographer using his Nikon D3s though ...  >:(

It really depends upon the sport and the stadium.

Red Bulls soccer bans everything and anything. Philadelphia Union allows in DSLR with lenses as large as 70-300L.

NCAA D1 Women's College Cup and NCAA ACC Women's Tournament Soccer banned even rebels with pancake lenses these days, even friends and family and fellow students, no go, pretty ridiculous I mean it's college sports let the people have their fun, isn't that what college is supposed to be about? and it's not even like they are the big revenue sports basketball and football are.  While OTOH at Yankee Stadium they allow in DSLR without issue and you see 70-200,70-300,300 f/4, 400 f/5.6, etc. all the time all over the place.

(regular season NCAA soccer games though tend to very lax though, i've seen people with super-tele in the stands, but again it depends upon the place and the setup)

D3 colleges are often more lax about things, but it depends. Sometimes you can use super-tele, at the schools where sports aren't much of a big deal and attendance, even for football, is almost non-existent, it depends, not that it's a total free for all even there since they don't want people doing silly things and causing havoc or injury, but at some you can all but shoot from field in more or less pro positions, although at most you'd absolutely need a press pass for anything close to that.

In some cases bans are because everyone is so lawsuit happy these days, so no monopods even for field seating at soccer, in case you trip someone and then the stadium would get sued.

The places that ban lenses over 8" sometimes do it because they don't want people swinging long lenses and blocking other fan's views and not necessarily for other reasons.

NBA tends to be super restrictive (even with a press pass, for pre-season game, it's so restrictive that you often are not even allowed to so much as share shots on the web or even share them with other news agencies, some passes say the images can on;y be presented by the designated media outlet on the pass alone). NFL is often pretty restrictive. WPS is a mixed bag ranging over the entire gamut, from relatively lax to 100% restricted. MLS is mixed too although a bit more restrictive on average. MLB tends to be relatively lax about it, on average, they are much less strict than the NBA/NFL/NHL, much less so, but I have heard that in some MLB parks they are somewhat strict.

MLB is your best bet above the high school level (but do check since it does vary stadium to stadium).

or a sport that isn't getting love. Even at a D1 school, some sports, for some reason get little attention paid to them. I know one school where tennis was desperate to get a look, if you can show that you are capable of getting some decent shots they might let you in with whatever you want. Look at the local papers and the school's paper, if some sports rarely gets photos in the paper, they may be open to things.

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 236