April 19, 2014, 04:42:34 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 200
31
Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:32:19 PM »
"This technology is likely to first appear in a new 50mm lens."

A long last a 50mm 1.4 that has decent AF and AF that doesn't break if you look at it the wrong way?  :)

32
Lenses / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Thoughts from CP+
« on: February 14, 2014, 10:22:17 PM »
The point of owning an RX100 is its "pocketability"; that's not to say that the G1X II won't fit in a pocket, just that the size of the pocket will need to be larger. The G1X II is actually larger than the full frame RX1 in most dimensions, though it is slightly shallower over the lens (the body itself is a bit chunkier).

Yeah for me I always use a DSLR unless I need something truly pocketable. I don't personally see the point of something half-way, if it's not truly, utterly pocketable it won't get used since I'd be using either something pocketable or a DSLR.

So for me it's RX100 II + DSLRs.

33
Lenses / Re: Lens Announcement Coming in February? [CR1]
« on: February 07, 2014, 06:51:18 PM »
It's also about time we had a Canon 1.4x and 2.0x extender that retained AF past f5.6/8.0 - I'm sure it's a marketing ploy rather than technical

LOL.

Haydn1971, meet optical physics.  Optical physics, meet Haydn1971.  It's clear the two don't know each other.    ;)

The f/number is a ratio of focal length to the diameter of the iris diaphragm.  Putting the TC behind the lens increases the focal length, but doesn't change the physical aperture inside the lens.   

A 400mm f/5.6 lens has a 71.4mm physical aperture: 400mm/71.4mm = 5.6.  If you put a 1.4x TC behind it, you multiply the focal length by 1.4x, to 560mm.  Therefore, you now have a 560mm/71.4mm = f/7.84 (call it f/8) lens.  If your camera supports AF at only f/5.6, AF won't work.

A 200mm f/2 lens has a 100mm physical aperture: 200mm/100mm = 2.  If you put a 2x TC behind it, you multiply the focal length by 2x, to 400mm.  Therefore, you now have a 400mm/100mm = f/4 lens.

It's both. The Kenko DGX with full spoofing allows for perfectly fine f/8 AF with the 70-300L on a 5D3 even without the f/8 AF firmware. The Canon 1.4x III+70-300L would surely allow for good AF too on a 5D3 but they lock that combo out and force you to buy a Kenko. That said some of it is real too for sure.

34
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 03:27:55 PM »
It would be nice if they got it down to 70mm. IMO,on FF, that makes a lot of difference, then it can be more useful as a general/landscape lens as well as a reach/wildlife lens.

I wonder if it could match the 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS over those ranges in terms of IQ.

35

Remember, the c300 uses an 8K sensor and intelligently down-samples to 1080 in camera. So if we are only getting 2.5K reads off a sensor, then it's not like this "new camera" would necessarily be using as much or more image data.

Actually it's a 4K sensor downsampled in camera to 1080p.

I think i've made this mistake 100 times now.  ;D You are correct, it's 8MP or 4K.

But it's bayer though so it's not really true full color per pixel 4k sensor at all.

36
More or less ISO160 and ISO200 and ISO320 and ISO400 etc. are the same. You can set ISO200 and EC +1/3 and get the same as ISO160 or ISO160 and EC -1/3 and get the same as ISO200. The RAW files are stored a bit differently but the end result is basically the same. Who knows maybe one actually has 0.1 stop more DR or something, but from a practical standpoint who can tell +0.1 DR from +0.0 DR???

Once you above ISO1600 for most of the older bodies everything is just pushed ever 1/3 more, more recent bodies had that shift point at ISO3200. There may be or two where it is ISO6400, I forget.

The only thing to avoid is the ISO125 and so on.

The only way practical at all to get more DR might be the new ML thing which apparently gives you 1/2 more DR at any ISO. Focusing on whether ISO160 has 0.1 stops more DR than ISO200 seems kind of useless to me.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 06:47:37 PM »
I wish it was f/2.8...

personally I'd prefer f/4: smaller, lighter, less expensive, perhaps better optically

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:54:51 PM »
The quality with which LR renders my 7D images only seems to get better and better with time and each subsequent version, so as Adobe optimizes their demosaicing implementation, any inherent error is clearly diminishing.

Thanks again for all your great posts on this! The problem with Adobe is that they seem to be very secretive about any improvements concerning ACR or LR, their official changlog only reflects a small part of the changes ... or is there any Adobe or 3rd party documentation on their raw converter improvements over time?

Not that I know of. Sometimes changes to sort of appear out of nowhere. Although I think they did announce the changes when they got rid of 7D mazing.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:53:52 PM »
Hmm. I can't imagine that such a thing is a huge problem. It's not all that different from Sony's "Emerald Green" CFA that they introduced many years ago (they called it RGBE). Their "Emerald" had more blue in it than the standard green. Based on all the sample images at the time, it actually produced better color accuracy...but it would be the exact same thing as your describing with the 7D.

When you have two similarish but different greens a typical de-bayer will get tricked and create maze patterns.

Quote
I also can't imagine that it would cause a loss in resolution. I mean, the crux of any bayer demosaicing algorithm is interpolating the intersections between every (overlapping) set of 2x2 pixels. Because there is reuse of sensor pixels for multiple output pixels, there is an inherent blur radius. But it is extremely small, and it wouldn't grow or shrink if one of the pixel colors changed. You would still be interpolating the same basic amount of information within the same radius. I remember there being a small improvement in resolution with my 7D between LR 3 and 4, and things seem a bit crisper again moving from LR 4 to 5. I suspect any supposed loss in resolution with the 7D was due to the novelty of Adobe's implementation of support for the 7D, not anything related to having two slightly different colors for the green pixels. The quality with which LR renders my 7D images only seems to get better and better with time and each subsequent version, so as Adobe optimizes their demosaicing implementation, any inherent error is clearly diminishing. BTW, there is no way anything Adobe has ever done that could possibly "knock off 1-2mp worth of resolution" from the 7D.

Well if you compared the first ACR that handled the 7D, which also mazed a lot, the version that came out right after where they fixed the 7D mazing, there was a subtle lowering of micro-contrast. My 1-2MP was just a wild guesstimate. (1MP off of 18MP really is not much when you think about it, especially what it would mean for linear resolution change, although maybe calling it 1-2MP was overdoing it)

Quote
DPP will produce a fairly jagged result, ACR/LR produce a very clean result. Based on the sample below, ACR is actually sharper and supports even finer detail resolution:

It depends, I find ACR can get pretty jaggy in some cases, at least with non 7D cameras. I do find I can pull a bit more finer detail with it than DPP though.




40
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
« on: January 23, 2014, 03:12:19 PM »
On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.

Why?  Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII.  The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

Yes to both. Reach is also another reason. I like to keep that 300mm f/4 at f/4 and not have to use a 1.4 extender

My experience was that the 300 f/4 non-IS + 1.4x TC AF kinda struggled for sports (although I only ever used that combination on xxD, then again the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC AF better, at least with 40D/50D that was still a little rough with the old 20D), although the image quality was fine for birds sitting around.

The 300 f/4 IS has a different AF system and different optical system than the one I used though.

41
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
« on: January 23, 2014, 03:06:02 PM »
Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

The 'reach benefit' is mostly an illusion.  It's a 'crop factor' not a 'magnification factor'.  A 300mm lens doesn't become 480mm on APS-C, you're just cropping away the outer part of the frame. 

A 'reach benefit' for a 7D over a 5DIII only exists if you need more than 8.6 MP for your desired output.  If 8.6 MP is sufficient (up to 16x24" / A2 prints), then the 5DIII image cropped to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will give you equivalent IQ at up to around ISO 800 (on the 7D), and progressively better IQ as ISO increases from there (at some point, probably ISO 3200 but certainly ISO 6400, the 7D's noise is so bad that an up-res'd 5DIII image would be better even if you do need all 18 MP).

Some might also cite the 2 extra fps as an advantage, and it is one in theory…but in practice, I believe the superior AF performance of the 5DIII will yield a higher overall keeper rate despite the lower fps.

Lots of times 300mm on a 5D3 won't fill up the central 8MP for soccer or football or baseball though. It's not too bad though. It's nicer using the 300mm on a 5D2/5D3 than using it on an old 8-10MP APS-C for sure though, since you get the same-nearly the same reach plus you can shoot the players much closer in thanks to the much wider FOV.

yeah for soccer and football I think you are right about the AF vs fps thing, for surfing though I don't think so

42
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
« on: January 23, 2014, 03:02:38 PM »
On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.

Why?  Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII.  The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.

For for more reach.

Although, granted, for soccer/football I don't think the 7D AF is maybe good enough to give up the 5D3 even with the extra reach.

For surfing I think the 7D definitely has AF good enough to be worth the extra reach though. Same for birds sitting around and moving about a bit (where it almost seems to do better anyway).

The 7D2 though might well use 5D3 AF or even better.

43
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
« on: January 23, 2014, 02:56:14 PM »
Hi All,

I just wanted to get some opinions on using a Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?

I have a Canon 5d mk III and was wondering if this is a good combination? On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D. I know there is a a possible replacement coming out soon but its not my primary photography interest and I've heard/experinced so many good things about the 7D. I might be a little older bit its still holds it ground.

Please post your thoughts or pictures using this lens. There aren't that many reviews or videos that give deep insight on this lens? There is a Digital-Rev video but its not that helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Yeah it can be quite good for sports (of course it depends, if you are talking indoor basketball then maybe it's not the best place to start).

For field sports, I preferred it to the bare 70-200. It's actually easy to move around and stop on a dime than it's big 300 2.8 brother. I liked it a lot more than 70-200 2.8 non-IS + 1.4x TC combo.

Here are a few shots from the 300 f/4 non-IS from the short while I had one between using 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 IS non-L alone and a 300 2.8 IS sometimes with TC, a few are from among the first sports I ever shot:


44
I don't see how it can replace RAW since RAW is still in Bayer format and so on and so forth.
It might well replace TIFF and PNG and so on for storing high-bit edits and final outputs though (although 12bits would still be a bit less flexible for going back and re-editing than the 15bits or so you can already use with other formats).

45
Software & Accessories / Re: Screen gamut
« on: January 23, 2014, 01:45:33 AM »

I think she was damn right!  ;D  She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.

She was, that is why I referenced the anecdote. But she was working to the output viewing conditions, not the sterile fully profiled and managed workstation conditions.

Final output viewing conditions are all that matters, if you are outputting your images, if you aren't then by definition it is moot because you don't have any.

Don't forget though that they now know which sort of look looks best on the newsstand and since they have calibrated monitors they can reliable aim to hit close to that to begin with from then on.

And I still wouldn't discount the lone screen thing so much. Again most photos you take are seen by yourself and most and most often on screen. And the for others who see your stuff, it's online that will total the largest amount of views for most people.

And the varying conditions for prints thing, yeah, but all the same I find it way easier to get prints that seem reasonable when basing off of a color-managed monitor then one set to who knows what.

And you always have a decent starting point. You don't need to re-edit your images completely every time you move to a new screen or a new printer etc.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 200