November 26, 2014, 05:24:02 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 - danski0224

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 38
166
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: January 16, 2014, 05:27:30 PM »
Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.

As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...

Just a bit of a tangent...

I recently picked up a minty and complete original 1D for a very reasonable price. Different sensor tech that still has a following and the price was good. Enough of a reason to see what the fuss is about.

The images are way better than what I would have thought from a camera with only 4 megapixels- I was thinking 4MP point and shoot image quality. I really don't see an issue printing up to 13" x 19". Maybe more, I am still messing with it.

This camera outputs TIFF and JPEG. I had to reformat a card so it works- it wouldn't recognize a CF card formatted in a CR2 camera.

Canon's DPP works just fine with these TIFF files. Just a little bit of sharpening and it looks great.

So, why did Canon switch RAW formats when this camera from 2001 puts out a nice TIFF file? (end of small tangent)

Well, apparently, the TIFF format sucks when things change, like camera settings. See the short rant here in the 4th paragraph: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

So, I guess that someone at Canon early on recognized the limitations of the TIFF format.

This previously linked page (http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/) has a whole bunch of stuff that is over my head, but I can pick out parts where portions of the code are used to identify things like the camera model.

There's also a bunch of blocks with a "?" in them.

Given that Canon can easily cripple camera features with firmware, it is easy to assume that there is a bunch of stuff happening between the tags in a CR2 file and software like DPP and therefore why some feel that DPP renders the Canon image better than other software.

167
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:43:03 PM »


Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.

Edit:  I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.

There must be more to it than charts and graphs. I can listen to stereo amplifiers with comparable specs and they sound different.

Given a properly exposed image, I'd agree that there is little difference.

But, if the image is underexposed (accidentally or intentionally), 1D files have a lot more working room.

168
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 16, 2014, 10:10:14 AM »
Buy the 17-55 now and enjoy it. Sell it later, call the difference a rental.

169
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 16, 2014, 08:34:17 AM »
Hi

I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM.
Any advice greatly appreciated!

Given the two lenses in your post, and references to low light shooting and shallow depth of field also in your post, the only one to choose is the 17-55.

170
Lenses / TSE + Macro?
« on: January 16, 2014, 08:01:13 AM »
Is there a tilt-shift lens with macro capabilities?

I did come across this: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/hartblei_120_4_pc_n10 but it is certainly priced as a professional piece of equipment.

Is there a combination of tubes and/or extenders that would work with current Canon TSE lenses to provide acceptable macro capabilities? I have access to a 24mm II TSE lens to experiment with- just not sure where to start.


171
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: January 16, 2014, 06:46:43 AM »
I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3.  I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther.  Why is this?  Thanks for any insight.

My speculation is that there is more latitude built into the 1 series raw file.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to understand the properties of a CR2 file, but I am willing to bet that there is stuff buried in the code that differentiates a 1 series image over "everything else", especially when using DPP.

It's not just DPP, though. An underexposed 1D series file can be brightened quite a bit in Lightroom with little/no apparent problems. Noise cleans up nicely, too.

"Latitude" may not be the right word, but there must be some fundamental yet major difference in the CR2 file between a 1 series and "everything else".



 

172
EOS Bodies / Re: 1dX dust in viewfinder
« on: January 15, 2014, 07:09:40 AM »
For those who have to send the camera away for cleaning, how do you pack it? And then how do you ship it (UPS, FedEx, next day, etc)?

I've never shipped a camera to Canon, but I've loaned a 7D to a friend.  Wrap it in bubble wrap, then place that in a box large enough for a few inches of packing material on all sides.  If sending to Canon, do not include anything but the camera (no battery, no strap, etc.), ship it with the body cap installed. 

Ship UPS or FedEx so you can get a tracking number that means something (USPS reports delivery, but does not actually track regular shipments).  Enter the proper declared value and pay the insurance.

Probably a little late here, but it is worth mentioning that all of the freight companies have packaging guidelines.

If these packaging guidelines are not followed, the freight companies will not pay out on the insurance that you paid for in the event of damage. Actual loss is different if the package is not recovered. I have received "improperly packaged" damaged freight that was insured (and coverage refused) and have had packages outright disappear from UPS (only once, but I would have been SOL if I didn't insist on insurance from the shipper, and the investigation took a month).

If you do not have a shipping account, insurance gets expensive pretty quickly. In my experience, the local shipping depots in the strip malls mark up insurance rates 2x over doing it yourself online (which are still overly expensive retail rates), as long as the coverage limit isn't reached. UPS, USPS and FedEx all have insurance limits for online transactions and UPS has additional forms that must be filled out by a UPS employee once a certain threshold is reached (route driver or UPS depot- the strip mall centers don't count).

The replacement value of a 5DIII and a 70-200 II lens can come close to the insurance limits for retail customers.

Big companies shipping expensive stuff may not insure the packages- they have separate insurance to cover loss and the cost of shipping is exceeded by the cost of the carrier insurance rates.

For those that ship camera stuff regularly, it may be worthwhile checking into a shipping rider for your insurance.

173
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Version 2.0.3 Released
« on: January 09, 2014, 08:25:23 AM »
Does Magic Lantern still work after the update?

:)

174
I would have done it- seems pretty low risk from my end.

The only thing I would suggest to the person making the offer is they provide the memory cards if they want the images. "Deleted" images can be recovered.

175
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Buy a 5D Mark III or Wait for ??? in 2014
« on: January 02, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »
I'd definitely wait for the 5DIV. Just make sure that the pictures you want to take will wait too :).

176
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro autofocus?
« on: December 29, 2013, 04:49:22 PM »
Don't really see anything "wrong" with those images. :)

177
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro autofocus?
« on: December 29, 2013, 09:10:23 AM »
I also like macro photography.

I much prefer a monopod to a tripod, but that fits in with what I take pictures of most of the time. Tripod and/or rail is really for stationary subjects, or for those that wait for the bugs to come to them- as one example I saw one guy taking pictures of monarchs with what looked like a 600mm lens on a 1D series body on a tripod. I doubt that lens has a macro setting, but he probably filled the frame :)

Little bits of wind can be a huge problem. AF can help. AI Servo can help. Multiple frames can help.

Little changes in AF make big magnification changes- just something to be aware of.

Yes, sometimes I turn off the AF, set the lens at 1:1 and move in/out until focus is achieved. Little bits of movement make a big difference.

Probably my most used tool is the monopod followed by the lens collar. Even having the end of the monopod way off to the side in contact with the ground stabilizes the camera enough for me when the same shot purely handheld would have been much more difficult or not possible.

I have also noticed "odd" focus behavior once in a while and I'm not sure what causes it- it isn't repeatable in my case. It could simply be that the AF system is operating near the limitations of the system. The Canon f2.8 macro doesn't use the f2.8 AF points and I'm not sure what AF points the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro uses.


Edits: monarchs = monarch butterflies, not royalty :)

back button focus is a huge help for macro in general.

178
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d mk III, the honeymoon is over
« on: December 24, 2013, 05:02:00 PM »
Yeah.  Had my 70-200 ii delivered at work because FedEx would not redirect it to a local store.  But, too many people see the stuff there.  I don't worry about any dishonesty.  I just don't want them to know I've spent that kind of $ on something.

The declared value of an item can limit your (the receiver) options for re-routing packages- UPS and FedEx.

Sometimes, delivery options can only be changed by the shipper.

Next time, call the shipper and have them re-route the package.

179
Canon General / Re: Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?
« on: December 24, 2013, 09:25:24 AM »
USD 3,000 / per wedding price is too high. Clients are not interested in your experience, equipment, lighting equipment, insurance. They want to buy specific product - wedding photos. Nobody cares about your expenses. If someone is doing wedding photography during weekends, has a good equipment and required skills he  / she is able to make wedding photos much cheaper.

Not knowing a few key variables, but with a reasonable assumption and some easy math...

Lots of so-called "professionals" are near the $100.00/hr rate for their services. Some are considerably more.

So, $3,000.00 USD gets you 30 man-hours of time at the hypothetical $100.00/hr.

Seems to me, from the outside looking in, that it would be fairly easy to rack up 30 man-hours of time on a wedding job. Easier (faster) if you have paid assistants (8 hour day can equal 12-16 man-hours for 2 people, depending on the billing rate). Remember, you have to track and account for all time spent for that one job: Initial consultation, site preview, the event itself, proofs, more client conversations, delivery (those are just off the top of my head).

Depending on what you really want or need to make per hour, there is some latitude. It always comes down to some sort of hourly rate.

Then the other stuff like mileage and equipment depreciation, supplies and so forth comes out of that hypothetical hourly rate.

So, just from a business perspective, there is justification for the price. Value and selling those services to paying clients are completely separate entities.

I bet if the $500.00/event photographers figured out what they were making per hour after lugging several thousand dollars of equipment around, many would be very disappointed.

180
EOS Bodies / Re: Install DPP without a CD ROM?
« on: December 23, 2013, 02:48:36 PM »
Remember the 3.25" floppy disk?  Apple was the first major computer manufacturer to drop those from its machines.  Today, show me a PC laptop that has a floppy drive?  Gone.  Poof.  Optical drives are next.  Get with the times!

I hear that Apple has also eliminated those pesky MicroSD slots and USB ports... ;)

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 38