April 19, 2014, 11:48:45 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 - Edwin Herdman

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37
61
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:08:23 AM »
Quite odd that the primes are the ones with IS...I guess I'll (eventually) take one of them instead, just not sure which.

I'll be watching out for news of the Tamron zoom's performance as well.  It looks markedly bigger though (but less than a kilogram isn't really that much - maybe for a day's shooting).

62
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot D20
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:06:06 AM »
The design of this camera is pretty far out...I like it.
Would be pretty useful to have a waterproof camera, and video too...not sure what I'd use it for though.

63
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:46:16 PM »
Great...120-300mm f/2.8 with 2X AND 400mm f/4 with 1.4x.  >:(

Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches.  I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).

64
Software & Accessories / Re: RAW vs DNG
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:42:24 PM »
DNG trades one proprietary standard for another.  Like the "Adobe RGB over sRGB" debate, it seems like another way to hobble performance so you can bind yourself more tightly to Adobe products (which I don't use anymore).

65
Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:40:27 PM »
I agree with Grigbar.  The only time I would even consider saving to another format for storage is if support for a specific type of RAW file was broken in a new version, or if Canon was dropping support for it altogether.

The general trend is the reverse of this - old RAW files are having a better time now, with newer RAW converters than existed years ago (cf. Michael Reichmann).

66
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon t4i = 7d price drop? videographers PoV
« on: January 29, 2012, 04:45:58 PM »
I'm not sure what we're getting at here.  Yes, for an individual like the OP, the 7D might not make a big difference.  For many other shooters, the 7D is a better choice.  Since it's in a totally different market, the 7D's pricing isn't determined by the pricing of lesser bodies.

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Lotto Winner Cameras?
« on: January 29, 2012, 02:32:25 AM »
I got it - and getting rights to cover a sports event in one of the pro avenues will be far more expensive than the cost of providing a stills camera and a good telephoto lens.  The broadcast television equipment, though...that's another story, isn't it?

68
RAW vs. RAW, and JPEG vs. JPEG?  I imagine that must be what Chuck means here.

69
Canon General / Re: Where the EOS Digital Camera came from
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:11:24 PM »
Yeah, goodbye Kodak.

It's always interested me that Kodak seemed to pull Nikon and Canon screaming to digital, but in the end those companies started doing it in-house and Kodak has been left with nothing in-house.  It goes to show that if you want to stay in business, build it yourself!  Kodak's interest with consumer formats (like the stupid disc camera) seems to have been their focus, to the detriment of producing professional cameras.  Maybe this is because of the costs of manufacturing in various countries at the time - hard for me to say.  Whatever the case, it hasn't served Kodak well in the long run.

70
Canon General / Re: Canon G1X for street photos?
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:06:46 PM »
The G1X will hopefully fix the last problem to some degree, but having a smaller than APS-C sensor and a very slow lens at the long end, the depth of field will still be quite large.
This is essentially exactly the situation with DSLRs, except that the sensor isn't so much smaller than APS-C to make any notable difference (I expect the new sensor to be more capable for this purpose than the 18mp sensor cameras in fact).  Unless you swap the kit zoom for a Rebel, that is still pretty much just what you'd get.  So Canon is to be commended for making a camera with fewer parts and a smaller body yet most of the features of the kit.

71
Canon General / Re: Patent: Canon RAW Video
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:02:49 PM »
Surely it would have made sense to hold off on the C300 so they could build in this new RAW video capabilities so you can output 4k video. oh well, C300 II will be around the corner I guess, Canon are turning into Apple!
Just on the face of it, this 4K RAW stuff would require much more throughput and probably much more memory capacity than the C300 is likely to offer.

It's interesting that it's Canon filing this patent and not the other guys (well, making a small assumption there).  Further evidence Canon is listening to what people have asked for and moving to get on top in the video space.

72
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW and ISO
« on: January 26, 2012, 01:07:00 AM »
I see references to "brightness" in here.

It's true that ISO is an indirect control for brightness (especially in the case of the pushed / pulled back ISOs), but this is not ultimately useful, unless you don't care about making large prints, or you need the brightness set out of the camera (in fact you don't).  If you do any post-process work at all, however, you don't need to slave to make brightness "correct" in camera.

Instead, if you want to get the most out of every pixel, you ought to overexpose the shot (i.e. dial in 2/3 stop overexposure or whatever your camera needs) to pull as much shadow areas into the first half of the data as possible.

There will be less noise in the shot (especially in darker areas), and the RAW will be larger (more data to play with).  Pulling back brightness in post will not add noise, of course.

As always, there's a good, practical guide to this, found here (Luminous Landscape).  There are also some comments about camera makers and film camera era thinking, which is not worth beating yourself up about or trying to make sense of in strict film camera terms.

73
u mad bro...all o' yaz.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III (or other) Followup
« on: January 24, 2012, 06:53:16 PM »
I'd just like to point out that this is being posted by somebody with skin in the game, who would have respected the Canon engineer's wishes if he had asked them not to leak the information out of respect (though that would've reflected sloppiness on Canon's part, so their honesty is refreshing and our respect well-deserved in this matter).  We have gotten pretty used to the "father's brother's cousin's nephew's former roommate" rumor mongering without anybody having any skin in the game besides CR.  So CR Guy does pretty well sorting out the true and the false so we don't have to, but this is a totally different thing altogether.

Does it matter that somebody had to leak the Nikon D800 (supposedly, still) with missing labels and so on?  Not really, that's just business as usual.  Of course you have to consider the possibility that Canon had considered (even perhaps wanted) these photos could leak, and of course they have greater control over what's going to be said, because news outlets are under NDA and all we see are a couple pretty lenses and a nice-looking camera - no hesitant sentences in a preview to mull over.  It looks good overall, however.

75
as neuro and brian pointed out, the purpose of f/2.8 or wider apertures isn't necessarily to help you shoot in lower light
I don't want to get too metaphysical here, but I think this is not a case of "purpose" so much as a case of "camera manufacturers dealing with the realities of camera tech vastly different from film."

If we could get the additional sensitivity of lenses faster than f/2 (or whatever that limit is) back, you'd better bet it'd appear.  It's not an intentional limitation of the lenses.

That being said it's still pretty important for people to know about this.  Lens manufacturers don't have much incentive to tell people about it, which is regrettable, but apparently it's not caused any lawsuits yet, so...It's interesting that the third party lens manufacturers don't bother with f/1.2 lenses, though, isn't it?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37