August 20, 2014, 09:24:51 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
Well, he's defending a relative.  And maybe he's a backer...   ::)


Neuro, FYI, you have a PM...

2
I didn't want to comment when I saw the post first simply because I didn't want to deprive the inventors of their su.. er, backers. If someone wants to throw away their money, it's their problem. Now that the project is funded, I suppose it is okay to speak up. Both this and the Magmod seem superfluous to me. This, because of reasons already stated. The magmod, because the modifier will not stay put if pushed around especially inside the bag.

The best gel solution I found so far comprises of buying the $ 8 swatchbook PBD mentioned (B&H etc.) and this item from ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/321486178488.
It has a sticky velcro (put some Gaffer's tape over your Speedlite first if you want to remove the velcro cleanly afterwards), and a nice carrier for the gels with a pocket for storing extra gels (Lumiquest sells JUST the carrier for $ 10), and a set of gels for color effects.
Cost me $ 16 to set up a gel system for 3 Speedlites. 

3
EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 14, 2014, 02:27:12 AM »
Now, to those who say pop-up flashes are terrible, there is a nice solution called the Lightscoop (you can Google it).

I think a key point can be drawn here. You have a solution, but having a solution by definition means having a problem (unless you're in government). The pop up flash is inherently a problem.

Oh, I agree it's a problem. I used it a handful of times when I had APS-C cameras, even when I didn't have Speedlites. The only time I used my 7D pop-up flash after that was to trigger the optical slave.
But, it is better than nothing. And the Lightscoop makes it actually usable.

4
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 14, 2014, 02:22:58 AM »
I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. And I don't want to sound like I'm criticising you - but I do wonder if there's a logical link between the technology and practitioners' professionalism.

I have no experience of film photography beyond point-and-shoot family/holiday snapshots from my younger days, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I don't think good quality digital photography is easy, nor can it be mastered (especially with a DSLR) in minutes. There are cowboys in every field - and I suspect there always have been. And it seems that most of what makes wedding photography challenging is beyond the camera - it's about scouting the location, talking to the clients and understanding their needs, getting to the venue on time, having backup equipment/assistants, and producing a package (nowadays likely in book form) that merits the occasion (thinking about it, I suppose most types of photography rely on a lot more than the camera and strict photographic technique, but anyway). Given how much people spend on weddings, and wedding photographers these days, surely (at the better end) things have improved? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but my grandparents' expectations were very limited (they were only allowed 6 shots due to rationing, and they were just snaps, nothing fancy) - whereas a recent friend's wedding involved (after much research on the best photographer for their needs) a separate shoot on location, video, a glossy hardback book, etc.

Why would shooting on film make someone more professional? Were film cameras much more expensive? I suppose proper photographers would have a darkroom, but if you were slapdash in those days, maybe you'd get someone else to do it?

Just lots of questions arise when people compare the pre-digital era with today, I hope you don't mind :)


Not at all, I was probably not clear. I have nothing against technology, and more than half of my photography experience happened after the digital era. So I know very little of pre-digital era to be able to compare. All I am saying is that the low barrier to entry into professional photography hurts both the real pros as well as the consumers. Why does digital allow a lower barrier to entry? At least 2 reasons:

1. Availability of preview- my photographer often snapped multiple images with the same setting. It's cheap with digital to shoot multiple shots, and preview allows you to fix mistakes. A film photographer who has to give something to the clients at the end of the job, will have to know what settings work or else he might have a completely useless roll.

2. Option of multiple ISOs and post processing- can you imagine a photographer with little or no idea of lighting (as mine was, sadly) walk in with a roll of film and be confident that it will work?

As you said- good quality digital photography isn't easy. Good photography will demand the same hard work and talent but produce far better results in the digital age. However, anybody with a dSLR can now start a business and charge pennies to attract customers. Without the tools above, someone would need at least a minimal training to use film SLRs. Along the way, he would hopefully learn something about composition, the necessary shots, the necessary people who you need to take pictures of.

The solution, of course, is for the customers to be more careful of whom they hire.

5
Thanks for the information. BTW, the Clutch looks awesome. I am getting it when it's out.

There still may be time to get the discounted price as it's in the last couple of days of the Kickstarter process.
If you miss that, 1KindPhoto http://www.1kindphotography.com/2014/01/deal-peak-design-bundles-save-up-to-15-plus-additional-10-off.html has a discount code for Peak Design.
coupon code: 1kindphoto

-pw


I did get it through Kickstarter.

The Slide, though, has a few shortcomings as far as I am concerned. I agree it will be less dangly than the Blackrapid (although I use a set of Optech uni-loops to secure the camera, which makes it dangle less), but the sliding strap will make it difficult to use with a backpack over or under it. The sliding carabiner of the Blackrapids just work. A pity that they can't innovate with the connection with the camera.

Mind you, I will not be surprised of PD is bought out by BR, giving us a great all-in-one solution :)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 13, 2014, 04:14:26 PM »
I sincerely can't accept the reasoning of those who want 'no pop up flash' as opposed to merely not wanting them.

The weather-sealing is a total marketing BS. The D810, which is 'heavily weather-sealed' has a pop-up flash. As it is, the 5DIII isn't as weather sealed as the 1D cameras, and the 6D is sealed even less.

The rigidity issue is also hard to swallow. They could just use stronger materials.

As Neuro said, it is all about marketing and selling shoe-mount flashes.

Now, to those who say pop-up flashes are terrible, there is a nice solution called the Lightscoop (you can Google it). I got it for free with my 600EX (imagine the irony, as this thing only works with pop-up flashes), but tested it with a friend's camera. Here are the results- the room was completely dark, about 12' x 12' with 9' ceiling, and the flash was the only source of light.

7
Both the Cinch 2 and the Peak design straps are great, i.e., they prevent the swing problem of the tripod-mounted straps, but they don't provide a solution to mounting directly to the lens satisfactorily when I use my 70-200.
I wonder, how safe is it to carry the 70-200 2.8 mounted to your camera with the camera connected to the strap as the ads show? I mean, the lens is at least twice the weight of the camera!
My solution for that is to attach a Peak Design Anchor to the QR plate on the lens shoe. This not only distributes the weight of the heavy 70-200, but creates a nice balance when it's at your side. I put anchors everywhere, on the two original neckstrap points, the point on the bottom plate and with heavy lenses like the 70-200, on the QR plate. The Anchor does not get in the way when mounting onto a monopod or tripod.

Anyone buying Peak Design straps, I'd suggest ticking the box for a couple of extra packs of Anchors... they're less than $10 per pack.

-pw

Thanks for the information. BTW, the Clutch looks awesome. I am getting it when it's out.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:10:59 AM »
You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images?

Most people drop images in PS and zoom to 100% forgetting that higher MP images are magnified more at "100%".

Quote
Of course, it will be affected by my alleged inability to compare images, but then that is just your guess, isn't it?

You are correct that I am guessing as to why you believe the 7D is noisier when reproducible tests say otherwise.

Quote
I don't objectively test cameras or formats so all the parameters you mentioned are moot.

No, your opinion is by your own admission moot.

It simply amazes me how people will stubbornly cling to opinions even when they fully admit their opinions are not based in any way on anything objective, reproducible, or reasonable. No wonder Zack went on his rant. I'm behind him 100%.

Quote
Yes, I know it isn't the same ratio of enlargement. Who cares?

Now I have no need to guess.

Quote
So what are you trying to prove through your offensive statements,

Pointing out the truth is offensive? But it's not offensive at all when people appeal to hyperbole to prop up clearly false statements?

Quote
and uneducated "guesses"?

My guess was spot on as you just admitted.

Quote
Put less stock in theories and calculations, and rely on your eyes.

Silly statement considering I'm telling you to rely on your eyes with a proper comparison.

Human nature just amazes me sometimes...


As unfocused stated in a different context- you let your keyboard run off before your brain and now you have to keep it up... (paraphrasing)

1. I did not drop images into PS and zoom to 100%. As I clearly stated before, I set the image full screen on a 24" monitor to see how it looks. Being higher resolution, the 7D gains an advantage in terms of pixel downsampling, but being a smaller sensor, it has the disadvantage of enlargement. Regardless, if one is trying to gauge whether his photos look good and presentable, all that matters is looking at them at the same size that your viewers will be looking. For me, that is either a 24" monitor or an 8x10 print. For someone comparing a 7D and a 5Dc, comparing them with similar enlargement of pixel makes sense. But I never owned both cameras at the same time. Which brings me to my second point.

2. My comments about the 7D noise is not an opinion, it is an observation. I owned the 7D and loved it except when I needed to use it at high ISOs. I could not use it at ISO 3200 and above, ISO 1600 was best avoided and ISO 800 was borderline. Not an opinion, an observation at the extremely low performance bar that full screen images from 7D showed unacceptable noise. I have frequently lamented that fact, and still I stuck with the camera for all the other attributes and the great and inexpensive EF-S lenses. So I have no idea why you are blowing this whole issue up as appealing to hyperbole to prop up clearly false statements. What would be my reason for doing that? Being able to keep the 7D would have saved me a lot of money. In fact, I tried to wait for 7DII but it took too long and I just went for the 5DIII. The difference was immediately apparent.
So, why the comment about 7D vs 5Dc? I own the 5Dc now, and had considered selling it after a small job, but I realized that I was able to use images at ISO 1600 without any problem. So, given my subjective scenario, saying 'my 7D was worse than my 5Dc" makes sense.

3. Your guess was I don't know how to compare images. Well, as a scientist, I have published my work that included various images of neurons, that needed to be counted and examined for shape and form. These were fluorescent microscopy images taken using various microscopes and magnifications. I am fortunate that the expert reviewers that accepted my work for publication didn't share your view!

Now, less cross-examine your rants:

4. You still haven't cited any "reproducible" tests or shown any of your own images. You really expect someone to comment on those low-res images without any ISO information? If you're so convinced, why not post some of your OWN 7D images at ISO 1600 without any de-noising. Let everyone see for themselves?

5. You stated one guess at the beginning at the post (PS>100%, etc) and when I said I used a different way to compare, you concluded that supports your guess.

6. Zack Arias is essentially speaking about APS-C sensors that perform better, and not having used Fuji I am willing to take his word for it. I am not saying APS-C sensors cannot be good. In fact, I mentioned he is partially correct in my first post. The reason I got irritated by the video is the weird argument that FF vs APS-C is negligible because they are both so much smaller than MF etc. So you wouldn't care if your arm broke vs it got twisted just because they are so much better than your arm getting ripped off? That's terrible logic. And he is annoying and obnoxious. But he feels like a sweetheart compared to you. I made a subjective comment, stating my observation with my own camera. And you keep trying to prove that I have an 'opinion' against the 7D based on 'what? certainly couldn't be the reviewers who unanimously praise it's high ISO performance'. It is not the words you say that are offensive (well they are, but I don't care), it is the nature of your argument- how you are making a normal, civil discussion into a fight.

7. I am surprised human nature sometimes amazes you. It should always amaze you, considering how foreign it should feel...

Say what you want to say to this... I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to your posts.

9
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:13:16 PM »
........
You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.

Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo. …...


For the successful photos in question the camera never left Slater's physical control.




You obviously didn't read it.  It says right in the blog that it absolutely left his control.

 So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens

  • He put it on a tripod
  • He set it to auto
  • He moved away

That's out of his control.


You gonna share the fried crow with PBD? Maybe you prefer yours deep fried.
from
Sulawesi macaques...

"......I wanted to keep my new found friends happy and with me.  I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what.  So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens.  I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. Was this what they where afraid of earlier?  Perhaps also the sight of the shutter planes moving within the lens also amused or scared them?  They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken!  I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, ..."


Is that the best you can do?  I read that, but how many photographer's assistants have had "one hand on the tripod" to steady it, and there's no way you'd give them copyright.  That's an absurdly weak claim on an image.  If he had had one hand on the tripod and one on a remote shutter release that would do it.  But the monkeys framed the shot when they "grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens."  Then "They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken."

Nope, you are still badly mistaken.  Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government.



I cannot quote the law here, as it is not my area of expertise. However, common sense says if a person set up an equipment in order to get a certain type of results, gets those results, and puts in the efforts to publish those results- they should be the logical recipient of the credits.

Science is my domain- so let's think that way. Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.

To me, what matters in intent (which the photographer certainly had as he wanted the macaques to trigger their own images as they weren't approaching the camera otherwise) and effort (going to the location, making friends with the animals, having the insight of setting up the camera the way he did, collecting and processing the images, sharing them on his blog). He also didn't lie about how the images were generated (although the images might have been less famous if they were shot using a remote switch instead of being selfies).

The other thing that matters is ethics. This is a guy who earns his bread through this trade. He isn't some millionaire or even some rich photographer that the royalties from this photo he is losing won't affect him. On the other hand, paying royalties to him would probably not have affected those who downloaded the images, at least not in a big way anyway. So why is wikimedia citing technical reasons to deprive this guy of some earnings? Especially since they aren't getting the money, anyway!
Even worse, photographers on this forum are repeating those technical clauses instead of thinking how a fellow tog is losing the money that could have helped him and his family. I see people rant here how we should support Gary Fong and Expoimaging and not deprive them by buying the cheap knockoff versions. Where is that support now?

10
Both the Cinch 2 and the Peak design straps are great, i.e., they prevent the swing problem of the tripod-mounted straps, but they don't provide a solution to mounting directly to the lens satisfactorily when I use my 70-200.

I wonder, how safe is it to carry the 70-200 2.8 mounted to your camera with the camera connected to the strap as the ads show? I mean, the lens is at least twice the weight of the camera!

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:47:56 PM »
Christmas magic?  Blind foolishness?

Heh. That's certainly a possibility.
But if they miss, they will be taking a big beating from investors.

I think the suits know better - and they know something that we don't  8).

If I have to guess what will make a bigger splash at Photokina - and a bigger impact
on the bottom line - that would be a 40mp 5DIV, not a 7DII.
Just sayin'.



A high resolution FF camera definitely has its place in the Canon camera lineup, but so does an APS-C camera with more bells and whistles (not that I particularly desire either personally).

@Mt Spokane: Conservative strategy makes more sense during sales slumps, and I believe it is something Canon is pursuing only temporarily. In general, a big company cannot survive without innovation.
I wouldn't call a company that dumps its FD system to launch an entirely new EOS system, or the optical flash system to launch an RT system, conservative. If anything, Canon is one of the most innovative and progressive companies in the industry. So I think Canon will listen to the market and respond thinking to what photographers will be wanting tomorrow, not just responding to what they want today.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 12:04:57 PM »
... While it is true that the Df didn't become mainstream (and I personally dislike the look and the concept), many people bought and loved it.

no. at least not anywhere in Europe. Hardly anybody bought it. Good sensor. Totally botched pseudo-retro user-interface. Consumer-class D600 chassis, instead of using the D800 as sensor-holder for that D4 sensor, sharing everything else with the D800 ... UI, controls, battery, battery grip.   

No need to preach to the choir  ;D- I despise the loss of functionality over form in the first place, and don't think much of the Df's form in the second.

Nevertheless, Europe doesn't comprise all of Nikon's market. I am sure some people are buying it. It ranks in the 7K's on Amazon, and there are cameras behind it. It wasn't expected to be a big seller, mind you, as Nikon seems to have informed dealers before release. But it has sold more than expected.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 11:39:03 AM »
These threads crack me up. I am sure Nikon will bring out something a lot of people will love. While it is true that the Df didn't become mainstream (and I personally dislike the look and the concept), many people bought and loved it.
It is good for both camps that the companies are competing. Why bash something that hasn't even come out yet? I do feel that the Nikon lineup has a gap where a versatile FF dSLR equivalent to the 5DIII can sit, the same way Canon users can use a high megapixel, high DR one.

14
The Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro has a great IPS screen (bright, glossy, outrageous resolution) and the new Surface Pro 3 is also spectacular IPS (also bright, glossy, high resolution).

Appreciate the suggestion but the yoga pro 2 has inaccurate yellow issues and the surface is great but I woukd struggle with LR on a 12" screen. I wanted a true 15" workstation class machine. Just curious if anyone has been down my road.

Have you considered the Wacom Cintiq Companion?

15
Jrista...thanks for taking the time to do this comparison, it's informative and helpful!

Could you post the two photos without upsampling the 5d3 image.  I'd like to see the 5d3 image cropped to match the 7d without the upsampling process.

Thanks again,
North

+1.
I would also like to see the original images compared, with the 5D image only cropped to the size of the 7D image, positioned appropriately.
Thanks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82