December 21, 2014, 12:42:12 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88
241
There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it.

That all sounds like eml58's brother in law.

How does a CC server being down stop your local program working? Adobe have said even if your computer is not connected to the internet CC will run fine for three months without online verification. If you tell them you won't be able to go online for longer they can extend that to 6 months off line, server issues are a red herring.

If the lease fee goes up to a level you are not prepared to pay, don't pay it, use something else. We'd all like a Ferrari but more of us can afford a Toyota, we'd like to eat steak and lobster but can't afford that either, same for businesses. As for we'd all happily pay the $10, well that clearly isn't the case with all the bitching and moaning going on.

So your real argument is, I don't like the price they might charge in the future! Well you could say that about health insurance and gas prices, or any number of other things that are sold to us by corporations.

I probably should have done my homework before writing that comment. It seems they do allow up to 30 days offline usage before the application tries to verify the license. If you're an annual subscriber it's 99 days in offline mode.

It also states that you still have access to your files even if you cancel.

OK, seems like a solid deal now that I've had a chance to think about it and look up my questions. Sign me up for some steak and lobster!

242
For me, it is based on economics.  I got PS CS6 and LR at a huge discount through an offer through TDP for 325 in 2012.  The cost is a sunk cost because it was before CC.  After CC came out, I upgrade to LR5 for 70.  I'm not a heavy PS user, and CS6 is good enough for me.  I was happy with LR4 but got LR5 as a Christmas present.  I don't foresee getting another LR upgrade unless I replace my 5DIII with a future camera that is not supported with the current software.

My fear is that they will charge 9.99 (or worse 19.99) for LR/PS when all I need is LR, especially if LR is no longer sold as a stand-alone program.  That will result in a higher cost to me than buying yearly LR upgrades.

A steady revenue  is good for the company but not necessary good for the consumer.  It potentially leads the company to be less innovative and rest on their laurels.  PS is mature enough for me that I only feed the need to upgrade every 4 or 5 years (when I build a new computer).  LR is mature enough but they get you on new camera/lens profiles.

You could convert your future files to DNG and they would work just fine on your old versions. One extra step in the workflow though.

243
There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it. 

244
EOS Bodies / Re: Do what?
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:03:21 PM »
a lens that gives 15 P-MP on a 24 MP sensor may very well need a 200MP sensor to be fully resolved, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly doesn't "waste" 9 million sensor pixels.

No, those 9 MP don't 'go away'.  They still take up space on your digital storage media, time to process, etc., even if they don't add anything to the information content of the image.  It's called 'empty resolution' for a reason.

What you wright is total nonsense, for anyone who like real, natural, virtually-analog capture.
It is total nonsense for anyone who wants rugged data that doesn't depend on luck of alignment of pixels and subject transients, and survives geometrical processing like CA, distortion, and perspective correction, rotation, and arbitrary resampling in practically lossless manner.

 ??? Huh?? You've lost me there. Are you just throwing random photographic words together?

245
I almost signed up for CC until I saw what happened to Pye @ SLR Lounge.  :(

Nope. Sorry Adobe, that's unacceptable.

246
Looks like either Fotga or Meike.

Hmm, now I'm leaning to a new one I found.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DB9TPAI/?tag=sterlingbymus-20

Yeah, originally I think Surapon posted about those Opteka ones but they were difficult to find on ebay. Looks like they've sorted out their stock issues. I'd go for these, it has one extra 21mm tube.

I have the Fotga 10mm & 16mm set that cost about $45. They're quite well made but feel light. They supported a FD 50mm f/1.4 plus FD-EOS M adaptor just fine. If you're using the EF adaptor you can support the weight better by using it's tripod foot instead of the EOS M.

247
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 03:25:43 AM »
A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

DSLR Basics Tutorial | Xrite Color Checker Passport | Camera Custom White Balance

Cheers! I'll check it out!

Also, thanks for the link to luminous landscape, that just saved me a whole lot of time mucking about with google search!

248
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:53:59 AM »
A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

249
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 26, 2014, 02:56:44 AM »
It's perverse how many times a day I check this forum and now I am looking at other peoples perversions!

And when I'm not on CR forum I'm drooling over gear or dreaming about what gear I don't need.

Everytime I look at a clock it's taunting me - 10:22am, 16:35pm, 17:40pm ... Damn it I'm missing golden hour!!

I get very anxious when I'm "wasting good light" and get annoyed at people who get in my way of shooting it! (Which is ALWAYS during work!) damn you work! I have things to shoot!

The most exciting thing to look forward to next month are the reviews for the 16-35 f/4L. (And my girlfriend's birthday but whatever!)

And today, I ... I ... I watched a Jared Polin video! Forgive me for I have sinned!! Fro DOES NOT KNOW photo!!!

250

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm.  The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique.  This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

251
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

252
with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

I love this logic - so you want to pay MORE money for LESS range, a bulkier and heavier lens without IS (which is apparently useless anyway)?  :o

Yeah, I mean like who would ever buy a wide angle lens with IS? Deja-vu ... Didn't we do this when the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS were announced? Remind me what 18mm is on a crop?  ::)

They scoffed at the notion then but it seems to be selling quite well so it can't be all that useless, can it?

Oh .... and hands up who here would love to have the little EF-M 11-22mm lens? On many peoples wish list, and why is that? Super small compact UWA lens with IS? Oh yes please!  ;D

253
I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?

1 = mechanical elements in the FOV.  Not correctable through lens vignetting algorithms -- more like a clone tool fix, but I am a rookie with using these.  Others may have slicker tricks.

2 = the kick in the butt.  Apparently around 15mm (FF) focal length, most manufacturers give up on front-filterability and the Lee system will not work.  So if you are using Lee (there are alternatives), their 100mm system is the one most of us use (for the 16-35 II, 24 primes, 17-40, many Zeiss wides, etc.)  Well, apparently Lee thought the Nikon 14-24 was worth engineering a specialized workaround for, and they made the SW150 system just for that lens: (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150).  As I understand it, it's not as fully functional as the 100 system as it doesn't support something important.. was it a CPL?  It's something non-trivial for landscape folks.

3 = as stated my someone else, you get adaptor rings for the lens' filter diameter.  That's really the only added cost once you've invested into the system.  $50-60 or so if memory serves.

4 = See #2.  The Lee 100mm setup is for front-filtering lenses only.  That generally means you are locked out of the fun on lenses with a wide end under 16mm or so (FF, I mean).  You could hand-hold certain items in front of wider lenses, but depending on the FL, a 4"x6" (i.e. 100mm) filter may not be wide enough to cover the entire FOV.  The next time you have a wide angle lens in your hands, look down over the top of it and imagine the comically wide V of the field-of-view, then imagine how big the flat things in front of it need to be when you get 15, 25, 35mm away from the front element.  So a lot of really wide angle shooters (say, with the 16-35), have to thin up their Lee holder to only allow one creative tool instead of stacking two or three.

- A

I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gelatin filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!

254
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 14, 2014, 09:48:37 AM »
I think maybe what OP is experiencing is shutter lag. I noticed this on the rebel T2i. I'd see something like a person making a funny expresion and by the time the camera took the picture the moment was gone. I got frustrated and bought a 7D for it's speed but 99% of my shots were in One Shot mode. The 7D has very little shutter lag and as long as you have a decent CF card you'll not be waiting for ages to take your next shot.

I'm not saying buy a 7D but buying anything above the rebel line will show improvements in speed and useablity. With good timing a 6D should suffice. I find the 5D 2 to be just fine for most things. It hasn't let me down yet. I can only imagine the 6D to be even better, especially in low light.

I think investing in a good USM lens will also help you. After that try using back button focus technique to speed things up and to be always ready!

Good luck!

255
I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III  (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us?  ;D

I don't think Canon will bring out another f/2.8 unless it is something amazing, like the 200-400 1.4x to counter the 200-400 Nikkor.
Now what could that awesomeness be?
1. An amazingly sharp lens wide open. (very likely)
2. A very wide FL, at least 14 but maybe even 12. (quite likely, 12mm possible)
3. IS on a fast lens. (unlikely, IMO)
4. A 12/14mm that takes filters. (very unlikely, IMO)
5. Any other suggestions?

I don't know .. i see the 16-35/2.8 II as the only weak link in what is a pretty nice 2.8 and 4.0 three lens set.

you have the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and the 70-200/4 - all pretty darn good lenses, modern and should scale up well with higher res senors.

the 2.8's are the same . but what this.. oh yeah the ugly duckling .. the 16-35/2.8 II

I wouldn't be surprised to see this updated if/when the hi rez body comes out.

My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2.

Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88