July 30, 2014, 06:56:15 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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 78
271
My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.


+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures.  Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.
I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster
Even with WB set to auto, you can always correct the WB in ACR for one picture, select it first, then select more in Adobe ACR and synchronize WB. It is simple and fast.

Yeah but if you use flash worst thing in the world is Auto WB. Knowing what temp you are shooting at has it's advantages in camera. I think it helps understand color temp better too.

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

It's hard to explain but it does help your workflow by shooting at a constant temp. Auto can be cool one shot and then warm the next. Then you gotta figure out "was it really cool or was it warm at that point?" With Daylight you know exactly how it was!

272
Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: December 21, 2013, 11:10:22 AM »



Brrrr that looks cold! Credit to you sir for dealing with the cold to get the shot!

273
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any reason to choose a 7D over a 70D?
« on: December 21, 2013, 11:04:21 AM »
Very interesting discussion. My wife has a  Rebel 4Ti and she is frustrated with it.   I was thinking of getting her a 70D, but may wait and see if the 7D M2 is a better choice.  She will need a new camera in Sept when we take our next photo trip.

What's the matter with your wife's T4i that it needs to be replaced? And with a 7D2? Did she suddenly become a sports and wildlife shooter? The 70D should be plenty of camera for most people. Get it. Use it. Be happy.

Wait for the mythical beast and you'll end up staying in wonderland forever!

274
Canon General / Re: Post Processing: A Guide for Nature Photographers
« on: December 21, 2013, 10:56:18 AM »
Lightroom does a pretty awesome job of sorting and cataloging images to help you find your best shots. However for the volume that nature photogs deal in I guess any help with reducing workload and post processing would be welcome. $20 seems reasonable I guess.

For me selection is the most unappealing part of photography. I wish there was a program that could read your mind and select the best shots for you! Even just 100 shots makes me procastinate a lot and avoid my computer like it's the plague!

275
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC
« on: December 20, 2013, 10:34:59 AM »

276
Software & Accessories / Re: My New and Improve GIOTTOS Blower-for safety.
« on: December 19, 2013, 08:44:48 PM »
Seriously how do the airports find these people? Do they put out an ad in the newspaper like this -

"Airport security staff required, must be insensitive, miserable and generally disliked by the public. Must have vendetta against rocket blowers and other photographic equipment. Minimal communication skills needed. Intelligence preferred but not necessary. Previous experience in customer aggravation welcome. Apply within."

277
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 09:46:50 AM »
4mm of zoom? Why bother? I guess there is quite a difference between 16mm and 20mm on FF but why not just pick one focal length and make it awesome. Like 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 would be perfect.

Would this lens be the worlds shortest zoom if it was made??

278
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 09:36:04 AM »
Interesting discussion!

Now I think I understand practical purpose of this parameter in DxO stats.

Did anyone see lenses with calculated T-stop equal to F-number on them?

Many of the better primes (particularly the new ones) are much closer.  I've already mentioned the new EF 35mm f/2IS, which has both an f-number and t-stop of 2.  In the past, I would say that many primes are more likely to be close than zooms (where more compromises are made), and that does speak well of the light transmission of the new Sigma 24-105. because it manages to transmit just about (almost) the amount of light that the f-stop suggests.

How can the T value be the same as the f number if the lens clearly vignettes wide open? Is T value only measured in the center?

Just asking, I have no clue how the T value is actually determined.

279
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 12:16:43 AM »
Okay, I think I understand how the whole lens, camera metering works. The lens tells the camera its max aperture, the camera takes a reading based on that and the light it's seeing, it's actually basing the calculation on the t stop it's seeing relative to the f stop it's given?

T stop is just a theoretical (measured in a lab??) value.

When you half press the shutter the meter is activated and the lens does nothing really, it's already wide open to allow as much light in as possible. The camera then does it's calculations based on the amount of light hitting the sensor.

When you fully press the shutter the aperture then adjusts to the required setting and the shutter moves to achieve a correct exposure.

The only time you might notice T stops is if you were using M mode and switching lenses for the same scene. For example lets say you set up a shot at f/2.8 1/60 ISO 100 and it looks perfect. You then switch lenses and set it to the exact same settings and notice the shot is under exposed slightly. No big deal you just crank up that ISO or adjust shutter speed and you're back on track!

An example where you might encounter this situation is say you're using the 24-105L and shooting at 24mm and say f/8. You decide you're not a fan of the 24-105L at the wide end so you switch to your 24L  or whatever and try again. Surprise surprise it looks better now!

That's basically what this is all about. The Sigma lens would be slightly brighter and of course better. But the amount is fairly small.

280
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:46:09 PM »
So you attach an f/2.8 lens to the camera, the max aperture reading f2.8 you see is based on what the lens tells the camera, not what the actual light reading the camera see's based on the focal length?

Yes exactly. F stops only refer to the physical size of the aperture. It does not represent the actual amount of light the lens can transmit.

The maximum amount of light that gets through when the lens is at f/2.8 is what the T stop refers to. By the time that light has gone through the front element, all the elements in the middle (could be several) and out the back and onto the sensor it is no longer at 100% because some of it got reflected along the way. How much got reflected depends on the quality ofthe glass and the coatings.

Easy way to think of it. F stop is just how big the hole is. T stop is how much light is allowed to pass through the hole. If that hole is covered in spider webs not much light gonna get thru! Haha!

Also when you stick a filter in front of the lens it also affects the T stop since the filter is essentially adding another element in the light path.

It makes sense why prime lenses have better image quality than zooms. The zooms tend to have more glass elements thus blocking more light.

No lens is perfect, you'll always lose a bit of light.

281
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:13:54 PM »
I have always been a bit confused about the whole f stop vs. t stop comparison. If I understand it right then a 100 mm f/2 lens has a 50mm max aperture, 100/2 = 50. The lens may pass less light, that is the t stop, an actual transmission or equivelant rating. Does the camera recognize this and make exposure calculations on a lenses light transmission capabilities or does it default to the embedded code of the lens? Is slight underexposure only an issue at max aperture?

If you have two lenses of similar design - one T 2.8 and other T 3 and put them both on the same camera at the same settings you would notice one is slightly brighter. With the camera in Av mode the metering system would compensate via shutter speed so they look similar. The downside being you lost speed. How important that is depends on what you're shooting - action vs landscape for example.

Since the 24-105L isn't really known for it's action freezing abilities it's not even an issue. For low level light situations it could make a slight difference though. But then again for low light you'd use a faster lens.

However, more light is always welcome so in the grand scheme of things better T stop values are desirable.

282
Slight off topic thinking out loud.

Names we'll prob never see from Canon -

2D - can you imagine a 2D2? Sounds too much like a star wars character.
3D - do we need special glasses or what? Also too close to nintendo 3DS.
4D - four also reads as death in Japanese.
8D - 2 x 4 = 8 still a multiple of four. Superstition may keep this name at bay! Also sounds like you're saying 80.
10D - we already had it. Could make a comeback though.

You can see why they chose 1, 5, 6 and 7 now. Maybe they're runnin out of numbers?

I really hope they don't use random made up words instead!


283
Could we see the 7D line become 8D or 9D instead? Maybe Canon want to push the APS-C models further down the chain?

Maybe if they made a 7D2 it might confuse some people as to which is "better" the 6D or 7D2. The numbers are a bit close and some already have the notion that the 7D is full frame.

But none of that makes sense because the 7D would still exist. They can't erase it completely!

We should start a petition to keep the 7D name alive!

284
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 18, 2013, 12:41:03 PM »
I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive?

It is the difference in designs. A 35mm lens on a 44mm flange distance is a retrofocus design, that is it has to bend the light multiple times to get it to focus on the sensor, telephoto lenses, in contrast, are very simple lenses to design and build, it is a straight shot through to the sensor and additional elements are just for correcting aberrations.

The TS-E 17mm was the lens that made me realise all Canon lenses are exactly as designed, and the compromises in them are there for specific reasons, cost, quality tradeoffs, etc. Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII compared to the MkI, sports shooters love it because it is sharper and focuses faster, meanwhile portrait shooters are not so keen because of the slightly harsher bokeh, all trade offs, but all built in at the design stage. Anybody that can make a 17 mm lens with zero distortion is very clever, anybody that can make a 17mm lens to work on a 44mm registry distance is comfortably smarter than that, but to then drive home the total dominance of lens design and build capability by making it a tilt shift lens is, quite simple, showing off.

Canon make the lenses they do for marketing reasons, they come with the limitations and characteristics they do to meet the brief for that lens. It seems the brief can be top quality at any cost and we will sell them for what we can get, the prestige thing, like the 17TS-E and the 200 f1.8, it was said that Canon made a loss on every 200 f1.8 they sold; or the brief can be how cheap can we make it to get people into a system, the 50 f1.8 and many kit zooms spring to mind.

Another consideration is that the needs of film and digital sensors is quite different, most of these lenses core layouts were designed long before digital and the need for perpendicular, or as close as possible, light rays, another major consideration for wide angle and retrofcus designs. Certainly any new wide angle designs will take that into consideration.

Ah I didn't realize the 35 was a retrofocus design. I guess that makes sense now. Thanks!

285
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 18, 2013, 12:38:09 PM »
These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma.  I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department.  If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma.  I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping.  That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron.  This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now?

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L!

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.

Check this one then:

https://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/visAnnonse.cgi?id=210639

6000,- nok is 984 usd. It's a 2007 model..

Does it include shipping to Japan?? Why is it more expensive in the country it's made in??

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 78