March 05, 2015, 10:00:53 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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 59
Photography Technique / Re: Advice for upcoming "can't-miss" shot: PRACTICE
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:49:32 PM »
See if you can get access to the room a week or more in advance to practice.  If not, see if you can get more detail about the inside of the room, e.g. dimensions, ceiling height, color of walls and ceiling, etc.  Then collect all the advice you can find, write it down as a series of options, and practice, test, practice, test.  Recruit your son or someone else to be your practice model.  There is no substitute for practice in comparable circumstances.

Also, see if you can get your son to wear a tie or stuff a hanky in his pocket that's 18% gray so you can do color correction later.   :)   But seriously, a pure white hanky visible in the scene could give you a base for color balance.  Alternately: before or after the ceremony find an opportunity to sneak up to the presentation position and get a shot of a gray card under the same lighting.

Don't wait, start planning and practicing now.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:04:48 PM »
I think you are being a little bit harsh. Sony has not only created, but also invented, some amazing stuff over the years.

I still love my BETAMAX!
Seriously it was better than vhs but didn't succeed in the market.

If I remember, it didn't succeed because Sony botched the licensing strategy.  Good tech, bad business.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 11:52:15 AM »
"those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" :->

I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law of the Internet here, but if you said religion is not something to hide I'd show you WWII.

The problem is you don't know what it is that you may be persecuted for at some random point in the future.


No one has "nothing to hide."  Even if we never break laws, there is always something about our lives that would be an embarrassment in certain circumstances: an indiscreet statement in a private conversation, or even something more.  No, as long as we humans are so eminently fallible, our lives should not be recorded without our consent.

Canon General / Re: Lost half of my Canon DSLR
« on: February 17, 2015, 11:56:29 AM »
Apparently some viewers see something the rest of us don't.  I see no image of a damaged camera, just a line that says "the title says it all."  Dylan, did you post an image of this camera somewhere?  If so, where?

Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 16, 2015, 10:01:44 AM »
As others have said, "it depends."  These days I'm trying to stretch my skills with birds (mostly NOT-BIF), sometimes in difficult conditions.  I recently bought a refurb 70D to go with my 100-400L, so I have a lot of learning to do.  I went out shooting birds yesterday, and my "keeper" rate was around 3% in the sense that the result was worth showing to my friends.  On the other hand, I learned a great deal from many of the discards regarding focus, exposure settings, adapting to difficult light, etc.  None of my photos was print-worthy, but I was still happy with the experience.

Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 15, 2015, 10:42:38 AM »

Hi Orangutan

I consider your opinion reasonable and logical. I do however have enough evidence to support the performance issues of the 7Dii.

I take you back to Scott Kelby's hour long video where he highlights the superb performance of the 7Dii at two American football matches. Shots looked amazing, for both sharpness DNS noise performance.
There's other videos of Canon pros who intimate that although not identical, the 7Dii's performance is very near to that of the 1DX.

So we've all probably seen those and more videos.

Thing is, when I sit with owners of the 1DX, both professionals (international event sport photography) and serious birders, who cannot get decent performance from the 7Dii, I worry.

I am talking about seriously good photographers here.

Aside from AF and shsrpness issues, there's also this extremely weird 'work one day, next day not' phenomenon. Set your camera up, take good shots. Go to the exact same place with similar conditions and then the camera behaved very differently.

I can't grip that.

We also talk about the vast number of people who are not complaining and I can tell you something there too...most of the regular buyers do not know how to benchmark whether an image is sharp or not.

I'm a photographer/birder, meaning I strive for photographic excellence in my shots. There's also birder photographers, who are more keen on proof shots. It seems they're less worried about perfect photographs.

I'm hoping and praying that Canon fix this or I may end up selling my 7Dii.

Absolutely nothing worse than having a camera one does not trust implicitly.

If your reports are accurate it could be a manufacturing problem, or possibly sensitive dependence on initial conditions (as we know, conditions are never exactly the same at a location between visits.) Maybe small differences in lighting have large impact on the AF system. Alternately, maybe the AF system is sensitive to temperature, and goes in or out of alignment in certain conditions.  Unfortunately, we won't know the answers to these questions until the problems become reproducible. 

Do you see the same problem in all AF modes?  I.e., single-point vs zone?  I hope you're able to isolate the problem before you give up on what is, reportedly, a very capable birding camera. 

Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 15, 2015, 09:45:03 AM »
There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42.  My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.

The 7DII is not being cropped in any strange way.  It is a straight test of sharpness, of how the lens is resolving a test chart, and the 7DII with the ef 100-400mm II, a theoretical "dream team," is having some kind of trouble in this instance.

Arthur Morris deals with some pretty experienced enthusiasts, yet he dismisses their claims as user error.  Are you saying that Brian at the-digital-picture set up his tests incorrectly?

The whole crop vs ff issue doesn't come into play here.

The first question I ask in these cases is whether there are people out there who are getting the expected results from this camera.  If the answer is yes, then we know (fairly conclusively) that it's not a design/engineering problem.  At that point there are two main possibilities: quality control (i.e. manufacturing variability) and user error.

Go hit the web again; this time, look for satisfied pros/advanced enthusiasts who don't have a business relationship with Canon.  If they're happy, you need to look beyond design flaws.

You need to read the whole thread to get the relevance.
OK, I'll go back and read it more carefully.

The original premise is to do extreme ETTR such that nothing clips but everything is as overexposed as possible.

The problem with that is if a pixel has very diferent R,G abd B values they fall at very different places on the gamma curve, doing something as simple as lowering the exposure in post does not alter all three channel levels for each pixel equally, that is, the relationship between the recorded values and the new vales changes, this changes the tone, or colour, of the pixel, it makes it brighter and, generally, less red.

But depending on how discerning you are and the bit depth of your workflow these small differences can be seen on relatively gentle ETTR, though most of the time the improved shadow detail overwhelms the slight loss of accurate colour relationships.

Greys can be raised and lowered in post with impunity, all three pixels have the same value and any adjustment impacts each channel equally, but coloured pixels change tone (colour) as well as brightness when you raise or lower the brightness/exposure/shadows etc in standard post software techniques.

Without more explanation this doesn't make sense to me.  The individual photosites are linear with respect to exposure.  If there is a non-linearity with respect to color channel then that's a problem with the raw conversion or other curves applied to the color channels.  I would believe that a standard JPEG engine would do better with less than ETTR, but I'm not at all convinced for those who choose raw processing.

The way I look at, ETTR is the digital analog (pardon me) to Adams' zone system.  I'll concede to anyone who knows the ZS better than I (that would be lots of people), but the general premise seems to be to look backwards from the final product:

1. How do I want the printed image to look?
2. How do I need to develop the negative to create #1?
3. How do I expose so I have a negative optimally suited to #2?

For digital it's similar, but there are no shoulders or toes, just a precipice at each end.  We also know that lower tonal values in the scene will be noisier, and have less tonal gradation.  It follows that the optimal "raw material" has as much light as possible for each important pixel, without going over the edge.  How that's processed is a different question entirely.

That is because the red channel clips first and people images tend to have higher red channel levels


Tonality changes with ETTR, the higher you push the ETTR the more difficult it is to get the original tonality back because each channel is affected differently.

Isn't that going beyond ETTR, though?  The point of ETTR isn't to clip, or even necessarily to get past 98% for any channel on your subject;  the point of ETTR is that you shouldn't have a chunk of void to the right of the tone curve (for the subject).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The empire will strike back....
« on: February 10, 2015, 12:59:55 PM »
Bring it on, competition is good for the customers.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next From Canon, NAB and Beyond
« on: February 09, 2015, 10:32:23 AM »
"To Canon, all that matters is that it's a profitable product.  Canon corporate doesn't care whether the video is good or not, they just care if it makes them a profit.  On that criterion, it appears to be doing exceptionally well."

You're getting a little carried away with the "profit and nothing else" idea. I work for a Japanese electronics company and I work with Canon (I will be at NAB with both) and I have worked for several Japanese electronics companies over the last 20 years. Yes, profit is very important to these companies and yes, annoyingly so sometimes. BUT the Japanese are also very proud of what they do and what they make and DO want to make the best products they can, they are just conservative by nature. Companies like Canon (and the one I work for) can be annoyingly slow to change, but due to their enormous resources they continue to move forward their product lines because ultimately you have to have something new to sell to keep your customers coming back. They also occasionally hit one out of the park which blows everyone away. I think these occasional homeruns raise expectations among some consumers just as they do for Apple. When I was a Product Manager at Panasonic I would sit in a monthly forecast meeting with Accounting on one side and Sales on the other - Accounting would say "less inventory and higher margins". Sales would say "higher inventory and lower margins" and I (we in marketing) would have to find the balance AND communicate what the market wants to Japan. It is not easy to influence product change, let me tell you. I invented Apple CarPlay in 2008! I literally sent a picture to Japan with the display of an iPhone pasted over a car stereo. Do you think they listened? Obviously I'm kidding about inventing it (don't want to be sued by Apple) but I really did send that picture 6 years ago.

My point is that yes, profit is very important but the products are important too. The people who work for Canon navigate through a very difficult process to make this stuff. AND in answer to the guy talking about Intel's development plan: Canon has a 5 year plan, they just aren't telling us about it. I have one from Japan for my products and I'm not telling either!

I'll defer to your greater knowledge on that topic.  My over-emphasis on profit was a rhetorical device to help remind people that these are not art works to be juried, but products to create profit.  I'm sure everyone in the company wants to make good products, but there are many ways to judge a good DSLR product: reliability, durability, lens and accessory lines, etc.  Having the best sensor or the best video may be legitimate criteria, but they are not the only two legitimate criteria.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next From Canon, NAB and Beyond
« on: February 09, 2015, 09:40:01 AM »
Wrong on so many levels.
We will have to disagree, then.

1. The competition overtook Canon at least three years ago.
Since you don't say what you mean by "overtake" I'll have to assume you mean they overtook Canon product capabilities.  I'll take your word for it, but it's irrelevant.  As I said above, Canon is a for-profit business, and appears to be at/near the top of profitability in DSLRs.  This has not changed despite your assertion that their capabilities were overtaken years ago.  Canon's line continues to sell well at high prices.  Canon will take profitability over capability any day.

What they did was say they were going to react, but then did nothing.
Why are you surprised by marketing hype?  No sane business will adhere to its previous marketing hype if it determines that the market has changed.  Canon will take profit over rigid promises and roadmaps any day. 

Pretty much everything they have released in the last 3 years has been rewrapped old products with a few newer odds and ends added in.
Which the market continues to devour at profitable prices.  What sane business would cook the old hens before they've stopped laying eggs?  This is good business.

2. You missed the point completely. They claimed that they were going to put greater emphasis on video, since that was were the market was heading.
I didn't miss it, I consider it irrelevant.  They judged profit to lie in another direction.  Sound business.  Again, don't rely on old marketing hype.

The 7D2 may be well reviewed as a still camera, but as a video camera it is at the back of the pack in the prosumer market space.
To Canon, all that matters is that it's a profitable product.  Canon corporate doesn't care whether the video is good or not, they just care if it makes them a profit.  On that criterion, it appears to be doing exceptionally well.

Pretty much every other leading manufacturer has much better video functions in their consumer cameras. Even Nikon does.
How are the profits of those companies?  Not as good as Canon's, I think.

Remember, Canon executives claimed that they were putting increased emphasis on video. Let me repeat that, video.
Let me repeat that, profit.  The profit motive supersedes all prior marketing claims.

Where the hell is it?
It was replaced by "profit" in their strategic plan.

This is a function that is important in their consumer camera market but is still stuck in way the past.
If so, then why do Canon DSLRs continue to sell so well?  Obviously, it's not that important, or no one would buy Canon DSLRs.

What the engineers are producing is not what the executives are claiming is their future focus.
You can be certain the engineers produce what the execs tell them to produce, and what they've produced is profit.

or we are being sold a marketing line
Now you get it!  More specifically, most camera companies feed customers a marketing line.  You don't know what you're really going to get until the specs are announced.  Why should this be a surprise.

but I do expect them to do what they say they are going to do.
Perhaps you should stop expecting that.

The mirrorless cameras which sell broadly are not Canons
In the US and Europe you are correct.  I believe in Asia Canon does well in mirrorless.  I believe Neuro posted figures a while back, but I don't recall the specifics.

The Canon M series was a failure in the market space. The only way they could sell any sort of quantity was by bargain basement pricing it.
Except in Asia, where it sold near the top of the lists, and was never subject to price cutting.

Given Sony's recent history in cameras, it will take things to a new level.
And possibly to a new level of unprofitability.  Sony puts out great tech, but apparently their cameras (as a total product) aren't that great, since they don't seem to be stealing a lot of profit from Canon...or even Nikon.

The NX500 will have most of the capability of NX1.
Profitability is more important than capability.

5. Canon might be a profitable company,
Can pretty much stop right here.

If they don't keep up with the fore front of technology in time it will be someone else's brand that gets recognized
3 years, apparently, is not enough time for that to happen.

Ever heard of Xerox, or Kodak, or Nokia, or Research in Motion?...That is what is going to happen to Canon if they don't start delivering.
Could happen, no signs of it yet.

The tl;dr answer is:

  • Profitability is more important than capability
  • Canon's doing a good job of market anticipation so far, with the notable exception of the M in the US and Europe.


This is why I almost never ETTR.  I prefer to expose for the subject.

Interesting...And when you shoot landscape what is it that you consider your subject? The dark shadowed valley, or the brighter, green hills for example? What about the sky?

I'd like to hear more about this as well.  From my (admittedly limited) understanding of sensor design, you want the maximum exposure possible short of over exposure.  ETTR can mean one of two things, one of which is useless.

  • Subjective ETTR: Use the maximum exposure that will not overexpose essential elements of the scene.  In many cases (e.g. specular highlights and well-lit fog banks) there's not enough DR in any DSLR to capture the full tonal range in a single frame, so the photographer must make some judgements about which elements to preserve, or whether to use other techniques to control egregious tonal areas.
  • Ritualistic ETTR: look at the histogram and make sure the entire tone curve comes close to the right edge without going over.  This is a sure way to sacrifice your main subject(s) on the alter of ritualistic technique.  #2 works only when the entire scene is within the DR of the sensor.
ETTL is completely unsupported by the principles of digital sensor design.

Lenses / Re: Broke my 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: February 08, 2015, 12:35:55 AM »
What do you think is wrong with my lens, and how much do you think it will cost to fix?

How did you pay for the purchase?  Some credit cards include damage insurance.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next From Canon, NAB and Beyond
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:38:56 PM »
I really wish Canon would put out a roadmap like Intel does.  I'd like to know when the 5DIV and 6DII will be coming out.

Sonikon would like to know that, too :->.

My impression is that Canon doesn't have a roadmap, but rather tries to squeeze out as much $$$ from their current products until they're forced by the competition to do something about it. Sure enough they'll have the basic designs for 5d4 and 6d2 in the r&d pipeline, but there'll be a lot of last-minute shuffling around concerning exact release date and software/hardware features.
They were forced by competition over two years ago, but so far have not done anything about it, nor are they showing any signs of doing anything about it.
How so?  Are they losing market share, or merely losing bench-test bragging rights?

We got the 7D2 instead. What a joke - apparently their executives failed to communicate their new direction to their engineers.
Yes, instead of doing what they were told, the engineers made a product that's getting solid reviews, and selling faster than they can make it.
Last year they claimed that they were going to take mirrorless "seriously"
Do you expect Canon to custom-build a mirrorless camera to your specifications?  It's more likely they'll build one that they expect to sell broadly.
the M3. And that is supposed to compete against the A7000 and NX500
Says who?  Maybe they're going for a different segment of the mirrorless market.
What they need to stop doing is
What they really need to do is continue to be a solidly profitable company.  Making a "killer" mirrorless that's not profitable is not a strategy for corporate success.

This bears repeating for the thousandth time: Canon is a for-profit business.  They do not sell products for bragging rights or artistic reasons; rather, they sell products to make a profit. Buy or don't; forum rants will not convince competent corporate employees to deviate from their best professional judgement.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 59