October 26, 2014, 12:06:26 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 ... 50
16
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 07, 2014, 08:42:56 PM »
Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack?

Yes, I know.

Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.

Nononono, what are we here for :-p? Canon (thanks!) removed the whole afma firmware part from 50d->60d, there's no way to recover it even with ML. This means the 60d has not only no gui to set afma, it lacks any ability to tell you about it.

Thanks, that'll save me wasted time and effort.

17
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 07, 2014, 10:07:43 AM »
you can also try Magic Lantern's free dot_tune module which also automatically adjusts afma. Opinions are divided abut how precise it is, but for me (using a 6d) it's working just fine.

Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack?  I'm very much aware that the 60D does not support AFMA, but it would be nice to have it call to my attention how far out of tune it is.

Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.

Thanks.

18
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 10:22:00 PM »
I'm sorry if this was already posted, I didn't read the 14 pages that came before me. But I think the box-logo has some similarities with the ImageRunner logo http://www.imagerunneradvance.com/images/imagerunner_advance_logo.png

Maybe they are announcing new printers.

Looks like a cross between that logo and a nuclear reactor, so it must be a nuclear-powered home 3-D printer.  It will be called the ObjectRunner, or something equally lame.   ;D

19
Post Processing / Re: How to start using Photoshop
« on: October 06, 2014, 04:10:47 PM »
#1 Never edit your original files, always work on copies. (especially if you shoot JPEG rather than raw)

#2 Consider starting with Photoshop Elements -- it's simpler and cheaper.

#3 If your compuer skills are pretty strong, consider using The GIMP instead of Photoshop: it's very powerful and costs nothing.

There are many Photoshop "how-to's" on the Internet, and lots of books as well.  I'd suggest you search for "introduction to photoshop" or "getting started with photoshop."  You'll find plenty to keep you busy.

20
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 02:52:07 PM »
It is the announcement of a new high MP, high DR pro body  :P

Ready for delivery on December 23 ...

No, delivery on November 31.

21
Don't think Canon can do that unfortunately

But we don't know for certain without good tests.  If anyone knows of any well-designed, well-executed and meaningful side-by-side tests, please post links.

22
Maybe Canon is addressing this thread here:
http://www.seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/

Hmm. Canon only sees "impossible", eh? Does that mean, they see that making a better sensor is impossible for them, so they aren't bothering? Or, they see impossible, and intend to make the impossible possible?

Eh, I'll believe Canon has improved their sensors when I see it. :P

A bit ambiguous, eh?  Someone in marketing has some 'splainin' to do.

23
I currently have a 60D (which certainly does not have Canon's best sensor) and I sometimes have problems with interior shots (e.g. at a house party / fundraiser event) where a window is mostly blown-out, and the interior is not well exposed

I didn't mention this for about 10 posts, so it's time now again: if your problems are at low iso, use ML to boost your dr by ~2 stops on the 60d... I'm using it on my 60d all the time since even the 1ev difference 60d vs 6d can be felt in daylight.

Every time I see one of your posts it's a reminder that I need to make friends with ML.  :-)

24
I get that, but I think you're missing another important point: sometimes people don't know what they're missing.  There are cognitive biases that prevent people from believing information which would change their minds.  Since you're in the pharma industry I'll risk a pharma analogy: consider medications to treat a particular condition, one of which is 10% cheaper, 10% more effective and has 10% lower risk of side effects.  Suppose the physician is not aware of this; s/he may prescribe the less desirable medication because it meets the needs, which it certainly does.  Now suppose a major trade journal publishes a large-scale study demonstrating the superiority of the alternative.  Most physicians will now be aware, and will likely change their prescription practices.

How this applies to photography: I agree with you on the whole "system" thing -- I really do get that. 

Again, I get that...but it misses the point.  In your analogy, does the 10% more effective medicine make the other medication a 'poor therapy'?  What if the risk of adverse events was 10% lower, but the severity of them increased substantially?  That's the 'system' issue.  The improvement in the sensor under discussion aren't currently 'free'.
As previously stated, I do understand the trade-off thing.  My analogy was more about small (but not inconsequential) differences not being widely known.

Quote
I'd also like to see good tests just to satisfy my nerd curiosity.

There are ample tests showing the technical differences.  What you're asking for is a test of the utility and impact of those differences, and those are determined by the needs/practices of each individual meaning such a 'test' would be in the realm of the social sciences.  In this context, that's the market research to which I alluded.  We know Canon routinely conducts such research, and yet they haven't released a sensor with substantial improvements in low ISO DR.  One possible explanation (among several) is that Canon finds more low ISO DR is not a primary need for the majority of their market.
When there's a quibble about comparative lens quality I usually see flurries of references to bench tests; I don't recall seeing such here.  I'd assumed that's why jrista offered his own.  If you know of any particularly good tests please post a reference.  I'll search for them on my own when I have a bit of time.

25
The point is that the Exmor can't actually meet the demands of a discerning / professional ( insert what you want ) photographer in the vast majority of challenging light situations in one exposure.

This is the question I'd like to see addressed by testing.  I think we agree that it would take about 20 stops of clean DR to capture nearly all terrestrial scenes with one frame.  But where's the transition point? Presumably, somewhere between 11-15 stops it ceases to be a single-frame capture.  For those scenes is there a difference between sensors, both in the ability to capture the scene and in the quality of the shadow detail?  I don't know.  I see a lot of vehement hand-waving on both sides, and would love to see some good tests.  (not to say that anyone owes me any tests) 

I currently have a 60D (which certainly does not have Canon's best sensor) and I sometimes have problems with interior shots (e.g. at a house party / fundraiser event) where a window is mostly blown-out, and the interior is not well exposed.  As an amateur I'd like to get a better (not perfect) capture of that casual scene without intrusive lighting.  To many of you, jrista's interior example was a contrived shot, but it was precisely the problem I see several times a year.

I do have a flash, and I'll need to make friends with it until I have something better.  I'm currently considering a refurb 6D.

26
Canon sensors meet the needs of many photographers better than you or I will ever be

There are two different questions at work, and both are valid.  (1) whether it "meets the needs;" (2) whether a different sensor would better meet the needs.  By analogy, a 1D4 shooting 10fps met the needs of high-end sports photographers at the time, but a 1DX shooting 12fps better meets their needs.  I don't recall reading whether you've said you've tried any camera with a current-gen Sony sensor.  I have not, so I don't know the answer to (2) for myself.

Please propose a test protocol that you would find fair and meaningful.

For the point I was making, the distinction between 'meets' and 'better meets' is irrelevant.  I don't think photographers – award winning or not – list 'poor IQ' among their needs.

I have no doubt that for some, the Exmor sensors better meet their needs...just as for others, an ultrawide tilt-shift lens better meets their needs.  Everyone's needs differ, there's no 'test protocol' for that.  There are market research tools that help determine the needs of the majority, Canon and other manufacturers obviously invest in such research.

I get that, but I think you're missing another important point: sometimes people don't know what they're missing.  There are cognitive biases that prevent people from believing information which would change their minds.  Since you're in the pharma industry I'll risk a pharma analogy: consider medications to treat a particular condition, one of which is 10% cheaper, 10% more effective and has 10% lower risk of side effects.  Suppose the physician is not aware of this; s/he may prescribe the less desirable medication because it meets the needs, which it certainly does.  Now suppose a major trade journal publishes a large-scale study demonstrating the superiority of the alternative.  Most physicians will now be aware, and will likely change their prescription practices.

How this applies to photography: I agree with you on the whole "system" thing -- I really do get that.  However, if there were reasonable tests which demonstrated a significant difference to the few hundred(?) high-end loyalist photographers who work with Canon on product development, Canon might start feeling some pressure to improve that one component of their system.

I agree with you about how things are today (system, personal choice, market, business choices, etc).  I disagree that it needs to remain so.  The first question is whether there really is significant difference that we'd like to see in our next Canon purchase.  If the answer is yes, then the next question is whether there's a way to bring that to the attention of people who have some influence.  It should go without saying that all the voices on all the photo blogs in the world would not have the power to influence, but a few hundred key professionals might.

I'd also like to see good tests just to satisfy my nerd curiosity.

27
Software & Accessories / Re: Corrupt RAW Files from Mac ( used DPP )
« on: October 05, 2014, 10:39:47 AM »
Hello Geeks ;-)

i´ve get some RAW-Files from Friends witch were unusable on my DPP ( and other Software ).

Those two Friends shot me while i am shooting, and ich would like to edit this Pic´s by myself.

Body´s where EOS 100 and an EOS 600 , Files directly copyed on an SD Card  - it looks like there
is an ThumpnailPic and the RAW File, the  Thumpnail is poor but ok, the RAWfile seems to be corrupt.

2 Ways of Filecopy, two different SD Cards - Cards should be ok.

Tested on DPP3 and DPP4 on Windows7x64, my own Pictures are all ok, incuding my real old Powershot G2 .

Both DPP´s marked the Pic´s as uneditable, and ist is shown very Small - no Zoom in - looks like the Thumpnail only.

Any Tipps ?

Greetings

Bernd

It's my understanding that the thumbnail is embedded inside the CR2 file, so you can't assume it's being generated from the CR2.  It appears that those files are corrupt, and may not be recoverable.   Recopying from the original memory cards might help.  You might want to search google for repair cr2 file.

Good luck.

28
Canon sensors meet the needs of many photographers better than you or I will ever be

There are two different questions at work, and both are valid.  (1) whether it "meets the needs;" (2) whether a different sensor would better meet the needs.  By analogy, a 1D4 shooting 10fps met the needs of high-end sports photographers at the time, but a 1DX shooting 12fps better meets their needs.  I don't recall reading whether you've said you've tried any camera with a current-gen Sony sensor.  I have not, so I don't know the answer to (2) for myself.

Please propose a test protocol that you would find fair and meaningful.

29

No, I don't think it was you, it was someone who just started posting a few months ago. 


Then I stand corrected, my apologies.

No apology was needed.   Cheers.

30
In some cases (e.g. that Gold Coast guy) I'm convinced better technique would help. 

Reasonably sure that's me, not too sure why I copped a mention here but even so it would have been a common courtesy to use my handle "eml58", I guess where you come from "that Gold Coast Guy" works just fine, but if you'd care to elucidate on where my technique has gone wrong (and I'm sure there's a 300 page book in there somewhere, but a few succinct pointers would do), I'm always extremely keen to learn from those with better technique & skills (indeed it's the main reason I participate in CR).

No, I don't think it was you, it was someone who just started posting a few months ago.  You've been around for a while, I'm pretty sure.  I don't want to re-open that whole event.  My only point was that "someone" a while back was making claims about the poor studio performance of a 5D3, but appeared to be drastically underexposing.

Quote
I assume (I know, dangerous), from your comment you've established you fall into that category ?? better skilled and such ?? So happy to learn from those that can teach.

No, I'm no pro.  I'm just a guy who's smart enough to see that other people here know a lot more about photography than I do.  The poor technique by that other person was to disparage ETTR for studio work.  I'm happy to be corrected here, but I'm absolutely baffled that there could ever be a DR problem in a studio, where the photographer controls all the lighting.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50