December 17, 2014, 05:03:55 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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 52
166
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
<IANAL>
If you give paints, paintbrush and canvas to an elephant do you own the resulting painting or does the elephant's owner own the painting?  It was the macaque's use of the camera that was transformative.  Since animals are generally considered property, it seems likely the macaque's owners own the photos.
</IANAL>

167
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:48:03 PM »
So now it certainly IS competition for the 5d3 in more types of shooting.

Competition is good for the customers.

168
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 05, 2014, 05:32:14 PM »
Это видео резюмирует многое из того, что произошло между Никоном и Canon, D810 является гораздо более современные камеры, и Canon не может идти в ногу с развитием, потому что его старой технологии датчика

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7Kjeq2aH4

Quote
<google>This video sums up much of what happened between Nikon and Canon, D810 is a much more advanced camera, and Canon can not keep up with development, because his old sensor technology</google>

169
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 stills in video mode - cropped
« on: August 05, 2014, 05:25:38 PM »
I haven't done that, but I'll make a guess: go into the Develop module and click the crop tool.  Maybe it'll let you uncrop it as though it had previously been manually cropped.

170
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:30:45 AM »
No doubt the mirror has been around for a long, long time.  One wonders if that type of technology is really needed.  I played w/ an Olympus MF 4/3 and found that focusing w/ the matched 12-35 (think 24-70) was pretty darn fast.


i certainly haven't done timing tests on focusing speeds, etc.  but one ponders if the mirror space was done away with does that offer up any optic benefits?  One can always design for a larger effective flange space, not a smaller - somewhere along the line the lens designer had to make a compromise that in a mirrorless could be eliminated.

From what I read, the major barriers to a full transition to mirrorless are:

1. battery life -- if you're a landscape or studio shooter this is not a problem.  For events and travel it seems mirrorless needs at least double the battery life

2. EVF lag -- this is pretty close; current best is about 30% more than human visual system lag

3. EVF quality -- a very high-quality EVF is needed for pro work

4. EVF user interface -- zebras; focus peaking; ability to set the tone curve (or selectable tone curves) for the EVF; dials or buttons to allow sliding the tone-curve to check the full range of exposure.

5. EVF low-light quality

#4 may be the easiest technically, but the hardest in practice because it will require a lot of ergonomic testing with real photographers who shoot a variety of styles.

That's my completely uninformed impression/speculation.


171
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 10:41:19 PM »
I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line?  Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses.  They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project.  The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon's cinema lenses are just adaptations of existing lenses, in some cases, just a different body.  Their $50K cinema lenses are new, but even there, they use technology that is existing in the canon line.  They are not MF. lenses.

However, the fact that Canon could technically build a MF system does not mean that its a good idea financially.  They have had the opportunity to acquire a MF company in the past, and decided against it.  That was a good move, since the economy has really hurt sales of high end cameras.

I think you meant that Canon's bodies are adaptations of existing bodies.  I don't have a clear basis for comparison since I haven't used their cinema bodies.  They do have a completely different physical layout and ergonomics, and presumably optimized video processing hardware.  I wouldn't be surprised if their cinema sensors are little different from their DSC sensors.

Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line."  While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc. 

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation.  It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

I agree entirely that the questions of whether they could build an entire MF line from scratch is entirely separate from the question of whether it would be a good business decision.

172
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:09:49 AM »
I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line?  Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses.  They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project.  The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

Hmmm...I don't find that entirely persuasive.  While I don't know the MFD marketplace (or its customers), I see photographers in the digital age as very pragmatic: if Canon offered a product that met their needs at a price that met their budget it would sell.  One of Canon's cinema strategies was to "fit it," using PL-mount lenses.  Likewise, they could "fit in" by starting with a body and lenses that are compatible with one or more of the current market players, while slowly developing sensors that compete.  You are correct, however, that certain patents may make that challenging.

173
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 02:06:09 AM »
It's pretty much inevitable that everyone will end up with "larger than 35mm" sensors, there's just no-where else to go to keep raising the IQ bar.
I've speculated on previous flames...er...threads, when mirrorless becomes fully viable (EVF lag, etc) it will be possible to adopt a triple-sensor system, which would improve resolution and increase per-area light capture possibly by more than twice.  That would be cheaper to develop than a full new line of MF lenses and bodies.

174
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:57:38 AM »
I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line?  Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses.  They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project.  The sensor is the main obstacle here.

175
Animal Kingdom / Re: Yard Bird
« on: August 02, 2014, 04:56:21 PM »
Female King Parrot, scoffing on my peaches

Nice photos.  Do you use flash to get that intense illumination, or was the sun working in your favor?  I think I see a catchlight in the eyes...

176
Photography Technique / Re: Storage Workflow
« on: August 02, 2014, 04:52:56 PM »
Hi,
I was wondering if you could share your workflow with storage of your images. So far what I have been doing is downloading images to two laptops and one desktop for redundancy. Every month I do physical backup to an external portable drive of all images. As I start my journey into playing with RAW images this laborious process is eating up a lot of space. I have thought about removing all images into a standalone external drive, thereby freeing up space on the laptop but then I loose the accessibility of looking at the images when I want and from whichever event I want. Or to even just process some images on the fly. The second issue is of security and so I am looking at some online storages like iCloud etc. How do you all work on these 2 issues? Thanks for your time.
Ray

There have been some other threads discussing this, you may benefit by reading those.   I suggest you have 2 or more external drives for backups, rotating one off-site (e.g. safe deposit box) on a regular basis.  External storage is ridiculously cheap these days.  I have not tried online storage, but others have had good experiences.

177
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:07:28 PM »

The 7D is a sports/wildlife body, not a maximum IQ body.  I'd love a big IQ boost in the 7D2, and might buy one if it had it in addition to the expected performance improvements.  At this point I'm contemplating a refurb 6D.

True, but these specs give it slightly worse performance and the same IQ for a higher price  ;D with just GPS and WiFi added in to spice it up after five years of development (OK and the video AF from the 70D).

I don't believe these specs: as noted earlier, they're worse than the original 7D firmware series.   The 7D2 will have equal or better performance, but I don't expect a huge IQ boost.  I'd sure like to be wrong; if so I might even buy one in the $2k range.

178
How can one measure "weather sealing" and how can one test it?

As discussed over and over, you can't w/o a lot of money and creation of a new industry standard. That's why the only way to tell cameras apart is by collecting user experiences, hence this poll.

Afaik there is one thing that's different between camera models though: Some buttons are "sealed" with just some cheap foam, and some have rubber rings (or the like). Hard to tell since Canon doesn't give us any specs other than fancy "sealing" diagrams-

I treat all my cameras/lenses as being not weather sealed. I try to protect both the camera and lens so I don't have to find out the hard way what the marketing department meant by "weather sealing".

I also try to do that, but shooting outdoors I find this nearly impossible - sand and humidity always linger around the next corner. That's why I cannot tread my dslr as "unsealed" as my cheap mobile phone which breaks even if you put it into a damp pocket :-o

I have a friend who shoots Pentax, I forget which body, but it's not the newest.  He takes it out in steady rain for hours without covering it.  Once he got a little water in the top display and was concerned.  He let it dry overnight and had no problems since.  If Pentax can do that in a prosumer crop body, then Canon ought to be able to without a lot of R&D money.  Please canon, charge me the additional $50 for comparable weather sealing!

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: August 01, 2014, 12:21:14 AM »
According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ.  :P ::)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View".

That would be SOOOO disappointing.

Agreed. Sadly a totally different source was also claiming that the big sensor news for the 7D2 is some sort of revolutionary ultra crazy fast no hunt PDAF AF. Certainly nice, but man it's been years since they bothered to improve low ISO quality. I'd be more excited about 4k top quality and 1080p RAW for video and much improved low ISO DR for stills (and further tweaking at high ISO).

The 7D is a sports/wildlife body, not a maximum IQ body.  I'd love a big IQ boost in the 7D2, and might buy one if it had it in addition to the expected performance improvements.  At this point I'm contemplating a refurb 6D.

180
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 06:54:20 PM »
About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.

That seems like a difficult experiment to conduct. There would be too many variables to use negatives and actually quite a few variables using transparencies. Did you develop the film yourself? What were the controls used to assure that temperatures, etc., were precise. If you sent the film to a third party to be developed, you lose all control over the process.

How were the camera's calibrated. Did you verify that the mechanical shutter of the film camera was correct? Film cameras are notorious for the shutter speeds being off. Was it the same lens on both cameras?

How did you compare the two images? Was it two prints? Transparencies?

This conflicts with the whole idea of having ISO anyway (the "s" being for standardization). If it were different between film and digital, light meters, etc. wouldn't work properly.

+1

I've heard of people routinely using their DSLR to meter for film cameras.  I tried it once myself and it seemed to work. Of course, this is just an anecdote, and Unfocused made the important observation: the "S" in ISO is for "Standard." I.e., there's a group out there that tests this stuff in a standardized way.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 52