April 17, 2014, 08:59:01 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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 28
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D Diagonal Image Processing (DIP) Defect
« on: October 20, 2013, 10:26:03 AM »
YES it is camera shake. But ALWAYS IN THE SAME DIRECTION??.
You can't be sure of that without well-controlled tests: the eye can be fooled when there are multiple sources of distortion.

The birds and BG seem to be 'different' images.
If this doesn't happen with all your lenses, then it's very unlikely to be a sensor or processing problem.  It would be weird, VERY weird for Canon to have their firmware record the raw image differently based on type of lens.  Sure, it's possible that JPEG processing might take into account the lens characteristics, but not the raw image.

The problem has NEVER occurred with nearly 1000 pics using the same lens on the 5D Mk II.
There may be other usage differences between the two that account for that.  Can you do controlled tests side-by-side?  Are you using a faster shutter to account for the crop "zoom" factor of the 70D?

The main reason for posting is indeed 'Has anyone else experienced the problem?
So far the answer seems to be negative, so it seems unlikely to be a design flaw of the 70D model.

It's possible there are multiple issues combining for this apparent effect, try to isolate one variable at a time.  Also, could you post your image settings?  Also, try shooting at 1/2000th.

I'd be interested to see the results of your tests.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D Diagonal Image Processing (DIP) Defect
« on: October 19, 2013, 09:15:55 AM »
to my eye, all the pics are blurred due to some form of camera shake/not short enough shutter speds. All of the birds are blurred too.

I agree, the birds look blurred too: look at the spots on IMG_8685.JPG.  It does not appear to be a processing error to me, it looks like camera movement.  When I first acquired a 100-400 I had a few shots similar to this on my 60D, and it turned out I needed to use a faster shutter.

"Inherent technical error of the entire 70D fleet" should be last on the list of possible causes.  I'd troubleshoot like this:

* Rule out user error (full-camera shake) by testing on tripod with remote release or timer
* Rule out faulty mirror/shutter mechanism by using live view with zoom (and tripod with remote)
* If you still see the problem, then call Canon for service

For your test target, I would choose an inanimate (non-moving) object, and don't use flash.

Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 15, 2013, 11:02:02 AM »
Ya'll got a point their.  Your right we should learn that they're is a difference between the too words.  If we don't let other's no about it than there never going to learn.

And one more thing: dew knot trussed spelt chequers two fix awl yore mist steaks.

Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:41:42 AM »
Many of us English monoglots admire greatly the non-English speakers' ability to write in our language.

    {My admiration for polyglots on this forum} >>> {My annoyance at their misspellings and misuse}

I wish I knew a foreign language as well as they know my native language.

Canon General / Re: You know it is going to be a bad day when...
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:59:38 PM »
US national park trip

Cid, one more thought: while our national parks really are spectacular, there other options.  You might find that designated Wilderness and National Forest areas are open, but un-staffed.  These areas will not be as developed: there won't be lodges, resorts, gift shops, etc, but you will find beautiful landscape and wildlife to photograph.


You'll find guidebooks describing the hiking trails, and I believe you can still download topo maps here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/store3/digital_download/mapping_ap.jsp

Canon General / Re: You know it is going to be a bad day when...
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:46:16 PM »
When on second day of our US national park trip ranger informed us, that parks are closed and we can't even get refund for our annual pass (bought two days before that day)

Yeah, I am first time in US and all I got was one afternoon in Grand Teton and one day in Yellowstone, i felt pretty miserable indeed and we had to rescheduled the rest of our trip ...

On behalf of nearly every U.S. citizen (other than Tea Party types), I would like to apologize for our ridiculous Congress.  There's a joke: the opposite of "pro" is "con," so the opposite of "progress" is ...

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile".   Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

I remember watching that show as a young kid, and loving it.  At the time I didn't even think about whether it was fake/staged/dramatized, I just took it at face value.   A few years later I watched zoologists bring captive animals onto the set of the Tonight Show with Johnny C, and that was equally fascinating.  As a child, the Tooth Fairy is interesting; as an adult, physical anthropology (or any "dry" science) is interesting.

At some point I'll have to watch some episodes of "Wild Kingdom" to see them through adult eyes.  If it's obviously fake I'm willing to write it off as a dramatized children's show.   I'm more concerned with well-done fakes, where it's not possible to find the fakery unless you're an expert.

"Fake" is when you don't get what you're led to believe you're getting.  If I buy a poster of a Picasso, I know what I'm getting, so it's not fake.  I guess I'm just a fan of science, but it would not bother me that they took video of polar bear births in a "fake" (i.e. constructed) den if I'm told, outright, that's what it is.

"Nature films" are a form of journalism, and should be held to the same standard.  It's OK to stage something for educational purposes so long as it's plainly disclosed.

I do not accept at all that everything we see in image or video should be presumed "fake" (manipulated, staged, fauxtoshopped, etc) unless specifically stated otherwise.  Everything has context: what looks "real" to a reasonable viewer ought to be presumed "real."  Aesthetic does not reign supreme.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where is the Canon 7D successor?
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:23:08 PM »
Its believed to be coming out right after the Nikon D300 successor. :)

This is an important point.  Selling camera gear is a business, and Canon will release products when their current models become less competitive in terms of sales.  When Nikon or Pentax, or anyone else start eating into Canon's sales, then you'll see the update.  Why would Canon blow their best tech when the buying public does not require it?

EOS Bodies / Re: An EOS Canon Medium Format System [CR1]
« on: September 28, 2013, 10:13:53 AM »
Some of the current lens will not work with a square sensor.
I'm sure Canon's marketing department is well pleased by that.  Selling an expensive body is nice; selling a rack of expensive lenses is better.

Key questions - low large is the market for MF?  Will Canons entry increase the number of MF photographers?   Why would current MF photographers switch from Leica, Haaseblad, or phase one tomCanon?

So far, Canon's marketing department has been doing well enough to make money for them.  Sure, everyone's suffering the P&S realignment (loss of market share to smartphones), and the EOS-M was a necessary first step into that market segment.  Given the current state of the economy, for every "professional" who wants to "distinguish" his files, there are probably 10 rich dudes who want the best of everything, we probably have some of them on this forum.  How many of you non-pros would lay out $50k for a MF system?

Canon General / Re: decisive moment
« on: September 28, 2013, 09:50:20 AM »
no  i  am not saying its cheating, what i am saying is that it is more rewarding to me to recognize and hit that decisive moment than it is to pick from a sequence

If the human species were interested only in maximal results we wouldn't have many of our sports.  Why run when you can drive?  Why drive when you can fly?  For many people accomplishing a goal with a specific limitation is rewarding all by itself.  Consider the following: race-walking, joggling, caber-tossing, classic car rallies, bi-plane races, many forms of classical music composition, haiku poetry, etc.  It even happens in photography where photographers will take their modern digital beast in the field, but limit themselves to 36 shots for the day as an exercise in careful composition and exposure (i.e. learning to take time to fully appreciate a frame before pressing the shutter release)

Short of "spray and pray," my goal is usually to get the best possible shot, but I completely respect your desire to practice the "one shot" technique when you feel so inclined.  I would only suggest you experiment with other methods because everyone should taste unfamiliar food once in a while.

Lenses / Re: First Time: College Football Oh Boy!
« on: September 25, 2013, 09:15:53 PM »
I'm working for my college newspaper and they've procured me a credential to shoot on the sidelines of a D-I game in two weeks...never done this before.
I hope some more experienced folks will chip in.  My only experience is one amateur game, so take this advice with that in mind.

I've got a 5D3, 16-35 II, 70-200 II, and a nifty 50, as well as a 430EX. I also have a 500L II and a second 5D3 coming via the CPS Loan program that I plan to use at this game.
Drop the 50.  500 is probably too long for most of what you're doing.  300 or 400 would be better for tight shots.

You'll use the 70-200 when the action is near you, and the long lens when it's near the opposite endzone.   The 16-35 could be useful for reaction shots: up close after a TD, interception or the like (though obviously, don't get  in the way)

Flash of any use?
Probably not.  D-I should be well-lighted.

Obviously I want to keep my team facing me, but how is movement governed on sidelines. Can I get up and go where and when needed or am I locked down?
Call the press office of the hosting school and explain your situation.  Ask them for guidelines on etiquette and movement.  I've seen some D-I where the student photographers can move quite a bit.  When you get on the field, ask advice from some of the other photographers.

Shoot bursts for all action.  Try to anticipate the play.  Remember that there are some shots you can't get because they're obscured, so it's better to follow players (wide receivers) who may not get the ball every play.  On the other hand, if it's a likely running play, look to burst on the RB coming through the line.  If the line stops him you're not getting the shot anyhow.  Also think about covering an area: if you know it's third and 12, look for action from 10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage.  Take some risks: better to get a few glorious shots than pedestrian coverage of every play.  Bring ENOUGH BIG MEMORY CARDS.  You will shoot several thousand frames during that game.

One more thing I tried to do toward the end of my one game: keep both eyes open during the play.  Your "off" eye should be looking over the camera for the action, while your viewfinder eye is ready to focus in.  Keep the camera at your eye for the entire play: don't expect to bring it up in time for action.


Canon General / Re: I'm so sick of Canon ...
« on: September 24, 2013, 12:57:57 PM »
The 300mm f/2.8 and a 600mm f/4 are next on my shopping list ... but still I doubt that will cure it!  ;)

Won't cure it, but I believe it's an approved palliative treatment.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:25:27 AM »
Thanks for the reply.

Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient.  What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye.  Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.
I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium.  His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience.  He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.

I see the same thing for VF's.   I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo.  For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can.  Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature.  Photographers will learn to make the mental translations needed to use the EVF to their advantage.  I don't claim that EVF's are ready now, but I believe it's a matter of a few short years, just as it was very few years between the arrival of the first digital cameras and the time digital overtook 35mm film.

Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.

The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.
I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable.  Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course).  But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:44:53 PM »
No you can't.  What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?

I concede this.

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.
Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs.  Also, what if it's dark?  Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now.  (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).
I guess I'm more optimistic.  Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now?  If so,  it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras. 

The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

How so?

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 28