July 29, 2014, 11:06:34 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 5 ... 39
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D N
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:09:14 PM »
about another 30% off without video feature. I'm in ;D

Remember the Nikon Df?  The price goes UP when you remove video. 

32
'Dark humor' is shooting with the lens cap on and then pushing the exposure 4-5 stops in post.   8)

But I thought "dark humour" was black bile.   :o

33
I'm not yet sure what Aglet's angle is:

here it's just dark humor in the form of satire.. for the sake of balance.
Hard to follow a good bit like unfocused's.

I forget which comedian once said that it's not funny if no one understands it.  I'm all for dark humor and satire, but yours needs work.

34
:'( Goodbye my dear 5d mk III . ..Don't let the door hit you in the A$$.  :o

I hear ya, man.
I was married to her older half-sister, 5d2, and divorced her.

Dude, sounds like Nikon really has you by the ballhead.

I'm not yet sure what Aglet's angle is: sometimes he seems like a troll, other times he just seems like a fanboi who would upgrade from an iPhone5 to the third production run of the iPhone5 because it had a shiny new serial#.  It's also possible he's just one of those guys who finds it hard to see anything from a perspective other than his own.  And apparently he didn't get the joke thrown-down by unfocused.

Aglet: of course everyone wants the best of all tech in a single, low-cost body.  And for those who do exclusively slow-paced landscape and studio photography I hear the D8x0s are great tools.  But just as it's legitimate to ask why the Canon's don't have the IQ of the Nikons, it's also legitimate to ask why the Nikons have crappy AF, bloated raw files, slow framerate and poor quality control.

Aglet wants us all to believe that a farmer is totally lame if he buys a pickup truck instead of Ferrari.


35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:28:55 PM »
As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon. :)

I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;"  would you mind pointing it out?  What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.

36
Not according to my viewpoint, and don't put words in my mouth.

And pay attention!

I pointed out that Canon have a specific, limited identification of what is meant by "telephoto" in their lineup. I pointed this out as an interesting consideration - .

A rumor is not a precisely-crafted press release.  It's word-of-mouth, sometimes two or more conversations distant from the source (e.g. a friend of a friend who's an engineer at Canon says...)

There is ZERO reason to believe that Canon's precise definition (even if true) has carried through to this CR3 post.

You are trying to create a Swiss watch from Swiss cheese.

Quote
not because I am a pedant trying to one up other members

You might want to get another opinion on that.

37
CR3 makes this near real...right?

Real.  Just like aliens.

Aliens are real; the people who report seeing them, but consistently fail to get high-quality photos/video, despite the near-ubiquity of adequate-quality recording equipment, are not.   :P
Alien spaceships travel by projecting a tiny black hole in front of them and use the gravitational attraction to accelerate their spaceships. These micro black holes cause the space-time continuum to warp, and that warping disrupts the flow of photons.... and that is why all photos of flying saucers are blurred....

That makes perfect sense, and it certainly implies that sasquatch emanate black holes in their musk or flatus, which is why their pictures are always so blurry.


38
CR3 makes this near real...right?

Real.  Just like aliens.

Aliens are real; the people who report seeing them, but consistently fail to get high-quality photos/video, despite the near-ubiquity of adequate-quality recording equipment, are not.   :P



39
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 09:16:38 AM »
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

I get this, but I've wondered whether there might be some truth to the myth, though not in the way many people imagine.  While I accept that your explanation is true, it applies when using identical tech throughout the sensor.  I've wondered whether it's disproportionately more expensive to make high-density sensors and whether some compromises would be made to keep the costs of the higher MP sensors within reason.   The practical result would be that higher MP had worse low-light performance, but only because it's not identical sensor tech.

There has certainly been a LOT of research into making smaller sensors (which pretty much always have smaller pixels) more sensitive to light. That research undoubtedly has cost billions. That said, most of the research into making better small pixels has been done to make ultra tiny sensors viable...the kinds of 1/3" down to around 1/8" sized sensors found in small compact cameras, tablets, phablets, phones, and every other device that uses a microscopic sensor. Each of those sensors is usually a tiny fraction of the cost of one APS-C or FF sensor, though, despite having considerably smaller pixels (between 1 to 2 microns these days, with a new generation of sub-micron pixel sensors coming very soon.)

<snip>

You've written about all that before and, again, I don't disagree with any of it.  I may not have made my point very clearly:  I'm not talking about R&D, but about actual production costs.  I presume that P&S sensors can tolerate a higher pixel defect rate than SLR-quality sensors, so yield is pretty high for those sensors.  I assume that keeping the defect rate down in order to get a reasonable yield is easier (hence cheaper) with recent, but not leading edge, technology.  It's my non-expert understanding that there are many refinements that occur to get a beautiful new design to produce a high yield.  I'm assuming that this problem is increased for smaller pitch pixels and the needed smaller circuitry.  Of course, once you get those production problems worked out the yield is comparable.


40
There are three major reasons to make backups, and you need to cover all of them: (1)accidental deletion;(2) hardware failure of your primary storage;(3)major damage (e.g. house fire).  For the first two a Time Machine backup is probably your best bet, and a rotation of two if you can afford it.  For the third you need to keep an off-site backup, e.g. in a Safe Deposit box at a local bank, or in your desk drawer at work if your work situation allows it.  Your off-site backup should be encrypted with a decent password.  How often to rotate your off-site backup depends on how much data you're willing to lose.

Long-term storage is a different question: technology keeps changing, so there's no substitute for simply re-copying files to current media on a regular basis.  DVDs or BR discs will last you a few years, but you can't really rely on media stability or the availability of readers.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:03:26 AM »
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

I get this, but I've wondered whether there might be some truth to the myth, though not in the way many people imagine.  While I accept that your explanation is true, it applies when using identical tech throughout the sensor.  I've wondered whether it's disproportionately more expensive to make high-density sensors and whether some compromises would be made to keep the costs of the higher MP sensors within reason.   The practical result would be that higher MP had worse low-light performance, but only because it's not identical sensor tech.

42
What an idiotic rumor. Look, some people like the reach of an APS-C, so Canon is going to appease them. If they want the bigger sensor, they'll go with the 1DX.

Canon's decisions with their new models are quite logical, and if you think from their point of view - in terms of sales, and what people want and expect - then it's clear this rumor is foolish. The original poster is now added to my lost of doofuses.

While I agree that it's unlikely (APS-C vs. APS-H is a clean way to divide your products), it's not out of the question.  If enough sports photographers were willing to pay enough, Canon would give them what they want.  That being said, Canon would rather sell you a FF body and a 600mm tele than APS-H and a 400mm tele.

43
Lenses / Re: Hawaii travel advice
« on: June 28, 2014, 10:10:31 AM »
I agree that 24-70 will do most of what you need.  Go ahead and take one or two extra lenses and a tripod, but know that you may not get to use them.  As for lens choices, unless you have a WA fetish, you might think about a long zoom for birds or flowers, if those interest you.

44
Photography Technique / Re: Need advice: 60D + 100-400L
« on: June 24, 2014, 08:29:14 AM »
And here's a 100% crop of that sandpiper above for reference.

I searched some earlier photos and found this, possibly the best-quality I have.  The first is the full-frame scaled down; the second is a 100%crop.  I'm fairly sure this was hand-held, and I couldn't find IS info in the metadata, but I assume it was on.

1/1250, ISO320, f/6.3

I think the two key factors here are: f/6.3 and the lack of any false targets for the AF.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on what made this work when others didn't.

Thanks.

That's nice, and more in line with what you should expect of that lens and camera under good conditions. If you keep your shutter speed at 1/250-1/500 or better at 400mm with IS on or use a good tripod with IS off, keep ISO <800, nail focus on your subject, and exposure properly you should be able to achieve this quality with other subjects. You're shooting at an effective focal length of 640mm and technique is really critical and makes or breaks an image. It definitely takes practice.

I'll try f/6.3 and see if my hit rate goes up.  Based on this image (and others) I don't think I have a soft lens (optics); if anything, it may be front-focusing a little -- the image seems to lose focus quickly behind the branch.  I'll do some front-focus testing and see what I can find.  At f/5.6 I'd expect some of the subject to be in focus, but this has often not been the case.


45
Photography Technique / Re: Need advice: 60D + 100-400L
« on: June 23, 2014, 11:11:31 PM »
And here's a 100% crop of that sandpiper above for reference.

I searched some earlier photos and found this, possibly the best-quality I have.  The first is the full-frame scaled down; the second is a 100%crop.  I'm fairly sure this was hand-held, and I couldn't find IS info in the metadata, but I assume it was on.

1/1250, ISO320, f/6.3

I think the two key factors here are: f/6.3 and the lack of any false targets for the AF.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on what made this work when others didn't.

Thanks.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39