April 17, 2014, 09:56:13 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 - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 122
I'm not a dissenter, but I'm curious.  If you shoot in raw... the images all look blah until you change the contrast, remove the vignetting... and fix the white balance.  I also add a touch of saturation... shoo if a shot requires that much adjustment from the original raw.. how do y'all really know if it was the lens that didn't have good color, contrast, etc?

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:18:41 PM »
I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.

Focal length can affect DoF - it just depends on what else you do or do not hold constant.  If you change focal length without changing subject distance, you're changing DoF.  If you change subject distance without changing focal length, you're changing DoF.  In each case, you're changing the magnification - the size of the subject.  But if you keep the size of the subject constant (e.g., move closer as the focal length gets shorter), then DoF remains constant for a given aperture - that's why the statement that DoF depends on magnification and aperture is a better way to phrase it.

Put another way, DoF is determined by magnification and aperture, and magnification is determined by focal length and subjet distance.

I'm at work so I skimmed it... but I'll give it a real look when I'm free from my shackles.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:02:38 PM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.

I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:04:34 AM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:

A very technical article about this subject:
Full sized vs. Crop Sensors

A nice photo comparison to bust a myth about DOF and lens length:
Do Wide Angle Lenses Really Have Greater Depth of Field Than Telephotos?

Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth


I think I've done that one, too, but it was my own dumb fault.  It's why I like the Sandisk Extreme series, though, as the circuit boards are coated in silicon amongst other things.  I'm anxious to try out the new card to see the burst depth.  I remember when I stuck the Lexar 1000x in my 7D and 5DIII, the buffer depth was huge, especially in the 7D.  I'm hoping for to top the 1000x, which I think is around 16-17 deep for RAW.  I'm not a spray and pray guy, but I'm shooting a completely new sport (horse jumping and such) and the Blue Angels in the next few weeks and will probably need all the help I can get to capture the peak moment :)

I feel the same way.  When I shoot a sport I feel comfortable with and have a sense where the action is headed... I wait and time the shot... but if I'm not sure.... like volleyball soccer or diving... there I am snapping away like every shot is important.

Lenses / Re: what lenses have you sold in the past and why?
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:31:50 AM »
canon 50 1.4 - sold for 50L 1.2. Best decision I ever made. Wish I did it 3 years ago. It now lives on my camera.

I agree 100% and actually sold my 50 1.2 and missed it so I bought another one :)

Also, I posted a similar thread a while back, that you might be interested in:

I did that with my 100L... fortunately I didn't lose any money on the deal.

Lenses / Re: what lenses have you sold in the past and why?
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:30:13 AM »
I have a big list... and more often than not... the answer is, "To afford more gear."

18-55 is
70-300 is (I also didn't think it was much of an upgrade over the 55-250)
70-200 f/4 I liked it... but it was near useless in doors...
70-200 f2.8... because I was going to keep it but then someone bought it from me at a profit...
17-55 because I bought it with the intention of selling it, though it seemed like a nice lens.
24-105 because it was losing value quickly and I wanted to buy another at a lower price than I sold this one.
100L because I bought the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii and it seemed redundant
50mm f/1.8 because I was upgrading to the 50 1/.4
50 1.4 because I expected it to be 3x better than the f/1.8 and it wasn't... so it sat.
85 1.8 because someone bought it... I was keeping it for my daughter... but no... someone decided to pay me more for it than I paid.
28-135 I got it for my daughter and it was crap... so I sold it.

I feel as though there are more....

Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: February 28, 2014, 06:59:43 AM »
I guess I'm affected by it as well... In the past 2 weeks I've bought a 135L and a 580 ex ii... so there's that.  Now I need a flash stand and a umbrella... so I guess it isn't over.

EOS-M / Re: Why isn't M on refurbished store?
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:09:05 PM »
Maybe people didn't return em... they figure $300 for a back up option... or one for the kids or wife... sure. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:48:55 PM »

Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.

No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification.

A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.

Ok good point. I was taking FL as static, basically trying to distinguish lens from sensor. But that is more accurate, I will edit.

Well we still aren't quite there. If you take the same picture from the same place with the same lens and settings and on a crop and ff cameras, then make two prints the same size, the image is different (obviously) and the dof is less in the crop camera image.

If you have two different sized prints, such that the subjects were the same size then the dof would be the same from both cameras.

DOF is dependent on magnification, to get a same sized print you have to enlarge the crop camera more so it has less dof.

It isn't until people accept that dof is subjective and dependent on magnification, that it clicks that crop cameras can have, more, less, or the same, dof as a ff camera.

Maybe it will click tomorrow... but tonight... I'm enjoying my gambling winnings from a triple overtime game.

My quandary is whether to go with a slower 128GB card or buy a newer, faster 64GB card.  If they both perform the same in my 5DIII, the 128GB card is the obvious answer.
But is that really true?  I've wondered about the catastrophic failure rate versus card size.  If you lost a big card while on a trip, you could lose thousands of images.  Smaller cards, no one failure loses very many images.  Could be a tradeoff curve if the catastrophic failure rate is sufficiently high, but I don't know much about how often that happens.

Oh gosh, and now I've probably left you wondering what's behind door number three.  Oh... Monty, Monty, Monty!  :D
I know - but for me, I've only ever had an issue with one SD card, while I have frequently run out of space on a card in the middle of a shoot.  Also, there's no reason you can't download from the card and leave the images on the card for a while if you don't need the whole space for a while...

The wife washed and dried a 32 GB SD card a few hundred times and it stopped working... so as long as she doesn't do that again it should be the only card that ever failed on me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 09:00:56 PM »
I want practically a new camera for a $1000 mod. 

I want 8 fps, I want a bigger buffer, I want 4k video, and I want self adjust afma that adjusts through the range not just at the wide and at the tele side.

Is that outrageous... no.  And the reason why is that the 5d mkiv will probably have all that and more, so if I sell my body for $2400 (maybe) and the new mkiv might be $4000... so for $1600... I can get the big upgrade.  But I'm just making stuff up now.  And the mkiv won't come out for another 2-3 years...

Unfortunately there is not a definitive way to state it. The problem being that manufacturers do not commonly post the buffer rate or the write-to rates of their cameras, they more or less advise which category of cards or specific cards are optimal for the cameras performance based on their testing. Using a faster card (than what you are currently) will not cause any aspect of the camera’s performance to increase; the only benefit from a faster card would be if you have a high speed reader and wanted to transfer the data quickly off card to the computer. - Yossi

Yep, that really answers it - thanks for asking them, though :)

I didn't do it just for you;  I really want to know as well.  When I shot jpg on my 60D and I had a class 4 sd card... I would cap out at around 8 shots... then I got a sandisk class 10 and the thing never stopped... It was awesome.  Then I started to shoot raw + jpg and back down to 6-8...

Now that I'm living the mkiii lifestyle, I don't hold down the shutter the way I used to... but I want to know that if I want to do that... then my card will allow me to do so. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:46:46 PM »
No thanks.  If I need dynamic range, I will hdr the shot... and video... my daughter NOT playing basketball doesn't require better video.

they answered with a non answer

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 122