November 25, 2014, 05:35:14 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 - dr croubie

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 94
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Make yourself happy
« on: May 23, 2013, 11:20:20 PM »
Wanna make yourself happy?
Get $30, get over to fleabay, and get yourself one of these.
So small, it's barely taller than my 85/1.8 and as thick as my Shorty McForty, 72 shots on a roll so who cares if you waste 'em?

At $30 for the body and $10 for a roll and processing, and $800 for an SL1 and 40mm, you'll get 5500 frames for the same price, and a hell of a lot more fun*.

*fun being a subjective unquantifiable measure, of course

47
Theory!

Flipping the switch triggers metering. Since evaluative metering invokes code that looks at multiple metering points and tries to intelligently guess what to do, it's somewhat reasonable to assume that it might a different decision on what to do each time it's invoked if the light entering the lens in non-uniform across the image.

A way to test if this is happening is to point the camera so the image is completely uniform in brightness across the image — at the sky, or a flatly coloured wall, etc.

This makes perfect sense. Evaluative metering is linked to the selected AF point. Switching to MF deactivates all of the AF points, which means evaluative metering can no longer be weighted toward a selected point.  The fact that you're seeing this only with a wide angle lens is not unreasonable.  With such a wide FLV, there's more in the scene to affect the metering when it is no longer weighted toward the selected point. 

Theory confirmed, on my 7D & EFs 15-85 as well. Standing outside, with single AF point on the top of the frame, focussing on some bright clouds, in the bottom half of the frame is my neighbour's relatively dark roof. On AF, I get 1/500s. Switch to MF, I get 1/320.

What Neuro said is also applicable to the 7D, metering is weighted more towards what is in focus (in my case, bright sky at infinity). If it doesn't know what's in focus (from being in MF), then it will give even weight to the whole frame and meter more for the dark roof. This is pretty much what the user manual states.

It's not a bug it's a feature.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: May 05, 2013, 05:41:48 PM »
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill).

Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?

49
Lenses / Re: Viking Burial Fun (eral) topic!
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:33:52 PM »
A friend of mine had a lens, not sure which one, smashed an element or two. The remaining elements worked quite well as a Loupe.

50
Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:21:58 PM »
why shoot film if you want to convert it to digital?

Why not?
Art is art and reproduction is reproduction, both have their place but they're rarely the same.
I shoot film because it's more fun, I get better IQ from scanning a 645 or 6x6 than from my 7D (and a decent MF film body and lens is half the price of a 7D body no lens).

but do you need better iq... sure some people do, but its not many that actually need it

Of course I don't. Doesn't mean I can't want it though...
(although, to that end i've just bought an Epson R3000 13" wide printer, one of these days I'll print a few 13x19s shot on MF and see if i can flog them off)

51
Software & Accessories / Re: What makes a Polarizer worth it's price?
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:38:33 PM »
If you're using a cheapo rebel and kit lens, get the cheapo CPL. But if you spend $3k on a body, $1-2k on a lens, why would you ruin it by skimping $100 on a cheaper filter?
I've used a cheapo CPL before, I could actually see the IQ difference in a side-by-side comparison to no filter. And that was only on a 7D and 15-85, they're a good combo but nowhere near the world's sharpest...

52
Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:36:02 PM »
why shoot film if you want to convert it to digital?

Why not?
Art is art and reproduction is reproduction, both have their place but they're rarely the same.
I shoot film because it's more fun, I get better IQ from scanning a 645 or 6x6 than from my 7D (and a decent MF film body and lens is half the price of a 7D body no lens).

53
Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners
« on: April 29, 2013, 07:34:27 PM »
For scanning, I just went the v750, you can't beat it, I paid €550 shipped from EU to AU.
135 (35mm) is OK in the supplied film holders, but their height isn't very well adjustable, a good roll of Velvia 50 or Delta 100 Pro can get you scan about 10MP equivalent quality. And forget it for 120, I had the weird phenomenon where the centre of the frame was softer than the edges, because the centre of the film was sagging. Get a Betterscanning holder with the wet/dry glass and dry-mount, the resolution increase from the height-adjustable mount is enormous, probably up to 15-18MP in 35mm.
Then i decided even that isn't good enough, so i'm going for a Wet Mounting kit, should get about 20-25MP from a good 35mm negative, >50MP for a good 645. Try Aztek only if you're in the US, no overseas shipping. Or they buy it from Kami if you're in the EU. If you're neither, you're stuffed. I ended up with Lumina fluid from canada. It's not explosively flammable like Kami, so they can ship it overseas.

For processing, I've also just started getting into that (ordered and waiting for the tank to get delivered atm). I've joined the forums at www.apug.org to get advice on what chemicals and such. It really really depends on what you shoot with what film. I'm going to try starting with Diafine for my pushed-2-stops high-iso high-contrast spotlights-on-a-dark-stage shots, because that's pretty much what diafine was built for. For my low-iso tiny-grain efke-25, PanF50, Delta100Pro, I haven't decided yet. Was leaning towards xtol but maybe microphen (or even rodinol, although probably not because I likes my shadow detail).
For a tank i got the Paterson 3 Reel tank, specifically because when I get my new Travelwide 4x5 cameras, I can then get a MOD54 to process my own 4x5s.

nb: It's easy to get carried away with all of this. I've just talked about nearly $2000 worth of gear right there, if you include $250 for the two travelwides shipped and €400 for a super angulon 90/8 and 65/8 shipped. Once I start scanning 4x5s I'm going to need a few new HDDs if I ever scan them to 1-200MP+. And that's before chemicals and films. And to think I originally bought back into film just after the 5D3 was announced, because I figured it would take a lot of rolls of film plus a $200 EOS 3 to make up to $3500 worth of digital camera... (still, the enjoyment of experimenting and the fun of using film is worth a lot more than boring (to me) sitting processing 100 raw files.)

54
Anyway the 2nd, if Pentax isn't going to release a FF DSLR or/and mirrorless, what is the point of this lens?
http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product/9377
43 mm, FA mount, f/1.9 for $750 USD. Seems Pentax considers it a pretty special product with those specs at that price point.

I'm not sure of exact release dates, but the Pentax Limited Edition primes are fairly old, 2000s is, maybe give or take 5 years. They're from film days and were designed as such, at least. I've never used one, but word has it that they're damn nice lenses, $750 seems like a decent price for them, actually. (although the Shorty McFortington at $200 is a lot better value, but not as fast...)

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:22:58 AM »
Filpside: Why higher resolution video?

Am I the only one still using a CRT TV bought new (by my parents) in 1986? I watch it so seldomly, and with only half-attention when I do, that any expense on buying a new one is pointless. Money better spent on lenses, film, and travelling to photogenic spots.
Maybe if there were something worth watching on TV nowadays, I'd be inclined to watch it more. Even if they're already broadcasting in 1080p, it might be technically 'better' than an analogue TV, but the stories sure as hell aren't. And even if the stories were worth watching, how much do more pixels add to the plot?

[/oldmanrant]

56
Canon General / Re: Think I need a 12 step program
« on: April 23, 2013, 07:14:01 PM »
...and notice I said it is a great "compliment" to a FF system...

Is m4/3 a 'compliment' to a FF system, or a 'complement' to a FF system?
Or maybe it's both?
It works well alongside FF, plus the lower IQ of m4/3 reminds you how good the FF system is :)


[/grammar fun]

57
Lenses / Re: Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 just announced?!
« on: April 18, 2013, 04:03:37 AM »
So it's 18-35 f/1.8 for APS-C, making at a FF-equivalent of 29-56 f/2.9
Comparing, say, a 7D + this Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 to an FF, say 5D3 + 24-70 f/2.8, you get a lot more at the long end, and a bit more at the wide end.
Not sure which one would combo will deliver better IQ (especially seeing how good the new 24-70 II is, it'll be hard to beat), but I can tell you which combo is going to be a lot lighter on the wallet...

58
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Set From Death Valley National Park
« on: April 14, 2013, 09:32:57 PM »

59
Black & White / Re: black and white alpine landscapes
« on: April 12, 2013, 08:18:25 PM »
I was just thinking that they looked rather familiar, then I read the text at the top again. I worked on those mountains in a restaurant one winter, the best thing was waking up on the mountain and getting to the good light before everyone else. Great Shots!

60
Street & City / Re: Worlds Largest Pano
« on: April 10, 2013, 06:20:00 PM »
Largest, or most pixels?
Until they print that one of London, this is still the largest 'photograph' ever.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 94