March 05, 2015, 09:38:02 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 74
721
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 08, 2012, 07:18:30 PM »
Wrong conclusion.

The extra DR is of benefit when there is a big separation between the brightest part of your image and the darkest shadow.

Thanks for the insight. I will be sure to remember that from this point forward, as I had no prior knowledge to what DR meant. I will continue to use a camera's DR as a crutch for improper technique.

722
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 08, 2012, 07:13:45 PM »
Thanks for the example, Phil. Great work as always.

Here's one I dug up. There's a lot of contrast, and not much shadow detail.



This is more of what I was going for, and yes, more DR and shadow recovery would have been highly beneficial.



That said, the real culprit here is that I f'd up the exposure. I should have anticipated the backlighting and opened up the exposure by a stop. An ND grad filter would have worked wonders as well, but like you said,  you can sometimes overlook these things inadvertently in the heat of the moment :) 

723
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 08, 2012, 05:53:52 PM »
But there are cases where you surely couldd benefit from wider dr and the option to get detail in both the deepest shadow and brightest highlights. I'm sure we all have a couple of files in our archives where we had to give up on either one of them, or where we wouldve liked more leeway to mould the file to our wishes.

In this respect, I think Nikon wins this round.

Agreed on all accounts. If maximum DR is the most important factor for a photographer, then Nikon is the clear winner. Fortunately, DR is just one of many elements of performance that go into what and how I shoot, and it's not so important that I feel inclined to abandon the Canon system.

Realistically I don't think anyone is taking about rescuing 4 stop unexposed files but rather HDR situations using a single shot.

There are situations when better quality deep shadows would help me. For example, when I'm shooting a bride getting into or out of the car I don't particularly like to use flash as it changes the shot significantly and inverse square law of light means only the closer person will be lit. Having a single exposure for this situation would be fantastically useful.

Anyone can relate to the benefits of greater DR in practical, real-world situations as you describe. While the test conducted in that link is interesting from a strictly academic standpoint of gauging sensor performance, I have a difficult time relating to the method used to illustrate their point. Pulling four stops of shadow recovery is equivalent to an 16-fold increase in light, and if you haphazardly pulled that much shadow recovery in 99 percent of images, you'd end up with the ugliest, flattest POS you'd ever laid eyes on :) It's one thing to recover some shadow detail. It's another thing entirely to turn your shadows into midtones, which is essentially what that Dutch experiment sought to accomplish.

Now, I think a much more effective test would be if someone as qualified as yourself busted out one of these shots of a bride getting out of car, applied the necessary shadow recovery in post, then shared the before and after images the illustrate the benefits of the Nikon's DR advantage :) That's something everyone can relate to.

I just find the idea of intentionally underexposing an image by four stops, then trying to save it in post just for the sake of experimentation, a bit silly since it isn't a situation you'd ever encounter in real life. Unfortunately, a lot of people find bizarre experiments like that quite compelling.

724
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 08, 2012, 03:09:50 PM »

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx.

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.

Interesting test. I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops. I'd venture to say it would be difficult to miss an exposure by 4 stops by a soccer mom using her iPhone. Heck, I feel like the world's worst photographer if I miss an exposure by 1 stop :)

Like you said, in many situations this sensor advantage won't be evident. I think the Nikon's flat looking files would bug me a heck of a lot more than the instances where I need to pull 4 stops of shadow recovery, which is never.

725
One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.

Nah, that's just one example. His idiotic statements are many. I rarely read his reviews, but whenever I come across one, there's always some highly misinformed opinion that he's trying to pass off as fact. He's a blogger, so my expectations of his reporting ability are quite low.

Quote
And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

If you base someone's credibility on how they rank on a Google search, then I suppose Ken is an expert.  I don't care enough about Ken to dislike him. He's more of a comedy show than anything else. It's just a shame when people take his comments as if they're facts.

726
You are missing the point.  For whatever reason, he wants things simple when it comes to photography.  He doesn't want to spend more time or money on HDR, GPS, video, etc.  He wants to take pictures. 

That's good, because based on the images he posts, he could sure use some more practice.

Quote
He doesn't want to have to reconfigure buttons or deal with multiple menus.  The most informative video I've watched on photography is Jay Maisel's walk through NYC with Scott Kelby. I would say he echoes almost all of Rockwell's essential photography points.  He doesn't want to change lenses, carry a tripod, use photoshop, or even crop the images.

There's a solution for this. It's called a point-and-shoot. I don't like hauling around a ton of gear more than anyone else, but sometimes even after you pare things down to the bare minimum, you're still left with a lot of gear. With some jobs, there's no way around this. It's really very simple. Use a DSLR (or medium format if you're a high roller) for commissioned gigs, and bust out the point-and-shoot if you have an aversion to carrying gear around. I've tried this before, and it works quite well.

Quote
This is the type of pro Rockwell refers to.

Not always. According to Ken, a 70-200 is the longest lens you need to shoot motorsports because that's what someone else told him. If Ken needs to rely on hearsay because he has no personal experience, that's fine. If that's the case, just don't go running you're mouth as if you know what you're talking about and have the nerve to speak on behalf of all pros.


727
How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?

Quite clearly amateurs use mid range zooms, therefore pros dont.

Not too sure what he means by mid range - I would say the 70-200 is a mid range - wow, pros dont use this :o :o :o

Good point. Let's say a ridiculous blanket statement like "pros don't use mid-range zooms" was actually true. Who cares? Does that mean hobbyists shouldn't use them just because pros don't? Please. If you need a mid-range zoom, or any other type of lens for that matter, get it. Who cares what a pro uses? If I saw a pro carry around hemorrhoid medication in his camera bag, does that mean that I should too :o?

I've said this before, but I see lots of hobbyists that have nicer gear that pros. So maybe it's the pros that look at their gear enviously, and not the other way around ;D

728
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Great tutorials on 5DIII and 1Dx AF system
« on: April 07, 2012, 02:24:21 PM »
Canon's own Rudy Winston has posted some very helpful tutorials on how to maximize the AF systems found on the 5DIII and 1Dx. I found them much more helpful than the instruction manual, and wish I had read them before taking the 5DIII on my first shoot. There's a great explanation of cross-point AF sensors, too. The new AF system is probably an easy transition for 7D users, but for people stepping up from 5DC/II's and xxD's, there's much to learn. I'm not sure if these have been posted yet, but here goes:

Menu system
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_menu_article.shtml

Multiple AF points
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/5d3_multiple_af_points.shtml

AF Configuration tool
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_config_article.shtml

Cross-type sensors
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_precision_crosstype_article.shtml

AF points and area selection
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_pts_article.shtml

729
You guys entirely have the wrong idea. You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else?

I have no problem with people that "see things differently," but Mr. Rockwell often "sees things differently" because he doesn't know what he's talking about. How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously? Apparently, someone who takes overly saturated snapshots of a picnic bench with a $3,000 camera is qualified to speak on behalf of all pros.   

Quote
People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.

What he says isn't controversial. It's jut ill-informed and ignorant. So Ken's clearly an enthusiasts who just loves tinkering with photo gear, and has no skills to back it up. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I've never come across anyone who produces such underwhelming work that tries to speak so authoritatively on any subject matter.

730
Needs moar VIVID.

Thanks for the feedback. How about the image overall? Is the subject, lighting, and composition uninspiring enough?

The half lens cap is a little too radical on the composition front........

 ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

731
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:42:56 PM »
Since 18-22 MP is more than sufficient for me, a 36 MP camera with noise performance that falls apart above ISO 1600 doesn't seem like a game changer to me...

I thought it's the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII, which several reviewers have said is hardly even noticeable in side-by-side testing, that makes it a game-changer?

732
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:41:25 PM »
With all due respect, I must disagree here. What lens(es) are you using and what AF settings when you say that the 5DIII is not as snappy or responsive in autofocusing as the 1DII?

Let me say up front that I'm still learning the 5DIII's AF system, so I haven't had a chance to really tweak the settings or put it through the ringer just yet. I don't need fast glass for the type of shooting that I do, so my long lens of choice is a 70-300L. With that lens on the 1DII, the camera does an excellent job of tracking subjects in AI Servo in auto AF selection mode (the one where the camera chooses from all 45 points). Using this same setup on the 5DIII, particularly in low light, it takes longer to acquire focus than the 1DII.

That said, if I switch over the zone or one of the AF point expansion settings, the 5DIII acquires focus much more quickly. I still need much more time to practice with the 5DIII, but this arrangement is probably how I'll use the AF for moving subjects from now on.

733
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:31:14 PM »
I went through the images too - I suspect the quality is down to the individual rather than the kit.

I'd have to agree. For every 1 time I blame my gear for poor results, I blame myself 99 times :)

Regardless of which body has the better AF system, I'm just thrilled that the 5DIII's AF is good enough to even be compared to the 1DIV. I would have never dreamed of such a thing 3 months ago. For serious sports shooting, IMHO the 1DIV certainly has its advantages in terms of burst rate and a larger buffer.

734
EOS Bodies / Re: My first real shoot with the 5DIII
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:24:19 PM »
Hi, V8Beast. Some great shots! Thanks for posting.

I, too, had a bit of a panic. I went to an event the day I got my camera, set it to aperture priority, and everything was shooting about 1.5 stops under. I have been so busy over the last week that I have not been able to do much of a formal test yet, but fortunately, images I'm casually snapping are coming out with more reliable exposures.

Is 5DC shorthand for the original 5D? If so, I had that camera, too and skipped the Mark II to wait for this one. The original 5D rarely had issues with needing exposure compensation.


Yes, I found out a while ago that all the cool kids online are calling the original 5D a "5DC" :) I have played around with spot and partial metering, and the exposures do seem more accurate. As others have suggested, I think whatever changes Canon made to the evaluative metering in the 5DIII is probably more accurate for many shooting situations, and I just happen to be one of the freaks that shoots subjects where it isn't as accurate.

Again, thanks for everyone's suggestions and compliments. This is a decent set of shots, but nothing ground breaking, so I hope to do better next time :)

735
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think
« on: April 06, 2012, 09:45:50 PM »
This may help you decide since this is a thread of 1D4 users talking up the 5d3 as better in focus.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-1163659.html

Wow, those are some very impressive images in that link. I have much to learn about the 5DIII's new AF system :)

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 74