April 19, 2014, 11:09:22 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 - kphoto99

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
So after this DSLR, from the past rumors how many more DSLRs are left to be released this year?

Hi everyone,

About a month ago I contacted a photographer because I wanted to get into the wedding business.
He accepted my request and he took me with him to a wedding, now:

The Bride called my up a week ago telling me that she didn't like the photographer images and she asked to have a look at my photographs instead.

I set up a gallery for her and she contacted my back very excited and happy about my work, making me so happy as well.

Photographers say that you have to know your client to work out a price, well I don't know how much their budget was but they hired a Limousine and a Cadillac for their wedding, this is what I've seen.

How much do you think should I charge them for about 30-40 photos, retouching and the time spend at the wedding?

I was thinking between $500 - $600 (Australia)

Thank you

(By the way I didn't get paid by the photographer and he didn't tell me the client tried to get in contact with me)

Why would the client tried to get in contact with you without seeing your photos first?

You are asking us how much you should charge. The best person to tell you this is the original photographer. He knows the market and he knows the client.
One big lesson that you should learn from this is how much to charge, this is the most important information you can get out of this experience. Even if the PRO does not want to share any money with you, but you know what is the right amount to charge for your local market you will come out ahead in the future.

As far as the number you proposed ($600/40), that is $15 per picture, it sure does not sound like you value your time much.

Lenses / Re: Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?
« on: April 04, 2014, 09:40:01 AM »
I'm late to this thread, but I will give you a real car company example.

AC Delco (A GM company) makes car batteries for GM products, but also batteries for most other cars.

Batteries are bought by end customers, unlike  examples of Sony sensors or Samsung LCD screens where the end customer does not have a choice what part is put into the final product.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X & EOS-1D C Cold Weather Autofocus Issues
« on: April 03, 2014, 07:30:34 PM »
I don't think this affects all 1DX, mine works flawlessly at -35Celcius. I live in Montreal, I have used it more than 5 times below -35 (pond hockey on a lake, barbegazzi for example)...

I also live in Montréal, and I don't recall any -35 C days this winter. There may have been a couple of nights that were +/- -30 C and several days that were +/- -20 C, but that's it. I know because I walk the city a LOT and when it gets down to and below -18 C, I don't go out except for short excursions--aka, for supplies. Just saying.

I would guess that Besiska confused real temperatures with wind chill temperatures.

Wind chill only affects living beings, it does not affect the camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Announcement in March? [CR1]
« on: February 19, 2014, 10:42:02 AM »
Yes, it's likely that the next camera is launched T6i. I just hope it has the same sensor 70D.

Canon is shrewd when it comes to milking profits from sensors.  Consider that the T5i/700D did not get the latest version of the 18 MP APS-C sensor.  The T5i's sensor has Hybrid CMOS AF (same sensor as the T4i and the EOS M), whereas the sensor used in the SL1/100D and the EOS M2 has Hybrid CMOS II AF (where the phase AF area covers 80% of the frame vs. just the central portion).  That allows Canon to release another T#i-series body with a 'new' (to the line) sensor (but not the 70D's sensor).  Put Digic 6 in there, and they're good to go with the T6i/750D.

You are absolutely right. Canon will not let you get the 70D sensor in a Rebel price camera. The earliest that the 70D sensor migration to Rebel will be T7i. Or if you look at the T4i to T5i change, it will be in T8i. So in 2016.

No, some of the AF points would be angled 45 degrees down, so in the "mirror" mode they would be looking through the lens.

Then in imaging mode they would still be 'holes' in the image.

Regardless, fresh ideas are great, but this one just doesn't seem practically viable.

Why would there be holes, the 650D & 700D have extra AF points on the sensor for autofocus in video mode?

In this "implementation" all the AF points would be on the sensor (like the sensor in 70D) so no need for 'holes'.

So you couldn't autofocus while looking through the viewfinder?  Yeah, I'd call that a problem.   :o

No, some of the AF points would be angled 45 degrees down, so in the "mirror" mode they would be looking through the lens.

...but this particular one doesn't make sense to me for the following reasons:

Also, the mirror doesn't reflect all the light up to the VF - some of the light passes through the 'half-silvered' mirror to be reflected off the submirror for phase detect AF.  Therefore, there would need to be 'holes' in the sensor for light to pass through the circuitry that underlies the photo sites.

In this "implementation" all the AF points would be on the sensor (like the sensor in 70D) so no need for 'holes'.

And yes, I see lots of problems with this idea ;)

The sensor has to be perpendicular to the axis of the lens to a very tiny tolerance, like 1/10000 inch.  Putting it at a angle would seem to be impossible,  only a tiny 1/10000 inch  slice of the image would be infocus.

When the picture is being taken the sensor would be back to the standard location.

Same thing for live view.

The point is tolerances.  I can guarantee you that every time the mirror flips up and down it doesn't seat in exactly the same place, every single time.  Given the nature of the optical viewfinder, a little bit of slop in the positioning is not an issue.  But if the image sensor is not seated perfectly, it will be an issue for every picture taken.  Translational movement is fine, there's just a few pixels of offset which can be easily compensated by a slightly larger than necessary sensor (as is the case for sensor shift image stabilization).  But angular displacement of the sensor is problematic.

Yes, the system could be designed such that the sensor is perfectly positioned after every movement.  But the costs of such a high degree of mechanical tolerance would result in an exorbitantly priced camera, and that would not work in the marketplace.

I'm attaching a crude diagram, this is a side view of the sensor.
The box on the right has the sensor in the "mirror" position so the eye can see through the lens.
The box on the left has the sensor in the picture taking position.
When the sensor swings down to the picture taking position there is no lateral moment since it is anchored to the pivot point. The difficulty is making sure it stops at the precise location so the top and bottom are not out of vertical plane.

Anyway, it was an idea and I was just curios if this was ever tried before.

Wouldn't this still take up just as much space as having a mirror?

In theory about half, since the sensor would be mounted on an axis through the middle of the sensor. Unlike the mirror that needs to move forward as much as the sensor is high. Pivoting would need half the distance.

But you're not, as you say, "eliminating the mirror". You are using the sensor as the mirror.

I see several major issues:
  • A sensor isn't nearly as reflective as a mirror is. The mirror reflects close to 99% of all light that hits it. The viewfinder would be, at the very least, extremely dark.
  • Live view would not work
  • moving the sensor around very fast, and just before exposure is fraught with problems. The mirror can move quickly because it's light, AND the only thing you care about is that it is out of the light path. Moving the sensor to vertical requires very precise positioning, and no bouncing.
  • Leaf shutters are used in medium format SLRs, but there are limitations to leaf shutter construction. I'm not sure speeds of 1/8000 are practical in a leaf shutter. Add to that, the leaf has to be open for focus and metering, then shut, then opened & shut, then opened again. Sports photogs and wildlife photogs would probably not be too interested...
  • The DPAF wouldn't work properly. With the sensor/mirror at a 45 degree angle, correct focus is different between the top of the sensor and the bottom.

The mirror allows a lot of light to the autofocus points that are behind it, so not all of it is reflected.

The sensor reflects quite a bit of light (I don't know if enough), a nano coating could be optimized to increase the reflectivity at 45 degrees.

Live view would work just like now, the sensor would go into vertical position.

The sensor would not be attached at the edge, but it would be through the middle, it would pivot on this axis. It would move half the distance that the mirror does now.

Vibration seems to be the biggest problem to me.

The sensor has to be perpendicular to the axis of the lens to a very tiny tolerance, like 1/10000 inch.  Putting it at a angle would seem to be impossible,  only a tiny 1/10000 inch  slice of the image would be infocus.

When the picture is being taken the sensor would be back to the standard location.

Same thing for live view.

EOS-M / Idea on how to eliminate the mirror and still have a SLR design
« on: January 29, 2014, 03:27:32 PM »
I was looking at the sensor and noticed that it is very reflective, so I thought that maybe it could be used as the mirror.
Basically if the sensor was mounted at 45 degree angle and reflected the light up into the viewfinder during focusing and when the shutter released button was pressed it would swing down to 90 degrees to take the picture. The sensor would have the DPAF from the 70D for focusing.

The shutter mechanism would have to be relocated forward, maybe something like a leaf shutter just after the mount.

Possible problem would be vibration from the sensor pivoting into vertical position.

Has anything like this been tried before?

Lenses / Re: Which Lens for Ring Photos?
« on: January 01, 2014, 10:44:30 AM »
Here is a photo that I quickly took

If this kind of magnification is enough then all you need is the nifty fifty with a 12mm Kenko extension tube. Since it is the only thing you are going to be taking with this lens, you can leave the extension tube permanently attached to it. Much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and nobody is going to enlarge the picture of rings to 24x36 size.

I'm sure similar results can be achieved with the 40 pancake in an ever smaller package.

Lenses / Re: Making a perfectly sharp lens corner to corner idea
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:10:17 PM »
I was thinking that a FF lens used on crop camera is sharper in the corners because it only sees the centre of the lens.
The lens designers could make a lens that has a much larger image circle (maybe 1.5x the size of FF), this would make the lens' corners sharp at full aperture on a FF camera.

The drawbacks that I see would be the size (thickness and weight) of the lens, but ignoring that why is this approach not taken?
See the new Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 lens.  Most people believe that's exactly what they did with this FF design.
So if Zeiss did this, why would they be the first ones to do it?
I realize that the glass elements would be larger, but they would not need to be ground/polished to the edges, just the flatter part.

This brings up an other idea: How do medium format lenses perform when attached to a FF camera with an adapter, are they then sharp corner to corner?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4