April 16, 2014, 05:07:43 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 95
211
Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:03:58 AM »
This is MY ( daughter's ) dog.

First she got a pet ferret when she was a university student. That soon came to live with me on a permanent basis.
Then she got this Chiwawa; that soon came to live with me on a permanent basis.
I'm just hoping she isn't going to have a baby any time soon.

24-105L @105 f4. Smallest jpeg out of camera with a gaussian mask over it at 50% and the centre brushed out.

212
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:42:09 PM »
I don't do Birds In Flight because a): my lenses aren't long enough, and b): I can't focus on the damn things anyway.
Thought I'd post this of a Lapwing as I haven't seen any of these ground nesting birds on CR yet. They mob any creatures that approach the nest, and you can see this one is giving me the eye.

5D mkii, 300 f4 L @ f9

213
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:32:37 PM »
Walking the dogs this evening. 5Dmkii + 24-105L @ 95mm f8, 1/320, ISO 320

214
Lenses / Re: Confusing info on Lens Compression
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:43:47 PM »
However subject isolation is also a result of magnification as well as distance, so the 5D at 168mm would appear to have a shallower dof for a given same aperture.

Great point!  Is there a math way to figure this out including DoF equivalent?  Is the 7D 105 F4 DoF the same as the 5D3 168 F5.6?

There are calculations but it is complicated becUse it depends on distance. ( I understand you're asking about calculating the difference between formats, not dof per se).

There are guys on CR who know this stuff inside out so hopefully they'll pick up on the thread and help you out. At normal distances you're about right; in this instance it's about a stop, maybe a tad more.

215
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:36:24 PM »
Jon, thanks for that info on the 6D. It explains a lot ! No doubt it's in the instruction manual  :-[

Isn't CR wonderful  ;D


216
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:58:11 PM »

Can we make a recommendation for the first person to go on this trip ?  ;)

Hummm...am I supposed to take a hint from that?  :o

Not you I hasten to add  ;)

217
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:54:20 PM »

Unfortunately, the same metering module put on the 6d is more erratic,

+1; you're not the only person to find that; I'm finding the matrix metering (pattern) almost 'erratic' too. It's as if it's trying to be too clever in certain lighting conditions. It also seems to react to blue by underexposing but I believe it doesn't have colour metering.

Certainly the matrix on the 5D behaved differently to the mkii which behaved differently to the 6D. I would recommend trying average metering mode - where there is nothing in the metering icon box. This is actually centre weighted, and should be more predictable but not 'intelligent'.

218
Lenses / Re: Confusing info on Lens Compression
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:38:23 PM »
Perspective / compression is a result of distance from the subject. To get the same framing of 105 on a 7D the 5D would require the 70-200 zoom setting to 168mm. Distance to the subject would be the same so the effect of compression would be the same.

However subject isolation is also a result of magnification as well as distance, so the 5D at 168mm would appear to have a shallower dof for a given same aperture.


219
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:21:24 PM »

There is also the inevitable TRUE realization of what these people are signing up for means...a ONE WAY trip to Mars. People think that's amazing right now...but there is no rescue plan, there is no return ship, there is no return period. It is a PERMANENT LIFE CHANGE, on a scale no one on Earth has experienced before.


Can we make a recommendation for the first person to go on this trip ?  ;)

220
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:31:05 AM »
It's not necessary all the time mind you, but another advantage of higher dr is more exposure safety - you don't need to (spot) meter 100% correctly if short on time which usually is the case if your subject is about to move away.

If you're going to use spot metering through your camera ' on the fly' as it were you are certainly gong to need all the exposure latitude help you can get  ;)

In the film days the reason we bought spot meters was specifically not to take one reading, but to take various reading from around the scene to get a range and average, or to take a reading from a grey card, again from the different illumination within the scene.

Using spot as a one off meter reading can lead to real exposure error unless you have hit the correct reflectivity within the scene with your one reading.

221
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:20:11 AM »
As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.


If you're basing your comment on Neuro's then you've no personal experience to base this on. Similarly, in Neuro's comment he doesn't actually reference any personal experience either, just makes a grand statement. If he said the sun would rise at midnight, would that make it true?

Why don't you go out there and find out for yourself what the limitations are of the equipment? Yes, that would mean going outside and taking photographs but it won't hurt you.


In Sporgon's signature, there a link to his images.  I recommend that you not click it, or else you might realize how asinine your statements are (assuming that would come as a surprise).


Well if he has his own experience to build on then he doesn't need to quote or cite your comments, does he?


I was expanding on a point made earlier by Neuro. It was common courtesy to acknowledge that he made the original point. It also lets readers know that I have been following what had been said earlier in the thread. Beginners Guide to Debating, Chapter One.

From the threads on CR it is clear there is a total misconception of the amount of EV range in a scene. No doubt this is partly stoked by people using reflective light meter readings.

I could post a picture taken into the morning sun of a beached fishing boat, which, as well as exposing for the sky has absolutely zero noise or banding in the dark underside of the boat's hull, but as PBD has already posted a picture which trolls have taken zero notice of, I'm not going to bother.

I'm not saying 11.5 stops is always enough. I'm saying that the difference between 12 and 14 ( or 11.7 and 13.2 if we are going to be anal about it ) is not a deal breaker. The difference between 12 and 20 would be a deal breaker. Why such a big jump ? Read what was written earlier.

Here's a link to a shot into the sun with the dreadful noise plagued 5D mkii (not one of mine). When you get beyond this start complaining about DR.

http://500px.com/photo/35632728

It's also worth mentioning that to a certain extent, photography is defined by its limitation in DR. Reproduce a scene as we really see it and it will be quite boring as the human eye ( or to be more correct, the brain ) has around 24 stops due to our HDR computing ability.

Again you might find this an interesting read:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

222
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: February 08, 2014, 04:36:36 PM »
Here's a quick question... when shooting horse riding coming towards you... do yall try for both the horse's head/face and the riders to both be in focus or do you aim for one or the other... and if the other is blurred... it's blurred. 

I know the distance along at which we are shooting will usually have both within the depth of field... but it is something I've been wondering.

As you have rightly identified, horse and rider combinations coming towards you are long, so you need an aperture that is going to cover that depth of field. When shooting show jumping I always zone focus; you know exactly where the horse is going to be at the time you want the picture. For dressage I use tracking because although in theory you know where the horse is going to be if you know the test there is nothing specific to pre focus on, and getting the right leg position requires taking pictures in many different places.

So for zone focus I know that I am placing the point of focus roughly between the rider's body and the horse's head, with enough dof to cover both. With tracking AF I am trying to focus on the rider, but with enough aperture to cover both. Also animal fur can be notoriously difficult for the AF to lock on to.  If you want to achieve minimum dof it takes a little practice to know what aperture / focal length / distance combination you can get away with.

With the pictures I've posted here if either the rider or horse's head was oof the picture would be a dud. In the pictures of Heather I was really pushing it with an 85 @ 1.8. If you saw a big version of the pictures you might find that the horse's head is not as sharp as the rider's. With the picture of Kelly shot with the 135 I had to use a smaller aperture.

223
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 04:20:52 PM »
If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.

As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.

224
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: February 08, 2014, 04:12:35 PM »
Shot with 135L. Some day the CR trolls are going to have to teach me how to get noise and banding in the shadows at low ISOs  ;)

225
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 08, 2014, 03:25:19 PM »
So I think I'm right in saying if you could magnify that image enough you'd be able to look back in time at Earth eight minutes ago   :P

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 95