October 01, 2014, 04:26:32 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 129
211
Street & City / Re: Street Candid Portraiture
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:31:29 AM »
i like your telephoto street shots !

212
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:46:06 PM »
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here.  I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used.  And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review.  I'll admit it,  I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used.  But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference.  I'm now worried that I must be missing something.  Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me!  When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera?  If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12.  I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.

I sure hope this is sarcasm  :-\

No, it will be true.

I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.

On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.

I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.  ;)

There is, obviously, little difference between images taken with any SLR under optimal conditions FOR that camera.
A daylight image with a Rebel vs a 1D might not look different.
However, that doesn't still mean a 5DIII isn't a far superior camera to the 5D, because when the highlights are blown, for example, I can recover them in my 5DIII and not in my 5D (just one of many factors).

You are of course quite right, the 5DIII is a far superior camera technically, and yes I very much agree on the highlights. The latest Canon FF also have much better tonal graduation and graduation to White and black, as good as film now really, in fact IMO this aspect of the film-like tonal graduation is better on the 5DIII than the D800, at lowest ISO too.

[/quote]
If it weren't so, professionals like yourself won't be using FF, would you?
On the other hand, I have seen many studio photographers who use APS-C, shooting mostly under strobes at f/7.1 and smaller.
[/quote]

Actually I'm only professional when I feel like it  ;)

To be honest the reason I'm using FF is because I come from an era when APS was the most hideous creation of film ever developed, and the crop factors on lenses drove me nuts.

There are many brilliant photographers using four thirds, never mind APS. I could produce all my pictures on APS and no one would know - except for me, and that's enough.

213
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 11:02:09 AM »
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here.  I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used.  And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review.  I'll admit it,  I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used.  But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference.  I'm now worried that I must be missing something.  Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me!  When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera?  If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12.  I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.

I sure hope this is sarcasm  :-\

No, it will be true.

I'm sure most people here on CR would consider the 5DII and the 6D to produce higher IQ / resolution than the original 5D, or even the APS 650D.

On my website at Building Panoramics about 40% of the images are shot on the 5D, about 45% on the 5DII, about 15% on the 6D. There are two shot on APS.

I'll offer a $500 reward to anyone who can tell me which pictures were shot on the 5D.  ;)

214
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 06:12:16 AM »


In that case, don't we want to start with a camera file that doesn't have any issues with excessive, visible (pattern) noise in darker areas that may show up more when lifted for printing.. Especially if lifted & accentuated more for optimal viewing in dimmer lighting conditions?

Yes and we've had those since 2002.

I print hundreds of large canvases and art prints that go all over the world. Never once have I been asked for a print to be 'optimised for viewing in dimmer lighting conditions'.

A picture is there to be viewed - you need to be able to see it - therefore you need to have a reasonable amount of light falling on it.

However aren't you the guy who wants to lift heavily underexposed shadow area by four, five stops or more ? In that case I suggested the dimmer the viewing light the better. Preferably no light at all.

215
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:29:11 AM »
400mm + 1.4x TC = IQ went down a bit

I really like this shot: the background has the look of an artist's brush, and the whole picture , subject, colours etc have a pleasing balance. As for 'IQ went down a bit' - who cares ?!  ;)

216
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: D810 vs. 3D
« on: August 02, 2014, 01:48:14 PM »
To Canon,

I am either buying the D810 or the 3D if it will be over 36 MP and reviews of it will be better than reviews for the D810. If reviews for both of them say that their picture quality is equal and the 3D has WIFI, I will get the 3D. I have only bought Canon cameras in the past. I do not want to break the trend, but from everything I read, the best camera for landscapes is the D810.

I hope you find this post.

If you're serious about wanting this sort of Mp forget FF and go for a Pentax 645z system.

217
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 02, 2014, 09:31:02 AM »
In common with others, I have an old light meter, but find that my iPhone does the job.

I do have an old one that is now retired permanently so doesn't count, but I also have a modern one ( Sekonic), and to me it is just such a useful tool, especially when I am wanting to perfectly expose frames that I don't want to pp later. I find the camera's meter is generally quite accurate for producing raw data for pp; it tends to expose to spread the light levels (histogram) across the sensor's range, whereas exposure from an incident light meter will pin the exposure at it is.

So I find it quite amusing that despite the very different mediums of film and digital there is still the same relationship between exposing for negative film ( aka Raw ) and slide / transparency / reversal film ( aka jpegs).

I think my leased used piece of gear is my cable release. I just use the delayed timer because in practice I've found the two second delay is long enough for release vibrations to dampen out.

218
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:17:24 PM »
I really hope I'm proved right and the 7DII doesnt have a pop up flash. I just hate that nasty little bit of cheap plastic on a quality camera.

I really hope you are wrong!!
It's mostly those who want to show their camera off and appear to be such cool 'real pros' who knock stuff like that.

I wish you'd been there when the pop up flash got snapped off my D200, but then you'd probably have been in nappies at that time judging by the above quote.

219
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:08:11 PM »
I really hope I'm proved right and the 7DII doesnt have a pop up flash. I just hate that nasty little bit of cheap plastic on a quality camera.

220
Pentax advertise their camera covered in rain water - the great adventurer's camera - or something like that. You get stupid videos of some army guy covering a K7 and K5 in sand, then washing it off with a hose pipe. Or a YouTube video of someone holding a K7 + 50-135 under a shower.

I had a K7 for a short time ( the worst sensor in any camera - ever ) but I did use it in the rain and it was OK. However you do hear reports of weather sealed Pentax dslrs failing after getting wet. Seems like the sealing is not guaranteed hence no IP rating, so you take your chances with your particular camera.

Canon specifically do not advertise their dslrs covered in water. ( maybe there once was a 1D advert like that). I am very wary of getting them wet. The weather sealing on the 5DII served me well when I dropped the camera in sand and the grains into the buttons and dials, but over time as they dried they just fell out; the seals had stopped them penetrating the body.

Water though is another thing altogether, it's ability to find its way past sealing - not just in cameras- is uncanny. I would avoid getting any camera wet. It is, after all, an electrically powered computer.

(This advice doesn't apply to a Pentax K7 - it has such a low value who cares ?)

221
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:19:54 AM »
I highly doubt the 50 f/1.8 is going anywhere. It is a top seller, yielding dependable profit margins.

I believe that the current 50/1.8 is the most chosen lens to purchase after the 'kit' zoom lens. Those people have grown up with IS. Therefore I think it is quite likely that Canon might feel that to maintain this momentum 'my first prime lens' should have IS.

Regarding your 50L, it was so gorgeous you sold it ?

222
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:12:01 AM »
I do know that in the UK at least a lot of well respected photographers jumped on the 50L in 2007 expecting it to be an L version of the 50/1.4 and were horrified ! I know that Canon took a stream of complaints from those guys ! 

Since then the lens has been better understood for what it is, but it still disappoints many.

It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a new 50L 1.4 that is reasonably priced. Personally I wouldn't want the size of the Otus / Sigma in a short prime.

The rumoured 50/1.8 IS may then become a bottom of the range lens to replace the current 50/1.8.

223
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 31, 2014, 02:18:40 AM »
I thought it was pretty well known now that the indicated ISO speeds on digital cameras are not consistent even from model to model from the same manufacturer. So for example ISO 100 on a 6D is actually 80, on a 5DII it is 73, and on a 5D 92.

This can be confirmed with an accurate hand held light meter. Set the meter to 100 and you get an under exposure of one third to two thirds depending on the camera you are using.

We can thank DxO for this information.

224
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:20:30 AM »


Quote
Anything in a studio is shot at 100 ISO, and that counts for a lot of paid work in this, or any other world.
Irrelevant, and a niche example: most photography is not done at 100 ISO in a studio, is it?

Since when did you not have full control over DR in a studio ? It's amusing to see zigzag's argument for "kills it" difference beginning to unravel.

Likewise posting an example of lighting failure and recovering a picture from it continues the gravitational pull on his arguments.

I still see nothing that couldn't be done on a 2005 5D never mind the latest generation Canon FF.

I take the likes of zigzags posts to be personally insulting; the inference is that those of us who are Canon low ISO shooters should know better, and are missing out big time, yet I know that the difference is much more marginal than these guys - and the DxO scores - make out.

Looking at Raw files at 50-100% on a high quality, calibrated screen is one thing. The final picture is another. I remember when the 5DII came out and I compared files with the 5D back to back, and thought: "hell - Ill never use the 5D again". But when it comes to the picture as a print on canvas, art paper or whatever, or viewed on a normal monitor, there is very little difference. Same with the D800. If your pleasure is in viewing files at 100% on a good monitor I suggest you get one.

As Neuro asked, and got a waffle response; do zigzag's clients see the difference ?

225
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 04:42:08 AM »
Quote from: zigzagzoe link=topic=21931.msg419257#msg419257 date
but for what MF could offer me, thee's little point in going that way.

but for what D800 could offer me, there's little point in going that way.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 129