« on: October 08, 2014, 07:22:23 AM »
My dilemma is, the 24mm is only slightly wider than my excellent 35
Eh ? Are you on crop ?
24 is a lot wider than 35.
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.
My dilemma is, the 24mm is only slightly wider than my excellent 35
A few Autumn leave shots from a trip to Brandelhow Park on the West shoreline of Derwent Water, English Lake District.
Shot on my original 5D, all 24-105L. All hand held at 800 ISO, which the 5D mki seemed to be really good at.
Great ones! I really like the light and colours in the 2nd one with the gate.
After 25 pages this thread is starting to provide some useful information. How disappointing.
Can we go back to lifting shadows by five stops and arguing over banding?
With the 6D, the banding issues are basically gone. 5DIII shooters just use the wrong tool for the job and should get add a 6D to their kit.
Back up a second. So even if you shoot RAW the histogram in camera is only displaying the color space you've chosen? So does that mean I should set my camera's color space to Adobe RGB just so I get a more accurate histogram?
When you shoot RAW, the camera generates a small JPG preview image that's embedded in the RAW file container. That image is what you see during the on-camera review, and it's what's used to generate the histogram and highlight warning (blinkies). All in-camera settings are applied (color space, ALO, picture style, HTP, etc.).
If you don't mind somewhat funky images for on-camera review, you can use UniWB to get a histogram that better approximates the RAW data.
I have never tried ML´s software/frimware before, but I think I would like to. But I do not want more problems than necessary. When I go to ML´s web site, I do not find any support for the 5DIII, but I believe that is the camera you´re using. Is that correct? If so, how do you go about getting the thing installed?
Nope, I've got a 6d, but the 5d3 is much better supported by ML. The website is outdated, look at their forum, there's a good installation thread: http://magiclantern.fm/forum/
Basically it's downloading ML "rolling release" for your camera (http://builds.magiclantern.fm/#/), put the files on your cf card, update the firmware with Magic Lanter's mini-firmware, done. ML runs from the cf card, the fw update only tells the camera to enable loading it.
Beware though, ML has many features and it'll take you some time to sort through them - what you want is the "dual_iso" module.
Canon sensors meet the needs of many photographers better than you or I will ever be
There are two different questions at work, and both are valid. (1) whether it "meets the needs;" (2) whether a different sensor would better meet the needs. By analogy, a 1D4 shooting 10fps met the needs of high-end sports photographers at the time, but a 1DX shooting 12fps better meets their needs. I don't recall reading whether you've said you've tried any camera with a current-gen Sony sensor. I have not, so I don't know the answer to (2) for myself.
Please propose a test protocol that you would find fair and meaningful.
For the point I was making, the distinction between 'meets' and 'better meets' is irrelevant. I don't think photographers – award winning or not – list 'poor IQ' among their needs.
I have no doubt that for some, the Exmor sensors better meet their needs...just as for others, an ultrawide tilt-shift lens better meets their needs. Everyone's needs differ, there's no 'test protocol' for that. There are market research tools that help determine the needs of the majority, Canon and other manufacturers obviously invest in such research.
I get that, but I think you're missing another important point: sometimes people don't know what they're missing. There are cognitive biases that prevent people from believing information which would change their minds. Since you're in the pharma industry I'll risk a pharma analogy: consider medications to treat a particular condition, one of which is 10% cheaper, 10% more effective and has 10% lower risk of side effects. Suppose the physician is not aware of this; s/he may prescribe the less desirable medication because it meets the needs, which it certainly does. Now suppose a major trade journal publishes a large-scale study demonstrating the superiority of the alternative. Most physicians will now be aware, and will likely change their prescription practices.
How this applies to photography: I agree with you on the whole "system" thing -- I really do get that. However, if there were reasonable tests which demonstrated a significant difference to the few hundred(?) high-end loyalist photographers who work with Canon on product development, Canon might start feeling some pressure to improve that one component of their system.
I agree with you about how things are today (system, personal choice, market, business choices, etc). I disagree that it needs to remain so. The first question is whether there really is significant difference that we'd like to see in our next Canon purchase. If the answer is yes, then the next question is whether there's a way to bring that to the attention of people who have some influence. It should go without saying that all the voices on all the photo blogs in the world would not have the power to influence, but a few hundred key professionals might.
I'd also like to see good tests just to satisfy my nerd curiosity.
The principal behind that website used to own and review a lot of Canon equipment. Going back as far as the EOS 1V. The 5DII was his last serious Canon camera.
Now, he not only doesn't own any but Canon products haven't feature on that website in many years now.
ah... i pretty much know this site since back in 2012, those days that i have started to learn using dslr, and registered to be a CR user to learn more from other members. i even know pretty much everyone in those workshop partners, especially jay maisel (famous about using color composition) and john paul caponigro (canon's light explorer leader), etc. the founder of the website is nikon user; i did not know that he really used/chose canon as his system...
ummm... i think i now remember he was talking about mirrorless in a video and as i remember he did flip-flop about mirrorless and not mirrorless. however, i am not a big fan of mirrorless since it is no more fun and challenge.
want to get a sure shot? video it and then extract a frame out of it... but i am calling this as a cheat
i do not use low iso, even i am shooting at noon. below images were taking at high noon and my iso is not 100, 200, or even 300. jay maisel hits street with iso 400 and up...
not even afraid of grabbing my canon 30d with 50mm f/1.4 for testing sport photography (today), still doable for the job but honestly still miss shots due to frame rate. again, one point auto focus instead of all...
note: sport photography is not really my interest, but heck... just for fun... why not...
So, if you were me what would you do if $2800 (and possibly a little more, as I have more things to sell and birthday coming up) fell into your lap?
If I had nearly 3 grand and a ton of free time I'd throw that 7D and a couple of those lenses in a bag, buy a ticket to somewhere in southeast Asia or south america and see how long I could hang out before running out of money. I bet that would help get some photographic creativity going. Experiences and opportunities are far better than any gear you can buy. It might be worthwhile to think of other things you could spend that money on that would be good for your photography besides a new camera body or lens. Good luck, man, and take care of yourself.
I could take a picture of my ass with the A7 and there'd be "X" amount of dynamic range.
I could take a picture of a smiling baby with my 60D...not as much.
Which would you rather BEHOLD?
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DAMN DATA!
I wasn't able to find any kind of landscapes on the first day that had high dynamic range (traffic held me up earlier in the day, when I finally got deep enough into the mountains, the sun had set before I found a scene.)
Hmmm......My goal was to provide data.
There's a slight contradiction here; no one was asking for a pictorial masterpiece, simply a genuine but EV challenging landscape shot into, or across the sun.
Be that as it may, can you blame him for wanting to find something beautiful to shoot with short-term rented gear?