August 30, 2014, 10:29:07 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 121
76
EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:53:05 PM »
Count me firmly in the camp of pop up flash hater.

+1, check me into that camp. I have no objections to them being fitted to an appropriate body, but IMO this just doesn't include any expensive, well built camera that has a solid integrity. If you want to have casual, direct fill in flash or even general flash, OK, but why on earth bother wasting your money on expensive and sophisticated cameras for what you are doing ?

Pop up flashes are weak both physically and in output. They can't HSS which can be very important for fill, especially with fast lenses. They can't bounce.

I think Canon's attitude is 'if you're spending all this money on a body, and want FF instead of APS when the difference is only seen by the connoisseur what do you want pop up flash for anyway ?'

Nikon. Now Nikon are just trying to ensure absolutely nothing is left off the camera where people might pass it by.

There will be those who say 'I want an expensive camera but a cheap trigger / crap fill' but it looks like they are in the minority as far as Canon is concerned.

Really hope the 7DII doesn't have PUF.

Just seen the comment by the OP; trouble is it is far too weak to be much practical use, certainly a mile from 'pro'.

Don's tissue does work well but doesn't overcome the most pressing limitations.

77
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 13, 2014, 06:49:07 AM »
Maybe it's something a little different, like a Square Format sensor which could utilise many current EF lenses' image circle? 36 x 36mm may be a little much but perhaps something greater than the 24mm width/height. Even if the lenses projected a solid circular outline right up to the 3:2 sensor's corners rather than fading, there'd still be room to extend the lesser of the two dimensions as the other's reduced to, say, 4:3 or 1:1?... maybe that's what's going on with this new 7D2 sensor tech - a taller APS-C width sensor to shoot Square Format images at around 23 x 23mm?!

Oooooh...

I'm done. Carry on ;)

You just failed your 'Ordinary' level maths  ;)

I really must have 'cause I've no idea where you're saying I've messed up, ha! Really, before everyone else notices, where'd I screw up and how many times? :p

EDIT: Wait... is it because this thread's about >35mm Film size? Heh, alright, how's 24 x 24.1mm for that 7D2? It's greater than a 35mm frame in one dimension then, at least ;)

No, it's because you can fit a rectangle inside a circle of a given diameter that has a longer side closer to the circle diameter than a square can be. Because circles are round and squares are, well, square  ;)

Dude, that was taken into consideration, repeatedly, hence the notes on reducing the wider dimension as the shorter one's increased to achieve the mentioned aspect ratios and the statement about 36 x 36mm being a little much but something from 24mm upwards being a possibility - I really thought I'd missed something but now I'm just wondering if "you just failed your Ordinary Level Reading Skills" - which is a much bitchier thing to say on these forums than I care to but... you started it ;)

Don't take it personally, I was only joking. Don't try a career in photography if you're this thin skinned - you'll end up a nervous wreck.

You say "36x36 being a little too much." Wrong. It would be far too much as far as practical use is concerned. Draw a 36x24 rectangle, then use a compass to draw a circle around it. Then try lifting the 24mm sides to form a 36x36 square and you will see just how large the image circle would have to be to accommodate this format.

You say make it a 4:3 ratio by shortening the long side and increasing the short, and this was made in the context of your post referring to larger sensors, yet that would give precisely the same size sensor in terms of area.

With regard to making the APS-c size square to increase sensor size, this could be accommodated using the EF FF lenses but you would still end up with a sensor that is smaller ( in area ) than the APS-h, so again that would be pointless unless you happen to like square pictures which few people do.

78
Street & City / Brugge - Belgium
« on: August 12, 2014, 03:03:10 PM »
Been over to Belgium to photograph the first world war cemeteries in conjunction with the 100th year anniversary of it's beginning. Quite, quite unbelievable, the loss of life defies belief.

Here's a shot of Brugge or Bruges in West Flanders, an area that saw some of the heaviest casualties in WW1.

79
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:27:16 PM »
One of the nicest FW upgrades Canon did to the 1Ds MkIII enabled the joystick to adjust AF point without pressing any other button first, I really like that feature.

I thought all the joystick cameras could always be set up this way  :-[

Certainly the 5D could so I'm sure the 5DIII can surely.

By the way the 6D can't. Someone forgot to fit a joystick to mine :(

80
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:21:47 PM »
As I understand it, the higher sync speed allows you to shoot, with flash, at MUCH faster apertures in brighter ambient light than you are normally able to with slower sync speeds. If you read the article I linked, it becomes pretty clear why people want a high flash sync and how they use it.

What about HSS ? Since flashes have had this I've never missed a leaf shutter. Nowadays you can even have your slave flashes HSS, so unless you're needing more fill in light than a number of powerful Speedlites can supply I really don't get this whole "I want a leaf shutter" thing.

Or being predominantly a landscape / crumbled old buildings sort of photographer am I missing something ?

81
Personally, I would be first in line for a 28/1.4.

+1

It seems strange to me how the 28mm focal length has been replaced by the 24. Back in the 'old days' a 24 was around twice as expensive as the equivalent 28, now they are much the same. I wonder if this is why there is a perception that the 24 is the 'must have' focal length.

I find 28 to be the more versatile focal length of the two; quite wide fov, but not too extreme.

82
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:21:20 AM »
Maybe it's something a little different, like a Square Format sensor which could utilise many current EF lenses' image circle? 36 x 36mm may be a little much but perhaps something greater than the 24mm width/height. Even if the lenses projected a solid circular outline right up to the 3:2 sensor's corners rather than fading, there'd still be room to extend the lesser of the two dimensions as the other's reduced to, say, 4:3 or 1:1?... maybe that's what's going on with this new 7D2 sensor tech - a taller APS-C width sensor to shoot Square Format images at around 23 x 23mm?!

Oooooh...

I'm done. Carry on ;)

You just failed your 'Ordinary' level maths  ;)

I really must have 'cause I've no idea where you're saying I've messed up, ha! Really, before everyone else notices, where'd I screw up and how many times? :p

EDIT: Wait... is it because this thread's about >35mm Film size? Heh, alright, how's 24 x 24.1mm for that 7D2? It's greater than a 35mm frame in one dimension then, at least ;)

No, it's because you can fit a rectangle inside a circle of a given diameter that has a longer side closer to the circle diameter than a square can be. Because circles are round and squares are, well, square  ;)

83
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 04:27:01 PM »
Maybe it's something a little different, like a Square Format sensor which could utilise many current EF lenses' image circle? 36 x 36mm may be a little much but perhaps something greater than the 24mm width/height. Even if the lenses projected a solid circular outline right up to the 3:2 sensor's corners rather than fading, there'd still be room to extend the lesser of the two dimensions as the other's reduced to, say, 4:3 or 1:1?... maybe that's what's going on with this new 7D2 sensor tech - a taller APS-C width sensor to shoot Square Format images at around 23 x 23mm?!

Oooooh...

I'm done. Carry on ;)

You just failed your 'Ordinary' level maths  ;)

84
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 12:47:50 PM »
Just don't believe it. If they are looking at MF now they're about twenty five years too late.

85
Hey, can you post some high DR wildlife images, please? I'd like to be able to visualise what you're talking about :) Like I said way back in this thread, I assume it's partly cos you're going for big mammals rather than tiny songbirds, but I may be wrong.

I'd be happy to. This image just got picked up for a textbook run:



One of the first things I look for, above all else in wildlife photography is "animal-scapes". I find them far more interesting than nostril or "trophy" shots. This often involves using shorter telephoto lenses. And it often involves shooting in less than ideal light, and in conditions like this (eight below zero). The bison were happy as could be, though.

This was one of the rare instances when my 7D did okay. The shot is ISO 200, and obviously I'm trying to get the sunset exposure nailed perfectly while bringing up the bison shadows later in post. You can't fix a blown sky, but you can lift shadows. Well, sort of.  ;)    When lifting the shadows, the 7D annihilated detail with severe banding and noise. I was able to fix much of it with tedious post processing, but a superior sensor would have delivered a cleaner image capable of printing much larger.  I had my 6D with me, but it was attached to a 300mm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy, but it could have been cleaner. 




 

Come on Michael, stop pulling everyone's leg. You shot that on a D800 didn't you  ;)

86
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:46:18 AM »
My guess is a D620.  It'll be what the D610 would have been if the D610 hadn't been what the D600 should have been.   ;D   I.e., they'll give something like the D810 treatment to the D610.

Yeah, that's what I figure as well. Nikon and Canon definitely take different approaches. Canon, given the 7D II saga, definitely seems to take their pretty little time designing a camera they thing will last for years. Nikon seems to iterate, make little improvements every year and release a new model.

Personally, I am not sure I'd want the camera I spent several grand on to be updated a year after I purchased it...it would be rather irksome, to think that I spent so much money on something that...wasn't done right the first time around... But, that's just me.

Marketing strategy from Nikon. The company is under immense pressure from Mitsubishi to pull its weight and sell more units. Personally I agree that at this cost level it's more likely to irritate people.

But look on the bright side; think of the forums. We constantly get people posting about waiting for the next model: 'should I buy the 6D now or wait for the 6DII' etc. well with Nikon it would actually have some meaning. Should I buy the D810 or wait for the D820 ? But if I wait anyway maybe wait just a little longer for the D830. You could have pages and pages dedicated to this type of thing that would actually have some meaning.

I mean when the 7DII is announced who's going to be the first person to post.........

87
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 03:46:05 AM »
...
So, the thing you might be missing...is that HDR isn't difficult these days. If you need more DR, take an extra frame or two (or 14). That works in every camera, regardless of it's sensor capabilities.
...

HDR is only useful where you can use a shutter speed of > 1 second because otherwise the inter-frame changes make it look crap. Think wind blowing in trees, moving water, etc.

That assumes landscapes. There are plenty of still-life use cases...such as PBD's interior design scene, or my description of the WWII plane interior. You could expose for as long as you wanted with such a scene, as there are no trees, or flowing water, etc. Most of the 15-frame HDR images I've seen were still scenes, usually interiors of something or some kind.

Talking of landscape, I find it really really strange that the antagonist in this thread is clearly a studio photographer where you have full control over DR, in fact for a studio photographer DR is the last of your worries, assuming that is, that you are competent in studio set up. So I just don't see why this guy was banging on and on about DR. Oh well yes I do, it's the only area where the Canon sensor can be regarded as inferior to the Sony.

Ironically the landscape pictures that our antagonist posted as examples of greater DR were terribly flat. Even the small landscape shots posted by PBD shout tonal range and luminosity which complement and enhance the light that was already present.

I suppose when you compare those images it boils down to the age old adage: it's not what you've got, it's how you use it  ;)

88
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:31:38 AM »
If my memory serves I was the only one present who'd used both cameras, and had 10 years experience of Canon sensors before going to Nikon's D800, of which I have over 2 years experience, using it every day.

Well it doesn't serve you correctly because there were at least two people involved in that discussion that have used the D800. To assume that those on CR are arguing from a position of ignorance is disingenuous to say the least.

The video posted by the Russian guy is typical of the comparisons in image quality between the 5DIII and the D800. The 5DIII is consistently underexposed compared with Nikon and then heavy shadow areas are lifted to above mid tones and the two compared. I never have to lift shadows anything like this and therefore have no issues with any noise that might lurk beneath. As you like oblique comparisons lit's like saying the paint work on a Rolls Royce is crap because of the undercoat they use.

I'm about to have a D810 land at Building Panoramics for me to try, it's going to have to offer a lot more than the D800 before I would be interested. In my opinion the low ISO image quality from the latest generation of FF cameras is simply stunning, and the extra DR offered by the D800 was not enough on its own to make me want to change. Look at the tonal graduation on the Canon, see the graduation into high and low light; it is as good as the best of film, as good as, if not better than the Exmor.

I will say though that I found it easier to produce the sort of images that I make on the D800, but that is not enough to make me want to change. Bear in mind that in any sort of photography where you are producing relatively few images, there is inevitably a large amount of pp anyway. If you want to shoot landscapes as jpegs off camera the D800 is the way to go, but who wants to do that ?

But what puzzles me is why you have kept following CR. If you have been enlightened with the Sony chip why bother ? Or do you have a nagging doubt that maybe you haven't done the right thing ? You've spent $12,000, changed systems and well, was it really worth it. What's going to happen with the next generation of Canon sensor ? What if soon there will be a Canon chip where I can lift underexposure five stops and still have the superb ergonomics that I now miss so much ?

Just one last point; I'v seen a few pictures that Neuro has posted here on CR, shots of his kids in a make shift studio and they are every bit as competent and impressive as the best of your studio work that I have seen on your website. 


89
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:05:34 PM »
Он чувствует себя немного странно, что Canon больше не кажется, быть в состоянии конкурировать в таких областях, как качество изображения, шума датчика, даже сильных полях Nikon AF, кажется, догнал D810. немного волнуясь

3eBaTb

(Yawn)


90
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:27:01 PM »
Yeah...he seems to think EVERYONE shoots at ISO 100.

Yes but what he is saying has no relevance to ISO 100 either. To suggest that if paper only can reproduce x range of latitude so there is no point in working the data in 16 bit as opposed to an 8 bit JPEG is, quite honestly astonishing, more so given the fact that there are now so many good references to post processing on the web.

There really is no excuse for being so misinformed in this day and age.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 121