« on: October 19, 2014, 12:09:37 PM »
On the subject of lens prices it is interesting to note that in the UK the 24-70 f4 IS retailed price is now cheaper than the 24-105L retailed price.
Call me crazy, but if you are shooting digital, the need for an accurate meter is much less even in studio, because you can shoot, review, adjust, 10 times in 2 minutes.
And you can probably pick up a used meter on ebay for $20-50 that will get you within a half stop of the high end meter you are looking at.
And last, even a super-duper high end meter is not going to give you a perfect exposure because we all have some personal taste in what we want to see. Are you shooting a scary Halloween scene, where you want it extra dark? Toothpaste commercial, where it has to be extra brute etc?
On the other hand is this the last piece of the puzzle in $100K studio where you intend to make a living or enjoy your retirement? Is this going to provide the inspiration you need to shoot that piece of art that will hang in a gallery and earn a ton a $$? Go for it.
Blue Jays and Peanuts - The Fall Fiesta
Every fall, the Blue Jays return. Noisy, obnoxious, and incredibly beautiful, these birds seem like they belong in the rainforests of Papua New Guinea with all their colorful friends. They are also incredibly intelligent birds, extremely clever in finding and rooting out food, and particularly sneaky bastards. I've spent the last couple of years "training" the Blue Jays that frequent my yard. They come when I play back Blue Jay calls from my WP8 Sibley guide, come when I tap peanuts on my deck, and seem to enjoy the game of "Grab the peanut before a photograph is made!"
The Scrub Jays are a little easier to capture photos of, they are a little more aggressive with the Blue Jays, and tend to get all the peanuts. This year, I managed to lure in a couple Blues, and with some a clever setup, captured a number of wonderful shots. There is mere moments to frame, focus, and shoot before they are gone. The 5D III's slower frame rate makes getting the perfect moment a little more difficult, however it's larger frame makes for a much more pleasing background.
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS w/ Jobu Pro 2 Gimbal
Here are some shots of the setup used to get these images:
While I was snapping shots of the setup, my quarry showed up again, and grabbed a little more bait.
What I am saying is 'in same generation sensors the differences between a crop camera, and cropping a ff camera to get the same fov, especially appropriate in focal length limited situations, shows negligible difference in resolution even in ideal situations'. You can only test this with same (or very close) generation sensors, 6D and 7D MkII would be valid, 5D MkII and 7D would be valid, etc etc, if you don't have two same generation sensors you cannot test this and any 'illustrations' are entirely bogus, as all yours have been when we have danced this dance previously.
Baloney. I specifically went out and proved you wrong by shooting intentionally at highly non-ideal settings, and still the difference is quite substantial. Here it is again. The differences are much larger using ideal settings.
In spite of the naysayers, this will be a very useful technology for anyone shooting with a mix of fast primes and slower lenses, and innovative of Canon to work toward a dSLR implementation of the technology.
Look at the Nyquist limit, or as we often refer to it in digital photography, Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA), the more pixels we get the less aperture we have to show off those pixels. Already pixel density is such that f5.6 gives us the "sharpest" images, more pixels will demand ever better glass and the "sweet spot" will get lower and lower such that we will have less dof to display that resolution.
It isn't that diffraction will get worse, but at the moment we can resolve the diffraction above f8, which is the main reason the 36mp cameras don't actually return much better resolution figures than 24mp cameras, more mp will enable us to resolve the diffraction at apertures faster than f5.6. Once the diffraction limit (Nyquist limit) is hit then aliasing is no longer an issue and neither are AA filters. It will be a very long time before Nyquist limits are hit for very fast apertures.
Exactly. Unfortunately, many people impressed by megapixels do not understand physics of light (waves). I remember that I caused a little shitstorm once in DPR. I tried to explain that a D800 will not replace a good mid format camera for landscape shooting, as some people said, because it will lose all its really great detail resolution as soon as you use classic landscape f-stop ranges, say f=14 to 22 or even more, to achieve a maximum depth of field. I studied physics, so I know the theory, but that's not really needed, I could really see this effect in practice with my 7D. It has roughly about the same pixel size as the D800 and it produces sharpest results in the f = 5.6-7.1 range, at f >=10 it loses substantial detail, the images get visibly softer (with a sharp prime lens). The reason is diffraction blur, the image points grow into bigger and bigger blurred discs (so-called Airy discs) with more and more closed aperture. As soon as those discs are as big as a single pixel (at about f = 7.1 with the 7D's pixel pitch), the resolution of the image starts to degrade below the camera's native resolution.
So, in landscape photography you will not get more optical information from a 36 MP FF sensor than from a, say, 20+X MP sensor when you select classic landscape apertures. That's the reason why I am happy with my "22 MP only" 5D3 and why I'd switch to mid format when I decided to focus seriously on landscape photography. You can't fight the basic laws of physics.
Btw, at least in Germany the pro photographer's classic education includes learning about diffraction blur, classic photog textbooks explain this quite important effect. We even have a German name for this issue, it is called "foerderliche Blende" (something like "beneficial aperture", never found a proper English translation).
It has to be able to take that abuse and keep working, same for lenses. It also has to function satisfactorily under stressful, rushed situations.
Is a Hasselblad MFD a "pro" camera? Does it meet your above criteria? If the answer the first is yes, and to the second is no, then your criteria may be indicative, but are not definitive.
I am curious as to why some folks don't find the build very good. Just because it doesn't have a complete magnesium body doesn't mean that it isn't rugged. I just rented a 6D and thought that the build quality excellent. The image quality and low light performance with Canon lenses was outstanding(The Tokina 16-28 didn't AF as well as my 7D with the 10-22 in a real estate shoot that I did) I hope that they keep a low cost full frame stills camera body available. I am thinking of pairing up a 6D and a 7DmkII as my main kit. I have a bunch to sell first