April 20, 2014, 04:59:26 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 97
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 03, 2014, 05:04:09 AM »

You seem to have been posting throughout the night ! I'm in England, it's 10 am here, a much more civilised time for posting  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 03, 2014, 04:55:04 AM »

Sure. As I've said, I have nothing against the concept, at all.

I truly, honestly believe that does Foveon a disservice. Not everything is about megapixel count.

Sigma should be marketing their DP series of cameras on the STRENGTHS of Foveon, instead of fabricating fanciful "megapixel equivalency" numbers and the like. They are undermining Foveon that way, when it IS such amazing technology.

If you were being honest here, you would own one yourself.  You obviously are trying to have it both ways, trying to appear unbiased.  You frankly have everything against this concept, when it comes to this manufacturer.  Admit it, you don't like Sigma as a company, you would not buy any of their lenses or cameras.  But The difference between you and me is, I've owned a foveon camera, the one with the sensor you deride most (and I currently own 2 Sigma lenses at the moment).  It simply had more resolution than its native 4.6 MP dimensions...I'm sorry but it just did.  You can rely on math all you like, but the proof is in the using, and viewing.  To say that it only had 4.6 MP of resolution is utter nonsense.  Plenty of reviews have backed me up on this.

As for the Quattro sensor, I have no idea why it has fewer photodiodes for the other color channels...but frankly, if they are making the camera produce a 39 MP jpeg, then logic would dictate that it is resolving at least somewhat more than 10 MP.

With a bayer array, you don't have 18 MP of all three colors of photodiode in your 7D.  You have far less than that.  And yet you're happy with the results you get.

Again, the proof is in the using, and the images, and less so the math.  Math can be used to predict things like a rise of 10 feet in sea level over the next 20 years due to that nasty old capitalism, but how accurate, honest, and complete is that math?

Carl: shouldn't you be in bed at this time ?

Photography Technique / Re: Advice for trip to Western USA
« on: April 03, 2014, 04:47:04 AM »
if my 5D mark III will suffice to extract the most detail from those incredible landscapes.

My personal opinion: forget the Sony for this, different systems are distracting. If you want to extract the most detail use your 5DIII in portrait orientation and stitch panoramics. You could use your tse or just use a good overlap. Even allowing for this and looking at a moderately wide scene you'd be creating around an 85 mp sensor and a format larger in area than most MF: you benefit from both larger format and greater magnification of the subject.

If your hardware and software aren't currently up to this size of file you'd be much better putting the money you would have used for the A7r into a new computer and PS.

On our site at Building Panoramics the images have been shot in this way and some of them have a superzoom function - off the top of my head I think Beverely Minster (exterior) is active. The detail you can get is just astonishing but the image is shot on effectively a 43 x 135 mm sensor @ about 110 mp 'cos it was on the original 5D.


Messerschmitt 109 & 262 at "Hahnweide"/Germany

It's amazing what you learn on CR . I had no idea that there were any ME262s left flying ! ( You're sure this isn't one of Dirk Pitts finds hidden deep under a mountain in typical Clive Cussler fashiion ?  ;)  ). as well on the Mossey on page one.

Looking at your pictures of the 109 and 262 together makes me think just how bad the visibility must have been from the 109. The pilot seems to have far less field of view than the 262 pilot. A bit like APS against FF   :-X

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:04:53 PM »
If you convert a bayer sensor's data to monochrome, you effectively have just the full detail luminance.

If you can just expand on that a little Jon. When you say 'you' are you referring to the manufacturers setting it up this way ( like the Leica monochrome), or the user converting the RAW to B&W ?

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: April 02, 2014, 04:47:10 PM »
Not really wild animals though these two can both be wild at times, especially the bay. (Proof Attached).

Two of my horses snapped during the last few rays of a sunny evening. Whilst most people on CR suffer from G,A,S, I unfortunately suffer from something much worse: E.A.S - Equine Acquisition Syndrome  :(

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: April 02, 2014, 04:21:14 PM »
Taking a bamboo ride on Yulong River, Guilin - China


Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:24:55 AM »

You hand held a 600 mm focal length at 1/30th?? Amazing IS. Does the 50% size stand up ?

Yes, and you can click on the photo (the original one, above) and view the EXIF if you have a viewer - I use FxIF for Firefox - if you don't believe me :)

My technique for still (or relatively still) critters in low light is to get the shot, then start dropping the ISO until I can't get a sharp photo.  ISO 1600 was that point for me, and I also fire off 3 or 4 frames as the shutter speed drops in the hopes of getting at least one sharp frame.  My rate was 2/3 frames at 1/30s so yes, the IS (mode 3) was working brilliantly!  The owl was up really high so even at 600mm I had to crop a lot (final file is only 1622 x 2433)  The 50% zoom holds up decently well - probably good enough for an 8x10" but that's probably the biggest I'd try to print it.  I have attached the 50% zoom below.

Really impressive, both the engineering of the lens and your technique !

( I'm off to see which IS version the 300 f2.8 II has  ;)  )

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:55:39 AM »
but I snagged him with my 300 + 2x with (OOPS!) circular polarizer.  It was dusk but I didn't think it was THAT dark!  Luckily the IS allowed me to handhold at 1/30s

You hand held a 600 mm focal length at 1/30th?? Amazing IS. Does the 50% size stand up ?

Canon General / Re: The end of the 5D line?
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:04:21 PM »
when taking the same photos with my friends, it appears my 5D lacks image quality compared to their fujis & sonys.

I'm going to reiterate a point made by PBD a while ago on an old thread; your friend's cameras may well be more 'amateur' orientated than the 5DIII, which is a true professionl camera not necessarily set up for instant gratification.
If that's how you feel you'd probably be better off with a fuji or Sony. It's no big deal; those cameras have been designed to appeal to a certain audience after all.

But 'end of the 5D line' ?

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: March 30, 2014, 04:39:00 PM »
Here's "Smiley" (named Smiley for what appear to be rows of teeth on his jawline)

First image Smiley....second image Smiley with distracting nearby "scenery" that almost caused me to miss the shot!  ::)  ;D

Think your composition's a bit off  ;)

Incidentally the 85 1.8 is not sharper than the 40.
Interesting. I must just think it is because shooting outdoors allows me to lower ISO and stop it down a little. Or maybe the contrast between in focus subject and blown out background makes the subject "feel" sharper than it really is.

It is highly likely that when using the 40 indoors you have lower shutter speeds and / or higher ISO which is resulting in less resolution, but as Neuro pointed out it's possible that your body / 40 mm combo is out of calibration enough to effect the result.

Try shooting a suitable target or scene ( good contrast) with the 40 using your usual focus method, then do exactly the same thing using live view. Use f2.8, a low iso and lots of light to give a fast shutter speed in the 1/1000 region if you are hand held. Critical sharpness tests can be very misleading at lower speeds due to random shake if hand held even on a wider lens.

Both sets of results should be the same. ( live view may be darker depending on your method ).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 29, 2014, 06:54:06 PM »
Medium format sales were beginning to decline even before the advent of digital. I've had various companies involved in selling this gear over the years, I can't recall the exact figures just now, but the improvements in film emulsions eventually began to have an effect on larger format sales, and this was a time when medium format cost around twice that of a top end 35mm slr. Of course the advent of the digital FF knocked any amount of film development into a cocked hat and boosted the overall resolution of the 24x36 format enormously. Excluding drum scans I think my 20 odd mp FF is at least equal to my old film 6x7 system and retains the highly versatile nature of the 35mm system.

Some of the medium format companies were able to respond in digital; note how it's the high end ones who are offering something that is very expensive and exclusive. The Leica S2 is a good example of what it's all about. So regarding price, which is now rather than twice the cost of a high end DSLR, but ten times, the reason is both higher unit cost and greatly reduced unit sales. Then add to this exclusivity.

Non of this fits the bill for Canon, which is why in my opinion they would not be interested in producing a digital MF system. That's not to say larger sensor or format isn't better; at Building Panoramics our pictures are shot on an effective sensor size of either about 36x90 or 60x150 depending on the application, which is larger than most digital MF. Talk about having your cake and eat it.

Incidentally the 85 1.8 is not sharper than the 40.

It might be for the OP, if it needs a focus adjustment (which cannot be done by the user with a Rebel/xxxD body).

Fair point. I should have said not supposed to be sharper    :)

Unless you are wanting a distance scale, very shallow depth of field or both, prepare for disappointment.

Incidentally the 85 1.8 is not sharper than the 40.

Your two lenses you have are giving a short and medium tele field of view on your t4. They are both very good lenses. I would keep the 40 and get the 24 2.8 IS. This will give you a very moderate wide angle field of view. If you don't want wider than 'standard' get the 28 2.8 IS.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 97