January 25, 2015, 11:47:59 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Wow! Wonderful video! And how wonderful it must've been the see these beautiful creatures in their natural state.
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 11:41:10 AM »
But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing. The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will  Canon do that again? Wait and see.
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« Last post by monkey44 on Today at 11:38:20 AM »
Interesting comments -- 

My gut reaction is, stay with the 24-105 as it likes that extra range, and it's shooting very clean images.   I guess 24-70 was tugging at my brain after hearing all the good reviews, and hearing some not so good reviews about the 24-105 (which I happen not to agree with as much) ...   so, will probably continue the 24-105 and maybe put a few more bucks into this trade and pick up the 16-35 f4 IS lens instead -- (that 'might' be an option).  I do have a tendency to shoot at the long end of whatever lens is on the camera for some reason.

I shoot very little real wide work tho, and limited indoors work as well, but maybe that will change if the 16-35 f4 hits my bag.  I do have a 20-35 lens, so it would benefit me 16-20, altho the 20-35 is not an "L" lens, it is quite sharp and give great color performance -- an old lens, not available anymore.  Great lens tho ... I'd never sell it.

Guess I'll lean toward the 16-35 f4 and see what happens ... at least it's not a duplicate range.  Any comments on that lens - it compares to the 17-40 f4, but reviews on the 16-35 f4 seem better.  <still puzzled>  But have probably answered my own Q here.  Always helps to listen tho, makes one think in a positive direction.
Lenses / Re: Which Sigma?
« Last post by ScottyP on Today at 11:37:42 AM »
Nice shots.

The 18-35 f/1.8 is so cool it is hard to get excited about the 17-50 2.8 lens. 

You have a 50mm prime for when you need 50 mm.

I would do the 18-35 1.8.  With a crop sensor you cant use ISO's as high as on full frame with as good an image quality.  The wider 1.8 aperture buys you an entire stop of light you can use to get decent shutter speed wih tout having to use the higher ISO and the IQ penalties that come with it. 

And at wide focal lengths like 18-35 you keep a pretty thick depth of field, so it is much more practical to work with than a more razor-thin DOF you'd get on a 50 or 85mm lens wide open at f/1.8.
To follow up earlier post ...  right on target, so many DSLR's out in an audience, and all clicking away, at least one or two are bound to "get lucky" and hit a 'reasonably decent shot', and offer it for peanuts or free.   

No no no no no, that is absolutely not what this is about. It is about making some of the best general sports photographers in the world freelancers rather than staffers. It means no more gear budget, no more medical benefit costs, no more post processing staff and equipment and the office space and cost they incur, no more travel expenses etc etc, it is about cost cutting not about buying the one shot a fan might have, those fans will never get the access and they will never get the releases, heck most high end sports venues have 8" lens limitations.

The same photographers will be shooting the same venues with the same gear, SI will not have any of the costs associated with getting a photographer, or photographic team, to a venue and they will have the ability to buy any freelancers images if they want to.

What will happen is the ex staff photographers won't make as much effort to try new stuff, they will have to concentrate on bankable sale-able images first and foremost because they now have gear budgets, travel costs, and health insurance, to pay out of whatever they can sell on the market.
A beautiful video. Thank you so much. I wil shoo thees to the frrench frreends of mien demain au travail!
They will love this. They probably know nothing about how creatively great and crazy their countrymen can be.
Vive la France! I like it here.
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 11:36:38 AM »
What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?

The only good wide angle primes are from Zeiss/Leica. (I'm deliberately ignoring the TS/E lenses from Canon for various reasons.) All good wide angle primes are manual focus.

So once you accept that, you may as well get a zoom like the 16-35/f4.
EOS Bodies / Re: Buying second hand, avoid low shutter count.
« Last post by rfdesigner on Today at 11:31:56 AM »
Thanks for the overall feedback.

I agree this is a long way from an ideal study.  If I had wanted to publish in a journal I would of course have raised the bar significantly...  but this is a forum.

Since you made it a point to state that you had engineering expertise, you raised that bar by implying it would withstand engineering scrutiny, but, IMHO, it doesn't.  As a licensed registered professional engineer, I found that comment to reflect poorly on the engineering profession.
There are many reasons for camera failures, and shutters are only one of them.  I suspect, but have no actual numbers that the average consumer camera has well under 15,000 shutter cycles, I've bought two dozen and none of them had nearly that many when I later checked them, and none failed.  Without accurate numbers and information about the camera population, its impossible to put the data into perspective.  If, as I expect, 90+ % of the cameras of a given model have under 15000 actuations, then the numbers do not make sense.  We don't know.
Reliability does indeed involve infant mortality where failures happen more frequently after a new product is put into service.  Usually, electronics is the most affected, but mechanical items suffer from the same issue.
Heat is the big reason driving failures, but cold can be bad as well.  The thermal expansion / Contraction can literally tear things apart in short order.  Product wearout usually happens after a long period of use.  Obviously, vibration and shock can also destroy a item, but heat is a killer.  A camera that is left in a hot car can have its life shortened considerably.
Then, there is the sensor.  They tend to get more hot pixels over time, so a older one will suffer.  There is no information about newer sensor designs, so hopefully, that issue is being reduced.
When buying used, I would have no concern about a camera 6 months old with a few hundred cycles, because the electronics has been burned in, and any mechanical issues should have been found.  The one area where there would be no information is exposure to high temperatures as found in a car on a hot summer day.

In my case RF = radio frequency, and I've spent the last 15 years playing silicon development games...   design, test, compliance test, debug and so on (in addition to a lot bit of PCB level electronics research, design and development experience).  I'm currently a principle RF engineer in another R&D role, as I work in the UK there has never been a requirement to get chartered status..  that's just the way things work here in my industry.

Early life failure.

My experience is that the "electronic" failures are really mostly software/firmware, unless you're talking electrical (higher power stuff).   I'm not aware of any DSLR needing an electronics hardware related recall.  Lensrentals have the D800 down as failing most for a battery door and the 5DIII failing due to the memory card pins.

Silicon in hot cars:

Silicon itself will be fine.   It all comes down to the question of being used or not.  A TV hung above a mantlepiece with a woodburning stove will kill it quite quickly as it will be operating.  There can be an 80 or even a 100C temperature gradient between die temperature in product and ambient air temperature...   industrial electronics needing to operate to 85C will often have fans etc and much much better cooling.   At the end of the day hot silicon will age more quickly.

I'm not saying a camera left in a car in Texas won't die, and I agree thermal cycling will break things, but any camera left in a car will be off.. so cooked electronics really isn't something to worry about.  Most silicon devices storage temperatures are rated -55 to +155C even if their operating temp is only 0~70C

If you want to know more about it look up JEDEC HTOL testing (something I've had to drive on a number of chips)

Bad pixels.

CMOS sensors and CCD sensors are different, CCD sensors will usually aquire bad pixels over time due to cosmic ray impacts on the delicate structure.  CMOS sensors are far more robust, my 8 year old CMOS sensored 30D has far far fewer hot pixels than my much newer CCD camera..  and old astro shots I took with the 30D still show most of the same hot pixels.   Any camera might get a devestatingly bad pixel that kills a column (which is what will always be noticeable) at any time, just one bad hit.  The sensor itself doesn't get more sensitive to cosmic ray hits over time, so if you're picking up an old camera, one test shot will show you if there's a problem, if there isn't then you as good as if it were new.

Ulitimately what I'm looking at is cameras that appear almost unused, in pristine condition vs cameras that look well cared for with a few miles on the clock and are therefore ~£150 cheaper.

I'll take the cheaper run in camera thanks.
EOS Bodies / Canon EOS 6D vs 5DIII images
« Last post by axeri on Today at 11:29:38 AM »

I know I'm probably making a silly question, but I have had a doubt for the last weeks and did not find any answer. I'm just an amateur, I had a Canon 5dMKIII and my wife has a 6D, I had mine stolen and have been using her camera for the last months. Apart from missing the AF system in the 5D, the thing is I like the images of the 6D more than the ones of the 5DIII, I somehow find them more pleasing. I know the specs of both cameras have some little differences, but I'm not sure they explain this difference. Could that be related to the type of post-processing I usually do in lightroom? Do any of you have a similar experience?
A casual test with the EF 20mm f/2.8 + Metabones adapter fails: Camera either takes a picture or crashes. Either there is an f-stop indicator or not. Clearly, no reason to try to take pictures with this setup.
The 40mm pancake does not focus, of course not but it does not crash the camera either.  Why should you want to  lug around a 60mm-equivalent f/2.8 which does not autofocus and which is not especially compact either? No particular reason in my mind. Then I tried the 50mm f/1.4 which has a hopelessly shallow DOF. It communicates OK with the a6000 but then again, why should you ever use a combination like this?
Clearly, the 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss seems enormously agile and useful after these three attempts.

I prefer to use my old FD(n)/FL lenses, either with a Metabones optical adapter or with a plain adapter, and then use focus peaking. Disadvantage= no AF. Advantages however: cheap, good and mostly relatively small lenses (re-use old stuff), no compatibility issues. And when I need AF I will most definitely use native e-mount lenses as listed in my signature. (FWIW the 16-70 Zeiss is very much like the 24-105 Canon) I'm thinking about getting the 10-18 too, (and sell the 12mm Samyang) but not so sure because there's more glass I'd like for my EF system. Choices, choices....
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10