October 13, 2015, 07:16:25 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 10
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern on the 6D
« Last post by Lee Lounsbury on Today at 05:01:22 PM »
I have been using magic lantern on my 6d for about a year and a half now.. Some features like focus peaking, dual iso, and built in intervalometer I now find hard to live without! About the biggest issue I've ever had is the camera occasionally locking up, which can be easily fixed by shutting off the camera and removing the battery. About any card you find that you can reliably record video on (no stopping to buffer) should work just fine. I personally prefer SanDisk (but that should't make any difference).
Most difficult part is the installation, so just make sure you find a good video tutorial to follow, and enjoy!
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the EOS M10
« Last post by Sibir Lupus on Today at 04:57:05 PM »
Besides the tilting screen, is there any difference between the M10 and the original EOS M?

This is more comparable to the M2. Besides the Digic 6 processer, the M10 also has a popup flash and flip screen which are both missing from the M2. The M2 does has a rear dial, hotshoe, better standard grip, (M10 has an optional add-on grip) and a partial mode dial on top.
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces PowerShot G5 X & PowerShot G9 X
« Last post by LDS on Today at 04:50:55 PM »
(1.) what is the minimum focusing distance?

5cm at max wide position, 40cm at max tele.
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Releases Lightroom 6.2 & CC 2015.2
« Last post by LOALTD on Today at 04:44:15 PM »
Looks like Adobe is very sorry for the horrendously buggy update:


But they still knew about the flaws before releasing it to the public... ::)
Lenses / Re: 35mm 1.4L II
« Last post by turbo1168 on Today at 04:33:40 PM »
Where did you focus on the shot of the kid and woman? It's pretty much not sharp anywhere except maybe her forhead. If you focused on the baby's eye you have missed completely. "I don't do afma" You REALLY should, or else buying a sharp lens makes no sense.

Both of his shots are extremely soft, like 18-55 MK1 kit lens soft  :o  I suspect he got a defective copy, I saw someone got a defective copy on different forum the other day, it probably went through some Ace Ventura treatment, his replacement was much better.

Easy enough to at least test for free. I'm sure a professional tool is much better, but this gets it in the ballpark.
Industry News / Re: B&H Photo -- workers conditions
« Last post by ahsanford on Today at 04:33:36 PM »
And something remotely resembling legitimacy -- PetaPixel -- has now picked up the story:


Again, just a re-link and update.  No pickups from other news agencies or added evidence.

I was expecting folks who might court B&H dollars to avoid this like the plague, but they surprised me here.

- A
Industry News / Re: B&H Photo -- workers conditions
« Last post by YuengLinger on Today at 04:26:32 PM »
Unions, Arab/Israeli, Moslem/Jewish, illegal immigration, news media bias...

Isn't there a critical mass of flashpoints here to close this thread as political?  It is only a matter of time before it gets ugly.

Please, mods, there has to be a way to keep us posted on relevant business issues without risking a lot of hostility with this type of thread.

I've said it before:  CR is a sanctuary, a place to learn and have good-natured debates about photography.  At least that's what I've thought.
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 7D II?
« Last post by JoFT on Today at 04:25:18 PM »
The noise consideration was new to me. For me noise is related to pixel size: a pixel is a photon counter - and less size means less photons and more deviations and therefore noise....
Less size means less photons if the illuminance (i.e. photons per area) on the sensor is the same. But if you shrink the sensor and at the same time increase the illuminance to compensate (which you effectively do if you also shrink the focal length by the same factor while keeping the area of the lens constant) you end up with the same number of photons. Assuming no transmission losses all light from the image-visible part of the "world" that reaches the lens area ends up on the sensor. This amount of light is independent of the size of the sensor (if you move the sensor closer to the lens, which you do by decreasing the focal length). If you do not keep the area of the lens constant but also shrink the lens diameter by the same factor (i.e. keep the f stop constant) then you will end up with less photons.
If you do long exposures where dark current becomes important, bigger pixels should even have more noise because the dark current scales with pixel area.
Here I disagree to some extend: I was not talking about sensor size but pixel pitch. My question is how many Photons a pixel can count:

  • EOS 7D2: 4,1µ => 16,81µ2
  • EOS 5D3: 6,25µ=> 39,06µ2
  • This means that each pixel can count ca 2.32 more photons in the 5D3 against the 7D2
Yes, the full well capacity should indeed change with absolute pixel size. This helps you at low sensor sensitivities (i.e. low ISO). This is consistent with my statement that ISO 100 on APS-C corresponds to an equivalent ISO (the ISO that the light meter gives you when you use the equivalent f number) of 250 on FF. So FF can reach a factor of 2.5 lower ISO. Which of course if you can compensate for lower ISO with a longer exposure or a bigger aperture gives you lower Poisson noise on FF compared to APS-C. As soon as you are above ISO 250 it will give you no advantage, but higher pixel (electrical) capacity (proportional to area) should even increase read noise, because the same number of electrons (caused by photons) in the pixel area cause a voltage that is proportional to the inverse capacity. Bigger pixel size means less voltage and therefore more read noise (relative to the signal).

So to sum up all the points I have stated before:
An image taken with an APS-C camera with focal length f, f-stop N, and ISO s would look exactly the same (including noise level and DOF) as an image taken with a FF camera (same pixel count) and focal length 1.6*f, f-stop 1.6*N and ISO 2.5*s. This is as long as you do not take differences in the fill factor (possible advantage for FF) and differences in the read noise and dark current (disadvantage for FF) into account.

FF has an advantage in areas that APS-C can not reach:
- low (equivalent) ISO (below 250)
- low (equivalent) f-stops at the same equivalent focal lengths
- very low (equivalent) focal lengths
APS-C has an advantage mainly at long focal lengths where you do not have the equivalent focal length available on FF (lens weight, size and cost).
In all other situations where you can take the image at the corresponding equivalent values it does not make much of a difference whether you use APS-C or FF unless there is a significant difference in fill factor or dark current and read noise become important.

The ISO itself for me is a kind of artificial factor in the game. It is well defined to match film and digital to come to comparable values f.i. on light meters camera settings etc. At the end it is a calibration value set by the camera manufacturer....
We are comparing two cameras of the same manufacturer that do not have a huge age difference, so the ISO values should be roughly consistent between the 7D2 and the 5D3.

Wow, thank you a lot. Are You in the business? from where do you know this??? I could not find this....

What wonders me: I shoot both, and -especially at ISO100 there is no difference in noise visible to me. I can mix both cameras easily - as long as I am below ISO 200....

But pixel size will have an effect on diffraction limits, too, or???
Industry News / Re: B&H Photo -- workers conditions
« Last post by AlanF on Today at 04:21:56 PM »

Personally, I think one of three things will occur:

  • B&H will sue Al-Jazeera if they are making this up.
  • B&H will publish a statement defending itself if some of it is true but there were extenuating circumstances or if AJ has rendered something that we know happened in an overly negative manner.
  • B&H will say nothing, which will invite other investigative journalists to dig deeper / corroborate the story.

In all three cases, it's in B&H's best interests to act immediately before this story gets legs.

- A

I don't think your advice is good. First, B&H won't sue because to win a defamation case in the USA, unlike in the UK, you have to prove that the libellers acted either negligently or with actual malice, and that is usually nigh impossible to prove. So, libel suits are very rare - the usual winners in libel cases are the lawyers.

Secondly, when dealing with organizations of low repute like AJ, ignoring them is the recommended course of action. It's only when a reputable organization starts making claims that defence is required.
Landscape / Re: Mountains, Lakes and Rivers
« Last post by Click on Today at 04:14:17 PM »
Very nice pictures, dpc. Keep posting.  :)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 10