All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on K-5 1.03 versus K20D AF tests at 11/03/2011 - 18:51
johnriley wrote:
I don't know about "naysayers" but it pays to be vigilant about the methodology of users. Some will be precise and obtain good results (that is, good in the sense of reliable) and others will vary down to the extreme where fundamental flaws are not even realised.
Add to that the increasingly widespread hacking of camera systems and the ability in later models to fine-tune focus and there could be quite a lot a variables.
I don't know what answer to this there could possibly be, but returning a camera for service people to deal with is one way of hopefully ensuring an accurate result. Otherwise, we may be better just doing our own testing until we as individuals are satisfied.
An example is the firmware upgrade. Some say it works, some say it doesn't and some say it's partially successful. It may be that there are other variables, it may be that some don't test properly, who knows....but in the end all that counts is whether or not our cameras focus accurately.
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Unfortunately, waiting for film processing would mean that meaningful testing would be very laborious.
I'd suspect that a new firmware update would likely not factor into account the variables induced by users who have hacked or changed thier focusing..... we have numerous threads that cover customizing the focus (Smeggy you DID alter those settings correct? Did you revert them back to factory settings before applying the upgrade?) even those who physically removed the bottom of the camera to make adjustments with a screwdriver... Did the factory test for every conceivable mod a user could make before installing new firmware? not likely...I don't know about "naysayers" but it pays to be vigilant about the methodology of users. Some will be precise and obtain good results (that is, good in the sense of reliable) and others will vary down to the extreme where fundamental flaws are not even realised.
Add to that the increasingly widespread hacking of camera systems and the ability in later models to fine-tune focus and there could be quite a lot a variables.
I don't know what answer to this there could possibly be, but returning a camera for service people to deal with is one way of hopefully ensuring an accurate result. Otherwise, we may be better just doing our own testing until we as individuals are satisfied.
An example is the firmware upgrade. Some say it works, some say it doesn't and some say it's partially successful. It may be that there are other variables, it may be that some don't test properly, who knows....but in the end all that counts is whether or not our cameras focus accurately.
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Unfortunately, waiting for film processing would mean that meaningful testing would be very laborious.
I wonder how many "as it was from the factory" users found the firmware update solved the problem?
Comment by Don posted on K-5 1.03 versus K20D AF tests at 11/03/2011 - 18:12
three ways I can think of...
angles... maybe there is one you can find by trial and error...(possibly using more mirrors)
shoot through half silvered mirror... (and old theater trick for stage performances of Dracula was to have a fake mirror which was an ordinary pane of glass that was positioned in a black box and using a light source to make the glass/blackbox act either like a mirror or allow see through... flip a switch, and everybody's image reflects off the mirror, flip the switch again, and Dracula has no reflection...)
cut a whole through a blacked out backdrop to poke the lens through or find some other way to disguise the lens/camera in the frame...
angles... maybe there is one you can find by trial and error...(possibly using more mirrors)
shoot through half silvered mirror... (and old theater trick for stage performances of Dracula was to have a fake mirror which was an ordinary pane of glass that was positioned in a black box and using a light source to make the glass/blackbox act either like a mirror or allow see through... flip a switch, and everybody's image reflects off the mirror, flip the switch again, and Dracula has no reflection...)
cut a whole through a blacked out backdrop to poke the lens through or find some other way to disguise the lens/camera in the frame...
Comment by Don posted on multi reflections at 11/03/2011 - 14:55
Anvh wrote:
I know that i've heard a story about that shirt but can't remember it...
I wields awesome mystical powers.... Charlie Sheen's been wearing one for months now.I know that i've heard a story about that shirt but can't remember it...
Comment by Don posted on World to see BIGGEST full moon in two decades. Ready your telephotos! at 10/03/2011 - 21:02
one place you could try an nd filter for exposure balance is when your light levels are too high for your desired aperture setting....
but unless you are shooting HDR and using the nd filter instead of bracketing your exposure, I see no way to use an nd in place of a grad nd.
now maybe the op has gotten thier POLARIZER mixed up with ND filter?
after all a polirizer can be used as an ND filter and will darken the sky and increase saturation (by reducing glare) AND still act as an nd filter.
but unless you are shooting HDR and using the nd filter instead of bracketing your exposure, I see no way to use an nd in place of a grad nd.
now maybe the op has gotten thier POLARIZER mixed up with ND filter?
after all a polirizer can be used as an ND filter and will darken the sky and increase saturation (by reducing glare) AND still act as an nd filter.
Comment by Don posted on ND filters - how do they do it? at 10/03/2011 - 19:03
Anvh wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="MarkTaylor"]So again, I'm failing to see the disadvantage of having both. :
There is certainly nothing wrong but we all shoot differently.[quote:3496ace15f="MarkTaylor"]So again, I'm failing to see the disadvantage of having both. :
I don't use the JPG because i like to have the finer control in processing to get the photo just right so it has no advantage for me either only the disadvantage that it takes up space and slows the camera down.[/quote]I won't say shoot raw +jpeg is a disadvantage, but I will say it is redundant and suggest that clearly some people are not utilizing or understanding the incredible power and workflow advantages of programs like Aperture and lightroom, when it comes to processing, filing, storing, editing and sharing thier images.
Comment by Don posted on K5 and all those digital filters and effects ! at 10/03/2011 - 18:50
Thanx guys it was fun, congrats to the winners!
Comment by Don posted on Post Processing Challenge #1 The Mayor's Car at 10/03/2011 - 16:00
Crossed-up wrote:
agree, a sports shooter blasting away at 7 to whatever frames per second is more concerned about having shots to choose from over fixing screw-ups or post processing in photoshop.... that was what I was referring to when I said pros use jpegs earlier...MarkTaylor wrote:
.....
Unless I'm missing some major point that's staring me in the face here, the only disadvantage to shooting RAW+ is you take up a little more space on your memory card. It's possible you might slow down camera performance a little bit too, but I doubt it's noticeable.
Wildlife photographer Andy Rouse mentioned this in his talk at Focus On Imaging, commenting that some people will gasp that a pro would shoot JPEG, but he often does when capturing fast action sequences to avoid missing a frame whilst the camera buffers and writes to the card......
Unless I'm missing some major point that's staring me in the face here, the only disadvantage to shooting RAW+ is you take up a little more space on your memory card. It's possible you might slow down camera performance a little bit too, but I doubt it's noticeable.
Comment by Don posted on K5 and all those digital filters and effects ! at 10/03/2011 - 00:18
K10D wrote:
now when it comes to composition... I must say a talented printer can make 5 or six differently cropped prints off a single medium format neg, and blow them up 8x10 and you'd never guess each "Shot" was from 1 negative....
so which is better? if you got clients that don't mind if you shoot off shot after shot with your d-slr from varying angles go d-slr... and is willing to be at the park for a while. But if you got the kind of client that expects you to be at the park, set up in a prime locale and they want to be in and out in ten minutes.... medium format might be a better option...
I wouldn't turn my nose up at the 645d, if someone offered me one...
Don, your a pro are you not? I'm basically talking about rich Joe Moneybags.Don wrote:
Lets say we have a 10"x10" print, the extra resolution of the MF is compressed more than the 35mm or APS-C. There must be a size of print break point where the MF starts to show the extra detail.
I think that that is way above an A4 print.
Best regards
having shot with a yaschika tlr, a 4x5 medium format camera... I can tell there are nuances that become apparent even in the small prints... different isn't necessarily better, but there are differences....K10D wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley"]The medium format quality will be better and they are worth the money if they are what you need.
We still need to define under what conditions "better". Can anyone tell the difference for similar size prints (format appearance accepted).[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley"]The medium format quality will be better and they are worth the money if they are what you need.
Lets say we have a 10"x10" print, the extra resolution of the MF is compressed more than the 35mm or APS-C. There must be a size of print break point where the MF starts to show the extra detail.
I think that that is way above an A4 print.
Best regards
now when it comes to composition... I must say a talented printer can make 5 or six differently cropped prints off a single medium format neg, and blow them up 8x10 and you'd never guess each "Shot" was from 1 negative....
so which is better? if you got clients that don't mind if you shoot off shot after shot with your d-slr from varying angles go d-slr... and is willing to be at the park for a while. But if you got the kind of client that expects you to be at the park, set up in a prime locale and they want to be in and out in ten minutes.... medium format might be a better option...
I wouldn't turn my nose up at the 645d, if someone offered me one...
Best regards[/quote]An amateur can be skilled with a camera. I've been at Weddings where my camera was the cheapest camera in the room. I still get paid. So can an amateur come in after my shot, fire a shot and get decent results? yes. as good? why not? better? possible. But could they do it if I wasn't there to set the shot up and give them ideas? maybe, maybe not.
I get paid not to produce the best shots of anybody there.... (prefer it to end that way...lol!) I get paid to GUARANTEE them good shots, no matter what. Uncle Joe drops his ff canon... he's out for the day. One of my cameras breaks, I reach in my bag, pick up another and keep shooting. Uncle Joe backs up and hits a wall, he can't get everybody in the frame, no shot, I reach into my bag and grab another lens... on and on the list of scenarios goes where I've got the experience and gear to get the shots where the other guy comes back with excuses.
That is what I promise.... I don't promise my pictures will be better than everybody elses... but it is nice to hear the client say that afterwards.
Comment by Don posted on Are they worth the cost? at 10/03/2011 - 00:02
K10D wrote:
Lets say we have a 10"x10" print, the extra resolution of the MF is compressed more than the 35mm or APS-C. There must be a size of print break point where the MF starts to show the extra detail.
I think that that is way above an A4 print.
Best regards
having shot with a yaschika tlr, a 4x5 medium format camera... I can tell there are nuances that become apparent even in the small prints... different isn't necessarily better, but there are differences....johnriley wrote:
The medium format quality will be better and they are worth the money if they are what you need.
We still need to define under what conditions "better". Can anyone tell the difference for similar size prints (format appearance accepted).The medium format quality will be better and they are worth the money if they are what you need.
Lets say we have a 10"x10" print, the extra resolution of the MF is compressed more than the 35mm or APS-C. There must be a size of print break point where the MF starts to show the extra detail.
I think that that is way above an A4 print.
Best regards
now when it comes to composition... I must say a talented printer can make 5 or six differently cropped prints off a single medium format neg, and blow them up 8x10 and you'd never guess each "Shot" was from 1 negative....
so which is better? if you got clients that don't mind if you shoot off shot after shot with your d-slr from varying angles go d-slr... and is willing to be at the park for a while. But if you got the kind of client that expects you to be at the park, set up in a prime locale and they want to be in and out in ten minutes.... medium format might be a better option...
I wouldn't turn my nose up at the 645d, if someone offered me one...
Comment by Don posted on Are they worth the cost? at 09/03/2011 - 23:46
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
The thing is, the reason we're prepared to spend about £1000 on a hi-tech camera, is because we want all the advanced features, and we want them to work reliably.
Of course you can fiddle and tinker, and up to a point, work around the limitations of the technology.
But it shouldn't have to be like that.
And if testing the ability of the AF system to focus in a variety of light levels isn't beyond the ability of careful amateurs, how much less is there an excuse for the manufacturer not to, under the controlled conditions they supposedly use when they develop their equipment?
See the other thread is 10 units of back focus unusual? and other threads on hacking firmware to make focus adjustments...
if people fiddled and tinkered with thier settings, before installing the firmware upgrades, would that possibly affect the outcome? I would think so...
So the question is, if installing the new firmware did not resolve the focus issue, would setting the camera back to it's original settings before installing the upgraded firmware have solved the problems?