DesmondD

DesmondD

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Hamilton, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a Auto electrician
Joined on May 9, 2009

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
In reply to:

DesmondD: After giving this more thought I'd like to ask another question based on our comparison to rain falling into tubes. Let's assume the same exposure at iso3200 - one image is taken at f2.0 and 1/1000th sec while the other is taken at f16 and 1/15th sec - both giving the same exposure. At F2.0 we have 1/1000th sec of large raindrops but they are 'let in' for such a short time the photon "packets" are more random. If we got the same final exposure at f16 and 1/15th sec would the fact that the shutter was open for longer mean that we would achieve a closer average between the 'tubes' compared to the faster shutter speed? As with rain if we put something in the rain briefly the drops are spread out but if it is left for longer eventually the whole surface is covered since there has been enough time for it to become evenly spread thereby eliminating the random aspect.

I was thinking further about this and changing the aperture would be like having a smaller hole for the same size drops to fall through so it will smply take longer to happen. It would be an interesting test to do for those with time to play :)

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 20:03 UTC

After giving this more thought I'd like to ask another question based on our comparison to rain falling into tubes. Let's assume the same exposure at iso3200 - one image is taken at f2.0 and 1/1000th sec while the other is taken at f16 and 1/15th sec - both giving the same exposure. At F2.0 we have 1/1000th sec of large raindrops but they are 'let in' for such a short time the photon "packets" are more random. If we got the same final exposure at f16 and 1/15th sec would the fact that the shutter was open for longer mean that we would achieve a closer average between the 'tubes' compared to the faster shutter speed? As with rain if we put something in the rain briefly the drops are spread out but if it is left for longer eventually the whole surface is covered since there has been enough time for it to become evenly spread thereby eliminating the random aspect.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 08:56 UTC as 21st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

DesmondD: This is an honest question: Considering the speed of light compared to the shutter speeds we use what kind of shutter speeds can actually show up the randomness of "light packets"? There must be a point where it all averages out pretty well - where is the boundary?

I wasn't thinking when I asked this question - obviously the amount of light falling on the sensor will depend on shutter speed and aperture settings -reflected in the iso needed which will suggest how low the existing light levels are. So even if I have a shutter speed of 1 second, if the 'rain' is just a very light drizzle the 'tubes' will still not collect even amounts of 'drops' right? :) I was obviously mislead by thinking more of the actual shutter speed rather than resulting combined settings.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 08:05 UTC

This is an honest question: Considering the speed of light compared to the shutter speeds we use what kind of shutter speeds can actually show up the randomness of "light packets"? There must be a point where it all averages out pretty well - where is the boundary?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 07:06 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

jnxr: "Capable of shooting at an amazing 20 fps at full resolution with Autofocus (AF), even high-speed action can be captured with clarity and precision, while even reaching up to 60 fps with AF fixed on the first frame."

--can reach higher fps while shooting much higher res still images, but still can't go over 15fps for 4k video. WTF NIKON?

As someone mentioned a gopro can do that. Perhaps they are limiting it to 15fps so people have to buy the V4 with 24 fps :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

jnxr: "Capable of shooting at an amazing 20 fps at full resolution with Autofocus (AF), even high-speed action can be captured with clarity and precision, while even reaching up to 60 fps with AF fixed on the first frame."

--can reach higher fps while shooting much higher res still images, but still can't go over 15fps for 4k video. WTF NIKON?

60 fps full res will probably only be for about 12 -20 frames. 4K video has to be constant.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 08:29 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2696 comments in total)
In reply to:

DesmondD: It's not all about test figures but interesting that it falls behind the D7100 and D7000. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000___977_865_680

Yep, better high iso performance is the only reason I ever buy a new camera :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 06:49 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2696 comments in total)
In reply to:

DesmondD: It's not all about test figures but interesting that it falls behind the D7100 and D7000. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000___977_865_680

Yep, it's not so much about test figures as about what you do with the camera - compared to what the pros had 10 years ago there is no reason why any of couldn't produce amazing results with just about any camera today.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 06:27 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2696 comments in total)

It's not all about test figures but interesting that it falls behind the D7100 and D7000. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000___977_865_680

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 23:01 UTC as 89th comment | 4 replies
On Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps article (137 comments in total)

This looks like what I need! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRePAfVeU0

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2014 at 07:01 UTC as 10th comment

Not even worth featuring until they make something decent with the technology.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 09:11 UTC as 65th comment
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)
In reply to:

HawaiiVolcanoes: This type of advertising..in my experience...has ALWAYS yielded...a "whole lot of nothing"....I have avoided Nikon like the Plague for years...I don't want to hear about their 5000 year old legacy of building cameras..they suck...their small cameras suck..their dslr's (for the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE) suck. They probably realized that the FM2n is the most popular camera they have produced in many years and are <trying> something/anything to capitalize upon that. I shoot with Canon and Sigma DP Merrill.....Nikon..you have absolutely nothing that I could ever want. Goodnight

Maybe it's HawaiiVolcanoes that sucks at photography since so many pros seem to like Nikon?
There are always the negative people who can't just keep out of a discussion if something does not interest them - they have to elevate themselves by being negative about the subject.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2013 at 23:51 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: You dont really need a spare batter with an DSLR.. ive gone over 2000 shots on one batter on my D700.. depends how much you chimp.

For memory cards.. its good to off load your photos and clear out your card on a routine basis, rather than waiting for it to be 100% full.. i.e. you dont want to be walking around with 60GB of photos in your camera. So unless you are using low capacity cards for no reason, then you dont need a spare either.

A spare battery is the first thing I get with a new camera. Things can go wrong and batteries can fail even if you think they are charged. A spare battery tops the list!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 19:31 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)

You missed "A Camera"! :) Just kidding, it's a good list.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 18:16 UTC as 158th comment
In reply to:

mckracken88: gah, no more AFGHAN GIRL. She's startled enough..from that camera shoved in her face ;)

also: most National Geographic pictures look kinda funny-surreal, what with their overuse of contrast and candy colors.

I also get the auto-correct when I google it :( My general photography ebook sells about 60 a month http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Masterclass-ebook/dp/B00BT86ZME

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

mckracken88: gah, no more AFGHAN GIRL. She's startled enough..from that camera shoved in her face ;)

also: most National Geographic pictures look kinda funny-surreal, what with their overuse of contrast and candy colors.

Thanks :) I wonder what happened that it is in some copies but not other? maybe they did several issues to vary the images.
The explosure book isn't selling as well as the other one :) http://www.amazon.com/Explosive-Photography-ebook/dp/B00CDW3VN6

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

mckracken88: gah, no more AFGHAN GIRL. She's startled enough..from that camera shoved in her face ;)

also: most National Geographic pictures look kinda funny-surreal, what with their overuse of contrast and candy colors.

I'm pretty happy that one of my images was posted. http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m300/dvdowns/high%20speed/zpop1011.jpg According to some people though it's not in all the copies?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: Disgusting to see how large companies kill-off the market for professional photography.

It all the trend and this is another example that there is no future for the professional photographer to make a descent living.

In future you must be well known or die.

Intel marketing department must be laughing out loud.
Amateurs don't get paid, but their photo's will be used for cheap.

It's simply change and we all have to adapt to it or be left behind. When you went digital did you worry about the people who made a living making film?
Some say digital has made photography cheap - our children will look back and think that film made photography expensive - it's all relative to the observer and you need an open mind in today's changing world.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2012 at 06:49 UTC
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18