Matt

Matt

Lives in United States IN, United States
Works as a Retired :)
Joined on May 5, 2001

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: Why does anyone think they need exposure compensation in M mode? Think about it.....

But disabling it seems pedantic.

Why? It's essential on the soccer field especially at night where light fall off occurs. Thank goodness they didn't listen to you.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Matt: Totally agree with Horshack, Dot-Tune is the way and if you haven't tried it you should. From a less technical side: once you have established the best focus on a target utilizing AF first, followed by Live View @10x fine adjustment, switch the lens to MF then simply go through the described process of determining the range of MA where the camera still says it's focused via either the green dot or beep. The true mid-point (key) of the range is then added or subtracted from the MA start point and logged into the camera's AFMA window. All done with just a target & your rig on a tripod. Literally takes less than 5 minutes.

Look at it this way: the body uses AF & indicates a target is in focus yet when you view the result on you computer it is not. Depending on the photo you might see that something either in front or behind the intended target is actually in focus. So an adjustment is required but just how foward or backward is it? The AF confirmation light will continue to show AF has been achieved for various MA amounts. Find the ends of that scale and you have the range. You then want to reset the MA to the middle. ex) range you determine is -5 to +13 or 18. Half of 18=9 but that is NOT what you punch in. The real MA is 4 (-5+9=4 OR 13-9=4) both get you to 4 which is the true middle of the AF range.

Horshack (snapsy over on FM) explains his method very clearly. It certainly is worth spending a few minutes reviewing the video. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247/0

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 14:07 UTC

Totally agree with Horshack, Dot-Tune is the way and if you haven't tried it you should. From a less technical side: once you have established the best focus on a target utilizing AF first, followed by Live View @10x fine adjustment, switch the lens to MF then simply go through the described process of determining the range of MA where the camera still says it's focused via either the green dot or beep. The true mid-point (key) of the range is then added or subtracted from the MA start point and logged into the camera's AFMA window. All done with just a target & your rig on a tripod. Literally takes less than 5 minutes.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 12:40 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: The issue with traditional AFMA techniques like the one described in Joey's thoughtful article is that they rely on engaging the AF system to take images as part of the process of arriving at the optimal tuning value. The problem with this is that every AF cycle has the potential for shot-to-shot variation; these variations impact the user's evaluation for each tested AFMA tuning value (they affect the sharpness of each photo) yet they actually have no bearing on whether a given AFMA tuning value is correct or not.

This shot-to-shot AF variation occurs from two sources. The first source is variation in the precision of the phase-detection mechanism itself, ie the ability of the camera to correctly establish the optimal phase differential to know when focus is best. The second source is from mechanical variability of the AF system, be it the camera's in-body motor (older) or the motor inside the lens.

This is why I believe DotTune (and similar techniques) is the better AFMA solution.

Don't knock it before you earnestly try it. Dot-Tune works and it takes less than 5 minutes.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 12:36 UTC

Interesting approach, for the most part a worthy test. Despite the up front comments about the ease factor once actually into shooting you began to realize the true difficulty in capturing peak soccer action. The sport is not straight forward. It demands plenty from both equipment and the photog's skill. To start, none of the frames presented here are anywhere near being acceptably 'focus sharp'. Detail is lacking and the noise level highly visible. For example looking at the noise in the last photo, I can only come to the conclusion these were posted without processing, as ISO 500 should clean up far better than this. Additionally, this is far from being a sharp focused frame. The reader cannot determine whether this was the result of the equipment or the skill of the photographer. While it was not the intent, a good idea would have been for the pro to use the RX10 II for the second half so a comparison could have been made between the two rigs with a known skill set.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 11:11 UTC as 37th comment

Rishi, I get what was tested and reported. Thank btw! Now, turn the low light equation over to landscape in conditions like pre-dawn, twilight. Speed is not as important and I can argue a tad about the relevancy of AF vs MF. For us older guys, who's eyes are what they used to be, having AF getting a lock on a target under these conditions is quite important and we aren't shooting 1.4/2.0 lenses. With my a7R backup I go through the process of severely boosting the ISO in an attempt to see the intended target in order to manually focus then return the ISO. A follow up report on the a7R II ability in the low light landscape arena would be very useful information.

Matt

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 12:21 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Oh, great - I bought the stand-alone LR 6 (a program that's just two months old!) two days ago and now there's an update that the cloud version will get but I won't. Is that the kind of support I paid €129 for?! Pathetic.

Maybe DPR would mind picking this up for an article.

Sometimes you can't live your life under a rock. This was widely publicized.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

Matt: Ok a great camera with some excellent improvements. Two things are troublesome however. First, the lens selection is quite limited. They've put the cart before the horse again and some available are not top of the line. EX) the Zeiss 24-70 f/4. This USD$1k lens underperforms. Second Sony has continued with its disdain for existing customers. Here again their solution is to provide another model vs fixing existing. Case in point the lack of an electronic 1st curtain in ver 1 which could be resolved with a firmware update. I was truly hoping to make a platform switch as I do enjoy shooting with ver 1 but after seeing for myself Sony not holding themselves accountable for existing products + lack of top glass I will not spend anymore money on their products.

Ok guys, you jumped a bit too quick. I was referencing the slow AF with the ver 1 a7r not ver II, I never mentioned ver II AF capabilities but this was in reference to the Canon 2470f/4 vs the Sony/Zeiss comparison in capabilities and cost on the ver 1 a7r. Note: my lens comment was specifically directed to native FE lenses not A-mount versions which also require an adapter. Since I mentioned the desire to change out platforms the comparison that's important to me is Sony+Sony lenses vs Canon+Canon lenses. BTW where is the 24-105 or the TS-E equivalents for example? Lastly, Sony had indicated to me personally the fix via firmware was possible but never indicated their intent. Obviously it never materialized. As I stated, the new ver appears to be a great camera with many improvements. Like other things I guess, early adopters take a bigger risk which is what has occurred in my case. Lesson learned. Time to sell my ver 1.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

Matt: Ok a great camera with some excellent improvements. Two things are troublesome however. First, the lens selection is quite limited. They've put the cart before the horse again and some available are not top of the line. EX) the Zeiss 24-70 f/4. This USD$1k lens underperforms. Second Sony has continued with its disdain for existing customers. Here again their solution is to provide another model vs fixing existing. Case in point the lack of an electronic 1st curtain in ver 1 which could be resolved with a firmware update. I was truly hoping to make a platform switch as I do enjoy shooting with ver 1 but after seeing for myself Sony not holding themselves accountable for existing products + lack of top glass I will not spend anymore money on their products.

Agree the Canon f/4 version is similar but the issue is that the Canon is $800 vs Sony/Zeiss @ $1200 and you have to add an adapter to the Canon which only gives poor AF functionality to boot. Ergo, my continued position on marginality. From an engineering perspective adding a ms delay to esentially compensate for the lack of an electronic 1st curtain is possible and most likely would eliminate the long lens issue that is well documented regarding the ver 1 a7r.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:33 UTC

Ok a great camera with some excellent improvements. Two things are troublesome however. First, the lens selection is quite limited. They've put the cart before the horse again and some available are not top of the line. EX) the Zeiss 24-70 f/4. This USD$1k lens underperforms. Second Sony has continued with its disdain for existing customers. Here again their solution is to provide another model vs fixing existing. Case in point the lack of an electronic 1st curtain in ver 1 which could be resolved with a firmware update. I was truly hoping to make a platform switch as I do enjoy shooting with ver 1 but after seeing for myself Sony not holding themselves accountable for existing products + lack of top glass I will not spend anymore money on their products.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 12:23 UTC as 96th comment | 10 replies
On article Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 and Lightroom 5.4 now available (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: http://swupdl.adobe.com/updates/oobe/aam20/win/PhotoshopCameraRaw7-7.0/8.4.76/setup.zip

For those that keep their work computer of the internet.

ACR 8.4 for CS6 (Win)

It's 7:40 am East Coast time 4/9 - brought up LR 5.3 and the update screen for 5.4 has popped up. Still gonna wait a few days to see how the early adopters fare before diving in

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:42 UTC
In reply to:

WilliamJ: I'd like to tell something about the "unpatriotic" critic. First, do photographers from around the world have to be "american patriotic" and produce "patriotic pictures only" as if they worked for the Pravda ?
Second, where is gone the freedom of speech ? Do expression have to be "according to" the wishes of "flattering images" supposed to be a universal expectation ?

This has nothing to do with patriotism, american or other wise. Is has everything to do with respect for every athlete, their accomplishments and the Olympic ideals. Too many here are not seeing the total picture. Humanity and respect at certain times should be one, the Olympics are a great example of such a time.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

Jurriaan Schalken: Does the image of flagbearing/waving muscled heroes still work for people?

I know nationalism and patriotism are important aspects of american life, but images like that always remind me of... North Korea. NOW i don't say the countries are alike, no way! Even though The Netherlands and Europe are seen as socialist by many US people/media, when you look at how the country represents itself visually, the US behaves like a communist country (not in terms of ideology, McCarthy's brainwash is still very present).

The way sports heroes are represented as hollow non human nationalist bots with a flag seem very similar (and devoid of humanity) to me.

So, athletes that look human, have a sense of humour AND are the best in their olympic field, is thought provoking and interesting (to me).

Nationalism only works if it's reinforced again and again, and it needs a lot of repetition, to reinforce, what is essentially, a form of ideological brainwashing. Whatever that ideology may be.

This is NOT about nationalism. Regardless of the country, the respect due to all athletes competing at the highest level is to provide work that is worthy of their efforts spent getting to the Olympics. What they got was a cheapened shell by a misguided and ill prepared so called professional photographer. Nothing but a slap on the face of the athletes and the what the entire Olympic process stands for.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

ricko5: What an absolute pile of junk.

Why didn't they ask someone like McNally or one of the other many many well respected sport or fashion guys in the US?

In years to come when these athletes are old and gray and they tell their grandchildren about the time many years ago when they competed with the very best athletes on the planet, they had better back it up with paperwork or medals because if they showed these images their grandkids would probably think they are pulling their leg. "Here look at the picture of me as a world class athlete" they will be embarrassing. This is not art, it is not clever and no amount of pompous language and over explaining can disguise the fact.

The images are an insult to the dedication and professionalism of all the athletes and they cheapen the Olympics into some kind of joke.

The only positive I can think of is that as a (probably) over priced, poorly designed and poorly executed mess - at least it is in keeping with the official "logo" of the games.

+1 - well stated, could not agree with you more!

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 14:53 UTC

Wow, being able to be a part in representing one of the world's most covered and watch events. The venue where one has a chance to demonstrate their ability against the best from each nation. Whether you are competing or covering the events, you bring your "A" game. Instead, someone without the common sense to recognize the importance to "step up to the challenge" provides the world a view of a nation's best athletes not even worthy of a P&S handled by a 5th grader.

Three major errors here: ONE, someone who thinks he a photographer and attempts to pull off such trash; TWO, the group that hired him, and THREE; the publishing entity who actually allowed the inferior attempt to go out.

For those in the mindset that this was a "fresh approach", the question for you and our misguided photographer here is: Where is your moral fiber? You do NOT experiment when it comes to the Olympics.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 12:03 UTC as 127th comment
In reply to:

Graystar: He's a professional being paid to take promotional shots that are supposed to promote and appeal to the target audience. It was unprofessional to be unprepared, and unprofessional to take shots that didn't guarantee mass appeal. Business is business...he can artsy on his own time.

Wow, being able to be a part in representing one of the world's most covered and watch events. The venue where one has a chance to demonstrate their ability against the best from each nation. Whether you are competing or covering the events, you bring your "A" game. Instead, someone without the common sense to recognize the importance to "step up to the challenge" provides the world a view of a nation's best athletes not even worthy of a P&S handled by a 5th grader.

Three major errors here: ONE, someone who thinks he a photographer and attempts to pull off such trash; TWO, the group that hired him, and THREE; the publishing entity who actually allowed the inferior attempt to go out.

For those in the mindset that this was a "fresh approach", the question for you and our misguided photographer here is: Where is your moral fiber? You do NOT experiment when it comes to the Olympics.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 12:02 UTC
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16