Silvex

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 17, 2009

Comments

Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

FrithjofA: I did not understand the article. I just read: there are limits for mirrorless. Agreed, you can even extend that statement: there are limits for DSLR, medium format, for full frame view cameras, for iphone, for every camera.

In any workshop people know, you have to pick the right tool for the job. There is not a universal screwdriver for every screw in the World. I guess, people have wrong expectations and are rediscovering that you need the right camera for the job.
Not more and not less.

The point of the article is to help everyone make those "right tool for the job" decisions. I, for one, would have been unpleasantly surprised to find IR assist not working on my speedlites or controller had I bought a mirrorless camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2018 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

Limbsjones: Wouldn't the red light constantly illuminating the bride and groom ruin a lot of the shots for videographers at a wedding?

If you are using the IR assist, it usually means it's too dark to shoot video. I know, because I shoot both. Video cameras need light just like still cameras for focusing. For me, it's the same camera - a DSLR. So if there isn't enough light to focus for stills (without IR assist) there isn't enough light to focus for video.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2018 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

justnuaces: Former events and concerts photographer here. I partially disagree with the article, because the IR/red light was the first thing I disabled when working in very dark places. I relied on manual focus and AF on light places at the same distance as the subject instead, because the red light from the flashes would be totally intolerable by the subjects.
A real professional photographer in those situations must be "invisible", and the AF illuminator isn't an option.
At the time, I worked with Nikon cameras (from F90X to D700), and despite the very good flash systems and AF features I'd loved my current Sony A7... Or any Leica M, for instance (the rangefinder is way better in low light situations than every SLR...).

I just don’t think you appreciate how good you really are. Manually finding focus in a dark environment with a moving target in a split second while releasing the shutter is a rare talent. 💪 Your ability puts you in the best of the best. You could be a professional cinematographer working with directors like Steven Spielberg.

Before modern autofocus people would end up with one or two keepers that we’re almost sharp and a whole bunch of misses in those situations. But everyone was shooting film and was in the same boat so slightly out of focus photos were very acceptable.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

iamphil: It was the first thing I turned off.

The IR assist doesn't come from camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: already debated from the z7 article, some milc like Olympus will fired the IR regardless with a metz flash. The Olympus was an older model with CDAF (image captured was sharp/ in focus). Some 3rd party flash will fire it regardless if it works.

Pantherfan did a good research on how IR red pattern worked on the z7 thread.

I would agree if there are video recording that IR af assist needs to be turned off. I have seen nightclub show (way beyond the -4 Af sensitivity) with that thing firing. Just use the centerpoint of dslr as that is the most sensitive AF point with cross hair.

Hopefully the milc will get a good af assist beyond the little led light, that just don't shoot that far, unless you want to blind people. Didn't canon just use a preflash on their af-assist on camera, where nikon had a light bulb.

If you are using the IR assist, it usually means it's too dark to shoot video. I know, because I shoot both. Even great video cameras need light just like still cameras do to focus. For me, it's the same camera, a DSLR. So if there isn't enough light to focus for stills (without IR assist) there isn't enough light to focus for video.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

justnuaces: Former events and concerts photographer here. I partially disagree with the article, because the IR/red light was the first thing I disabled when working in very dark places. I relied on manual focus and AF on light places at the same distance as the subject instead, because the red light from the flashes would be totally intolerable by the subjects.
A real professional photographer in those situations must be "invisible", and the AF illuminator isn't an option.
At the time, I worked with Nikon cameras (from F90X to D700), and despite the very good flash systems and AF features I'd loved my current Sony A7... Or any Leica M, for instance (the rangefinder is way better in low light situations than every SLR...).

Manual focus where people are moving around quickly and the DOF is constantly changing? Hats off to you! You have a rare skill most do not.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

HRC2016: I, for one, don't need this as I seldom use a flash. All it would do is drive up the price of high-end models. Who likes to pay for features they don't need?

As for the focus beep annoyance: I wish there was a better way to confirm focus than changing colors of the focus box. Changing colors do not work for those with color vision deficiencies.

You may not understand what this is all about since you aren't familiar with flash photography. This in not a camera body feature, it's an external flash feature. The point is that it will only work on a camera with a mirror.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

ipopov: > flash AF illumination

This is super annoying feature to me. I hate then a photographer shines a bright light right into your eye in the dark environment. It is second only to a focus confirmation beep. I would even argue, these too should be prohibited.

Personal anecdote: I was attending a dance perfomance, and there was a "pro" photographer with a focus confirmation beep on on his camera. This was so annoying, I wanted to punch him.

Rishi, I think you are correct here. It really seems the OP is referring to the strobing that cameras with pop-up flashes use in low light. The IR beams cannot really be seen at all by the subject. They are far from annoying.

Also, I have to give a plug for the Yongnuo Wireless Speedlite Transmitter (YN-E3-RT). It projects an IR beam like the 600EX-RTs. It works perfectly with all of my Canon RT speedlites and at less half the cost of the Canon ST-E3-RT (which does not have the AF assist beam) it's a no brainer.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 00:24 UTC
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

Silvex: The best thing APS had going was the ability to switch film mid-roll. I hated wasting half a roll of film when I need a faster speed, black and white or slides. Thinking about it makes me more appreciative of digital.

I don't really miss anything from film, except one of my film cameras - the EOS Elan 7e. Eye controlled focus was really useful.

No, I had no idea. That would have been a great combination. I probably would have bought one but the Elan 7e was my last film SLR.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 21:13 UTC
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (376 comments in total)

The best thing APS had going was the ability to switch film mid-roll. I hated wasting half a roll of film when I need a faster speed, black and white or slides. Thinking about it makes me more appreciative of digital.

I don't really miss anything from film, except one of my film cameras - the EOS Elan 7e. Eye controlled focus was really useful.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2018 at 22:19 UTC as 80th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Silvex: More proof that Canon is committed to this mount long term. It seems clear a FF mirrorless is going to have a native EF mount.

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is one of the most popular lenses out there and one of Canon's very best. There is not a lot they could do to improve it. There were complaints about ghosting and flare; the new coatings reduce both.

Canon has been updating flagship EF lenses like the 24-105 L, 16-35 L, 24-70 L and now the 70-200 L. It would make no sense to do this if they are moving away from the EF mount. Clearly there is a long-term commitment there.

So a new FF mirrorless camera could come with a new mount that requires an adapter. But then Canon would have no real advantage over Sony. In fact, Canon would be far behind Sony who has built sizable inventory of FF ML lenses over the years.

Another option would be to use the existing EF-M mount. But Canon has done very little with this lens line-up and nothing in the L class.

My guess is that Canon will develop a FF ML camera that accepts EF lenses natively using a new hybrid mount or just the existing EF-mount.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 17:35 UTC

More proof that Canon is committed to this mount long term. It seems clear a FF mirrorless is going to have a native EF mount.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 05:56 UTC as 91st comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Erick L: "They told me to always use a lens hood!"

I think both of those comments were meant tongue-in-cheek. The lens hood is melted all over the front element. And a UV filter just adds to the loss.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

Unstupid: He shoulda used a UV filter to protect the lens! Jus Sayin!

"...if he couldn't know a camera within lunch [sic] perimeter melts anything that is close to it. Really?"

The only thing the launch had to do with it was that it started the grass fire that melted the camera.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

Silvex: I received a check in the mail from a class action settlement that I knew nothing about. The check was for $0.70. Yep 70 cents. I'm taking a wild guess that the law firm was paid more that that.

I suppose I might have received a whole dollar, but that was probably used in postage. I know it wasn't worth my time, or gas to take it to the bank. I can only imagine it would have cost the bank at least that much to process it. I never cashed the check. I keep it as a kind of memento to our screwed up legal system.

If the money really isn't important, and it's all about holding someones feet to the fire, maybe they could just sue for change (not pocket change). Or maybe they could agree to not take more from the settlement than the plaintiffs receive.

What leads me to believe it is actually about the money, is that they always go after the entity with the money - not necessarily the person responsible.

What was the take away from this video? The lawyers get 50,000 AUD, the photographers get 10,000 AUD. They made one error though. They said nobody is happy when it's all done. Actually, the lawyers are very happy! Win or lose, they get paid handsomely!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 00:47 UTC

I received a check in the mail from a class action settlement that I knew nothing about. The check was for $0.70. Yep 70 cents. I'm taking a wild guess that the law firm was paid more that that.

I suppose I might have received a whole dollar, but that was probably used in postage. I know it wasn't worth my time, or gas to take it to the bank. I can only imagine it would have cost the bank at least that much to process it. I never cashed the check. I keep it as a kind of memento to our screwed up legal system.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 22:46 UTC as 42nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Silvex: Photography is littered with imprecise, ambiguous or otherwise vestigial terminology. How about we start with the video creator's name sake?

f-stop: It's really not a "stop" at all. When someone says "Increase your f-stop" half of the crowd thinks something different than the other half.

Hot Shoe - Definitely not a shoe and well it isn't normally hot is it.

Shutter speed - It actually moves at the same speed every single time; no matter what the time value is.

ISO - About half of all photographers think this is an acronym pronounced: I-S-O.

Bulb - Well nobody uses an actual rubber bulb anymore do they.

Exposure triangle - Nothing to do with geometry; 3 items, a triangle has 3 sides. If we add a ND filter would it be an exposure square? Becomes a pentagon with a flash?

Bokeh - My personal favorite. As if people weren't already confused, let's throw in a word from a foreign language. Everyone is still arguing about how to pronounce it.

No space for glass or fast glass ;-(

Yeah. That's why I worded it: "half of all photographers think this is an acronym pronounced: I-S-O." It's really an acronym pronounced "eye-so."

I personally don't actually care how people pronounce it. And I actually have no desire to change all of these photography terms (except maybe bokeh). Every trade, discipline or field has it's own unique quirky terminology.

The point was that in the glossary of photographic terminology there are a lot of words that don't fit their actually meaning.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 00:07 UTC

Photography is littered with imprecise, ambiguous or otherwise vestigial terminology. How about we start with the video creator's name sake?

f-stop: It's really not a "stop" at all. When someone says "Increase your f-stop" half of the crowd thinks something different than the other half.

Hot Shoe - Definitely not a shoe and well it isn't normally hot is it.

Shutter speed - It actually moves at the same speed every single time; no matter what the time value is.

ISO - About half of all photographers think this is an acronym pronounced: I-S-O.

Bulb - Well nobody uses an actual rubber bulb anymore do they.

Exposure triangle - Nothing to do with geometry; 3 items, a triangle has 3 sides. If we add a ND filter would it be an exposure square? Becomes a pentagon with a flash?

Bokeh - My personal favorite. As if people weren't already confused, let's throw in a word from a foreign language. Everyone is still arguing about how to pronounce it.

No space for glass or fast glass ;-(

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 23:23 UTC as 80th comment | 7 replies
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (411 comments in total)
In reply to:

Silvex: Smartphones are making DSLRs look bad. Not because they produce better images (although sometimes they do), but because they do so much more with so much less.

It's kind of like if a High School football teams playing against NFL football teams and giving them a run for their money. You would have to assume the NFL teams were not giving it their best effort.

That's how I feel about DSLRs. For their cost, size and the experience of the manufactures, they ought to do everything much, much better than a phone other than make calls, fit in your pocket and other non photography related functions.

I don't really think any of these camera companies make anything that comes close to the value of a smartphone. They need to go way beyond incremental increases in resolution, fps, DR, etc.

If DSLR or mirrorless companies were moving at the pace of smartphone companies they would automatically do MFA without extra software, targets, etc. They would stitch photos anyway you want in camera; you could do things like Brenizer photos just by moving the camera around. AF points would not be selected by joysticks, they would follow your eye movements. Cameras would wirelessly and automatically back up photos to a cloud or home computer anywhere in the world from any WiFi connection. The batteries would have insignificant self discharge. Instead of digging through menus, operations would be searchable and voice activated. Voice to text or actual audio data could be attached to photos effortlessly. Cameras would run apps (e.g. Lightroom mobile).

This is a short list because of space.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 05:24 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (411 comments in total)

Smartphones are making DSLRs look bad. Not because they produce better images (although sometimes they do), but because they do so much more with so much less.

It's kind of like if a High School football teams playing against NFL football teams and giving them a run for their money. You would have to assume the NFL teams were not giving it their best effort.

That's how I feel about DSLRs. For their cost, size and the experience of the manufactures, they ought to do everything much, much better than a phone other than make calls, fit in your pocket and other non photography related functions.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 04:36 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »