Easycass

Easycass

Lives in Thailand Phuket, Thailand
Works as a Offshore Vessel Exploration Manager
Joined on Jun 8, 2012
About me:

I am an Australian, work offshore running a research ship, travel all the time, love photography, and one day may even grow up.

Comments

Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

I read the article fully and then started reading some of the comments.

Hmmm... I can tell you one thing, the article is a lot more absorbing than some of the comments. Such complainers out there in the photographic world; what's up with them all? While not everyone's cup of tea, such articles can be useful, a peak into how in fact the photographer copes with certain restraints, such as single focal length lens. When people suggest that the photographer should have done x, y, z, used this equipment or that, done it completely differently, it just seems to me they might be missing the point of the article. But, hey what would I know...

Thank you Carey for the insight into your trip. Try a Leica, and five assorted prime lenses next time... haha, just kidding ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 14:45 UTC as 117th comment | 4 replies
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: So, as an additional way to phrase my last question, if it is correct that ISO in-camera has no effect on noise for an ISO-invariant camera, why is it said that we should choose base ISO?

My take is that in fact, answer c) in my post is correct, and therefore we are advised to use base ISO not due to noise as such, but more that the increase in ISO setting causes amplification that may cause loss to highlight data. Do I have that correct?

Hi there, thank you for the explanation. I went on to clarify it further by reading your ETTR article, which helped cement your comments above. I have also now downloaded RawDigger to take a look at some of the future results a little closer. Much appreciated for your time.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)

So, as an additional way to phrase my last question, if it is correct that ISO in-camera has no effect on noise for an ISO-invariant camera, why is it said that we should choose base ISO?

My take is that in fact, answer c) in my post is correct, and therefore we are advised to use base ISO not due to noise as such, but more that the increase in ISO setting causes amplification that may cause loss to highlight data. Do I have that correct?

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 15:11 UTC as 1st comment | 3 replies
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)

Please excuse this topic resurrection, but I am really trying to get my head around this.

Firstly, to clarify what is happening with an ISO-invariant camera, when one adjusts the in-camera ISO setting say from ISO 100 to ISO 6400, which of the following (if any) is true: -

a) it makes little difference to the the raw file, only the ISO value in the EXIF data is modified
b) it causes the values written to the raw file to be adjusted up (via digital gain after ADC)
c) it causes the values written to the raw file to be adjusted up (via analogue gain before ADC)

Secondly, if, to quote, 'read noise does not change with a change to the camera's ISO setting', this seems to imply that it actually does not matter what ISO is set in-camera; we may as well just use whatever produces a nice jpeg preview, given our desired shutter/aperture, and still be able to adjust the raw in post, pushing only shadows, mids or whatever, correct?

Some clarification on this would be most welcome!

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 14:51 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

rev32: Dear Rishi,
I'm a serious amateur, publishing in local papers and doing some advertising photos for local non-prophets.

I do a lot of sports photography. I'm very good at capturing peak of action due to years of capturing sports on manual film cameras. I usually shoot manually, with back button focus, and process everything in Lightroom 5. I also manually white balance and use x-rite color checker.

My kit needs serious upgrading for the shooting I do. (Nikon D7000 my best lense is a 28-70D.) being in the clergy means I have to be very careful with finances.
So here is the question: If you could only upgrade to one camera for shooting everything from basket ball, to stars, to street, to nature, to landscape, etc would you go 7R II or D810? And yes Ido shoot BB and field hockey in manual mode... I have to to get the results I want.
Thanks in advance for any reasonable responses.

And just one more thought that keeps me with Nikon. While the currently mention no plans for getting into FF mirrorless, that doesn't mean they won't. If they want to up the resolution to 40-50mp, they will need to overcome shutter shake. Using electronic first curtain sync with the back screen live view is clumsy, so this may actually force them into keeping the same mount, dropping the mirror assembly and bulky pentaprism , and giving the live feed to an EVF. So imagine, having all our Nikon glass, with a smaller Nikon body that has all the functions of the Sony, but can use our f mount lenses natively...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 05:57 UTC
In reply to:

rev32: Dear Rishi,
I'm a serious amateur, publishing in local papers and doing some advertising photos for local non-prophets.

I do a lot of sports photography. I'm very good at capturing peak of action due to years of capturing sports on manual film cameras. I usually shoot manually, with back button focus, and process everything in Lightroom 5. I also manually white balance and use x-rite color checker.

My kit needs serious upgrading for the shooting I do. (Nikon D7000 my best lense is a 28-70D.) being in the clergy means I have to be very careful with finances.
So here is the question: If you could only upgrade to one camera for shooting everything from basket ball, to stars, to street, to nature, to landscape, etc would you go 7R II or D810? And yes Ido shoot BB and field hockey in manual mode... I have to to get the results I want.
Thanks in advance for any reasonable responses.

Hi, noticed your post. I just made a comment on the response time of the A7Rii a couple of posts below. Just tried them side by side and if you use back-button AF-C with 3D tracking while shooting, you may find the Sony a little 'slow'. You might snag the first shot, but if you want to quickly squeeze off another 1 or 2 shots, you can only do that 2 or so times per second in single shot drive mode (feels like an eternity when you press the shutter again, and there is this 'wait'), and in continuous drive mode, while you get 5 fps, the image in the EVF is a stream of jerky frozen image grabs (yes, even with image review off), instead of the real live view from the Nikon optical finder. For me, the Sony for fast action feels a little sluggish in operation speed, even if it might be able to keep up with focusing. While there will be many opinions (haha, like mine), it depends on your style and subject, so perhaps the only way to know is to try them both side by side... Good luck.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:39 UTC

Hi Rishi, nice article... So here's a related question, AF performance compared to a DSLR... With a Nikon, either say a D5500 or D810, the camera response is such that in multiple shot drive mode while using back-button AF-C, the camera can fire at around 4-5 fps, and also, in single shot drive mode while using back-button AF-C, the camera can be fired 4-5 fps. Why is it that given the same test, the A7Rii response is such that in multiple shot drive mode while using back-button AF-C, the camera can fire at around 4-5 fps, but in single shot drive mode while using back-button AF-C, the camera can only be fired 2-3 fps. On a Nikon one feels like the camera response feels instant, whereas, try to fire off a few shots in quick succession in single drive mode on the A7Rii, it feels like something is holding the Sony back...? You find the same thing? Maybe some setting to overcome this slowwww shot-to-shot time? Also lens specific maybe? Cheers...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 10:44 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: A square profiled (ie: a cube) action cam housing is patentable?
Smells like an April 1st joke to me.

And PS...

Strangely enough, taking a look at the latest Phase One 80MP camera for drones, and it already looks close to infringement with just a lens stuck on to the exact same looking cubed go-pro housing... what are they thinking copying such a unique cube design?!

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: A square profiled (ie: a cube) action cam housing is patentable?
Smells like an April 1st joke to me.

You gotta wonder... then again, Apple sued Samsung for using their patented 'sqaure icons with rounded corners' on their phone home screens...

Where is the world heading... ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 01:40 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1624 comments in total)

Well Richard, you know a good subject to get people babbling...

Yes, it seems there is a trend in thinking that ’FF’ is the ultimate goal, where as in fact, it is just another choice.

Of course, if one already has FF lenses or other system gear, prefer shallower DOF, don’t care about money or weight, use both formats in their kit, want better low-light performance, then this article may not fit with one’s thinking.

If I may paraphrase you: If you are an APS-C only user within a system that also has FF body and FF lens options, instead of being sucked into the gloss of thinking that FF is one’s ultimate goal, it could be worth instead to enjoy the beneficial trade-off of less-size-weight-cost versus performance ratio of the smaller system without opting to restrict your future system choices by purchasing FF lenses.

I think it is a fair thing to suggest such users to ponder their real choices before being locked into the hype, or shall we say ‘myths’… Worth consideration for sure.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 02:18 UTC as 347th comment
In reply to:

Easycass: Just for information, for anyone interested in static testing results...

Having run tests with the new firmware, have found that the issue of variable 0.2-0.5s shutter-press to image-capture lag with the 35mm, 56mm and 60mm, when in MF and stopped-down, still remains after this software update.

Hi there,

The methods I have used to get around the issue and their caveats are as follows, bearing in mind that in the case we talk about here is essentially, in dim light, using 56mm, lifting the camera to the eye and grabbing a photo with minmum lag so as to capture say the momentary expression of a shy child's eyes (lets call it a grab shot): -

1. AF - Caveat is that in low light, focus hunting takes too long.
2. MF / Wide open - Gives ~100ms response time. Caveat is in MF using zone-focusing / wide open gives too shallow depth of field, difficult.
3. MF / Stopped-down - half press shutter button - half press primes the lens ready for instant firing. Caveat is that 'priming' the lens still takes time.
4. MF / Stopped-down - use FN button to activate DOF preview well before shot. When one takes the shot, get 100ms reposnse. Caveat, must set DOF perview before each shot.
5. Use 18-55 or 18mm, much faster than 56mm...
6. Use Nikon + 50mm 1.4. Quick AF/Response. Caveat heavier.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 06:42 UTC
In reply to:

Easycass: Just for information, for anyone interested in static testing results...

Having run tests with the new firmware, have found that the issue of variable 0.2-0.5s shutter-press to image-capture lag with the 35mm, 56mm and 60mm, when in MF and stopped-down, still remains after this software update.

Hi there,

You may well be correct that the problem is not solvable, but your description of events is not the issue I speak about. You may or not be aware that there is now a reproducable condition that shows a 'variable' lag in lens such as the 56mm. In tests, it has been shown that when in MF, lag is ~100ms wide open, ~200ms stopped down to any aperture. These two conditions are predicatable and acceptable for precision shooting. But, in the second situation, a very slight movement of the focus ring one way or the other, can actually induce an extra lag, blowing it out to half a second.

This condition has now been replicated by Fuji and I am hoping they will come out with a fix soon, and I was pointing out that this is not fixed in this update.

Sure, there are actually many ways to get around the issue, far more than just your AF/MF suggestion, and those affected by this will have to continue to use such methods where we can, but that does not elliminate the actual issue itself...

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

Easycass: Just for information, for anyone interested in static testing results...

Having run tests with the new firmware, have found that the issue of variable 0.2-0.5s shutter-press to image-capture lag with the 35mm, 56mm and 60mm, when in MF and stopped-down, still remains after this software update.

"You should enable the AF+MF feature in your camerabody and your complaints will go away!"

Actually, believe it or not, it is not a complaint...

I realise there are a number of new features and improvements that may help bypass this issue, but, it remains an issue. This likely affects very few people, but for those that do use only MF and need predictable shutter release times, this issue is still present. Maybe an example, when taking a picture of a humming-bird using a light trap at an exact distance, unfortunately slow AF with MF override won't help capture the decisive moment any better than a variable shutter lag seen when stopped-down in MF does unfortunately, if you see what I mean.

Amyway, just posted for informational purposes... Cheers.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 12:02 UTC

Just for information, for anyone interested in static testing results...

Having run tests with the new firmware, have found that the issue of variable 0.2-0.5s shutter-press to image-capture lag with the 35mm, 56mm and 60mm, when in MF and stopped-down, still remains after this software update.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 04:32 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Naveed Akhtar: There are shortcomings of every system ..

I love Pany for their very easy to handle and light/compact bodies and excellent lenses paired with or labelled as Leica. But I sometime wish if I could have the 5x IBIS as Oly got. Then in Oly I wish if it supports videos as good as Pany.

Nikon fullframe, I would have switched to it 4 years ago for its IQ, DR and lens lineup but I wish if they could have Live view implementation like m43 (yes four times smaller sensor) or this dual-pixel tech of Canon.. or something better.

Fuji are excellent in everything, but lacks videos and I still prefer even 4/3 base ISO IQ. High ISO is no doubt excellent but I shot mostly at ISO 1600 or less.

Sony FF Alpha 7 line is fantastic but I am still not very convinced with the lens line-up.

Hope you don't mind, as I know what you are trying to say; every camera has something good. But on "Fuji are excellent in everything", wanted to add in, as per the "shortcomings of every system", excellent except slow autofocus in some lenses. Their excellent optics, niche camera control layout, innovative sensor and fast in-camera AF detection, are let down by less than state of the art, somewhat clunky, lens mechanics; a slow enough response time that may not be felt by everyone, but by those that need quick response. So, yes, Fuji are good, and curently my travel system, but not good at everything...

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 00:33 UTC

Small issue for some maybe, no Fuji X-Trans RAW support, as far as I can tell...

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 02:34 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'

This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.

So then, if you have the exact same circumstances, but swap the monkey for a person, then who has copyright, the thing that pressed the shutter, or the thing that did the rest of the process...?

Then, it gets confusing if we try to apply your logic.

I realise it might be nice if the law said 'when the photo is not produced by a person, copyright may fall to the person who does the majority of pre and post underlying work', but it does not.

I am not saying it is right or not, but only that in the current law, in this case, there is no copyright owner, as the shots were taken by an animal, as was somewhat reinforced by Mr Salter promoting the shots as 'selfies'.

Maybe this case will highlight the need for a change...

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2014 at 04:02 UTC
In reply to:

peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.
Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.
Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.
Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.

Supposing Mr. Slater had set-up his camera, and given the camera to the monkey, I guess there might be some argument that Mr. Slater was the one who initiated the sequence of photos, and therefore owns the copyright to the photos. However, better argument if he initiated some kind of self-timer, or radio-remote for firing the shutter.

You see, if you swap the animal for a person, who pressed the shutter, then we would say the person took the photos, regardless of who set-up the camera, and that person who took the photos is the author, and holds copyright, yes. So, really, the only question between the animal and human scenario, is not 'who is the author', since we established that with the human example, but whether the author can hold copyright. Since an animal cannot hold copyright, then no-one in this case.

Maybe the law should be re-written to say copyright falls to the immediately preceding handler of the equipment in such cases. But right now, it just doesn't say that...

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:41 UTC
In reply to:

califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'

This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.

Hmmm, "just like with a time lapse or other trigger method"... When you, as a photographer, deliberately set-up your equipment, and you choose how the photo is triggered, given a specific set of parameters and circumstances, you have set-up and created the shot(s).

When a monkey takes photos after stealing your camera, do you really want to tell everyone that you believe that it was you who set-up and created those shot(s)...?

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

Ellis Vener: A serious question: if I have set a sensor triggered camera along a trail and by crossing the sensor's beam and triggering the camera, does that mean the photo cannot be copyrighted? After all the animal effectively snapped the shutter at a discrete instant in time even if that was not its intent or was completely unaware its actions resulted in the creation of a photograph.

A serious answer: You have intentionally initiated the exposure, at a point in the future, setting your camera and trigger equipment to fire the shutter given a set of parameters, such as when an animal crosses a beam of light, at a pre-set field of view and focus depth of field. You are the photographer. You hold copyright.

If however, after taking this great photo, the animal runs off with your camera, plays with it of its own accord, and happens to snap a few selfies, different story. You had not much to do with initiating the circumstances of the latter situation aside from letting your camera be stolen by a frisky and possibly talented animal...

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:18 UTC
Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »