SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 198, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SteB: I know what I say doesn't apply to all photographers, and not even most. However, this is a very important aspect to a significant minority of photographers, and this is not addressed in the article.

Yes it is true that a larger sensor "usually" means better low light performance. However, if you are a nature photographer primarily using long lenses or shooting macro, it is not as simple as that. With say bird photography cropping is often the norm, no matter what lenses you can afford. If you have the same lens on an APS-C and FF body, and you are cropping, then the advantage of FF is often lost. If you have to crop to APS-C dimensions or less, and this is not uncommon for those using FF, you are effectively using a crop sensor, and there is absolutely no advantage to FF.

To some extent the same can be true of macro and close up photography. To get the same frame filling power you will need higher magnification, need to be closer and there will be a concomitant loss of light.

If you crop a FF image to APS-C dimensions the image quality will be similar, and is unlikely to be better (the actual result depends on individual sensor design, pixel density etc). Unless the FF sensor is very high resolution the resolution will be less. No current FF DSLR has the pixel density of a 24mp APS-C sensor.

Of course as @Dr_Jon points out there are still possible advantages to a FF DSLR when cropping heavily, such as a bigger frame, so you are less likely to lose track of a subject when it disappears out of the frame. Also of course not every shot is going to be cropped to APS-C dimensions or less. It's not all one way though as say an 80D has a higher frame rate than a 5Ds.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 09:38 UTC

I know what I say doesn't apply to all photographers, and not even most. However, this is a very important aspect to a significant minority of photographers, and this is not addressed in the article.

Yes it is true that a larger sensor "usually" means better low light performance. However, if you are a nature photographer primarily using long lenses or shooting macro, it is not as simple as that. With say bird photography cropping is often the norm, no matter what lenses you can afford. If you have the same lens on an APS-C and FF body, and you are cropping, then the advantage of FF is often lost. If you have to crop to APS-C dimensions or less, and this is not uncommon for those using FF, you are effectively using a crop sensor, and there is absolutely no advantage to FF.

To some extent the same can be true of macro and close up photography. To get the same frame filling power you will need higher magnification, need to be closer and there will be a concomitant loss of light.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies

This whole claim upheld by the court that the Macaque took the photo, and therefore the photographer doesn't own the copyright is beyond absurd. It really does entirely discredit legal thinking, exposing it to be seriously ignorant of photography. For a start if the photographer had not revealed how the photo came about, there would be no case. The photographer specifically gave the Macaques the camera to see what would happen, and then downloaded and probably processed the camera. Almost certainly the Macaque had no insight that it was taking a photograph, or even the process of capturing an image.

There are numerous instance in photography where the photographer does not physically take the photograph. Such as an assistant tripping the shutter of a studio scene set-up primarily with the direction of the photographer, to various types of camera trap. For years photographers have remotely triggered cameras at sporting events not knowing what the scene was they were capturing.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 06:14 UTC as 54th comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview on TWiT: How to take macro photographs (9 comments in total)

I missed this earlier. I can give some tips on how to get close-up or macro photographs with compact cameras. Both methods use the cameras built in flash.

a) The simplest method is to use a lightly scrunched up white tissue. Hold it on top of lens to intercept light from the built in flash. The flash will illuminate the whole of the lightly scrunched up tissue giving wonderful illumination with no shadow cast by the lens. The trick is learn to hold it so your finger doesn't get in the way. You can do this with pieces of the tissue at the edges.

b) A bit more advanced, but still very simple and costing nothing is to use a piece of white packing foam of the sort which comes in products to protect them, and you need just a small rectangle of it. In the lower part of the rectangle you cut a hole just big enough to push the end of the lens through. It needs to be a push fit. The upper part needs to be big enough to cover where the pop-flash will fire.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 3rd comment

The article references BBC Planet Earth. I'm deeply interested in the natural world and I'm also worried about our perception of it, in particularly our disconnection from it. Some producers of the big BBC NHU projects are starting to worry about what they've done. They were trying to convey a serious message about the natural world. But attitudes to the natural world have not changed in the way the makers of these programmes hoped they would. They're starting to realise that a lot of people who watch these programmes ignore the message being conveyed, and just see visual spectaculars, in a rather nihilistic way. We're facing dangerous climate change, and the extinction of a large proportion of the Earth's biodiversity, and yet people just act as if it's not happening.

This trailer left me feeling cold. It was a tour de force of techniques, but appeared to have no depth or meaningfulness. Maybe the full film will have more coherence, but the website doesn't give any impression of it.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 00:13 UTC as 9th comment
On article Macro photography with the Fujifilm GFX 50S (53 comments in total)

Others such as @panther fan have pointed out the limitation of the Fujifilm GFX 50S and 120mm f4 macro lens for this type of macro photography, as that at minimum focus distance this gives a frame width of 88mm. To put this into perspective my Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L II on my 80D will give a frame width of 72mm at minimum focus. One of my 1:1 macro lenses will give a frame width of 22.3mm, and my Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 has a minimum frame width of 4.6mm at minimum focus.

As an experienced macro photographer of invertebrates, I always think in terms of frame width, rather than reproduction ratios. Self-evidently the Fujifilm GFX 50S isn't very practical for the type of photography Thomas Shahan does (which is probably why he uses an APS-C body).

The video was fun, and Thomas is a great macro photographer, but this camera and lens isn't very practical for general invertebrate photography. Having said that it would be great for larger insects if anyone wants to donate one.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 16:01 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies

I did register at Photobucket years ago, but never ended up using it, or possibly used it a few times, and I've forgot all about it.

However, from what I know about how people used it (for hotlinking), I can't really see anyone paying $400 a year for that type of service. Whilst in theory they could make a packet, I think in actuality they will get very few takers and it will be commercial suicide for Photobucket. It would be interesting to see if they get enough takers to make the service viable.

If Photobucket find a complete lack of interest in their most expensive package, and try to backtrack and allow hotlinking on their cheaper accounts, I doubt many people would be interested because they'd be unable to trust Photobucket again. People could never be sure they wouldn't pull this type of stunt again. I think overall the way this happened will cause such bad feeling and lack of trust, that Photobucket that in it's present shape is dead.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 07:31 UTC as 32nd comment

Only in the land that elected Donald Trump as President, would the implausibly powerful capacitor of this flash, be considered the most implausible premise of this film (movie).

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 04:52 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9 banding issue: fact or fiction? (733 comments in total)

To be fair to Mr Shouty, he did actually suggest the above explanation in his video.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 10:44 UTC as 81st comment
On article Week in Review: Hungry Birds (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

HSway: more photos from the Sigma 100-400…

I'd say the use of this Sigma for wildlife (a broad term) will be peripheral and occasional. The bird samples show nicely how the lens renders but the segment of wildlife zoom was transformed by the 160-600 lenses. A 100-400 this small is actually a rare travel zoom alternative to 70-200/4 zooms. - The compactness the defining factor of its use (and the speed).

I disagree completely. Both primes in 300-400mm range and something to 400mm zooms are amongst the most popular and common used lenses by both bird and wildlife photographers in general. I actually had and used a Tamron 150-600mm, before that a Sigma 50-500mm, but prefer my current Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II zoom.

This is not just a personal opinion. You only have to look at how many people are using 300mm f4 - 400mm f5.6 primes, and something to 400mm zooms when there are gatherings of bird or wildlife photographers, and on forums, to know that the idea 150-600mm zooms have made 400mm obsolete for wildlife and birds is a mistaken idea.

Whilst not massively smaller, it's far easier to carry around my Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II around than the Tamron 150-600mm. A lot of birders are still using something to 300mm zooms, and this Sigma 100-400m is a useful step up from them, whilst only being a bit bigger. I think it will be very popular for birds and wildlife.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2017 at 13:51 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteB: I think it was a mistake to use the Canon 5D mkIV for this sample gallery. Put very simply, I should imagine a very large proportion of the buyers of this lens will not be using it was a camera like the 5D mkIV, or full-frame. It gives a misleading impression of a lens like this when a gallery is shot with a full-frame cameras. Crop sensor cameras put far more stress on the lens with their higher pixel density.

What's more a large proportion of those using this lens for wildlife, will be using a crop body either because of the effective reach, or because crop sensor bodies are cheaper and this is a lower cost 100-400mm type zoom than those offered by the camera manufacturers.

It would have been far more appropriate to shoot this sample gallery with something like an 80D as it would be more relevant to the prospective purchasers of this lens.

Yes. That class of camera. Sure some people will use this lens on a full frame camera like the 5D mkIV, but I think this lens will be used more on crop bodies, than full-frame cameras.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 00:42 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)

I think it was a mistake to use the Canon 5D mkIV for this sample gallery. Put very simply, I should imagine a very large proportion of the buyers of this lens will not be using it was a camera like the 5D mkIV, or full-frame. It gives a misleading impression of a lens like this when a gallery is shot with a full-frame cameras. Crop sensor cameras put far more stress on the lens with their higher pixel density.

What's more a large proportion of those using this lens for wildlife, will be using a crop body either because of the effective reach, or because crop sensor bodies are cheaper and this is a lower cost 100-400mm type zoom than those offered by the camera manufacturers.

It would have been far more appropriate to shoot this sample gallery with something like an 80D as it would be more relevant to the prospective purchasers of this lens.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 22:28 UTC as 20th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

SteB: I'm trying to get my head around a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 being seen as a substitute for a 300mm f2.8 prime. I love my Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L II, but I wouldn't see it as a substitute for a lens that is 2 stops faster. They are very different types of lenses.

@Eric Hensel

In the costing, the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS II at $6100 is replaced with the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6.

The article actually states:

"However, these numbers are skewed by the fact that we are comparing a $6100 Canon tele prime to a $2500 Sony tele zoom."

It doesn't matter how the others try to see it, 2 stops faster is 2 stops faster. I don't see any claims that the new Sony 24mp sensor is 2 stops better than the sensors of the 1DX or D4/5.

The Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS II is also one of the sharpest lenses you can get and probably the sharpest longer telephoto. It performs excellently with the 2X extender, where it's still only f5.6 as opposed to f11.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 20:51 UTC

I'm trying to get my head around a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 being seen as a substitute for a 300mm f2.8 prime. I love my Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L II, but I wouldn't see it as a substitute for a lens that is 2 stops faster. They are very different types of lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 16:50 UTC as 137th comment | 7 replies
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (767 comments in total)

I think it's great that Sony have developed the A9. The potential is there for mirrorless cameras. The A9 sounds like a great camera. However, it's being massively over-hyped as a DSLR killer, especially as regards the Canon 1Dx mkII and Nikon D5. Take lenses for sports shooters and wildlife photographers. Canon has a 200mm f2, 300mm f4 and f2.8, 400mm f2.8 (+ f5.6), 500mm f4, 600mm f4, 800mm f5.6 and 200-400mm f4 as well as the 2 longer focal length Sony lenses has - all native and with no frame rate issue. The A9 headline feature of 20fps has a number of caveats. It also remains to be seen how an electronic shutter actually performs with high speed action.

Sony selling this body at this price point maybe a problem. This electronic technology should soon be much cheaper per unit, which means Sony will have to cripple subsequent cheaper mirrorless cameras. In theory an A7II replacement could have had much of this technology as a simple incremental upgrade as the technology improves.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 11:26 UTC as 169th comment
In reply to:

FrankS009: Canadians have nothing to be proud of. Japanese Canadians also were interred, and often their property was confiscated.
F.

"Interred" means placing a dead body in a grave or tomb. The term is interned.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

Kiwisnap: Don't get the first and second place - nowhere near as good as several of the others placed lower IMV.

I often don't agree with the images that are picked as winners, and think some of the commended images from which they are picked are better. However, that is the nature of competitions. There are no objective criteria where you can judge one image to be better than another - especially when all the images in the final pool are outstanding. Personally I think you can only say an image works very well, or that another image doesn't work. You can even go further and say an image is outstanding. However, when you are presented with a number of outstanding images, selecting one as the best will always be somewhat arbitrary.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

Jack Hogan: What are PP constraints? The bear image is eerie, dramatic and beautiful at the same time but imho diminished by the HDR processing.

This is a link to the rules of the competition. I note the rules have changed somewhat in that you are now allowed to use focus stacking, HDR, stitched panoramas etc. However, there is a sensible general rule of authenticity. You are not allowed to add or remove elements.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/competition/adult-competition/rules.html

I think the idea that HDR etc, or changing tonal values is somehow unauthentic is entirely mistaken. Our eyes see scenes somewhat differently to the way digital cameras capture scenes. In very high contrast light or very low contrast light the generalized parameters of processing applied in all digital cameras produces images that are not at all how we perceive the scene with our own eyes. In other words it is out of camera images that are often unauthentic because they apply general processing parameters to non average light.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 09:03 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: Odd pricing and release strategy. In reality, aside from a little upgrade in body materials, these are just technology upgrades to the A6000. This is not really a competitor to the Canon 7D mkII or Nikon D500, despite the price because it lacks the rugged bodies, lenses that this sort of user would want, and the rest of the system support these users would want.

@Richard Butler

As I said, the "lenses that this sort of user would want". Typically the user of the class of camera the A6500 places itself with it's price and specification is going to be a wildlife, bird or sports photographer. Both Nikon and Canon have an array of lenses for this type of photographer, and then there are all the independent lenses. This is very limited for the A6500, both native and adapted A lenses. Likewise the large bodies of the 7D mkII and D500 are easier to use with the type of lens this photographer will use.

The A6500 has got some nice videography features, and other features such as the IBIS. However, it doesn't have a specially designed mirrorbox that the 7D mkII and D500 has, which go some way to explaining their price.

Personally, if the A6500 had been the A6300, at the price of the A6300 I'd have considered one. It was after all what was expected.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 20:43 UTC

Odd pricing and release strategy. In reality, aside from a little upgrade in body materials, these are just technology upgrades to the A6000. This is not really a competitor to the Canon 7D mkII or Nikon D500, despite the price because it lacks the rugged bodies, lenses that this sort of user would want, and the rest of the system support these users would want.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 15:56 UTC as 248th comment | 4 replies
Total: 198, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »