If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"GTO" wrote in message m... There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger, 35mm format, sibling? One thing I really like is the 8.2 um x 8.2 um pixel size of the Canon 5D. I think this final factor is going to become the key factor in forcing Nikon's hand. Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction *while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond. Low noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels. This alone may be what finally forces Nikon to commit to full frame, as you suggest. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Stacey" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote no pesky built-in flash Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural looking flash shots I've ever taken. Great! More power to ya. Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't sound "pro"? Yes, there is. -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not what works best. As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing flash. If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in. The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with gold and silver bounce inserts. All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and it quite flat/small). So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent images. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message news:9hzOe.8378$Us5.5975@fed1read02... "Stacey" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote no pesky built-in flash Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural looking flash shots I've ever taken. Great! More power to ya. Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't sound "pro"? Yes, there is. -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not what works best. As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing flash. If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in. The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with gold and silver bounce inserts. All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and it quite flat/small). So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent images. Just in case you're not picturing what I'm talking about, here it is at B&H, with pictures fo it mounted on a flash in it's 5 different configurations. Only $39.99. Tiny URL version: http://tinyurl.com/8apvx http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search A GREAT little device I think anyone with a external flash would do well to carry. It's especially beneficial for candid people shots within 10-15 feet, as it not only gives better skin textures, but also speads the light for tight group shots at close range (which can be problematic with flash...more light in the middle. when you either don't have a ceiling...or it's not white...or it's too high, etc.). While some people swear by a 3x5 card and rubber band, those can't do gold/silver, nor can they do 80/20 or direct soft-box diffusion. -Mark |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
MarkČ wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote no pesky built-in flash Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural looking flash shots I've ever taken. Great! More power to ya. Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't sound "pro"? Yes, there is. -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. Why does it have to be in the prism housing? And... I never ever use my built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not what works best. Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon? As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing flash. So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector" If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in. Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually used mine and saw the results? All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and it quite flat/small). And my solution is free and is always on the camera. So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent images. Nevermind, you answered my question.. -- Stacey |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"ThomasH" wrote in message
... On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote: Given the review on http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the non-professional that much easier than the 20D? Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year. This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks: This price will fall down. However what makes me think against the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D. And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag. Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch. Thomas. Those buttons make it almost impossible to change camera settings one handed. It is the only thing I don't like about my old 1n. The controls on the 5D are similar to every other Canon back to Ftd days. And I have no problem at all getting to the on/off switch on my 20D as it comes out of the bag, it's right where I can reach it with my hand on the grip. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"ThomasH" wrote in message ... On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote: Given the review on http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the non-professional that much easier than the 20D? Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year. This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks: This price will fall down. However what makes me think against the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D. And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag. Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch. Thomas. I almost never turn my 10D off. You really don't need to. The battery life is fantastic, and it "wakes up" after automatic shut-off times by merely pushing the shutter one time. Now THAT...you can do with one hand! Seriously. Forget turning the thing off if it's a hassle! No need, unless you know for sure you won't need it any time in the next month or something. And just in case someone thinks this is bad for the camera...it isn't. -At least it hasn't been for mine, and I've been shooting with mine since shortly after the 10D was released...AND...I'm still using my old D30 batteries from 5 years ago. -They're holding up well. -Mark |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote:
Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image yet? Yep. It's pretty bad. On the other hand, it's just one image, so it would be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely the fault of the lens, after all. Or simply due to being a pre-production camera that had some problems. -- Jeremy | |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"GTO" wrote in message m... Depending on the power consumption of the 5D in standby-mode, you may not have to always switch off your camera. While moving around taking pictures, I try to avoid switching off my D70 even when putting it into my bag. - But perhaps the EOS type of cameras drain the battery too quickly when turned on (?). If it's anything like the 10D, stand-by mode consumes almost no power at all. (See my response to him) -Mark Gregor "ThomasH" wrote in message ... On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote: Given the review on http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the non-professional that much easier than the 20D? Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year. This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks: This price will fall down. However what makes me think against the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D. And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag. Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch. Thomas. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
GTO wrote:
But the 35mm community of photographers is a different story. People will ask, why should they accept DX format CMOS sensors when Canon can make them larger. Well, why should I accept a 35mm sensor, when I can get a bigger one in a Hasselblad? There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger, 35mm format, sibling? Yeah, full-frame is probably in our future, sooner or later. -- Jeremy | |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Stacey wrote: Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image yet? Yep. It's pretty bad. Mush is a good word for it.. On the other hand, it's just one image, so it would be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely the fault of the lens, after all. And that says what about their QC if they can't even get a good sample! I doubt that's the problem. Or simply due to being a pre-production camera that had some problems. I've seen this same sort of thing from samples of wide canon glass used on a 1DsmkII. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|