« first day (820 days earlier)      last day (3087 days later) » 

12:40 AM
@Aaron yep
 
anyone have canon 28mm 1.8 usm? I've always felt it was nice to have because of its 1.8 aperture and the FOV not too narrow on apsc but it was rather blurry in general. I read review that confirm its pretty bad regarding sharpness.
however, now that I am practicing manual focus I find that it seems to be its AF that is off. (on both my cameras)
this is a 100% crop out of much larger image
with AF I never got so much detail in 100% pixel peeping
 
1:00 AM
you should always perform AFMA on any lens, if you have the option
There are always manufacturing tolerances, and those tolerances tend to be larger with cheaper items.
It is not surprising that out of the box the 28/1.8 is soft, but if you fine tune AF it should be tack sharp at ideal apertures
It should also be noted that at wider apertures like that, you WILL experience more CA, spherical aberration, field curvature, etc. in a cheaper lens like that.
CA tends to affect the whole frame to at least some degree, usually more in the corners
spherical ab. and field curvature can affect corner sharpness
The only way to avoid that at maximum aperture is to get a better lens with better aberration correction
 
my camera doesnt have afma, but the bright side is that it is fultime manual override, so I can get it fast into almost focus and then learn how little a notch I need to bring it in real focus. it is off into the distance ( a person in front of a wall, the wall will have perfect focus despite using only the center focus point in the person's eye.
reminds me of my wedding where I lend my camera with that lens on to the guests who could then take images at the lunch. 90% of the images were out of focus on teh person they intended.
but the background or people behind them were in focus
 
You might want to pick up a used 7D (or even new...they are getting really cheap now).
The 7D has AFMA, and it is really an essential feature (every DSLR should have it.)
 
28 f/1.8 eh
 
the next upgrade will be a used 5Dmk2
in 3y maybe :)
 
what do canon people usually do for a crop-sensor normal?
35 f/2?
or go 3rd party for the sigma 30/1.4 or something
 
1:15 AM
28-35mm
 
35 seems pretty common
 
the 35 isn't terribly priced
the 28/1.8 looks nice but is a bit pricy
 
for those who actually care about getting a normal perspective
f/2 isn't the best aperture
 
it's not that much different from 1.8
1/3 EV?
 
yeah, it is a third of a stop
 
1:16 AM
but even the 28mm is kinda narrow FOV, like I wanted to show my wife the hotel room and standing in one corner I can photograph the other corner, like a chair or teh corner of the bed
 
one thing nikon has going for them: they have a good selection of cheap lenses
 
so I cant imagine having 35mm as the widest
 
I've moved solidly beyond the realm of cheap lenses, so I guess that doesn't matter much to me.
 
50 f/1.8 AF-S is $220, 35 f/1.8 AF-S is $200, 40 f/2.8 macro is $250
 
The 7D shows off EVERY flaw a lens has so well, nothing else really cuts it.
That thing is a freakin beauty!
That microthin bezel is awesome.
 
1:21 AM
haha
I like the energyguide thing
"You'll only be spending 0.24% of the cost of this TV every year on energy!"
 
lol
yeah, but you gotta amortize the cost of the TV over its lifetime
thas a LOT of mula!
I'm actually interested in either a 46" or 55"
I think 55" might be just a bit too big
the 46" E8000 series one is less than two grand right now, which is phenomenal
and it seems it ships in two days!
I could have it here by friday! YAY for Amazon Prime!
Only the 75" one has the precision local dimming though
which is the feature I've been wanting for so long
and with my luck, a kickass OLED screen would come out the day after I bought a new TV
 
plasma apparently is the best contrast ratio
the local dimming is good too though you aren't gonna get really good local contrast that way
 
1:57 AM
plasma has its own problems though
and as far as I understand, the latest generation of LED LCD tv's are actually achieving incredible black levels
like 1/100th cdm
plasma TV's consume more energy
tend to have a high pitched whine that I can hear
oh, and plasma tv's have burn-in problems too
that was the main reason I went LCD some five years ago
 
yeah the burn-in problem is a thing
though that's less of an issue these days
also yeah LED LCDs can achieve really good global contrast
but that doesn't mean you're going to have a sharp line
within the zone of one LED, you're still limited to the contrast ratio that the LCD gives you
 
 
1 hour later…
3:13 AM
@jrista five years ago burn in was "somewhat" of a concern on plasmas. It really isnt anymore unless you leave CNN with a static ticker up 24/7. Under normal usage you wont ever have an issue.
Plasmas do consume lots of $$$ and kWh, you are right about that
I've never heard either of my plasmas make any whine though.
 
@dpollitt gopro?
 
@EvanKrall yes sir
 
I wasn't all that excited with gopros at first, but now that I've played around with them, they're pretty cool
 
yea they are fun
i got some great underwater snorkeling video and pictures with mine
 
tough suckers, though they don't like being bashed around during video mode
 
3:54 AM
if you jolt it hard enough, the SD card will briefly lose contact
 
 
11 hours later…
2:56 PM
Does anyone here really use 500px?
I looked into potentially moving my portfolio to it, but it just seems like a joke. They have only two options for printing. A $200 canvas, or a $3 "HD" digital download. Not a single option for a print! WTF!
I really dislike Flickr, and have grown tired of Smugmug and the 2000's style templates
 
3:50 PM
it's a better community with overall better content. If you want to network and discover other photographers/get inspiration, 500px is the place to do it. I wouldn't use it to sell prints
"better than flickr" that is. I left flickr ages ago due to loads of billing bs, but the content has gone downhill too. Not sure if that will change a lot at 500px with the new iPhone app (which I assume allows direct uploads), but the community there is generally more photo savvy. The only thing I dislike about 500px as a social network is the "view disparity" between popular and not popular (read: MY) images. It can be tough to get views on your stuff, meanwhile the popular images
seem to make the rounds and dominate.
no such thing as "too big" ;)

I have a 54" Panasonic VT25, I wish that I had gotten the 65". I'm not a huge LCD fan, but sheer size could sway me.
 
4:40 PM
Well, to me size should fit viewing distance.
I don't want to see pixels, however the larger you go, the bigger the pixels get.
A 75" screen in my living room would mean I spend a lot of time looking at pixels rather than watching movies.
I simply cannot place my couch far enough away from my TV in any arrangement to make a 75" TV possible, or for that matter a 65"...although 65" would definitely be better. I think 55" is probably the largest I could go and not be staring at huge pixels all the time.
@dpollitt I use it regularly, but it depends on what your goal is.
@dpollitt Prints are not really what 500px does. Currently, because of how the 500px "pulse" system works, it is really more about getting visibility on your work and seeing which if your works people like, and which they do not.
Sadly, I think there are some fundamental flaws to 500px's ranking system, and it has become HEAVILY gamed. I no longer believe the majority of people view my work because they like it...they view my work, like, and comment because they want me to view their work. More and more, commenters copy and paste the same exact comment that EXPLICITLY ASKS that I view their newest upload.
So, in that respect, 500px, which started out pretty awesome, is kind of becoming a joke.
If you want to be able to print, DeviantArt is a far better place to host your photography because they have a much, much, much richer print system.
 
5:03 PM
For sure, though I believe the avg home viewer is not considering viewing distance at all. I have a tonne of room. I'm 8-9ft from my display at present, which isn't really "close enough, and could extend that to nearly 20ft quite easily'.
That's why I'll never understand the need to push "greater than 1080p HD" for displays. With half of my sources at LESS THAN 720p (factoring in INSANE compression artifacts), how about we just work on getting a clean signal into the home on all sources before trying to sell more res to people who are sitting at a distance that generally means the can't di
Akso why I still watch/buy blurays; simple fact, nothing beats it. Depending on the transfer (Baraka), nothing even comes close.
@jrista that's my biggest peeve with 500px. There is a general feeling of hucksterism, now that everyone wants to push their brand. Result is a lot of faux appreciation, which runs against the spirit a bit.
 
@Instantkamera Are you talking about TV? Personally, I use netflix (which actually has pretty good resolution) and BluRay disc. BluRay disc is really where HD shines. Comparing BluRay to a 720p compressed TV stream is like comparing heaven to hell...two entirely different world.
Also, the talk about 4k has nothing to do with TV...4k is the next video disc format.
There are very few true 1080p TV stations. Most 1080 stations are interleaved, and while they can look a little better than 720p, they still don't look anywhere near as good as 1080p BluRay.
BluRay is really where 1080p shines, and 720p is just the HD TV resolution.
 
@jrista over the air I get a bunch of 1080P for free :)
 
Same goes for 3D.
@dpollitt sure, so do i...but it tends to experience much more corruption than cable TV due to interference.
My point is, 1080p is the video disc res., 720p is the TV res.
 
@jrista yea, the majority of comments on my 500px work is just junk "great pic, please visit my gallery" blah :(
 
In the future, 4k will again be a video disc format. I highly doubt we will see a push to 4k TV any time soon.
 
5:15 PM
@jrista Not where I live or with my digital antenna.
 
@dpollitt yeah...I liked 500px, but now I'm starting to wonder. I still upload stuff, so I have a central repository for my work online in a nice format...but I'm less and less concerned about getting views. I really need to set up my own web site.
@dpollitt You must live out on the boonies or something then.
In most cities, OTA picture is close to but not quite as good as cable picture, and neither are anywhere close to 1080p bluray.
Especially this year...it is solar maximum...lot of solar activity, lot of sunspots, lot of interference.
 
ha
no, i live about 10miles by the crow to downtown minneapolis
@jrista i dont like flickr, i dont like 500px, i don't like smugmug, wordpress has been too much effort for me...
 
yeah, only real solution is a personal web site.
DevantArt IS a great place for prints, though
check out their prints section...they have LOTs of mounting options, LOTS of sizes, LOS of alternative products (i.e. gift cards, t-shirts, etc.)
 
yea i had deviant back in like 2003 or something lol
 
the only real problem with DA is it is difficult to get any exposure there
 
5:24 PM
maybe i should look again
 
500px definitely improves the ability of a lowly new member to get some visibility
but they have no prints
DA doesn't help with visibility, but they have GOOD prints
 
my top photo on 500px was taken with a Canon Rebel XT, now that is funny
the more i look at it the more i think it is wrongfully purple too
wish i wasn't colorblind :P
 
It is frustrating that 500px does not allow you to edit uploaded photos.
Once uploaded, that's it, the image is permanent.
DA also allows you to edit photos.
 
Isn't flickr the same?
i really wish facebook would let me edit uploaded photos!
 
I think DA is fairly unique in that way.
I've been with DA for years...over a decade now I think.
I had switched to 500px, but I think I'll be going back to DA.
I'll keep 500px updated, but DA just has better tools, even if I get less exposure.
Maybe the exposure I do get is more real.
 
5:41 PM
The last time i added to DA was 2008
looks like i joined 6 years ago
I didn't even know my account was still active
 
they never go inactive as far as I know
 
yea apparently
wow, this is a surprise
i preordered the 6d+24-105
on amazon for $2899
now amazon 3rd party sellers have it listed for $2699
also adorama now has it for $2699
i just saved 200$ sweet!
 
Sorry for the stupidly-phrased question, I was on the phone at work and didn't proof it very well
 
@Aaron no apology necessary !
really! no one can blame anyone for asking a question around something they dont understand, in an incorrect way
 
the ost -> cost edit really threw me off as well
 
5:47 PM
it was a good question anyways
@Aaron - I think your best bet is just bouncing the 430EX off of the ceiling or wall behind you
if the walls are white, or close to it
 
I do think it is heading that way, I was just wondering if there's any other alternatives that are easy to do without "setup"
The ceilings are white, some of the rooms have different color walls
 
your second best bet is to buy a $30 accessory that will let you use the the 430EX wirelessly
to get the best results, i would buy the wireless adapter, and put the 430EX on a stand with an umbrella
but that is some "setup" for sure
but to get quick results without a bunch of equipment, just bounce the flash off of a nearby white object - it is usually very pleasing
 
I'm also reading those articles on strobist
and buying some more eneloops
 
oh yea, strobist will tell you the real deal for sure
they will suggest buying a 50$ cheapo flash, getting it off camera, and using a shoot through umbrella or similar
 
6:37 PM
@jrista yes, im talking about TV. And up until recently, netflix, which still doesn't match BRD. You are agreeing with what Im saying, which is that we need all sources to be full HD before we push higher res. That goes for format AND display (yes, 4K displays/projectors exist and will be pushed on the market)
hell, even most GAMES on HD platforms (such as the ps3) are not 1080p. All that said, I really think we have little need for 4k in the home. There are just too many other variables that affect viewing (like seating distance) that consumers will never get their heads around. Your avg consumer is not sitting close enough for HD NOW, let alone with 4K and beyond. Unfortunately, the market cant let it be. It's inevitable.
I cant tell you how many people think im lucky because I have the space AND and agreeable wife so that I can even attempt to have a "home theatre" (it's a pretty meagre setup, but it's still closer than most people can have in their homes).
@dpollitt What's a 6D? Forgive, I've been dark since sept. I have a newborn
 
6:53 PM
@Instantkamera HD has never been about the average customer, though. ;)
The people who are interested in 4k are the quality fanatics. And there are a lot of them.
It is the same kind of thing as people who are interested in high fidelity audio eqipment, and on which many people are willing to spend thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars for the best quality they can get.
I mean...have you ever heard a $300,000 full analog audio system with a high quality turntable separated from vibration by multiple degrees?
There is nothing like it...even a non-audiophile can hear the difference, and its huge.
Same deal with 4k...it will take its place as the high end king of video quality. There will be systems that cost several thousand, then there will be the systems that cost tens of thousands that just make you want to cry they are so freaking good.
 
7:12 PM
@jrista I totally disagree. Or, at least, it depends how you define "About". New standards always start at the fringe, but the problem with the consumer electronics arms race is that they don't stay there. That can be beneficial (I can get a TV like mine for way less than I paid 2 years ago), or bad (television signals are still crap, consoles are still lagging behind, as is streaming).
But any way you slice it, it's a world driven (funded) by the avg consumer. There was a time when you couldn't look at a tv without someone touting "FULL HD!!". That passed, for a time, to "3D!!!!". Rest assured it's going to be the same with 4K and anything else they can make a cute logo of.
And I "get" the fanatic side. I have a bit myself (I have been a member at avs forum for several years). My budget and wife obviously keep me grounded, but if I were single right now ...
 
hello audio/video chat
@Instantkamera - The Canon 6D DSLR, it is a full frame camera coming out this month from Canon. Very similar in many aspects to the Canon 5D mkII. MSRP is $2099USD on the 6D.
 
cool
Good price, I guess. Is nikon's D600 more or less. I guess it's a competitor to that (that release went over my head too).
 
@Instantkamera - I think many people would disagree that it is a competitor to the D600, but if you are comparing price, then yes :)
Personally the 6D suits me well, but many people seem to be upset with how it compares to the D600, other nikon full frame cameras, and even canons own lineup.
 
why, is the canon a fair bit more feature rich?
oh
the opposite
I get why people complain, sorta. but shit, how have we gotten to a point where 20MP sensors are considered pedestrian and iso performance at 6400+ is clean as 200 was 10 years ago, yet we (many of us) are still cranking out the same crap. Obviously there is no magic camera. It's like the processor wars. If you don't like this offering from canon, wait 2 years.

People trading all their lens to switch based on BODY selection is something I'll NEVER get.
 
7:45 PM
@dpollitt I haven't messed with over-the-air digital TV in a while but last time I did, there were 1080i channels and 720p channels, but no 1080p channels yet.
@Instantkamera I had a friend with a fair bit of glass switch from nikon to canon because he wanted better video capabilities
 
Really? Seems silly. D800 has pretty good capabilities, no? Also, he could buy a proper video camera.
I hope it was for a business and it paid for itself.
 
@Instantkamera - Well the big thing isn't ISO performance or even video when looking at the 6D - it is AF performance or lack thereof
i get what you are saying, but a lot of us are gear heads :P
 
wait for the next piece of gear, then
 
hmm. @jrista shall I put photo down as a yes, then? /cc: @dpollitt
 
@Aarthi yes
 
8:00 PM
@Aarthi what is this in reference to?
 
Hats!
 
oh - the game :) sure why not
 
excellent, thank you both very much. :)
oh, and @dpollitt I've actually noted SmugMug as "out"
 
@Aarthi yes that would be correct
I dont think we have enough users to participate really
 
@dpollitt yeah that's about how i felt.
 
8:08 PM
@Instantkamera this was I think 2 years ago, before the D800 was out. I think Nikon's still lagging on the video front, though it's gotten a lot better with the D800
in any case, glass retains a lot of value. If you sell your old glass and buy new glass on craigslist or ebay, you could break even on the swap
 
8:30 PM
@EvanKrall you would think so. I just sold 4 lenses on a combination of craigslist and ebay, and lost $650USD
 
did you buy them new originally?
 
@EvanKrall yes
 
That's just really proving my point. the D800 is, by all accounts, a stellar camera. I'm not saying that because I think any canon shooter should switch, but I would think that people who unloaded all their nikon kit 2 years before might be kicking themselves. Same with anyone switching TO nikon now because they don't like canon options. And it's not easy to unload all your glass, buy new shit, and break even. If it were, people would be going back and forth every time a new body comes out.
Depending on how many lens you normally work with, it might pay to just own some of both makes
I just don't get all the people turning their dslrs into semi-professional video rigs, either. If you are a dedicated videographer, I have to think that there are better options. It's cool that it allows, say, a studio/professional the option to offer video to clients at little extra cost, but if you put video capture above still, then you shouldn't be using a dslr (IMO). It's also become one of those internet phenomena a bit, where one guy went crazy and proved you COULD produce great video
and then everyone started thinking they had to get a Rode mic and a steady cam setup etc.
My two cents, but it makes me love my d90 even more
 
8:53 PM
well it doesnt cost that much to turn a DSLR that you already have great lenses for into a video rig
just buy the necessary audio components, and any steadycam or rails and you are pretty much set without a whole new video unit..
i think that is the main draw
multiuse unit
 
Im not knocking multi purpose, just misdirected purchasing. A DSLR != Video Camera, no matter how much you want it to be.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-90/redrock.jpg

^the kind of ridiculous stuff I've seen dslr rocking.
Anyway, @EvanKrall, what does your friend think of the nikon options now?
 
9:10 PM
@Instantkamera That is a fundamentally untrue statement these days.
DSLR's are very much indeed video cameras, and very capable ones at that.
The only thing they really lack is a global shutter, but once sensors have moved to an on-die CP-ADC design at large, global shutter will be a no brainer.
With the lens flexibility, DSLRs with a global shutter will be supremely capable as video cameras.
 
It's just odd that people pump money into these things all of a sudden. I'm seeing a lot more people putting thousands into a dslr for video who would never have considered doing so with a "proper" video camera not 5 years ago. I guess the same could be said for dslr users in general. people who would never have spent money on a film slr, or god forbid, glass (other than some all-encompassing zoom) are now buying d800s. I guess we really just love to buy new shit.
 
and with this video discussion, im out! g'nite
 
peace
 
@Instantkamera Well, what do you mean by "proper" video camera?
There are a LOT of independent and student film makers.
In general, a "proper" kit for cinematography costs tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Even if you spend a few thousand on some equipment to optimize the use of a DSLR for cinematography, it is still FAR, FAR cheaper than going with "proper" professional cinematography equipment.
DSLR's are also a hell of a lot better than your average camcorder for filming video. A camcorder is great for your run of the mill family videos, but they rarely have the ablity to produce that cinematic quality.
A DSLR has interchangeable lenses, large, high resolution sensors, etc.
It has created a middle-ground option for independents, students, and film fans to create their own high quality movies at far less cost than actual professional gear would cost.
That opens up a lot of doors for creative types who otherwise simply couldn't afford what they needed to enter a market that used to be relatively closed off and only accessible to individuals or organizations with tens of thousands of dollars at their disposal.
 
9:27 PM
"proper" means there is no such thing, as you pointed out. But you are missing the point. 5 years ago, when dslr as video cameras DIDNT exist, but other enthusiast camcorders DID, no one bought them, despite having a similar barrier to entry, cost wise.
I just think it's funny what people will spend money on now that it's "digital" (my best explanation for this phenomenon)
I think the (relative) availability of gear is great, especially for (would be) film school students. These days they can buy some gear and go to school, or just put all that money into the gear and wing it. Imagine how much cheaper 'Clerks' would have been with no film costs...
but does that mean we have that many more capable filmmakers?
I tend to think the answer is actually 'no'. So Im a pessimistic jerk. I'll still give my daughter a digital camera :D
 
9:48 PM
one thing I wonder about is that on "theory" sites like dxo and sensorgen nikons seems to ahve better noise performance, but in "practical" reviews with side by side comparisons its the same noise, and often I find canons example to look better (more scene details under the same amount of noise)
 
10:18 PM
@jrista booo @ video in DSLRs
:)
 
I love my vintage MF lens.
its a hassle to MF all teh time but when it works it beats auto focus hands down
used it all day today no exceptions. 50mm 1.4 SMC pentax M
cant believe the texture Im capturing off peoples clothes
and the soft bukah
 
11:08 PM
Hi @MichaelNielsen thanks for your comment :-) It's a busy period.... and I thought that maybe photo.se could be a quieter place if I went a little off line :-)
 
@Instantkamera You really don't understand the allure. It has nothing to do with digital. It has everything to do with the ability to get high end cinematic quality on the cheap.
@Instantkamera Don't twist my words...that is not what I said.
@MichaelNielsen Sensorgen is DXO data, just in different form. So it really is just DXO that seems to think Sony Exmor sensors are so much better.
And in one respect, they are...ISO 100 and 200 read noise on Exmor sensors are much lower. In the average Canon FF sensor, read noise ranges from 25-35 e-, which is really quite high.
In Sony Exmor sensors, read noise is 3 e-.
Sony has nearly achieved ideal digital image readout with nearly no noise at room temperature. That normally requires expensive active cooling (i.e. a peltier) and some high end silicon to achieve, costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per sensor.
However the benefit is only realized at low ISO, namely ISO 100 and 200 (with possibly a marginal and not really observable benefit at ISO 400 and 800.)
At high ISO, it is all about S/N, and ultimately physics. In that respect, Canon's latest sensors actually do better than Nikon.
There is a physical barrier at high ISO wherein you simply can't do better, hence the linear decrease for any and all cameras as ISO is increased. For high end DSLRs, the differences are minor, only a few percent to or from one brand or anothre.
A key factor in improving S/N is increasing quantum efficiency. The more photons you can get onto the photodiode, the more electron conversions you'll get, which has the potential to directly increase S/N. If we can get up to 60, 70, 80% Q.E., we should see significant improvements in noise quality at higher and higher ISO settings.
 
11:40 PM
yeah but also QE is higher in nikons, but it doesnt seem to translate into better images anyway. Like 5D has the lowest QE ever seen on sensorgen, and canons are around 25-40 while nikon/sony is around 50-60.
I was once considering an ingaas camera with peltier cooling and the price was like 50.000 USD. luckilly bolometer sensors dont need the cooling
Lecce is a surreal place. like seeing the world in oversaturated sepia colorspace with hints of blue
its like that movie colour tinting fashion orange and teal. however it is just in real life.
and its mostly the yellow with a hint of blue
 

« first day (820 days earlier)      last day (3087 days later) »