|
Paul MaudDib posted:Also apparently they actually had it shooting/saving full 240fps video files during development, to debug their auto-shot feature. They say they didn't release it as a feature because there's no demand for it. BonoMan posted:If it's as simple as having it turned on.... why not just leave the feature on? Possibly because data rate. With 4:2:0 encoding (YV12) the data rate would be around 80 gigabit per second, which you might be able to reduce to 1 or 2 with a good hardware encoder. If you can build one able to handle those rates. You'd still need a massively fast storage to actually store the recording. Something like 200 megabytes per second, for the compressed video. (Edit for quotes.) nielsm fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 2, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Yeah it'd definitely be data rates, there's no way you could be shooting 240FPS at that high a res on any consumer storage formats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Interesting article on the new Samsung NX-1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech Oh man, our lab is still using a janky crash test camera from the 90's (it can go up to 1000fps I think, but a lot of our stuff is 240 or 250). I might need to look at this. \/\/ Not impossible they would change this in a firmware update BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Oh man, our lab is still using a janky crash test camera from the 90's (it can go up to 1000fps I think, but a lot of our stuff is 240 or 250). I might need to look at this. Yeah except this is the exact thing they're leaving out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Currently in the market for a new SLR and torn between the Nikon D610 vs Canon 6D. I am open for other suggestions but after doing some research I am leaning more towards the 6D. My budget is around $2000 and my current SLR is the Nikon D5100 with the basic lenses the kit came with. I plan on using the new SLR when I go on vacation / stargazing. Mainly taking architecture/landscape/city shots. What I find limiting about what I have now is just the fact that I own an entry-level SLR that's currently outdated. I had some issues taking night time pictures with the D5100 and would like to take my hobby to the next step by purchasing / investing into a nicer SLR. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I plan on using the new SLR when I go on vacation / stargazing. Mainly taking architecture/landscape/city shots. What I find limiting about what I have now is just the fact that I own an entry-level SLR that's currently outdated. I had some issues taking night time pictures with the D5100 and would like to take my hobby to the next step by purchasing / investing into a nicer SLR. Any thoughts? Both solid choices, but if I could ask, what exactly are you finding limiting? The D5100 is by no means a ~pro body~ or anything, but it's also not complete trash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
I bought my D5100 when it was new and I still love it. I just wish it had built in GPS and maybe more AF points but other than that, suitin' my needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:Currently in the market for a new SLR and torn between the Nikon D610 vs Canon 6D. I am open for other suggestions but after doing some research I am leaning more towards the 6D. My budget is around $2000 and my current SLR is the Nikon D5100 with the basic lenses the kit came with. Have you used glass other than the slow kit lens? What exactly are you having issues with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:Currently in the market for a new SLR and torn between the Nikon D610 vs Canon 6D. I am open for other suggestions but after doing some research I am leaning more towards the 6D. My budget is around $2000 and my current SLR is the Nikon D5100 with the basic lenses the kit came with. Glass>sensors. Always. Get good glass. I can take amazing photos with a D50 with a 24-70 on it more so than a 18-55 kit lens. D50 is almost 10 years old. Whats limiting you isnt your sensor its your glass, and you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Musket posted:Glass>sensors. Always. Get good glass. I can take amazing photos with a D50 with a 24-70 on it more so than a 18-55 kit lens. D50 is almost 10 years old. Whats limiting you isnt your sensor its your glass, and you. Just in case you skim over this, this is truth. You're limiting yourself more than anything, and glass is more important than body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
On the other hand, sensors have massively improved in the last 5 years. There is a point where a new body makes more sense than new lenses. I don't know where that point is, I just know it exists!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I will say that complaining about low light performance and thinking of fixing it by jumping ship to Canon from Nikon is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:I will say that complaining about low light performance and thinking of fixing it by jumping ship to Canon from Nikon is pretty funny. At high ISO's Nikon and Canon are about equal and the 6D might actually edge out anything Nikon has. For anything but high ISO, the Nikon is definitely better. I think the D610 has better AF, too. Musket posted:Glass>sensors. Always. Get good glass. I can take amazing photos with a D50 with a 24-70 on it more so than a 18-55 kit lens. D50 is almost 10 years old. Whats limiting you isnt your sensor its your glass, and you. While this is very true, going to a full frame will help quite a bit with low light photography which is what they were talking about using it for. Busy Bee: maybe look at a used D600/D610 and a good, fast, standard zoom like the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC? Should put you in around that $2000 budget or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Get some good glass first, see how you like that, and then upgrade to full frame after that if it's still holding you back. Something like a 35mm f1.8g (get the dx version for $200, you can always sell it for nearly that much anyways), 50mm f1.8g, and 85mm f1.8g. You'll be pretty amazed at how much better than a kit lens those are. Then, if you're still going to buy a d610, then get a d610.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I plan on using the new SLR when I go on vacation / stargazing. Mainly taking architecture/landscape/city shots. What I find limiting about what I have now is just the fact that I own an entry-level SLR that's currently outdated. I had some issues taking night time pictures with the D5100 and would like to take my hobby to the next step by purchasing / investing into a nicer SLR. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:At high ISO's Nikon and Canon are about equal and the 6D might actually edge out anything Nikon has. For anything but high ISO, the Nikon is definitely better. I think the D610 has better AF, too. ...says the guy who hasn't seen the D750 vs 5D3. But seriously, technically I'm using an "outdated sensor" (I can't remember when the D2X came out but it's been a drat while), and I can't say it's limiting what I do. I've gone through a bunch of camera bodies (E500, E520, D200, D1H, GH1, D2X), and while they've all had their various quirks, the most important part has always been the glass that I put on the front of it. The best lens I own, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED-IF AI-S, is literally older than me. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:...says the guy who hasn't seen the D750 vs 5D3. Its only been out for like a week!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Its only been out for like a week! That's a million years on the internet dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
To be fair that comparison making the rounds is between the 5d3 and a D750 performing a 5 stop shadow push at base ISO; a known Canon weakness. Crank the ISO in-camera on the 5d3 past 6400 and the story changes, in Canon's favor even. But dat DR...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
DR is err'ythang
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Shouldn't be, try using some lens cleaner. But realistically it won't affect your images unless you're stopped to like f/20 or something. Helicity posted:Just in case you skim over this, this is truth. You're limiting yourself more than anything, and glass is more important than body. But yeah, probably a better idea to keep the D5100 and spend the $2000 on this and this, and be better-equipped than most newspaper shooters. And then sell me the wide one cheap when you eventually do upgrade to full-frame
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:57
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:better-equipped than most newspaper shooters So I'm good with a D100 with the hotshoe broken off and a 35-80 with a jammed zoom ring, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Did Canon change its mount when it went digital (circa 2000) or when it went autofocus (circa 1988)? I thought you could use EOS lenses from the 90s on modern Canon DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Did Canon change its mount when it went digital (circa 2000) or when it went autofocus (circa 1988)? Digital. And you can, just not the other way around (EF-S won't mount on EF, but EF will mount on EF and EF-S). Canon full-frame digital uses EF to prevent your dumb rear end for using a crop lens and having your mirror smash into it. Oddly the 10D also used EF for no reason anyone can discern, despite being a crop body. e: It's similar to Nikon's DX/FX, except in that case all the lenses are mechanically compatible with all the bodies, you just might get horrible vignetting if you go and be all stupid about it. The mirror smacking the rear element is a Canon thing, F-mount has a somewhat longer flange back distance, and I'm only aware of one Nikon lens that will smash your mirror (and you'll never own it or probably even see it). SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Digital. And you can, just not the other way around (EF-S won't mount on EF, but EF will mount on EF and EF-S). because they didnt make ef-s until the digital rebel came out later. D30, d60 and 10d predated it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:because they didnt make ef-s until the digital rebel came out later. D30, d60 and 10d predated it Well that makes sense. I think the 10D (and those others) is the only one where it's not hugely unwise to modify the mount to accept EF-S lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
What I want to know is why they got rid of eye-controlled focusing. Never tried it but it sounds sweet as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Well that makes sense. Ya, you could saw off the extra plastic bit from the back of efs lenses and throw them on a 10/30/60. The 10-22 clears the mirror on aps-h after 16mm or so too, but i think its insane to play that game with a 1 series body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Ya, you could saw off the extra plastic bit from the back of efs lenses and throw them on a 10/30/60. The 10-22 clears the mirror on aps-h after 16mm or so too, but i think its insane to play that game with a 1 series body. Yeah I meant on the Dxx/xxD bodies, I wouldn't want to screw with it on a 1.3x crop. 404notfound posted:What I want to know is why they got rid of eye-controlled focusing. Never tried it but it sounds sweet as hell. From what I hear it was really really cool but like, not exactly what you'd call "precision." Still, I wish I had a camera that had it because seriously how cool is that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:From what I hear it was really really cool but like, not exactly what you'd call "precision." Still, I wish I had a camera that had it because seriously how cool is that. Picked up an EOS 3 to use my digital lenses for my traditional photography classes and it's cool, but I mostly use it to show people "hey check this out, my camera can be controlled by my EYE". I'm still a center-point-AF-and-recompose man. Though I can perhaps see some use in macro photography?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Sony's cameras all have a version where it starts the AF searching once the eye detector goes off, but it doesn't change point based on where you're looking (as far as I can tell.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:So I'm good with a D100 with the hotshoe broken off and a 35-80 with a jammed zoom ring, right? I've had to make do with an 80-200 stuck at f/2.8 (that was fun, shooting stuff in full-on daylight at f/2.8) and a 17-35 with a jammed zoom ring because we didn't have enough spares to send them to the shop/the boss being too lazy to mail them out, so yeah, pretty much. At least Nikon lenses fail wide open -- don't Canon lenses work the other way, with the springs pulling the aperture closed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:don't Canon lenses work the other way, with the springs pulling the aperture closed? When the diaphragm went out on one of my lenses it locked up the whole camera and flashed an error code. Whee!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:From what I hear it was really really cool but like, not exactly what you'd call "precision." Still, I wish I had a camera that had it because seriously how cool is that. It's funny they took it out because you can easily disable it, and it was an actual brand differentiator. Wouldn't want that. Shellman posted:I'm still a center-point-AF-and-recompose man. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Digital. And you can, just not the other way around (EF-S won't mount on EF, but EF will mount on EF and EF-S). You can find a list of the Nikon lenses to worry about here: http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility Canon changed from FD to EF back in 1987, which was seen as a huge gently caress you to Canon photographers at the time but has left Canon with a ridiculously comprehensive and compatible lens collection since that will work on any EF body. In fact, a modern IS lens will stabilize even on a body from the 80s. Good stuff. EF-S was introduced in 2003 with the original Digital Rebel. The 10D which came before while a crop body does not mount EF-S lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Well this feels slightly ridiculous. FD mount. Not bad on the XE, wide as poo poo on my AE-1 and A-1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Why is there not more love for Canon's 200-400 F/4 with built in 1.4 Teleconverter? I never see this lens mentioned anywhere in discussion groups such as this, nor have i ever seen it for sale used. (maybe this latter point proves there is a lot of love for this thing, if no one that owns it wants to part with it) Is it considered a "useless hybrid lens" that mostly appeals to gearheads and not professional photographers? I have read several reviews of it, mostly by pretty big guys i wouldnt guess were wildlife photographers by looking at them. Out of the professional reviews (dpreview, etc) it reviews very well. I have been wanting to buy this thing for some time now, but find it hard to justify spending the ~$20K it would cost here for something that is essentially a hobby. I really enjoy taking photos with my 70-200 but find myself at 200mm most of the time. The most fun i ever had photographing was at an airshow i was at recently. I was at 200mm and wishing i could go further on almost every photo, which is why i am looking for something that can reach further. I dislike the lack of versatility of primes though, so the 200-400 looks like a good candidate. Or maybe ill just get Sigma's new 150-600 instead, seeing as i could buy like 10 of it for 1 Canon lens. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I have been wanting to buy this thing for some time now, but find it hard to justify spending the ~$20K it would cost here for something that is essentially a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Why is there not more love for Canon's 200-400 F/4 with built in 1.4 Teleconverter? Even in photography dollars, $20k is steep. I don't hesitate to spend on my hobby, and that's the kind of thing that never passes from fantasy levels of desire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Adding to this, that lens would have to be spectacular because you're getting more-or less the same reach as the 150-600 with the same max. aperture (with the TC engaged). The tamron 150-600 is excellent, and the sigma is probably even better. For 10-20x the price I doubt you'll get 10-20x the performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 13:40
|
|
