Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by segal3

  1. The best thing to do is put the camera in AF one shot and focus on something.  Then after the camera "beeps" it's got focus lock, adjust the eyepiece diopter until the viewfinder image is sharp.  Then it should be sharp underwater too.


    Whenever I adjust the diopter on the eyepiece...I do the opposite. That is, I aim the camera at an out-of-focus object, be it a wall, lamp, car, sky, whatever.


    The reason is as follows - when you adjust the eyepiece diopter...you do not want to base the setting off the sharpness of the scene, but from how much the focusing screen itself is in focus (the focus points, metering circle, etc), as this is what the eyepiece diopter is allowing you to adjust. When these are tack sharp, then the scene, when properly focused on, will also be in focus (to both your eyes and the camera).


    ~Matt Segal

  2. Sharpness is an issue where I suspect we will see software changes - I imagine that someone will develop 'intelligent' unsharp masking which applies a different level depending upon the edge contrast it encounters and the preciseness of the edge - a halfway house between contrast and unsharp masking.


    The software you're imagining has already been developed in a few different varieties. One that I've liked is PixelGenius' PhotoKit Sharpener, which not only provides varying degrees of capture sharpening, but also tailors the sharpening methods/amounts to selected output type.


    I've noticed many users of Nik Sharpener and some of Fred Miranda's sharpening plugins as well...


    ~Matt Segal

  3. Did they remove the macro winner (Dodi) that had placed second in LAUPS also? The rules stated that winners known before December were not eligible and LAUPS announced in mid-October. LAUPS Macro Winners




    This is more or less Dodi's style - to send in photos that have already won. You'd be even more surprised at some of the European contests he wins and then goes ahead and sends the same images to the States...


    This behaviour is reinforced when contests in the U.S. decide not to check all previous winners (honestly, a Google search is not entirely difficult), and award an individual with a placing. I understand that running a contest is difficult, but an easier way to do this would be to wait until the 1st,2nd,3rd,HMx3+ had been chosen, and then start running through the entries to ensure eligibility.


    I'd recommend emailing BTS and notifying them of the error/previous winner. They have the ability to revoke any honors and prizes post-contest as stated in Rule 9:

    In the event that an award winning entry is later found to have violated any rule, it will be

    disqualified, and officials of this competition reserve the right to recall prizes.

  4. Bruce -


    I've also had thoughts of doing the same thing. A company called 'watershot-online' has been said to be developing a full-function housing for the 580ex, seen here: http://www.watershotonline.com/products/speedlite_580ex.html , but I've been waiting for months now (since last October) and they haven't updated the page nor released pricing information yet. If it's not too expensive, it'd be an excellent alternative. Another (not usually apparent) benefit of using a Canon speedlite is access to FP flash.


    ~Matt Segal

  5. Just not wide enough <_>


    A few basic shots from last week...vis was terrible (15ft or so), so the lens was pretty much permanently left at 10mm (16mm equivalent), but I wanted more ;)...




    I think I needed a diver or a sea lion in these shots :D. Oh, yea - the water was a comfy 49F :)


    ~Matt Segal

  6. In terms of the RAW file only.


    Do we not then need to take it a step further back and dictate the in-camera settings. As saturation/contrast and sharpening can be adjusted there.


    I have to say that I don't think that this would be a good idea. In the days of contests before the widespread advent of digital imaging (and even now), were people limited to a certain type of slide or print film (each with different characteristics, color tones, dynamic range, etc) that they were required to use?


    If not, then why would you place a similar restriction on digital imaging? The amazing aspect of digital is the ability to soft-tweak a RAW file to achieve exactly the look (of the film, or 'not-film') you desire - if you so wished, you could simulate Afga or Ektachrome, or even go straight for Velvia's vivid saturated colors. Not only that, but I, for one, have to white balance nearly every shot out of my camera (especially in the local waters, where I end up with some oddly crazy 'auto' white balances).


    If you begin to start limiting work in the RAW converter, what will be the standard for the limitations? I saw mention earlier in the thread about only allowing certain sliders - it seems the individual may have assumed everyone is using Adobe Camera RAW, when, in reality, that's typically not the case.


    I agree with the necessity at some times of the RAW file for verification. At other times, contests should be able to rely on honesty and integrity. But to eliminate one of the strongest advantages of digital by clamping down on RAW conversion, well, that sounds a bit out of hand.


    ~Matt Segal

  7. At the risk of amusing you further


    I always like a good laugh :)


    Sure, Canon fixed the user-friendliness things people bitched about a year and a half ago when the camera came out. I'm not heartbroken by the lack of extra pixels because it might show a conscious decision to favor noise response over extra dots, but I think it not out of the realm of realistic expectation that some form of better processor or sensor advance might have been possible -- i.e. a better quality 8MP image.


    I may be mistaken, but I recall some users (not necessarily on this board) switching to Nikon over the lack of spot metering. Now, when it's finally been added, it seems as if people could care less. I, for one, have no inherent need for it, but I really do envy the boost of the buffer from 5 RAW photos to 11 RAW photos. At that size, you're guaranteed a minimum of 2.2sec full burst @ 5fps, and more with a fast CF card (I'd fathom one could shoot nearly 3sec full burst, but the truth in that will come soon). Absolutely fantastic for non-u/w shooting (sports, action, wildlife, whatever).


    Keep in mind also that Canon is not pricing this as the 'brand new model.' From what I gather, it's roughly $100 more than the (pre-time-of-30D-release)-new-20D price (that is, as of two days ago), not at all unreasonable for a camera with said upgrades. I can't say I have any need whatsoever to buy a 30D, but I see this as an indication, as a few others have mentioned in this thread, that those at Canon have a few more items up their sleeves that they're keeping quiet.


    You have to look at it realistically - they aren't going to sell themselves short by undercutting sales of a higher-valued camera. I do agree about the viewfinder, but it seems that would have required more of a major body change. I'm sure it'll all become clear within the next year or so :lol:


    ~Matt Segal

  8. I do find all the disappointment in this camera release amusing, after all, Canon did fix just about everything that was asked for when the 20D came out.


    There were those lamenting the lack of spot metering in the 20D, now it's a 3.5% center spot on the 30D.


    People wanted 1/2 or 1/3 stop ISO increases instead of the full stop on the 20D, it's there on the 30D.


    Complaints about the small size of the LCD, especially after the release of the 5D, can no longer be applied to the 30D.


    Additionally, the frame rate is selectable from 3fps or 5fps, and the RAW buffer has increased to 11.


    To top it off, Canon included the 'Soft-touch electromagnetic release' shutter that is standard on its pro bodies.


    All at the price almost $500 less than the closest competitor, the D200. Is an additional 2MP worth it? Your choice.


    ~Matt Segal

  9. With the enhanced VR system (VRII), photographers can capture sharp images at shutter speeds approximately 4 stops* slower [at near infinity to 3m (1/30x reproduction ratio)] than would otherwise be possible.


    Does this mean VR is only active from near infinity to 3m focus distance? That would be odd...but they don't give any specifications for VR from 3m to 31cm (closest focusing distance).


    ~Matt Segal

  10. I'm curious as to how people are defining their cropping...


    Rand, you stated earlier the shot was a roughly 15% crop. By my standards and using the original for the comparison, it turns out to be roughly a 35% crop by length (of top or bottom) measurements (leaving a remaining 65% of original by length), and a 55% crop by area comparison (leaving a remaining 45% of original by area).


    I PMed you an example of a 15% crop by length, you can choose to post it or not.


    ~Matt Segal

  11. I'm simply 'busting a gut', holding my breath waiting for Matt Seagal to convert his calculations into real images so that we can all go from theory room to the real world and check the images for these so called "significant differences".


    Two years or a significant monetary donation from you now and I'll have the results. James should be able to provide examples from the 1.6x crop 20D and 1.3x crop 1DMkII.






    ~Matt Segal

  12. I've no argument with your statements regarding diffraction. You've stated them clearly. But I must ask, since at f25 with the 105mm racked all the way out and with Teleconverter, DOF is almost nil, what are we talking here? 25% 50% better DOF with the FF camera? My point would be, 25% more of nothing is still basically nothing. So are you talking multiples of increase in DOF? 100% or higher?


    Hey Rand -


    Running the DOF calculator for the Canon 1DsMkII versus the Nikon D2X (1.0x crop versus 1.5x crop) for a 100mm (Canon) and 105mm (Nikon) macro lens at 12in subject distance yields the following:



    f/22, DOF=0.33in

    f/32, DOF=0.47in



    f/22, DOF=0.20in

    f/32, DOF=0.28in


    Significant in my mind.


    ~Matt Segal

  13. Rand and others -


    Don't think amphipods are limited only to the warmer waters of the South Pacific and Indonesian area.


    I've had the chance twice now to spot amphipods in colder waters at the Channel Islands. The first photo is full-frame at San Miguel, the second a cropped photo from Anacapa (I think you were out of the country when I found this one, Rand, size is roughly 6mm). Both photos with the standard 100mm...think of the >1:1 possibilities.


    _MG_9492.jpg _MG_2124c2w.jpg


    Another Wetpixel member, Will Chen, has spotted tiny shrimp on the local hydrocorals and octocorals...


    Feel free to visit :D


    ~Matt Segal

  • Create New...