Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mkii - How to remove user copyright info - WITHOUT EOS UTILITY!!

« on: June 18, 2013, 02:30:46 PM »

It's great to hear you fixed it. For future reference, or for anyone else that stumbles across this issue, it can be cleared in camera: In the menu, go to the 7th tab (the picture of the spanner with 3 dots next to it), and select 'Clear settings'. Under that menu, select 'Delete copyright information'.

2

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 16, 2013, 02:54:07 PM »

Dumb question. will the new Sigma crop zoom work on my mark IV? I am fixing to do some traveling I hope. And only want to bring one lens for landscape and people.

is it will work, as all others DC sigma lenses; it's likely you will get an heavy vignetting at 18mm. i guess we will have more reports on this when the lens will become widely avaiable

There were some pics taken with the 18-35 on a 5D mk II, but those images seem to have disappeared:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-18-35mm-f18-with-5D-Mark-II

As far as I remember they were only thumbnails, and it only gave coverage of the whole sensor near 35mm. I guess a 1.3x crop would get full coverage around half way through the zoom.

Do bear in mind that this lens is not designed to cover a sensor larger than APS-C. I've tried out my 10-22 with the rear cap popped off on FF, and the corners aren't black from about 13mm onwards. However, even stopped down to f16 at any zoom setting between 13mm and 22mm, the corners are complete mush.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Moving from Canon 40D to Full Frame. Lens questions?

« on: June 16, 2013, 08:12:22 AM »

If a lens is fairly consistent across the frame, it will produce better results on FF due to the lower pixel density:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

However, if a FF lens is soft at the edges, a crop camera is likely to give better corners:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

This isn't the entire picture though as FF in those comparisons is wider, has a lower S/N ratio and (should it be framed to match) has a narrower DoF. Some changes need to be made to compare them like for like.

FF allows you to shoot one and a third stops higher ISO with the same S/N ratio, and you should stop the lens down one and a third stops to get back the same DoF and overall exposure. Plus of course zoom in a bit too.

In other words, with your 17-40 at 17mm f4 on crop, the direct equivalent on FF is 27.2mm f6.4. On the-digital-picture, there's a close fit: Crop at 17mm f4, FF at 28mm f5.6:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

To my eyes, FF looks quite an upgrade with that lens of yours.

4

Lenses / Re: When are we gonna get some news on canons next 50mm (hopefully with IS)

« on: June 15, 2013, 05:58:13 PM »

Cheaper IS implementations can be very cheap - just look at the £85 18-55 IS lens. I see no reason why another all-plastic replacement for the 50/1.8 line couldn't be released with IS for a similar introduction price - whether its f1.8 or f2.

I have a feeling the higher end f1.4 and f1.2 lens replacements are less likely to get IS, but it'd be nice to be proved wrong - those that don't want the feature can always leave it turned off, as long as they afford it.

5

Lenses / Re: 70-200 Choices

« on: June 15, 2013, 02:44:50 PM »

If you ever plan on using a 70-200 with a TC, it's worth bearing in mind the Tamron's performance falls a long way short of the Canon 70-200 II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

6

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:46:23 PM »

I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?

You need a 1.55x speedbooster (telecompressor) to go from f2.8 to f1.8. If a 16-35/2.8 was fitted with a 1.55x telecompressor, it would become an APS-C 10.3-22.5/1.8.

A better match is a 24-70/2.8 with a 1.55x telecompressor. The nearest rival is another third party premium product, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC (just £20 and 15g more) - and that would make a 15.4-45/1.8 VC lens with the same telecompressor built in. Wider, longer, and image stabilised.

7

EOS-M / Re: Samyang join the EF-M party

« on: June 13, 2013, 04:52:17 PM »

I am one who has never used a reflex lens on a camera before. Could you modestly elucidate on the eccentricities of such a design? I would assume that distortion and flare could be a problem, but I'm just guessing.

They're very compact and light due to the light entering through a donut shaped front element, reflecting off a donut shaped mirror at the back of the lens, and then back off a mirror in the middle of the front, back towards the sensor/film. This makes a lens that would otherwise physically be 300mm long only 100mm long.

However, this creates a few problems - donut shaped bokeh being the main one, and also an inability to stop the lens down due to the middle of the aperture being unavailable. So, this lens has both a maximum and minimum aperture of f6.3. Also reflex lenses are almost never able to AF - not that Samyang like to offer that feature anyway. I think the Minolta 500mm Reflex lens is the only one which offers AF.

I'd like to know what the transmission of reflex lenses are with part of the light being blocked out - a normal f6.3 lens would be likely to have a transmission around T6.6 or so - would a lens such as this one be nearer to about T8.0?

8

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: BG-E7 problems.

« on: June 13, 2013, 01:45:45 PM »

When you say you've cleaned the contacts, do you mean you cleaned all the contacts - the contacts on the grip that go inside the body, the corresponding contacts inside the body, and finally the battery contacts inside the grip?

Or could you have one faulty battery in the grip, and you just happen to be trying out the good one in the body?

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Changes to UK Copyright Law

« on: June 13, 2013, 12:53:23 PM »

Is anyone aware of any mechanism which ensures that Metadata will ALWAYS stay with a photo, regardless of how the file is saved or manipulated?

Nope. If its a file they can download to their computer, its editable. And even if there was some clever system to make it uneditable, what's to stop anyone taking a screen shot?

I think the only reliable option is a watermark. Preferably not in a place which can simply be cropped or edited out.

10

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 13, 2013, 12:45:34 PM »

I'm thinking of (well kinda already in the process of) selling my 5DII for a 6D. I'm keeping the 7D, mostly for it's speed and AF. I wouldn't want a 5DII and 6D, too similar, and I like having a crop body as a sort of tele-convertor.  We'll see what the 7D II brings though, been keeping a close eye on that.

I'd be tempted to sell both your 5D2 and your 7D to fund a 5D3 and a 1.4x TC instead. While it doesn't have the frame rate of the 7D, the superior AF is nice compensation. And when you need reach, the TC will get it back for you.

If an imaginary 1.6x TC existed, you'd get the same framing and depth of field options with the lens mounted bare on a crop camera or with the TC on FF. And due to the greater light gathering capabilities of the larger sensor (meaning higher ISO's are usable), the light loss caused by the TC is negated. You can always do a minor crop to get the 280mm of your white lens + 1.4x up to the EFL of 320mm you get on your 7D.

And with f8 autofocus on the 5D3, you can even get away with a 2x TC.

11

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 13, 2013, 01:12:04 AM »

The 17-55 and 24-105 both feature 3 stop image stabilisation, so you certainly won't lose out from that angle if you make that switch. The 24-70/4 however has a 4 stop hybrid IS system. Hybrid is only of any real use at near macro focusing distances, but the extra stop will make a difference at normal focusing distances.

The 17-55 on crop is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS on full frame - so the 24-105 (when mounted on full frame) is wider, longer, and vaguely better at gathering light (together with a correspondingly narrower DoF). Not to mention other gains such as weather sealing and build quality.

From what I can tell from the reviews, the 24-70/4 is no sharper than the 24-105, and actually has a more distracting bokeh. I'd only consider the 24-70/4 over it if you really don't need the reach, but you do need the macro capability - and are willing to pay for it.

However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.

12

Lenses / Re: 17-55 internal dust removal

« on: June 09, 2013, 04:04:59 PM »

Does the dust affect your images? I have some dust in mine and I can't notice any issues. I'll happily leave mine as is.

13

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Picture

« on: June 05, 2013, 04:23:32 PM »

That is a nicely sized lens. Probably wont take filters, as most ultrawides sport a very large filter thread for that purpose.

Unlike the EF-S 10-22, this is not as wide (11mm vs 10mm), not as bright (f4 vs f3.5) and the shorter flange distance of the EF-M mount allows the lens to be less of a retrofocus design. This all adds up to a much more compact design, including the curvature and size of the front element.

It has been reported to have a 55mm filter thread, and that picture certainly looks like a front filter is not only possible, but around that size too.

http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-ef-m-11-22mm-f4-5-6-is-stm-lens-for-canon-eos-m-may-be-around-the-corner/

14

Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking

« on: June 03, 2013, 07:29:39 AM »

As good as the 100L is, cropping to EFL 300mm is a 3x crop, using just 1/9th of the sensor. That leaves you with just 2.2MP to play with, and using a part of the sensor smaller than a Nikon 1 - which means the lens will be the equivalent of a 300/8.4 lens.

Almost any 300mm lens will give you more options than that, especially something as good as the 70-300L or a 70-200/4 with a 1.4x TC. If you're hard pushed for space but feel like a bit of macro (but nothing too serious), what about leaving the 100L at home and packing some extension tubes in your backpack?

15

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Can't use bounce flash with back-lit subjects (5DIII 600ex-rt)

« on: June 02, 2013, 05:28:55 PM »

What's the flash exposure compensation set to? Full auto will ignore anything like a big negative FEC setting, instead opting for zero.

Also, what settings does full auto pick (aperture, shutter, ISO), and what is P using? Is it possible full auto is allowing the background to blow out (and therefore letting in enough light from the flash), while P isn't? Knowing what settings the camera chose for you in the two shots will help.