February 27, 2015, 06:07:02 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - elflord

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
Lenses / Re: We want more EF-S lens
« on: August 24, 2013, 11:18:47 PM »
You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)

Lenses / Re: We want more EF-S lens
« on: August 24, 2013, 11:11:15 PM »
In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55.

Tokina has 16-50mm.

I am thinking about picking up a mirrorless body for my off road landscape photography, because of their smaller size and weight.

But which of the latest mirrorless camera systems offers the highest DR? I know that none of them are as good as the D800 when it comes to pushing shadows, but are there any mirrorless that is at least better than the 5D3?

Or should I keep waiting? It looks like Sony has a full frame NEX around the corner.

dxo mark -> cameras -> camera sensor ratings.

Click the "Dynamic range" tab. All the cameras on the list below (and several below them) beat the 5DIII on the dynamic range test. Anything that has a Sony sensor inside should perform pretty well here.

The Sony models perform very well but if I were making this purchase I'd take the available lenses into account -- micro 4/3 models have a more mature lens system. The latest generation olympus cameras (EP5, EPL5, OM-D,  E-PM2) and the Panasonic GH3 are candidates (that is, they do better than the 5DIII for dynamic range at base ISO)

  • Sony RX1
  • Nikon Coolpix A
  • Ricoh GR
  • Sony NEX 7
  • Sony NEX 5R
  • Sony NEX 6
  • Pentax K-01
  • Samsung NX20
  • Sony NEX 5N

Lenses / Re: Lens recomendation for infant passport photo
« on: July 21, 2013, 01:26:28 PM »
Hello to all
I want to take a passport photo for my new born son.  I will not say how difficult it is to catch a moment when baby has eyes open , mouth closed and does not move head even if it its restricted by some towel or cloth.
 I could use some suggestions on lens that i could use.
I want to use 5d mkII with one of these
I have 50mm f1.4- 
100mm f2.8L IS -
70-200mm f2. 8 IS II -

I took a self-portrait for a passport photo recently with the 135. It worked fairly well given the guidelines (on how far the camera should be from the subject) -- they really want a telephoto shot. 50mm is too short. The 70-200mm is by far your best choice.

It would be ideal to have three lights (front left, front right and background) but as that was not practical for me, I used window light on my right, and had bounce-flash from the left. There was a faint shadow in the background but I was able to get rid of it by cranking up exposure in post (if you look at the examples in the official guidelines, they really want the brightness turned up)

You will at the very least want a way to get decent light sources from front-left and front-right (so you don't get shadows on the face)

I agree with others who suggest stopping down a bit (e.g. f/8)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Olympus OMD EM5 or 6D
« on: May 28, 2013, 10:08:07 PM »
I'm going to college next year, so I'm looking for a new camera to replace the one I have now.
I currently have a T1i with a 18-55 kit lens and a 70-200 f/4.
I'm thinking of getting an EM5 instead of my previous choice, a 6D, because of the portability factor.
I will probably give my camera to my older brother after I get my new camera, but I'm sure I'll stay quite loyal to the Canon brand (meaning that I will probably still get back to photography with these larger cameras in the future).

My current plan is to sell my 70-200 and get a EM5, but I would like to hear some thoughts before I do this, considering the differences between micro 4/3 and full frame...

I have a 5DII and a panasonic GF2. Both are great systems. The m43 cameras offer the most complete lens system of the mirrorless choices, and when you look at the weight you need to get comparable fields of view, m43 has a huge advantage. The Canon is my preferred system when I want shallow dof, or a "fast" camera (DSLR responsiveness -- even the 'unusable' 5D AF is extremely snappy). For portraits, the lenses I have on the 5DII are pretty hard to beat -- 135L, Sigma 85, 35L.

But the Olympus 45mm and the 20mm pancake are much lighter. The whole m43 system -- GF2, Pany 20mm and Oly 45mm fit in my wife's handbag. Not only would you get a similar size system with the OM-D, the image quality has really come a long way now that they've started putting Sony sensors in those cameras. They didn't have a GF-2 sized camera with a built in viewfinder back when I was shopping, this is another huge plus for the OM-D -- it really was a camera that answered the prayers of their target market (though Fuji upstaged them a bit with the X100)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:51:51 PM »
So, I'll get to my question. I would certainly love to have 61-point AF, but if the 6D AF is equivalent to or better than the 40D AF, that'd probably be good enough for me. Has anyone upgraded from a 40D to a 6D who could share some thoughts? How are the outer points? The 40D has 9 cross-type, the 6D has only one. In actual practice, has that been noticeable?

Thanks so much!

I haven't done exactly that upgrade. I have a 5DII I upgraded from an older rebel (the former is pretty similar to the 6D). The outer points are usable, but I usually go with the center and focus-recompose.

Having more AF points and some more advanced features for AF tracking would be useful for sports shooting, but for one shot AF mode it works quite well. I've even found servo quite good with the center point -- I recently took shots of the finish line in a 5K race (subject running straight at the camera) and didn't bother with several shots per subject and it turned out I didn't need to. Keep rate was very good. I used center point with servo. Most of the misses were "user error" (subject "fell off" the AF point) which could have largely been fixed by taking more shots.  The lens by the way was the 135L.

In your case it seems like a no-brainer -- your overall system will be much more usable if you spend the extra money on glass (and a flash if you don't have one yet)

My $0.02:

(1) horizon line is right in the middle of the picture. I'd like it with more sky.
(2) my favourite of the bunch. You see more of the house, the composition works (for me)
(3) I find this composition a bit awkward. Swimming pool is clipped on the right, and the house is right in the middle of the frame and the sloping horizontals make it look like the image is about to slide out of the left side of the frame. I'd like this more if the picture had been framed with the house on the left hand side (more of the pool, house to the left of the frame). Since that's not possible now, I'd like it cropped closer to the left of the house.
(4) I'd like this more if the staircase were to the right (the staircase directs the "flow" of the picture)

EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:22:06 PM »
I don't think the M is the best mirrorless by any stretch.  Certainly you can do better with a Fuji or Sony.  But for the price, since the recent drop, it's unbeatable. 

It's the best Canon mirrorless,  for sure.

Outside of Canon, you can get mature Nth generation mirrorless cameras with touchscreens and all that, not to mention more complete lens systems for well under $400-.

The only compelling advantage of the EOS-M is that you get AF with EF lenses. It is "off balance" with these lenses, but you're presumably carrying the bulk of the weight by cradling the lens with your left hand instead of trying to grip the body, so it's quite usable.

Lenses / Re: What exactly is a 100% crop?
« on: April 28, 2013, 08:13:45 AM »
For years I've seen people post examples of a "100% crop" to show the sharpness of a lens or the noise level of a sensor.  Today I was thinking about posting some images from a EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS that I just picked up and realized that I don't know how to do a 100% crop.  Can someone provide brief instructions on how to do that?  I'm using Lightroom 4 if it matters.

It really is quite confusing because of the issues that come up when you try to display the image on the web.

The 100% crop itself just means some cropped of the image that is not rescaled in any way.  So for a 4000x3000 original, a "100% crop" of the top left quarter of the image would be 2000x1500.

Generally, at this point, you don't have a problem -- if you ask your software package to "crop",  it will typically do a "100% crop" for you -- that is, it will crop and NOT "crop and rescale" (why should it ? The latter is not something the user asked for!)

Another place an image can get rescaled is in the web browser. In html, the IMG tag specifies an image width and height for display which do not necessarily need to be the same as the original image dimensions.

Another place the image can be rescaled arises when you are uploading an image to a forum or any kind of website that displays pictures. In this case, the software on the server may rescale. If you are uploading an image that is larger than a typical screen resolution (e.g. more than about 2 megapixels), the image will not fit on a screen unless it is rescaled. So if you upload your original image and then the uploaded image fits on your screen, you can assume the server has rescaled it. The way to prevent the server from rescaling it is usually to crop out a small enough region image (e.g. 400x400) that any reasonable forum would allow it to be displayed at full size. In some cases, the server simply might not allow a very large image to be uploaded in which case you need to make the choice between cropping and rescaling the original. If your intent is to show a 100% crop, the choice is clear.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: April 27, 2013, 01:28:30 PM »
Why all the hate on the M?  Anyone who has used mirrorless cameras knows the AF is the weak point, and otherwise the M is an amazing little camera.  It got some bad reviews from people who didn't take the time to get to know the camera, and those negatives have been repeated over and over by a bunch of trolls.  I'd like to see how many poopooers have actually used one.

The EOS-M is just dandy until you start comparing it with the competition. Canon's offering is too-little-too-late. Olympus and Panasonic have already spent years refining AF and developing a system of lenses.

Canon comes into the market late with a me-too offering -- no innovation, weak lens system, and under-speced compared to similarly priced peers. You can get away with charging a premium if you are the market leader (as they are in DSLRs). The mistake is that they are not a leader in mirrorless cameras (actually they are pretty close to dead last at least among the major players).

As a DSLR vendor, they are justly aggorant.
As a mirrorless vendor, they are just arrogant.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: April 27, 2013, 01:24:06 PM »
They(Fuji) are also twice the price.I owned one(EX-1) it doesn.t focus very fast either,it was no better than my M and by the way do own an EOS-M or have tried one,I didn't think so.

The Fuji came to the market with some decent (fast prime) lenses -- a normal fast prime (street shooters lens), a wide prime and a macro. No ho-hum consumer zooms.

They also tapped into an unfilled niche that the mirrorles enthusiasts had wanted for quite a while -- a rangefinder styled MILC with a built in viewfinder.

The camera is more expensive than Canon's offerings, much like a 1 series body costs more than a Canon 6D. It's in a completely different league.

The OM-D and Panasonic GH3 are also in completely different league (to the EOS-M) and sit at comparable price points.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: March 26, 2013, 06:09:41 PM »
If you read my original post, I rented the 6D to try it out. I did not buy it.  I was seeking other opinions because many have said the 6D's AF was in the same ballpark of the 5D m III. I found this not to be the case with the kit 24-105 f/4.

Have you also tried the 5DIII ?

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: March 26, 2013, 06:09:03 PM »
I rented a 6D camera body to take helicopter skiing in Canada. I brought my 24-105 f/4, 40 f/2.8, and my 50 f/1.8 lenses. I found the autofocus to be slow with all 3 lenses, especially in lower light. I really experimented by changing many of the autofocus parameters and resetting the rental body to factory settings to make sure nothing was amiss. I found the 6D autofocus to be for the most part as good as my Rebel 550D with each of my lenses. I was really disappointed because a want a new body to replace my Rebel.  Lensrentals.com checked the 6D and found it up to factory specs.  Looks like I may have to pony up for the 5D m III.  Does anyone think the climate and elevation had anything to do with the slow AF?  Or does the 6D really have a mediocre AF?

Can you provide more details ? How were you using it ? Green box mode ?

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: March 25, 2013, 10:25:44 PM »
I'm not a pro, so I am never under pressure to "get the shot".  I also have plenty of access to my primary subjects. So it's primes all the way for me (35L/50mm f/1.4/siggy 85/135L and on a panasonic gf2 the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.8)

Having said that I owned the 15-85mm EF-S lens and it was quite nice for outdoor shots -- it would make a fine travel zoom. It was very good for what I used it for (outdoor walkaround-ish shots), it's just that I didn't take these shots very often. I liked it very much as a wide angle lens (where I am more likely to want more depth of field and hence aren't bothered that it's a slow lens), I didn't use the tele lengths on it as much.

The primes: 35L : my "wide lens". Siggy 85: my "indoor portrait lens". 135L : my outdoor tele. 50mm f/1.4 -- this one's a bit of an odd duck (it was my favourite lens for APS-C and I couldn't bear to part with it) but when I have to choose exactly one lens, this is the one.

I believe your guess also correctly explains exactly why AFMA is not included on the new Rebel SL1:  useless to most users, not a lot of requests for it.  So the manufacturer makes the most sensible decision.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think it's at least as easy to understand and useful to the Rebel user base as 2-axis white balance!

You're avoiding the question about whether the useful "edit CSS" feature should be offered to all WordPress.com customers,

Thought the question is not terribly relevant here, I did address it though maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Yes, of course the marginal cost of enabling that feature for the remainder of the user base is either zero or very close to zero.

In software, marginal costs of expanding or upgrading the user base are nearly always close to zero, but you will always lose if you price near or at marginal costs (because marginal costs are zero or close to zero whereas fixed costs are very high).

So the answer to your question which is, essentially, "why don't software vendors price at marginal costs" is:

"because marginal costs are dwarfed by fixed costs. If they price at or near marginal costs they don't recuperate their fixed costs).

Also, in this particular case (wordpress), it is most likely that the non-paying users if not free riders are not the primary source of profits (actually IMHO they are pretty close to free riders). This is not the way it is with cameras,  where (a) the marginal costs are not at all negligible, and (b) the cheaper models are a major (perhaps primary) source of revenue that the manufacturer can use to offset fixed costs.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47