March 05, 2015, 03:23:10 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 - dafrank

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Lenses / Re: Sigma 85mm vs. 70-200 II
« on: February 24, 2015, 09:01:45 AM »
I have both and except for a better T stop, the fact that it is less intrusive and lighter, I see no advantage to the 85mm over the 70-200 II.  And the 70-200 II has IS and is better in the sides and corners.

I see no advantage to f/1.4 because I have to stop down to f/2 at least, to get a decent DOF.

I am very close to selling the 85mm, but before I do, I would like expert opinions as to what am I missing, please.

In my opinion, you are quite right about you not missing much, if and when you sold the 85, due to the awesome performance of the Canon (I assume) 70-200 f/2.8 II. One reason you might want to not sell the 85 is the financial loss and the loss of using two camera bodies simultaneously, as in a situation where an assistant or associate would use one while you use the other. And, if you can learn to get the occasional shot focused well at f/2.0 or f/1.4, and don't need sharper corners, well then, that is just the marginal opportunity the lens was designed for.

I am able to use f/1.6 fairly often with my Canon 85 f/1.2, as this picks up just barely enough depth of field for my focus to be more often within the very narrow depth of field. However, the 85 is pretty much limited in strength to its wide open, or near wide open, aperture use, usually as a portrait lens, while the 70-200 is amazingly sharp wide open and can be used for portraits at a variety of focal lengths, plus every other use when a short to moderate telephoto is required. Most of my head shots are done with focal lengths longer than 85mm and shot at apertures from f/4 to f/11, depending on the position of the client's head in the image. On less tight portraits, my 85 comes out of the bag about half the time, but I still shoot mostly in the f/2 to f/5.6 range much more often than wide open, or even at the more forgiving apertures between f/1.2 and f/2. I'd say that my use of the 85 at apertures wider than I can get out of the f/2.8 is at about 20% of the time at most.

Yes, I could sell my own 85 and hardly ever miss it, but, for those rare times, it really does produce some wonderful narrow aperture effects and bokeh, the two areas where it definitely eclipses the otherwise superior 70-200.

Regards, David

Lenses / Re: 11-24 is here, with images of it compared to Nikon 14-24
« on: February 14, 2015, 02:29:02 PM »
That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above -

0.9 ND 21"x24" sheet for $ 7.50, probably more worth the money spent. ;)

these type of gels are for lights only and not for lenses.  they're not optically pure by any standard, and will degrade image quality.  better to stick with kodak wratten filters or lee polyester filters, especially on a $3000 lens.

You do not want those Lee filters; the filters you have been looking for, padawan, are Kodak Wratten gel filters, which I think are now designated as Wratten II filters, and are sold by Kodak's cinema division. You can probably get them on-line or at a serious pro photo/video/cinema supply house in your area. Ebay sells thousands of used original Wratten filters, but, of course, one can't verify their true condition. These Wrattens are specifically made for camera, rather than lighting, use, are optically pure and spectrally about the best corrected filters available. They were easily the standard of the pro industry in film days gone by, and all the pros I ever knew used these rather than glass or resin filters, except when not practical, such as in cases of easily used graduated filters.


EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 10, 2015, 10:34:27 AM »
What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

Probably none.  There is no "kit" lens made that could take advantage of its high resolving capability. The only one  in L land is the 24-105 f4 L IS.  Good little lens. Just picked one up for $650 on ebay new. But to help debut a 50MP sensor?  I wouldn't.

People buying this grade of camera aren't looking for a kit anyway. They have the high grade glass already or will buy the one(s) they need.

Every L glass made since 2010 (except the kit 24-105 I'd say) could push the upper limits of this sensor.  Pre-2010, the only one I know of (based on dXO scores) is the killer 135L.  That thing puts out 20 perceptual MP on a 22MP sensor (5D3).  That's a resolving power of 90%, which is crazy high. 40MP on a 50MP sensor. The kit by comparison might get you 25-30 and that's isn't the foot Canon wants to put forward on this

There are quite a few pre 2010 lenses - not meant as kit lenses - that would do just fine at 50 mp or more. Just to name a few: the 90 TS, older super tele's from 300mm up, 50 mm macro, 100mm f2, and 135 f2. Many others would still make good images stopped down a bit, but not as good as the newer lenses. Bottom line - all images with almost any but the worst Canon lenses will benefit from more MP, They just won't look quite as sharp as with the better lenses, but still, the images they produce will yield more detail than if they had been used on a lower MP camera.
Regards, David

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: 5Ds/5DsR first impressions
« on: February 07, 2015, 12:13:00 AM »
One thing that people are forgetting is that unless you are using a lens with good IS and using a fast shutter speed, it will be difficult to get good, crisp hand-held shots with these 5DS' s.
Even the tiniest shake will kill a picture with this much resolution, hence the mirror up delay etc.
Like most MF cameras, these will virtually be tripod only cameras - in the main.

Obviously the new 11-24 lens is made to go with these new cameras, so why doesn't it have IS?
Don't they want you to use it hand held with the 5DS' s?

As to why the 11-24 doesn't have IS, the probable reason is that IS would ad more weight, bigger size and more complexity to an already very large, very heavy, lens with extremely large lens elements and a fairly complex optical formula, and do so in a focal length range that already "needs" IS less than most others because it's very short focal lengths already allow fairly sharp results at relatively ower shutter speeds.

As to the general contention that the 5Ds's would be best exploited with a tripod, well, of course, that's true. Hand held shots will be very sharp without a support, but you will benefit from somewhat higher shutter speeds for the same focal lengths as used on cams with fewer MP's, and tripods, monopods, sandbags, mirror lockup, remote shutter releases and optimal lenses and apertures will best bring out the very sharpest images from such beasts.

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 05, 2014, 11:56:04 PM »
I know a lot of you are having a good time playing off this in order to express frustration at Canon, but for the few of you who hold out hope for some wonderful new camera, or even lenses, I will add my caution and best guess about the "reveal." This is almost certainly NOT about enthusiast or pro cameras or lenses. Maybe, just maybe, this might relate to some technology that might eventually apply to such picture takers, but, even more likely, as suggested by some others, this will have more to do with some other type of Canon non-camera hardware, or even some non-hardware subject, such as social initiatives, web/cloud related offerings, or something in some new sector in which Canon has not before been active. Whatever it may turn out to be, don't invest hope for that Moby Dick of a high MP DSLR; it will eventually happen, but I doubt very much that this timed event has anything to do with it. If I'm wrong, you can give me forum-grief galore, and I'll be a lousy prognosticator but happy nonetheless.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 27, 2014, 01:55:17 PM »
I voted "Yes. If the reviews confirm the hype," if anyone cares, even a little bit.

I'd like the 5D4 with much better, faster refresh and higher res live view and better on chip focusing - creating, in effect, both a mirrored and mirror-less camera in the same body, and a little more of the live-view LCD overlay to perhaps create a very good and accurate central manual focusing area in an even larger, "sharper" and equally bright optical viewfinder. 36 to 52 MP with insanely fast processing and a giant speedy buffer would be best. And so would be both a good S Raw option and and 1.6X cropped factor masking for extra reach. 6 or 7 fps with excellent dampening would be fine. Better stills auto-focus a la the &7D2, full 4K video with much improved (over even 7D2 or 70D) on chip continuous autofocus, maybe no line skipping, raw out, low to no aliasing or other DSLR video defects, the best possible file packet and compression algorithms, and a wider choice of higher frame rates would be about right for video. Fantasy? Maybe. But, would I buy it for around $3,500 or less? Definitely.

I guess while we are discussing it... are there many advantages to using a softbox over using a big ass umbrella?   

Yes, there are. Uniformity of the highlight, ability of putting the light source closer to the subject, shape of highlight in reflective surfaces, and slightly softer, less contrastsy results due to the above two first characteristics. Last, but not least, a slightly more professional and less "cheesey" impression made on overly impressionable clients is likely.


Lenses / Re: Best short telephoto?
« on: July 05, 2014, 03:58:35 PM »
To circumvent this rule, and, if a long to very long lens will help, the obvious answer is a folded path mirror lens. Here is one for Canon EOS mounts : Rokinon ED500M-EOS 500mm F6.3 Mirror Lens. You can use a search engine to find this or one of the many others available in a range of apertures and focal lengths, all under 5 inches long. Other possibilities are some of the many "shorter" non-mirror longer lenses, along with a 1.4x or 2x extender. Good luck, David


Almost forgot about Da Rulez. 

Rule 1:  I've given evidence and examples.  They're all in my 13173-and-counting posts.  This may help.

Rule 2:  This thread will undoubedly fall victim to one of the classic blunders!  The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never quote The Princess Bride in a CR Forum thread, it's a sure way to get a thread locked."

First of all, it is inconceivable that you have posted so much, usually so well, and truly, you have a dizzying intellect, yet you have still never gone up against a Sicilian when death was on the line, to prove just that point.

My name is David Franklin, prepare to reply, if you wish.

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Utilities and CS6 with 5Dlll
« on: May 02, 2014, 09:28:40 PM »
I use DPP, Lightroom, Photoshop and Photoshop Camera Raw, Photo Ninja, Photomatix Pro, Oloneo PhotoEngine and DXO ViewPoint at various times, under various workflow circumstances, and have extensively used - although not lately - Capture One. I shoot with 5D3's only right now. Here's what I think about DPP. The Quick check tool (see tool menu) is as good as or better than any other converter for getting a good, edit level look (at 50% OR 100%) at your shoot, as long as the list of files you select for the tool does not exceed somewhere north of a 100 or 150 files at a time. Beyond that, DPP, because it is only an 8 bit program and is not very efficient at memory use, craps out with an out-of-memory issue. This sometimes also happens when you try to use the raw file HDR tool, if the 3 selected files hold a lot of very fine grained detail - memory error again. Other  than the above problems, if you don't need an archiving image data base, DPP is still a valuable tool for easily getting better than Jpeg conversions, but with less refinement and not as fine-grained control as are available in other applications. My advice is, unless you have a tiny hard drive (no offence meant here) without much extra capacity, install and keep most of your Canon software disk contents. Good luck.


EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]
« on: April 29, 2014, 01:30:21 PM »

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor.  Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:

OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.


Lenses / Some answers
« on: April 21, 2014, 03:43:25 PM »
Perhaps, I can be of some assistance in understanding a couple of questions or assertions that have been made in this thread.

First of all, Canon does offer both swing or tilt of the lens (front focus plane) on all their TS-E lenses. An analog of view camera tilt is available, defined by the lens plane moving through a defined vertically oriented arc that travels around the horizontal axis traveling through - and in front of and behind - the central, near nodal point of the lens. After rotating the mount 90 degrees, the TS-E lenses can use the exact same controls as were used for the tilt movement to swing the lens plane through a defined horizontally oriented arc that travels from left to right, around the vertical axis going through - and in front of and behind - the central, near nodal point of the lens. And if you choose to rotate the lens mount less than 90 degrees off either the vertical or horizontal axes, you will be able to combine the effects, somewhat, of both a swing and a tilt of the lens plane, the effects depending on the position of the mount.

As to the person who speculated that perhaps Canon was going to make the lens able to swing, as well as tilt, well, the above paragraph explains that that is already possible. However, if the poster is referring to the true capability of a monorail (non-monorails can also do this, but usually only tilt from the bottom, rather than the center) view camera, then, no, no current TS-E lens can achieve that. This is because, besides being able to swing/tilt the lens plane only, as TS-E lenses do, a monorail view camera can also swing/tilt the image plane (for view camera, it's the film/digital back; for a DSLR it would be the entire camera with sensor, but not lens), independently of whatever one chooses to do with the lens plane. Therefore, the view camera can swing or tilt either the front or back, in whatever direction one chooses, or swing or tilt them both at the same time. The uses of this are quite important. Tilting or swinging the back not only helps to indirectly manipulate the front focus plane much like the camera front does, but it can do something else quite important; it can effect the apparent distortion of the subject, from rectilinear-looking to comical levels of "distortion," stretching or compressing the subject to either "correct" its look or purposefully make it look less realistic. Then, oftentimes, the front is counter-moved to reset the focus plane to make up for the change of the image plane, so that the so-called Scheimpflug effect can still bring about relatively sharp focus.

Given the above, Canon could actually make a lens with two tilt/shift mechanisms, one in the "normal" position to allow front lens plane manipulation and one at the base of the lens to simulate rear standard image plane manipulation. The lens would be horribly complicated to make, and the glass itself would have to deliver a truly massively larger image circle than normal "full-frame" lenses, or even existing TS-E lenses, to compensate for the possible off-angle light projection of the two different standards. But, this could be done, especially so with a lens longer than 90 mm. I doubt if Canon, or any other lens maker will ever actually do such a thing, but it would be possible.

And as to whether having a super-telephoto-like lens mount adapter on a TS-E lens would make multiple exposure panorama-making easier, by not affecting the perspective of the multiple shifted exposures, the answer is: I think so. One TS-E's shifted lens view's perspective will not exactly match the perspective of a view from an image shifted along the same axis by the same lens, unless an appropriate image plane shift could mitigate it. To do this properly, it would work best if only the camera-sensor back itself were shifted through the image plane, and, when the lens itself is immobile on a tripod, the lens movements themselves actually serve to move only the camera body through the immobile image plane. If this does not seem practical for the owners of existing TS-E lenses to achieve, it is good to know that it is not always necessary, given the "fudge factors" available in post-processing, and that it is still possible to achieve with some extra effort and cost, via various adapters and rails.

I hope this helps.


Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 for Canon
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:35:10 PM »
Actually, the DXO review for the Samyang, if anything, pretty much convinced me to consider buying the 24mm f/2.8 Canon IS prime. IS - good for 3 or 4 extra stops with static subjects and video, plus very good sharpness wide open, good construction, guaranteed camera compatibility, small size, light weight, exif communications and a price just above the Samyang and less than half of the faster Canon, makes the lens the rational choice for those that don't absolutely have to have the extra 1.5 (likely "real" T-stop difference) stops faster aperture or the tilt/shift ability of the 24mm TS-E. Of course, YMMV, but I can't see how this isn't rational and true, and I know that, even with very fast (f/1.2 to f/1.4) lenses, I rarely actually shoot at maximum aperture, because I usually want that slight extra sharp focusing margin that a slightly smaller aperture affords.


Photography Technique / Re: Product photography with shiny objects
« on: February 13, 2014, 11:35:15 AM »
Best solution is to first is to set up the shot exactly how you want to show the product, then note the field around the subject and literally mark off the exact space being reflected in the product. What you should be trying to achieve is to add highlights to define shape and texture and solid blacks or gray gradients where defining highlights aren't necessary. Hang black and/or gray cloth in the reflected field and add large soft and diffused highlights with lightbanks, diffuser shoot-throughs or lit foamcores as needed. Or just hire a competent professional. Good luck.
Regards, David

These look familiar; I've long known about such things from reading newspapers and magazines, rare bouts of watching TV news and occasionally being "hypnotized" by the always lurid prison porn that is shown, usually late at night, on MSNBC, usually the most interesting thing that that cable channel runs on air.

A couple of the shivs look like they might be constructed of "starched" cardboard. Is that correct? If only those benighted sociopaths would apply just some of their energy and resourcefulness to honest work, we'd have a very little better economy, and they'd be a lot happier themselves. Too bad.

Many years ago, I covered a prison riot for Time magazine at Jackson Prison in Michigan. Scary places, those maximum security lock-ups. I hope you don't have to be too involved with the population in your work. It will be a lot better for your mental health if this was the last time you had to go inside the walls.

As far as photography and Canon goes, well, I'm kind of glad I didn't get the point. ;)


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8