April 19, 2014, 12:11:02 AM

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 - sanj

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85
1
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:22:29 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. :P I think everyone else got the joke.

Oh!

2
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:21:31 AM »
If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens :)

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

All the time! Hair nets work wonders but the look is bit dated now.

3
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:08:59 AM »
This isn't a rumor, right?  ;)

I do not know. I never give forums my correct date of birth for security reasons, so maybe sanj has some inside info or it is her "forum's profile" birthday!

Thank you all so much for your good wishes - no, not a rumor. Today's the day - 21 again!

Yep, keep it down. :)

Sanjay

4
Turning night into day

6
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:11:49 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

7
Canon General / Re: 5 Reasons you Need a 50mm Prime
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:08:49 AM »
50/55 is a superb focal length.

It has taken a rap as it is 'normal' but normal is great many times.

8
Canon General / Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:07:20 AM »
Friends today is the magic woman Helen Oster's birthday.
Lets send her our best wishes!

 8) 8)HAPPY BIRTHDAY HELEN 8) 8)

9
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »
I guess I was wrong:

Canon should not make a 50mm which is sharp at wide aperture.

It is ok that Canon does not update its lenses for >20 years.

It is ok that other companies are making sharp 50mm lenses that are priced and not the company whose equipment I use.

10
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:12:21 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

In the press release Canon state that their target market is portraits, etc, which accounts for weak corner sharpness.

Hmmmm. Ok.
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures?

Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?

This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.


11
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:49:51 AM »
Was filming a Heinekin commercial few days ago. A friend who does explosions on action movies dropped by. This was the result...

love the shot
 but a horrible thing to do to a good beer LOL
+1 and that is alcohol abuse if I've ever seen it.  Please tell us that you refilled the bottles with Sprite or something after drinking the beer.

Hahahaha. No! The beer was warm and the when we were doing the actual shoot it had spilled all over and the stench was unbearable.

12
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:46:21 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

13
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 06:23:03 AM »
But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?

And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?

Canon DOES have the 50/1.2 lens. You can't deny the quality of that lens, despite it's spherical aberration, which as it so happens to be, is a DESIRABLE trait in a portrait lens for many photographers. Not everyone screams for perfect corner to corner sharpness. Sometimes, having soft corners is beneficial to guiding your viewers eyes to the subject...which tends to be near the center of the frame.

I've always admired photos taken with the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. They have a specific aesthetic appeal that is just WONDERFUL for portraiture specifically, and for a variety of other types of photography as well (such as street.) I find it ironic how so many people write off the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses as if they don't even qualify to be included in the lineup for comparison.

So, what about the people who want quality? Canon offers a VERY high quality 50/1.2 lens that offers STUNNING and very aesthetically appealing results. You should give it a try sometime. Oh, and you'll spend about half as much on that as you would on an Otus...you won't get razor sharp corners, but it's HALF as much as an Otus.

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

I'm sure a lot of people would. I'm also sure that a lot of the people who currently love the soft-focus traits of the current 50/1.2 would be bummed if Canon copied the Otus design with razor sharp focus corner to corner. It's better to have a DIVERSITY of lenses with different traits, than for all manufacturers to make exactly the same things that behave exactly the same way.

I think the center performance of the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 needs to be improved...in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit soft, and doesn't need to be. I do, however, hope Canon keeps the soft focus traits in place if they release a 50/1.2 II and 85/1.2 II. If I want a lens with perfect sharpness, I can always get the Otus...if Canon copies the Otus, then I'm suddenly left WITHOUT the option of buying a lens that purposely leaves in a certain amount of spherical aberration for artistic flare.

I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong, but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.

Absolutely Dilbert. Perfectly said. Every word.

14
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 03:08:01 AM »
I totally doubt that Canon makes lenses with soft edges on purpose. I think the soft edges are a result of technology limitations and cost saving.

15
Lenses / Re: Landscape lens for backpacking
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:56:58 AM »
Please do think this out well and make your decision. The best landscape photos are make when the light is real low. In low light a FF camera is much better than a crop. Pick your camera for the toughest need, not for the bulk of the need.

All you need to do is sell your 40D, pick up a 6D.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85