March 03, 2015, 03:37:21 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 - e17paul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
Lenses / Re: understanding "fastness"
« on: February 23, 2015, 08:28:13 AM »
I like your thinking with the 50l. If you can shoot that, you can shoot anything. You figured out something that took me a while: the lenses max aperture is just that, a physical relationship to the focal length. That relationship determines the depth of field but the light transmission also must factor in the quality and number of elements as well as the coatings.

Roger at lens rentals wrote a good article about it.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/12/reflections-on-reflections-the-most-important-part-of-your-lens

+1
I learned SLR photography using a 50/1.4 mainly at 1.4 to make full use of available (usually indoor) light. I had to learn how to make the best of it, I could only afford ISO 100 film in my student days. Its great that you are taking the 50/1.2 as a challenge, it's also good for disciplined framing.

Now wide apertures are a creative choice instead of a technical necessity, and I try to keep ISO at 800 or below on my 6D. It's great to still get reasonable results beyond 800, especially for low res web output.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark II speculation...
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:27:02 AM »

Yes! Canon would be very wise to make a Rebel sized and weight FF camera for people who just want something compact but with high image quality. I would buy it for sure. Even the 6D is much heavier and stronger than it needs to be.

This is so true. One can only dream that something like this happens in the near future...
Does anyone expect a 6D mark II to be smaller in some way?

I must say I use my 6D a lot with my 35 f/2 and 50 f/1,4 or 16-35. Bigger lenses go on my 5D MK3
But still, I hope they keep the same size for the 6D MK2 and not smaller. Not for my hands and not to mess up the balance with the lenses

I agree with your size argument. It doesnt have to be any smaller. But there are lots of weight savings to be had if they replace the metal build with something lighter. For me personally, the appeal of mirrorless lies solely in the potential weigth reduction. For comparison:

Canon 6D + 16-35 f/4L IS : 1385 grams
Sony A7R + Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS: 983 grams


I don't have experience with the Sony A7R + Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS: 983 grams
So I can't compare. I do have exprience with a Rebel - I assume this is the size smaller than 6D (which can be compared to 70d). For me, so personally, I like the 6D size also as a light travelcamera

I'm expecting the 6D2 to be the same build and weight as the current model, but a lighter weight cheaper alternative to join the range.

Neither will be as compact as the A7 or as small as a Rebel. The mirrorless possibility would be the biggest announcement since 1987, requiring a whole new line of lenses.

A new line of lenses was mentioned in an interview with Canon recently.....

3
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark II speculation...
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:31:07 AM »
I think that much of that will come true. The 6D when released was close in spec and price to the 5D2 at its discounted final sell off price. 6D2 will borrow much from the 5d3 once the new 5D 4 and S range has settled down

The only things that may tempt me to upgrade from 6D to 6D2 would be a touchscreen and dual card slots. Otherwise the money is better spent on lenses or lighting.

4
Lenses / Re: Image comparison for fisheye lens options?
« on: February 01, 2015, 02:42:19 AM »
I have the Canon 15/2.8 and its a favourite, even though there are limited opportunities to make good use of it. Colour and IQ generally is good, AF is old fashioned AFD but that really doesn't matter at this focal length.

It lacks the option of 8mm circular fisheye given by the replacement 8-15 zoom. There are plenty around with little or no use second hand.

5
I bought my 6D almost 2 years ago and would not change it for anything. However, I did rebuy the lens I got at the time, soon replacing the 50/18 with the 50/2.5 macro. I'm now tempted to rebuy again having tried a 50/1.4 and discovered that it focuses closer than a Canon claims.

I would replace the 24 IS with a different lens if rebuying. The 16-35/4 IS was not available then. I would also be tempted to replace the 70-300L with the 100-400L II if rebuying now. Again, it wasn't an option at the time. I chose the better IS in exchange for loss of reach compared to the original 100-400L.

There is always something better around the corner, even when you think not.

Am I safe to next add the 35/2 IS and 100L?

6
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:20:40 AM »
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions! I was able to read through all of them and have a lot to process on what I should do. Right now I am all of the place and am now considering a used 17-40 F/4 L or a used 24-105 F/4 L IS. I think the 17-40 would be better for me right now because I enjoy landscapes, however being at only F/4 scares me and think the IS would be a nice feature. After much research my end goal is the new 16-35 F/4 L IS, what a nice lens for a landscape photographer! However I can purchase the 17-40 for almost have the price used. Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? I like the prime ideas, however I fill it it a bit limited for and I may just keep it at the 50mm 1.8 for the time being. Again, thank you for your responses to my thread!

I have owned the 50/1.8, and replaced it with the 50/2.5 macro. This week I tried a 50/1.4 belonging to a colleague and was impressed. It also seems to focus significantly closer than the claimed 45cm.

If the 16-35/4L is your long term wish, then Mt Spokane's suggestion of the 18-55 STM might be the way to go now, releasing some budget for a better 50 (faster, better AF) that remains with you for the long term.

Alternatively to a 50, the newer 40 STM reviews well, as does the 24 STM. However, neither will give the degree of subject isolation that can be had from the 50 1.8 or 1.4

I appreciate the budget juggling dilemma. It never goes away, the numbers just get bigger when you go from a student budget to a wage earner's budget.

7
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:10:54 AM »
What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?

I have the 24/2.8 IS, which I'm happy with. It has great colour, great IQ generally and distortion is reasonable. The price is good too, it probably only lacks the weather sealing and greater selective focus offered by the 24/1.4L at twice the price. I quickly ruled out the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L zooms based upon reviews.

But now there is the 16-35/4L. It gives me buyers remorse. It's reviews compare it's IQ to a prime, and it's sweet spot for distortion is at 24mm. That's probably what I would buy now. Weather sealing is included for a price slightly below the 24L prime, and it comes with the flexibility. Has anyone used both, to give more insight?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 09:57:03 PM »
The real competitor for this camera will not be other full frame cameras, but the Pentax 645Z

9
Reviews / Re: Review of the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE
« on: January 19, 2015, 05:11:48 PM »
That's an excellent real world review. It doesn't help my wish list vs. budget situation. I use manual focus frequently and I think I could live without AF for the other times.

Now, if I buy one, Canon will launch a FF 50 or 60 with AF, IS and all the colour/sharpness qualities of their recent primes the following month. Maybe I'll go for the 35 IS first

10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 03:33:09 AM »
Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.

Photozone is based in Australia so far as I know, despite the German web domain.

11
I have owned the 50/1.8 II, it has great optics for the price, but so does the 40/2.8 STM according to reviews.

With a 6D, you will very rarely need the extra stop of light. I use f/2.8 and 1/30 at ISO 6400 for shooting in a nightclub once a month. Only if you are concerned about poster size printing of photos taken in darkness should you consider limiting yourself to a lower ISO, I'm happy with ISO 6400 for publishing on the web.

The only advantage I can see of the nifty fifty is the greater ability to isolate subjects by shallow focus. Otherwise, both have no focus scale, and I don't consider the wobbly focus ring of the 50 to be an advantage. Neither has super fast super silent USM, the 50 has a noisy AFD motor used by EF lenses since 1987, the 40 has a modern low cost quieter focus motor.

I bought a 50/1.8 with my first DSLR (my first SLR was back in 1988), and soon found the speed was not required. I sold it in favour of the slower 50/2.5 macro, which is my default street lens. When I need something wider I switch to the 24. I suspect that the colour rendition of the 40 will be better than older designs of Canon glass.

12
Canon General / Re: Canon Date codes gone? Why?
« on: January 13, 2015, 08:29:55 AM »
Once upon a time, in the days of paper records, a date code was the only easy way for Canon or a service centre to establish the date of production of a lens. Nowadays, with easy access to computer databases, any lens can be dated from its serial number. That could be why codes are no longer necessary for Canon.

However, it doesnt help us to know.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Wait for 5D4 or go for 5D3/6D right now ?
« on: January 11, 2015, 10:52:14 AM »
You will not get a bad buy if you buy now. As and when new models arrive, they will be back up to launch price, far higher than the street price now. When I bought my 6D, I could have had a 5D2 discounted to the same price.

If you do wait, you may we'll find that the 6D2 is priced level with the 5D3 for similar spec, and the 5D4 is yet another step up the ladder. Buy now and enjoy!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 10, 2015, 03:38:30 AM »
A decent affordable ultra wide prime, wider than the 24 USM IS, better than the 20 USM, and cheaper than the 14L/17L. The Zeiss 18/3.5 proves it is possible.

15
Canon General / Re: New Gear Resolutions for 2015
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:55:14 AM »
I am fully spent out.

In 2013 I started with a 6D and 50/1.8, soon added two cheap zooms and a 15/2.8 fisheye. In 2014 I spent out on a month long trip to Oz, a 24 IS to partly replace the wide zoom, and a 70-300L to replace the telephoto zoom, and a new Mac for all the photos.

Edit: 15/2.8 macro corrected to fisheye. My mind had raced....

I can't help having regrets, even though both 2014 lense purchases are wonderful. I bought the 24 in preference to the zooms available at the time, then the 16-35/4 came along. I bought the 70-300L in preference to the original 100-400L, and now I keep gazing at the 100-400L II.

In 2015 I must stop having buyers remorse, go and take more photos, and spend more time with them on the Mac. So no new gear in 2015.

Maybe in 2016, when I have done that, I can fill in the lens gaps with a 35 IS, 100L, something wider than 24, and a Speedlite of some kind. I would also be tempted by an upgrade to the 50 macro.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18