July 25, 2014, 08:03:19 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 ... 6
Canon General / Re: Can anyone suggest the adapter for my lens?
« on: July 23, 2014, 07:45:26 AM »
I am happy with my Fotodiox pro adapter for OM lenses. If outside of the US, Fotodiox have Amazon stores and will mail direct if ordered from there.

It does depend what lens you want to adapt, as previous response.

Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 23, 2014, 03:52:07 AM »
I LOVE my 20mm 2.8 lens, but man is it showing its age. I still haven't seen the perfect wide prime from Canon, but I'm hoping for a 20mm refresh. If not, I'd buy a 16mm or 18mm in a heartbeat.

I love to see a release of a Canon 20mm f/2 IS

A 20/2 would be heavy and probably need a bulbous front element like the 14/2.8. It would still struggle with selective focus, so I don't see the point now that modern full frame sensors are so capable.

The Zeiss 18/3.5 is a good guide to what can be achieved. If Canon were to announce an 18/4 IS with 82mm filters, I would pre-order immediately. That would be a perfect companion to the 24/2.8 IS, and plug the gap between 14 and 24 primes.

I have considered the TS-E 17, but would like filter options.

Photography Technique / Re: Black & White
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:42:01 PM »
I can only speak for film, but an orange filter increases contrast, giving blacker blacks. Yellow is more subtle, red stronger. With digital, it may be worth playing around in post, or with camera settings.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: July 21, 2014, 12:43:13 PM »
I have a Pentax 55/2 on my S1A. It is arguably better than my OM 50/1.4, and certainly better than either of the Canon 50s I have bought. I think that the only EF mount that may possibly compare would be a Zeiss.

Although my copy is M42 screw mount, it's also available with the 1975 onwards K-mount

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:23:01 AM »
Excellent comments.  It really comes down to technology in the end.  Just because a thing does not exist now does not mean it won't exist soon enough.  What is an EVF?  Its a name for a feature on a camera.  A feature which can be comprised of any technology with any specifications.  The problems people here have with current EVFs only have relevance to existing technology but not to what they'll be shipping in a few years.

Wise words. It seems that Canon are holding back until the technology is to their satisfaction. That's an approach also taken by Apple.

The current Eos M is just a toe in the water. The increasing range of lenses show that they are serious about the format, the current M is a valuable part of their development, and there is now an EVF for the G1 X, which could conceivably be built into a future model to eventually replace the Rebel series cameras. The SL1 is impressive, but will be outclassed by EF-M cameras as the march of electronic EVF (and sensor) progress surges forward in accordance with Moore's law.

I'm looking forward to it, but sticking with my full frame and pentaprism 6D for now. I would like to also own a smaller alternative for everyday - an Eos M with built in grip and EVF could win Canon my money.

Lenses / Re: Yes! Finally, the 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:47:23 AM »
Of course, if you don't already have a quick release tripod head, then choosing one and the additional plate for the lens will be another decision....

Both 24 and 28 IS lenses review very well, but the 28 comes out slightly ahead for IQ. Both are very very good compared to the 24. Both are ahead of the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 zooms, but I have yet to see comparison with the new 16-35/4L IS. That could be another option.

I chose the 24 IS because of its extra width and greater depth of field, and I'm delighted with it. The colour rendition is ahead of my other non L primes, comparable to my only L lens and my legacy OM Zuiko lenses. Distortion is low, if that's important for buildings and other straight lines in your street photos.

At 24 I often use Av at f/11, then use the depth of field scale to set and forget the manual focus so that everything is in reasonable focus. IS really helps here where the tripod is not allowed or not with me. If I'm nice and relaxed, and can slow the shutter by the claimed four shots, but at other times only two or three stops.

For a different look, I can switch to f/2.8 and auto focus.

I'm similarly torn between 24 and 28 for a wide lens. 28 is 'comfortably wide' for an urban scene at full frame, but would give a nice and tight standard view on a 1.6x camera. 24 is the widest I like to go to for a realistic look at full frame, and moderately wide on a 1.6x crop. I'm also yearning for the 35/2 IS suggested in a previous post. 

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS macro performance
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:16:48 AM »
Meanwhile, here are some photos taken with my cheap and cheerful 50/2.5 compact macro

Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 07, 2014, 12:59:09 AM »
The solution is to rent (or borrow if you can) the 24-70/4L IS for a few days when you can put it to good use. That's a much cheaper option than buying the 'wrong' lens - I'm sure that both are awesome.

I was torn between the 70-200/4L IS and slightly slower 70-300L. Renting first made my decision easy.

Try the 24-70/4L IS both with and without IS switched on. If the slower shutter speeds allowed by the IS for static shots in poor light give you a benefit, then the lighter cheaper lens is probably better for you. IS is a bigger benefit than one one stop of of speed if the subject isn't fast moving.

If however you find yourself wanting to open the aperture wider to stop motion blur in poor light, or to achieve selective focus at the long end, then the extra weight and cost of the 2.8 could be worthwhile.

If in good light, or using a tripod stopped down then I would expect both to be excellent, so it comes down to the original question of IQ, to which I would add weight as others have mentioned.

But try before you buy, there are some vendors/renters who will refund the rental if you then buy. I would veer towards the lighter weight and IS, but you need to confirm whether your type of photography would benefit losing the IS for the 1 extra stop speed advantage of the 2.8.

Lenses / Re: Photozone Review of the 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:20:16 AM »
They could take this exact lens formula at 24mm, remove the zoom capability, and you'd have one of the best 24mm prime lenses on the market. That just sounds wrong to me.

Maybe sort of? The 16-35f4IS is achieving nearly zero distortion, nothing else comes close except the 24mm TS-E.

It just looks like one of those things that can be done but no-one bothers.

I'm sure it could be done.  Would you pay $1199 for a 24mm f/4 IS prime lens with nearly no distortion?  Maybe you would, but you'd be in a fiscally irrelevant minoroty as far as Canon is concerned.

+1, but I would love one. Meanwhile the TS-E 24 sits patiently on my wish list.

Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: July 03, 2014, 08:26:24 AM »
Reading this article, I think (or hope) that our disappointment with Apple's decision may be shortlived:

If app extensions give the ability to process/adjust RAW files in addition to the possibilities discussed in the article, then Photos could become all that is needed. OS X already has RAW file support built in, so it's not so far fetched. when starting from a clean sheet, Apple tend to start with the basics then build into something far greater. If this all happens, then it will be a great alternative to Lightroom - free apart form buying the hardware. I will keep my fingers crossed, and trial Canon's updated software while I'm waiting.

Don't forget that Apple have already announced the ability to take RAW photos in iOS8, which is as good a confirmation as any that Apple's new app will support RAW to JPEG processing.

Am I being overly optimistic? Or reading too much between the lines?

The separate graphics card will be a big boost to the performance, except that a (big?) portion of that gain will be soaked up by the need to display more pixels for the retina resolution.

If you intend to process RAW file, retouch images or do other heavy tasks apart from photography on the MacBook, then the extra cost and small extra weight of the Pro with Retina is worthwhile. Otherwise, the Air is an awesome machine, and even more portable. The better 15" with separate graphics card would see a more significant difference, but are probably too much of an investment for a second machine.

My crystal ball is not always reliable, but I would expect the Pro with Retina to last for longer before Apple's now annual updates to OS X make it feel long in the tooth. The Pro with Retina also has more ports for plugging in accessories, which may not be important if this is a second machine.

If buying is not urgent, check out the Mac section of http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ - the Air has recently been updated by Apple, but the Pro with Retina looks likely to see improved specs for the same price in the coming months. Also, neither is easily upgradeable like the older MacBooks, so make sure that you have more RAM and SSD than you think you need from the beginning.

I would go Retina! Alternatively, if editing on the move is not required, then maybe an iPad with maximum storage.

Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 27, 2014, 01:17:21 PM »
I was just about to post the Appleinsider report, I was beaten to it!
I cannot see from Apple's website whether the new photo app for OS X Yosemite will support RAW files, though Apple offers support at the OS level, so there is hope. However, word of transistioning Aperture users to Lightroom kills that hope.

I'm nervous of Adobe trapping me into a subscription which may rise in price, so I'm going to give Canon's new update a try.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L
« on: June 23, 2014, 12:46:53 PM »

I thought I would move from APS-C to full-frame about a year ago. I still havent. Turns out that, aside from night photography, APS-C isn't really holding me back in any of my photography

APS-C also gives extra depth of field compared to FF, for landscapes at the same angle of view. I chose FF because I prefer a prime with a depth of field scale, but I'm tempted by the cheaper 10-18 with a 100D to carry every day. The total is probably cheaper than a 16-35 IS on its own. In limited light though, the 16-35 would surely show the strength of full frame.

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: SMC Pentax 50mm 1.4
« on: June 21, 2014, 07:01:38 PM »
I'm loving the colour of these images. It tempts me to get an adapter to use the lens from my father's K-M, I think from memory it's a 50/1.7. What's the minimum focus distance on the 1.4, it looks pretty close?

Meanwhile, I have my OM 50/1.4 which is also excellent on my 6D, except for the lack of communication with the camera. Old lenses can be surprising great, especially if comfortable with manual exposure and manual focus.

Thanks for posting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6