January 25, 2015, 05:20:59 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Which Sigma?
« on: Today at 01:17:46 PM »
Definitely Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art.

2
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:54:26 AM »
Best budget lenses:
EF-S 18-55 IS STM
EF-S 55-250 IS STM
EF-S 10-18 IS STM
EF-S 24/2.8 STM
EF 40/2.8 STM
YN 50/1.8

3
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: January 20, 2015, 08:08:08 PM »

IMG_1261 by ecka84, on Flickr

4
Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake.  If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm.  I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II.  The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size.  My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II.  I don't think the AF is that slow.  Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less.  If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II.  They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake.  First, I wouldn't get much for it.  Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.
Curious.  The-Digital-Picture.com confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good.  I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all.  I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value.  The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price.  The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots.  One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.

Well, 35 IS bokeh may be lacking the smoothness in a specific focus range, just like 40 STM does, but it also has that "directional pattern" towards the edges and corners, which (IMHO) makes it even worse. Maybe it's not that obvious on crop cameras, but on FF it looks pretty bad.
About the vignetting. It may not show if you are shooting JPGs with the peripheral illumination correction turned on.

5
Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake.  If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm.  I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II.  The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size.  My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II.  I don't think the AF is that slow.  Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less.  If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II.  They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake.  First, I wouldn't get much for it.  Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.

6
50/1.8 AF noise alone could compromise the low profile, unless it is a very noisy street :).
40 STM works for me.

7
Lenses / Re: My New "L"
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:53:43 PM »
Do you know that you can use EF-S 60/2.8 Macro on your 5D with EF 12 II Extension Tube, or similar third party alternatives? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr9FfFxlqo

No I didn't.  Wouldn't the vingetting be severe?

According to the Australian guy from the video, there is no vignetting at all. Just watch it :).

8
Lenses / Re: My New "L"
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:08:24 PM »

You shoot crop, so the 60mm will double as a very good portrait lens while the 100mm will be a bit long for many portrait purposes.

Can I encourage you to focus your L envy at a different L? I think you'll get more benefit...!

Hi Joey - thanks for your response.  I have both crop and FF camera's and I would like a macro to fit my 5D.  I have no problems with the 60mm macro, it is a fine lens and has produced some awesome pictures, but I don't see the need to keep both lenses when I would have one lens that will work with both cameras.   I've attached one of my favorite pictures using the 60 macro.  The exposure is a tad dark, but the butterfly had just hatched and was posing perfect on my daughter's finger for a hand held shot.  It's amazing just how furry butterflies are.  :)

-wes

Do you know that you can use EF-S 60/2.8 Macro on your 5D with EF 12 II Extension Tube, or similar third party alternatives? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr9FfFxlqo

9
Photography Technique / Re: Extension tubes and mfd
« on: January 17, 2015, 08:23:12 AM »
Infinity or not, I didn't notice much difference. 40STM pancake works great with extension tubes. I'm using Marumi Ext. Tubes 13+21+31.
13mm gives me ~ 0.33x at infinity and ~ 0.5x at MFD. Not a small magnification difference (1:3 vs 1:2).
21mm ~ 0.55x - 0.7x
31mm ~ 0.8x - 1.0x
I think that sharpness depends on the lens itself. If it's not that sharp at MFD, then it won't be with ext. tubes as well.

10
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:47:35 PM »
...
Besides, if us lumpen proletariat took your advice and all went full frame, ...

Then sooner or later there would be no more APS-C cameras in production. FF would become much cheaper. FF Rebel class would materialize and bring a lot of joy for everyone. As simple as that.


And wildlife and sports shooters who enjoyed longer reach without having to shell out for the equivalent reach on full frame are hosed. So now you have a "cheap" full frame body...and have to spend twice as much on lenses. :P

No. Why? :) 50+mp FF can capture everything that 20mp APS-C can (and more, 2.5x more), with the same lens.

But never at the same speed, same price etc. CR is made up of people who are a far cry from your run of the mill dslr shooter. The majority do not want FF: they don't want the size, dof,  longer focal length, cost, lens size/ cost etc etc.

My daughter returned recently from Iceland where she had her 1100D and 55-250 STM, and she has some superb images of Puffins, including some in flight. The last thing she wants is a FF camera for all the reasons given above.

The same though crossed my mind with ATM's comment about being held back by APS. He must shoot some very niche stuff.

It is possible to get the same speed in crop mode, if you like, but you'll lose the "crop later" feature.
The majority want magic P&S, which runs without batteries, with a FB upload button and x-ray vision :).
Actually, EF-S 55-250 STM is a very good lens, almost as good as it gets, on a crop body. The sensor size is the real bottleneck there and if you want much better IQ from a zoom lens (than 55-250), then you should get larger sensor camera.

11
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:12:04 PM »
50+mp FF can capture everything that 20mp APS-C can (and more, 2.5x more), with the same lens.

I'm not aware of any Canon full frame bodies with 50MP.  :P :-X

Not yet ;)

12
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 04:49:57 PM »
...
Besides, if us lumpen proletariat took your advice and all went full frame, ...

Then sooner or later there would be no more APS-C cameras in production. FF would become much cheaper. FF Rebel class would materialize and bring a lot of joy for everyone. As simple as that.


And wildlife and sports shooters who enjoyed longer reach without having to shell out for the equivalent reach on full frame are hosed. So now you have a "cheap" full frame body...and have to spend twice as much on lenses. :P

No. Why? :) 50+mp FF can capture everything that 20mp APS-C can (and more, 2.5x more), with the same lens.

Quote

Conservatism and technology don't mix well.


Perhaps not, but conservatism and business have worked quite well for Canon, particularly in the present economic climate.  :-X

Funny :), but I agree, Canon could have done better and that's the point.

13
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 04:33:43 PM »
And perhaps Canon doesn't make such cameras because of all those people whining about not needing such cameras :)

Canon doesn't care about whining on the Internet.  They care about sales data, and to a lesser extent forward-looking market research.  The sales data show that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a huge margin.  Overall camera sales are dropping, but there is not a significant differential between the two ILC types.  Although the EOS M was the second best selling MILC in Japan after its launch, globally it was basically a flop…and as such really not too different from the MILC market as a whole.

MILCs exist in multiple sensor formats, from multiple brands.  It's totally irrelevant what people say they need or do not need on the Internet, what matters to Canon is the fact that people aren't buying them.

Sure, they only care about profits. However, when the market becomes over-saturated with cheap crop cameras everyone produce, what will they do next?

14
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 01:28:32 PM »

It doesn't mean a £1250 body isn't worth it.

I never said it was or was not.  I said that for a lot of people a rebel with kit lens is great value and likely to be all they need.   I am being asked to defend something that you said, not that I said.

As you'll see from my kit list (I haven't listed my actual video gear, which makes the 1DX look cheap) if I wanted a full frame camera, I would have one.  I don't want one.  I've not been convinced that for MY NEEDS that it would be of any benefit to me, in fact, for MY CIRCUMSTANCES I condsider various arguements against..

1. I bought into the 7D as it was the first DSLR with a PAL mode and manual exposure. (The 5D2 got these in a firmware update subsequent to the 7Ds release, so in fact I wasn't saving money at all, I was buying the best tool for the job available at that time.

2. With an eye on what the bigger boys were doing with the EF mount, specifically the RED ONE at that point, and it was all s35, not 135.  So I anticipated (correctly) that s35 would be the dominant video format.  Video is more important to me than stills.

3. I had decided with my previous camera that whilst I would buy third party DC and DX lenses etc, I would not buy any other EF-s lenses.  My logic was that EF lenses would have more of a future life, future value, and that I could get third party fast zooms for APS-C / s35 that would still be in the more universal EF mount (i.e. the Tokina and the Sigma f2.8 wide zooms would work on an s35 camcorder with an EF only mount)  The key to this was nothing more exciting than the EF mount is out of patent, so third parties can copy it.  I went back on this slightly with the EOS M, because the EF-m 22 suited the compact nature of the beast, and the 18-55 was just so cheap and is actually pretty useful for discreet shooting.  I won't be buying any more specific EF-m lenses however.

4. When the 5D2 caught up with the 7D (except for full hdmi output during recording, stills af) I used one on a few shoots and found it impossible to use with bright lenses near their maximum aperture, tried with and without zacutos, external screens, follow focus etc... the 135 sesnor with fast lenses is just too critical.  The jello and moire was also worse on the 5D2, although far from perfect on the 7D (the M does not a bad bash actually)  I had more latitude with the 7D, and so stuck with the 7D.

5. Occassionally, and I do mean occassionally it would be nice to be able to go above iso800 in video mode and be confident of the results.  I have a bag of very fast lenses (f1.4 primes, f2.0 primes and f2.8 zooms) and I ususally light or manage light in some way.  If I'm doing run and gun I'll be on my ENG xdcamhd camera, which is even more forgiving with its 2/3 ccd block, servo zoom lens, integrated audio etc.  DSLRs have their strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not against full frame cameras in any way shape or form.  I might buy one for my hobby stills.  They are not my first choice for video and so my upgrade path is more like to another APS-C, sorry s35 camera, the C300, although I'll probably hire until they go 4k this far into the product life cycle.

Just because something works for me, doesn't mean it will suit anybody else.  Just like going full frame.  If you are happy and you know it clap your hands.  The whole superiority thing grates though.

The thing is, you don't need f/1.4 on FF to mimic s35/APS-C @ f/1.4 image. My mostly used combo these days is 6D+40/2.8STM. Image-wise (and price-wise), there is nothing similar for 7D and it's crop siblings. EF-M 22/2 is the closest match, while still not as good. The new EF-S 24/2.8STM pancake is fine, only a stop too slow :). When it comes to optics, FF just wins.
The difference - Rebel with a kit lens can be decent - FF with a kit lens can be amazing.

15
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 09:30:02 AM »
Neuro, I really ask you to post to the topic of the respective threads rather than launching repeat personal attacks on me (and on other members of this forum).  Every time you run out of arguments you come with the same type of sh*t. I'm getting sick and tired of it.

Post information and opinion re. the "upgrade path (from APS-C gear to FF gear)", rather than taking guesses at other user's "personality recipe". That's not the subject of this thread. So stop the cr*p.

So, you have a problem...you know the solution...  Personality recipe: two parts stubbornness, one part wishing for something that doesn't exist, throw in a dash of good heart and sprinkle generously with jealousy.

Maybe one too many mirrorslaps to the head. 

I believe you asked someone else to stop whining, then went on to whine about how Canon doesn't make the camera you want and you don't want to pay for what they do make.  That's topical?  Ok, fine.

And perhaps Canon doesn't make such cameras because of all those people whining about not needing such cameras :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49