September 18, 2014, 02:08:11 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.


Topics - Fleetie

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Canon 65mm f/1.0
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:13:59 PM »
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-f1-Ultra-FAST-XI-65mm-Lens-F1-0-Depth-of-Field-Rare-BOKEH-King-25297-/171186119468?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27db7ce32c


Just found this on eBay. Doesn't seem to have an EF lens mount. Is it FD?


Anyway, it won't fit any camera I own.


But I'd never heard of it. Does anyone know about it?


2
I did these tests this evening. I was as careful as possible to keep room lighting the same for each shot.

See the thread about "50mm lenses that don't suck wide-open", which made me get off my butt and do these tests.

Note that the aim for these tests was only to compare lens brightnesses (T-stop) and bokeh, with all lenses wide-open.
The scene is too dark to determine relative sharpnesses.

I tested the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide-open, both connected and NOT CONNECTED electronically, by rotating lens in body while holding the lens-release button down. Mechanically it is still completely mounted, but the camera cannot communicate with the lens, so does not know what it is, so it cannot "decide" to sneakily increase the ISO.

Canon 5D Mark 3
Manual
t=1/15s, ISO400 (nominal)

Focus was on the same point on the lantern, using live view, magnified x10.


RESULTS:

Dude was right. The "CONNECTED" Canon 50mm f/1.4 image is noticeably brighter, and I took the picture both ways, several times, and the results were completely repeatable. So it seems that the 5D3 DOES sneakily SEEM TO boost ISO without telling you, if it detects that the 50mm f/1.4 lens is connected. When I review the images on the camera, they all say ISO400.

Dude was also right that the Olympus 50mm f/1.2 is significantly brighter than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide-open, EVEN brighter than the "CONNECTED" image. That makes me feel slightly better about having dropped just shy of £400 on this (perfect, mint, unmarked) example of this lens, back in Jan. 2010!


Here's the album on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4505135767033.1073741834.1849695638&type=1&l=7e5db91bd2

Here are the files on Dropbox, including raw files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rhtr3k0ru902sbr/yMKl0KWANf?lst

The tests I did were:

Zuiko (Olympus) 50mm f/1.8 - Dimmest, as expected

Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 Silvernose

Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 Non-Silvernose (later model) VERY SLIGHTLY brighter than Silvernose

Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 - Has the "biggest" bokeh / OOF blur. NOTE! This is a 55mm lens, not a 50mm one.

Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 This is the brightest of them all

Canon 50mm f/1.4 NOT CONNECTED, because lens was rotated to disengage electronic contacts

Canon 50mm f/1.4 CONNECTED - Should be same, but IS BRIGHTER

3
EOS Bodies / I Had a Dream...
« on: May 25, 2013, 07:07:25 AM »
This is going to sound a bit sad or obsessive.

I had a dream the other night, in which I had some digital camera - a small, rangefinder-ish-sized one, or like the Fuji X ones that are coming out now.

It had a manual-focus, wide-aperture lens on it, and I manually focused it, and got a great picture, with great bokeh. It had blossom or something in it.

I think the lens was probably one of my Olympus OM film camera lenses; probably the 50mm f/1.2.

I woke up, remembered it, thought about it. It was one of those dreams that changes your mood about something.

I found I really WANTED such a nice, small digital camera I could fit my manual-focus lenses to, even though logically, AF is better and more reliable and usually faster.

I realised that actually there isn't a lot out there at the moment that I could buy that would let me do that. I could buy a current Fuji one and a Fuji->OM adapter, but the newer ones still seem to be fixed-lens ones. The X-Pro one is a bit old now, and I think I would prefer to get its successor, if one comes.

I could get the EOS M, and the EF adaptor and then use my OM to EOS adaptor, but given the bad press the EOS M has had, and the fact that a better one appears to be imminent, it would probably be a bad use of funds to buy that now.

It has made me search for somewhere I can get decent film (Velvia, for example, seems to have a good reputation). I have a nice film camera I could use; I think I'll have another play with film in the near future.

For now, it's a lovely day, so I'm taking my 5D3 and 24-105L out.

 

4
Technical Support / MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 16, 2013, 12:00:25 PM »
Hi.

I've just upgraded my computer system to a 13" MacBook Pro Retina 3GHz and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

I haven't really done RAW processing before. Now my new computer is all set up, I've installed DPP onto it, and updated it to version 13.3.

But I have the impression that people here mainly use other software for their RAW processing.

I have heard people talk here about "Aperture" (I believe it is Apple software?), and Lightroom.

Which is best? I have a 5D3. How much do they cost?

I have had a quick play in DPP with sharpening a couple of pics, and I was impressed by the result. Much better than the SOOC jpg. I set sharpness to 0 on the 5D3, to get rid of those "black dot in the centre of small bright points" problem (IIRC). There was a nasty sharpening artefact problem with in-camera sharpening.

So. Which RAW software should I use? I have a feeling that the serious people seem to use "Lightroom"; is that so? If so, why?

Thanks.

5
Lenses / "Zoom Creep" on the 24-105L : My Solution
« on: October 14, 2012, 12:10:34 PM »
Four words:

Black
Electrical
Insulation
Tape

Works like a charm. Extend the barrel fully, and apply the tape so that one edge is touching the FURTHEST part of the barrel from the camera. Apply carefully and smoothly. Make the "joins" at the BOTTOM of the lens barrel so that the ends of the tape are practically invisible. Do not allow the tape to overlap at the join; if there is any place where there are 2 layers of the tape, the barrel will NOT extend/retract past that point, because the thickness of 2 layers of the tape is too great.

It's black, so almost invisible, and this type of tape is EXACTLY the right thickness to provide the resistance you need. Apply it to the FAR end of the barrel, so that when the lens barrel is fully RETRACTED (at the 24mm position), that is where you get the resistance to creep from the tape, since you'll typically want to be carrying the lens around in its RETRACTED position.

For myself, I'm very satisfied with this solution.

If you damage your lens doing this, don't complain to me! I don't think it's risky, but I'm not taking any blame! :-)


Martin

6
EOS Bodies / 5D3 Aberration Correction Has Done Wonders for My 24-105L
« on: March 24, 2012, 08:34:24 PM »
On the 7D, this lens suffered significant red fringing at the edges. I expected it to get worse on FF, despite the larger photosite size.

But no, I took a few shots of the same scene today at f/4, f/5.6, f/8. At the very top left corner of the f/4 one, there's a twig against a bright sky. BAD NEWS normally,  if you're pixel-peeping. The camera seems to have done a great job with it.

It does seem to have really "de-offensified" the worst problem with this lens.

Also, I'm enjoying the new "wideness" I'm getting at 24mm, having moved to FF from crop.

And I have discovered a new technique. I shoot a lot of spring flowers and stuff. Traditonally, I'd get flowers in bright sunlight, but with a darkish background behind, with a long focal length, and open up for plenty of bokeh, and shoot from close up. I liked the look.

Now I've discovered the trick of using the wide end, and going in really close to the flower. You still get the flower filling most of the frame (if it's large like a daffodil, anyway), but you now get plenty of context, and it looks great! You can open up to blur off the background if you want, or not, and it still looks ok.

I've always been a telephoto shooter until now.

I'm having fun playing!

7
I saw this "dark ring" issue with my 5D3 today.

I was shooting daffodils etc. in sunlight against dark backgrounds. I was shooting RAW + JPG.

Got them home, and saw dark borders around bright parts of flower petals etc.

Since I'd been shooting RAW too, I tried re-processing in camera and turned sharpness down to minimum and created another JPG.

Looked at that on the computer and the dark border was gone.

So I've reduced the sharpness setting on the camera now.

8
EOS Bodies / (Yet Another) "Got My 5D3" Thread - And First Impressions
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:31:08 PM »
Got it this afternoon!

It's very nice; very slick. I particularly like:

The "Silent" drive mode. It sounds very nice indeed when you shoot!

The in-camera RAW -> JPG processing. Now I think I'll switch to shooting RAW or RAW+JPG. I love that you can change the WB, brightness, etc. after taking the picture. So cool! (To a 7D JPG-only shooter it is, anyway.)

The mode dial lock button. That dial-moving problem got me WAY too many times with my 7D. It'd rub against my jacket while I was carrying it.

The viewfinder. It's nice!

The high-ISO noise and quality: Wow at ISO 12800!

Auto-ISO and the slowest-shutter-speed setting. I might actually use auto-ISO occasionally now, but not for daylight shooting.

The top panel LCD display - it's bigger than that of the 7D, and seems less cluttered.



That's about all for now after only a few hours' play.


Apparently I was very lucky. Jacobs in Manchester (UK) said they were only delivered 3 cameras, and I was last in the queue. A woman cancelled her pre-order, so I got lucky.

I have 2 days off work now to play with my new baby!

9
EOS Bodies / 5D3 "In-Camera RAW Manipulation" ?
« on: March 02, 2012, 06:58:08 PM »
I seem to remember reading something about this in one of the threads, or possibly reviews.

Can you really do retroactive WB adjustment and change other RAW processing in the camera, to arrive at a satisfactory JPG?

If so (it seems a big "if" to me), how much can you do in-camera? Change the levels/mapping to make use of the DR/exposure latitude that RAW files offer?

I still prefer to get it right when shooting, but it would be a cool thing for the camera to allow you to manipulate the RAW processing in the camera and then save a JPG when you're happy.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / High-ISO Noise Performance of the 1100D ?
« on: December 24, 2011, 09:47:47 AM »
Hi.

As subject: Is it crazy to wonder whether the high-ISO noise performance of the 1100D, with only a 12MP sensor, might be quiet good? Better than that of the 7D?

Does anyone have the facts about the 1100D's noise compared to the 7D, 600D or 60D (we can all speculate)?


Thanks,

Martin

11
Lenses / Upgraded to a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
« on: November 21, 2011, 05:52:43 PM »
I already had the f/4 L IS version, but I saw the f/2.8 on sale (about £200 off usual price) for £1650 at the weekend, and the shop does part-exchange, so I ended up paying £1100 for the f/2.8.

The weather was crappy this weekend, so I didn't really get to take it out properly, but from my experiments so far, it is as good as they say it is! Pin-sharp wide-open at f/2.8, and basically no CA (on crop sensor, anyway).

I am really looking forward to playing with this amazing lens. And it's nice to finally have the very best of something (i.e. the best 70-200mm Canon make).

Interestingly, the TDP review is slightly critical of the bokeh of the mark II version of the lens. I haven't played with it enough yet to be sure. I loved the bokeh of the f/4 version. We'll see.


Martin


Edit: And wow, that lens carrying case that comes with it! Nice!

12
Lenses / 85 f/1.2 L II vs. 85 f/1.8 : How Much Brighter?
« on: September 06, 2011, 09:42:30 AM »
I currently have the 85mm f/1.8 , and I'm thinking about getting the 85mm f/1.2 L II version.

I think:

    Stops_Difference = 2 * log_2 ( f_no_1 / f_no_2 )

So in this case:

    Stops_Difference = 2 * log_2 ( 1.8 / 1.2 ) = 2log_2(1.5) ~= 1.17 stops.

So, superficially, one might expect to gain just over 1 stop of extra brightness by using the L lens.

But that assumes that the optical transmittance of the lens as a whole remains the same.
Given all the extra glass thickness (I am guessing) in the f/1.2 model, do we really get that much extra
light?

How much brightness gain do we *really* get?

13
EOS Bodies / 7D Max 8FPS Burst Capacity Question
« on: March 31, 2011, 07:47:30 AM »
Hi.

My 7D always just says "4" in the viewfinder, at the bottom-right. I believe this is the number of shots that can currently be taken at max FPS, i.e. into the camera's memory, before the data gets transferred to the CF card.

So basically, if I put Drive mode to "many shots, fast mode", I get ONLY 4 shots at about 8FPS, and then it pauses to think about it and transfer the shots to the card, and then resumes for a couple of shots, pauses again, etc..

Why do I only get 4 shots before it pauses?

I have it set to JPG format, max resolution, and NO RAW ENABLED.

Thanks in advance,

Martin

14
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
« on: March 05, 2011, 10:33:01 AM »
My girlfriend indulged me yesterday and allowed me to take pics of her. I took the 24-105mm f/4 L and the 85mm f/1.8. I soon detatched the L in favour of the 85mm f/1.8 for its far better bokeh. I used the 85mm wide open, to maximise that effect.

15
Lenses / 24 - 105 mm f/4 L IS II
« on: February 11, 2011, 03:06:23 AM »
I had actually decided to buy the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens (and NOT the 24-70 f/2.8 L as I discussed elsewhere on CR), but now, today, I see a worrying rumour here on the CR front page, about a possibly impending Mark II version of this lens.

I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere on CR before, though I may have missed it. That makes me think it's not even certain to be in the pipeline, and even if it is, it may be a while.

I was going to buy the current version of this lens as early as next week. The point is, spring is coming, and soon I will come out of "photographic hibernation" and want to go out at weekends and start taking pretty pics again, and I want the (weatherproof) lens to do that. I will want the lens for the start of spring-time this year.

So I am inclined still to buy the current version of the lens, UNLESS anyone knows thart the Mark II is coming, and soon, and when.

Comments, please?

Martin

Pages: [1] 2