Messages

1

Technical Support / Re: How much space to get to macro?

« on: July 22, 2012, 03:20:24 AM »

I hate to crash the party but ... bad idea. See the shorter the lens is the worse it is at macro -- this is why Canon makes a 50mm 2.5 macro that needs a special extension set for real close macro; most manufacturers will say 85 - 100 is a better range for macro (part of this is you get farther away from the subject allowing LIGHT to reach it -- a 50mm or less F 1.4 is just too round a front element - it will distort things when used as a macro

and didn't anybody tell you that extension tubes or bellows (a technically better choice) will take away that f 1.4 in a heartbeat (it's a function of what they do - move the camera, and aperture away from the camera sensor) - the 50mm f 2.5 macro is a better choice or a 10mm macro

2

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.

« on: July 22, 2012, 03:05:40 AM »

you didn't mention price range

for around $300 you can find the 17 - 85, 28 - 135 (these are actually the same lens body with different glass; better build quality  than the) or the 18 - 135 on craigslist

Here's the simple facts: The longer the zoom range the less sharp it will be at the ends - zooms are CONVENIENCE lenses, they have the make compromises to work so they use lots of pieces of glass (each of which lowers the sharpness of the final image) HOWEVER the longer zoom range lenses let you get "some picture" which is better than "no picture". These are "walking around" lenses for when you can't be prepared with the proper lens. There are many good quality 135 F 2.8 lenses with 4 pieces of glass (the Canon has 7 pieces of glass for 500 new on Amazon), in a zoom that will be $1250 for a Canon 70-200 F 2.8 with (wait for it ..... ) 23 pieces of glass to create that similar quality of focus

That is why people are suggesting primes - better image quality at a lower price ... BUT it depends on your usage as to whether this would work for you

should you be able to afford it, there are people making HD movies (for the theatre) with the Canon 5d and the 70 - 200 - so you can buy the lens now and upgrade the camera later (even find a used 5D Mk II which is what people have been using

go to  http://blog.planet5d.com/ to see people doing videos on Canons (not just the 5D but mostly)

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: What will be the price of first EOS M?

« on: July 22, 2012, 02:34:08 AM »

about the same as the T3 or less

I don't see it being the equal of an SLR (they might equal the price of the Nikon - WITH the adapter and lens bundled -- no body only)

Coincidentally look at the lens 22mm. What other camera has a sensor where 22mm would equal 50mm on a full frame (hint! NOT an APS-C)

4

Technical Support / Re: M42 Lenses

« on: July 22, 2012, 02:24:37 AM »

1) if you have problems with manually focusing, the AF confirm chip is OK for what it does

2) all the pin does is close the aperture in auto mode - auto mode won't help you and some adapters try to trap the pin

3) The old lenses were 42mm (hence the M42) in diameter, the new lenses are 55mm in diameter (Canon EOS, Nikon AX and DX, Pentax, Mijnolta maxxum / Sony; et. al - they all changed their lenses to the wider standard at the same time -- and they were all using 42mm before this but the M42 SCREW mount was a standard for Pentax, Practika, Mamiya, Yashica, Ricoh, Russian Zenit, Edixa, Zeiss Contax (the originator), Fujica, some Olympus, Exakta, chinon and cosina cameras (do NOT attempt to use without checking because while they screwed in, they had cam's to do Auto exposure and that may damage your camera) see wiki article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_lens_mount

NOTE: The pentax lenses (Takumar, Asahi) are overpriced, Mamiya is at least as good if not better and cheaper NOW (not then - new), The Yashica F 1.4 lenses were good (the F 1.9, etc weren't that good but as good as the Canon F 1. The Zeiss lenses are fantastic and hard to find, the Practika lenses (pentacon, etc.) Meyer Optics are mechanically some of the best (22 aperture leaves !!!!!) but average quality glass; some were built by C Z Jena (Carl Zeiss East Germany factory in Jena) and are great; T mount lenses from Tamron, Vivitar, Soligor are medium to better glass, other brands quality falls down unless you know the manufacturer - despite the brand almost ALL 400mm f 6.3 preset and auto were one manufacturer; same for 500 F.8, almost all brands same manufacturer (even off brands like Spiratone, Cambron, etc.)

If you are not sure about a lens email me back the brand and F number; I have some of this already and know where to look generally7 for the off lenses

4) BEWARE the T and T2 mounts - the M42 has a 1mm pitch, the almost identical T and T2 have a .75mm pitch (the slant of the screw) so you could force the lens on and strip the lens or the adapter.(the T and T2 were lenses built to adapt to many cameras - they are short by a few mms so the adapters make them the right length AND change the 42mm x .75 to whatever is needed (Canon notoriously went with the same distance on the camera as M42 standard, just a different mount so the lenses focus to infinity as normal - Nikon, others have deeper bodies so they have issues and can NOT focus to infinity with M42. A T mount lens with a M42 adapter on it is the same as a M42 lens BUT --- Mant of the same chinese manufacturers make T mount to EOS adapters (also old Nikon to EOS, Olympus to EOS, and some more

NOTE: The T lenses had some good glass (soligor, Vivitar, Tamron, etc. put their better glass / mechanics on heir T lenses like Vivitar Series 1 (the premium quality and price series); etc.

5) In Manual (if the lens HAS a manual setting) you focus first, THEN move the aperture ring to the desired setting; On PRESET lenses (no auto at all) you must move the preset THEN move the aperture (or mo9ve them both at the same time - on some lenses you can move the aperture ring and it will move the preset ring at the same time) or simply leave the preset at the smallest aperture and ignore it; all it does is stop you moving the aperture beyond a point) On lenses that do not have a manual setting

6) he optix chip is interesting (here is one ad http://www.ebay.com/itm/100-M42-Eos-Adapter-Optix-V6-AF-Confirm-PCB-Chip-Canon-EOS-OP6002S-/380402645479) but I have never seen one and yes the set up looks complicated - but the focus adjust feature does not appear to work as you might think (moving the lens) but rather telling the camera how far it is off focus of the same canon lens (which might work -- there have been problems with this chip in some users hands so might work like a microfocus adjustment) Do understand that users have reported this Optix chip is slow - slow to focus so still objects are better - sports, etc. is just plain useless

7) read Mt Spokane, A V mode is questionable - sometimes these adapters get it way off; use manual for best results

the 1100D does NOT have interchangeable focus screens, some of the higher end Canons do (dating back to the Canon F-1, A-1, AE-1; etc.) film cameras as well as the EOS5 / A2 / A2E FILM and subsequent - don't worry about this

9)No, don't ever focus using live view - live view is useful for framing, not focus. Use the Viewfinder, it is much more accurate (essentially live view gives you a very very low resolution image but the viewfinder gives you a far far higher resolution image, many times the resolution of live view

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

« on: July 18, 2012, 05:11:29 PM »

EPIC FAIL

Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."

Apple has NEVER made the CPU, The Apple I, II, III used Rockwell 6502's as the base, the Mac's used standard 68000 family (68008, 68016 et al) until the Power series used IBM power PC chips (which have so much power that they were illegal to export - remember those commercials with a mac surrounded by tanks because it was too powerful to export>); the switch to Intel chips lobotomized the Mac's to an extent (there are several things you just can't do with an Intel chip because of it's architecture so Apple has to ignore / block those instructions when using the chip in apple os modes

The OP has NO idea what they are talking about so the logic is an epic fail

The question, rather, is how important is the sensor to the camera - is the camera (now that we left film for digital) no more than an extension of the sensor? At that point the sensor becomes key to product development and - yes - it is best (if you can afford it) to keep it in-house

Going back to computers; IBM set a standard in 1981 with the PC - but by 1985 IBM was number 5 in the PC-compatibles market; the problem was that the only thing IBM actually made on the PC was the l;abel; everything else was stardard parts that anyone else could piece together (some better than others) and most cheaper than IBM; Apple had many non-standard parts (for example Steve Wozniak had developed a way to go from 20 chips to run a disk drive as found on standard S-100 computers to 4 chips, one being called the "Integrated Woz Machine" chip, or proprietary and better architecture).

This is what sensor design is to cameras - you can do much better when using your own technologies if they are better technologies; make your own "woz" devices and Canon has, which is why Nikon had to outosurce - they just can'y afford to keep up with Canon on this.

Here is where your analogy falls apart - IBM went to they PS-2 because they lost their market and were trying to get it back not by making better 6technology but by making proprietary technology. Back in the mainframe days IBM had figured out a way to make money by taking their standards and creating paper :Institutes" as they wrote off the costs of development a second time by "charitable donation". The names of these "institutes" are ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and ASCII (American Standards Conference for Information Interchange). A Company called Control Data joined these and began making IBM-Compatible terminals at a lower price undercutting IBM. IBM sued and lost - once CD had joined these tax dodges they had tjhe right to build terminals with these standards -- so IBM set a NEW standard that was thoroughly incompatible (3270 and EBCDIC) which are NOT better hut different - and a large part of the market migrated, when they needed to upgrade, to smaller but compatible manufacturers - Digital Equipment (DEC PDP computers which were not originally called computers in fear of IBM, Control Data moved into computers, HP, and many others

This is where Nikon is - to a certain extent they can't be the Canon alternative without simply being a different lens mount, they need to offer something significantly different -- but they haven't the money for it. The issue with Nikon is that Canon is 60% of the market, Nikon is only 25% so a much smaller company; sony is in many more markets, essentially dominating video, so sensor technology is necessary to their operations; and (here is where outsourcing works) it is a much more trivial matter to incorporate some of the concept that they developed for video into still camera sensors (for their own (minolta - remember) use as well as for Nikon's with Nikon supplying some of their expertise on their versions but manufacturing exclusively by sony)

In other words the economics of the situation is that Nikon simply can not afford to make it's own sensors AND keep pace with Canon; this is a Nikon issue and has nothing to do with sensor technology - and that is the OP's epic fail, not understanding the problem. You don't understand the computer industry demonstrating a fanboy mentality and then carry that misunderstanding to Cameras like a bad program gone wild Nikon's adopting a more generic way of getting sensors will be their death - it becomes no more than a (industry standard) sensor in a non-canon lens mount; Nikon is now in a death spiral they may not come out of, necessitated by financials; they simply can not compete on the same turf as Canon. Look for Sony to put money into Nikon, then buy the rest of the company and make Nikon the high end of the Sony cameras

While Canon keeps on in their 60% of the market

6

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is the future of DSLRs FF only?

« on: July 15, 2012, 05:00:56 AM »

Constantly hearing these guess upon a guess upon a guess blanket statements ... all of which is nothing more than that which "struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" (Shakespeare)

In other words - hot air

Look, this is a market and you build what it supports; if people want APS-C cameras for the features / size / price there will be APS-C cameras; nothing in this story suggests that APS-C sensor prices will not go down just as APS sensors go down; (or that we won't get FF APS features with an APS-C sensor eventually)

I don;'t know why we pay so much attention to newbies who's blanket statements simply demonstrate their lack of understanding of the subject (just wait till those 128 MP APS-C sensors come out, I'll show you .......)

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to proceed?

« on: July 15, 2012, 04:49:31 AM »

GET OUT AND TAKE SOME PICTURES!!!!!

The worst picture is the one you never took. Seriously, you are not talking about that big a difference for snapshot sized prints, 300 dpi x 8 x 10 = 5.4 MP, video is worse (HD is 2 MP, computer screens are smaller) -- You Can't Even View Anything In 18MP!!!!! How Do You know what quality you have right now?

We used to have this problem in computers, people would constantly be waiting for the next big thing and not buying one yet -- not understanding that economic thing called "opportunity cost - what it costs you not to be taking pictures now.

Sure the 5D2 is better and the 5Diii even better and the 1DS IV even better and the 1DX even better and .....; this is called Grass is Greener syndrome -- you have nothing to judge by

And let me add this word of warning - never buy so much camera that you can't afford to replace it when broken / goes for a swim / gets stolen / migrates away for the winter (likely with a so-called friend). It sounds like a 5 D III is that kind of camera to you

My suggestion is to get good and used to the 60d's quality, look for rentals on a 5 D II (to use as a primary body keeping the 60d as a second body) and see if it is worth the money FOR YOUR USAGE! This is not anybody else's camera, it is yours. Many other people here are speaking to their usage, their needs (or worse, just plain snobbery) and don;'t know, can;'t know your needs and usage

I am confused about your need for higher ISO - there is no magic wand, the 5D III is better at noise reduction (making a higher USABLE ISO), but really significantly so? For your expressed need "for shooting f/4 with the 8-15mm Fisheye, as I prefer to shooting during the blue hour(s), and also at night. As well, what meaning has it to get a 8-15mm on a crop?" -- never heard of a tripod (remember the triangle ISO replaces Stutter speed replaces aperture replaces ISO .....)? Ever hear of Lightroom? Photoshop? ways to do this ... what have you tried?

When all has been tried (which you need to learn anyways if you are using a more expensive camera); then consider the new expensive rolls-royce priced camera

It's your money you are wasting

8

Lenses / Re: Need sharp wide-open

« on: July 07, 2012, 02:18:22 AM »

Lets get honest

Lenses are NOT manufactured to give their best performance wide open -- but stopped down 2 or 3 stops.

That;s just a reality

Further you are looking at a zoom, which is also not designed to give it's est performance at the wwide and long ends but in the middle. These are compromises, lenses of convenience, not sharpness.

So you would do best with a prime that is a couple of f-stops wider than what you need like an F 1.4 or 1.8 shooting at f 2.8 or 3.5 - 4.0

There's no cheating physics

and "micro adjustments" don't exist on the 60D, neither will they necessarily help

9

Lenses / Re: Which lenses to pick up next?

« on: July 07, 2012, 02:02:38 AM »

Ok

you want to work without a tripod

The 180 weighs 1090 grams (2 1/2 POUNDS) the 100 weighs 584 grams (1 1/4 POUNDS) (the IS version is 2 oz more). The 180 is designed to work with a tripod, has a tripod mount

Yes you can use extension tubes; (which have no glass and do not add distortion) or tele-extenders (though not recommended for shorter lenses than 135 mm many people who have done this are pleased wit the results, remember I said officially not recommended

In other words if you want a carry around lens get the 100, not the 180; if you are shooting subjects that do not move (and remember that plants move in the wind) - the 180 may be a better choice (and do remember that the longer a lens is the less depth of field you get at the same aperture setting)

Also note that if you are an available light shooter the difference in F stop can be significant - which brings o mind an alternative you might consider: the 85 F 1.8 lenses from various manufacturers *which, with a extension tube becomes a macro lens)

10

Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L

« on: July 04, 2012, 05:43:00 AM »

I have a "Soligor" 500 f 8 mirror and a "Cambron" 500 f8 (non-mirror) - both are t mount, one has a thin T to pentax M42 adapter (which goes into a  M42 to canon ef with af beep when in focus circuit) while the other has a thicker T to canon EF which is much stronger for the 500mm lens's weight (but I can switch them. One thing about pentax mount  and t mount lenses - certain sizes like 40 f 6.3, 500 f 8, etc. had ONE manufacturer that would change the silkscreened bands with the numbers - depth of field and distance, and the name ring in the front - by the vendor (Vivitar, Soligor, Cambron, Spiratone, Kenko, etc; 20,to 30 different names but only 1 manufacturer (like tamron, Tokina, Olympus, Cosina, Kiron, Ozone Optical, Komine, Makinon, Asanuma, Bauer, Perkin Elmer, Chinon, Hoya, Polar and more so the name isn't important - the bigger manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Asahi (Pentax) Mamiya, Tomioka (Yashica), Minolta etc. had their own factories), the mirrors pretty much the same but some of the main camera makers did not do mirrors - they bought someone else's too. Not sure if Nikon ever made a mirror or it was outside manufacturer but likely - they were not as big as canon (only Mamiya was as big because they made every type of camera: from press graphic, through 8 x 10, 4 x 5, 6 x 7, 6 x 45, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm - everything buy 126) - Nikon probably didn't have the bucks to make mirror lenses

One difference is a mirror has a fixed aperture - F 8 while the long lens is F - to F 22 so you can ne a bit creative and in very good light go for more depth of field (note that when you add a "tele-extender to go 2 x 500 or 3 x 500 it also muktiplies the f stop by the same factor, stealing your light), another is that the generic lenses are mostly pre-sets - you set the apertur eyou want and focus wide open then turning the aperture ring to the desired aperture (it locks you out of smaller apertures)

any long lens like this should be on a tripod but the mirror is so much smaller and lighter you can use it hand held (I recommend you find a tree or something to lean against to help steady your  arms). I've gotten great images out of both (one trick is with the pentax adapter I can add a 2x or 3x adapter for much more reach) - I;m a reach fanatic because you are out of range of the target - can take real candids

Nowadays you can get this range with the smaller semi-slr "superzooms" - up to 36 x zoom usually gets you at least 500mm equivalent, likely with similar sharpness on a digital camera (the Canon Sx 40 HS with 35x zoom gets 24 - 840 equivalent with Image Stabilization (dp review claims 4.5 fstops) and 12 MP,l has a digic 5 and HS noise reduction, (the lens is 150.5mm real longest so its very compact), good aperture range (f 2.7 to f 8 at wide angle, F 5.8 to F 8 at the 840mm equiv max ---- probably a better alternative for the casual shooter

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?

« on: June 30, 2012, 10:40:38 AM »

I have no idea why we keep seeing this kind of comment from people who should know better

NO!

These are different MARKETS (and the mirrorless is the one that is marked for obsoletion already - the phone cam is it's replacement and as technology gets better they will replace all low end cameras (or cameras with phones in them with wifi hubs and .....)

This is the way that market is going - "hand held devices" will replace non-dedicated cameras by taking over that price point / market position

DSLR's are NOT in that market

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Why so many different camera bodies?

« on: June 30, 2012, 10:29:34 AM »

I am seeing this confusion -- some here do not get that there are few lines but different models which REPLACE the previous (now obsolete) ones - the Rebel line, for instance, was XT/350d (note the 300 was the canon film rebel 2000 and they did not want to confuse that issue), XTi/400d, XSi/450d (the XS/1000d was a lower entry level version); T1i/500d, T2i/550d, T3i./600d (the T3/1000d was, again, a lower level version), all of which are out of production as the current is the T4i/650D --- this is the camera for a certain price point and when a new one is introduced they usually price it higher and / or reduce the price of the now obsolete version

This is generational, they aren't the same (often the body is just slightly larger - check the specs; these are not the same body)

Similarly the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and 60D (and a rumored coming 70D) are generations of the same price point / market point; ONLY the 60D is a current production camera

So in your confusion you do not understand that the only current production models are the 1D X, 5D III, 7D (again differ5ent price points / markets), 60D, T4i / 650D and T3/ 1100D; the rest are onsolete / out of production just like a 1964 Mustang

13

EOS Bodies / Re: should i wait for 70D? when will it be here by?

« on: June 16, 2012, 05:23:05 AM »

We used to have this argument in computers with better reasons: every time Monopolysoft released a new version of winnders it required a newer bigger computer just to run the same programs. You are lucky this is Photography and no monopolysoft here (yet)

The thing you should consider is what you are missing by not having a camera NOW; (you can always sell it used and get a 70D later if it actually is better (canon seems to be set on 18 MP but higher quality sensors) - from the T4i likely the big difference will be touchscreen and if that's not so important to you, it probably won't be so much of a change

So, again: what are you missing out on now?

14

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat

« on: May 19, 2012, 03:11:18 PM »

"If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise."

LMAO

LMMFAO

If you believe this I have some land to sell you, excellent ocean view ... straight above

Seriously, anyone who believes this try enlarging that shot to 16 x 20 (or crop an 8 x 10 from that enlargement) --- what? You can't? all you get is dots (pixels)?

NO digital does not come near the resolution (by a factor of thousands) of film; but that isn't the point -- Digital is more CONVENIENT to use, you view the images instantly, rdit them ion your computer and print them yourself (albeit at the very low resolution of 300 dpi) and many find they can't tell the difference

this comment is just so incredibly beyond reality I am ROTFLMMFAO

15

Lenses / Re: Suggestions for making my gear uglier

« on: May 10, 2012, 02:26:14 PM »

Seriously

either a thief knows you and your equipment (and where it is and what it is worth) or they most likely don't know a dam thing about cameras but that they are hockable for money and / or drugs. They would as like steal a Rebel XS (film, worth about 40) as a Digital XS (worth around 3 - 400); They just see a camera

I don't use a camera bag when I am not able to lock them up unseen / unviewable; the cheapest trick is to buy what looks like a kids backpack, gymbag, things that do not look like they would hold anything of significant value that can be hocked easily -- make it look like "not worth the effort" to steal

Get a bag that fits in with the surroundings, make it look less like you are a dumb tourist who doesn't know the customs (note: I pack equipment inside towels, etc so the shape isn't obvious // added protection)