April 20, 2014, 07:03:19 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.


Messages - sanj

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85
1
Can someone please explain dumb me what does focus at "-3ev" actually mean? Thanking in advance.

2
I have both the 6D as well as the 5D3. I've tried and did not like using the 50L or the 85L II on the 6D except when I was shooting with a tripod and LV. The positioning of the AF points on the 6D is such that lots of focus-recompose is needed and with the 50L and 85L II, it's just asking for trouble.

While it is true you are more limited with your AF points on the 6D, keep in mind you can focus and crop instead of recompose.

More importantly, the 6D allows for easy switch to Eg-S focus screen unlike the 5D3 - so IMO 6D actually has a significant advantage for manually focusing the f/1.2 lenses and seeing their true DOF in the viewfinder.  One could argue you are looking for trouble in general if you try to autofocus at f/1.2 all the time no matter what camera you use.

Does not sound like a great idea to me.

3
"many of us know that focus/recompose causes problems with fast lenses shot wide open.  If you're using a slower lens, stopping down your fast lens, or aren't a stickler for critical focus on your intended subject, focus/recompose can work."

One learns this within months of starting to learn photography.

4
"The 5D3 and 1DX, would not have autofocused at all in this light."

??????

5
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 19, 2014, 12:20:58 AM »

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?


It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it.  If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all. 

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8?  Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?"  Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up:  Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2?  There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)

I realize that is where my problem lies.

6
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:22:29 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. :P I think everyone else got the joke.

Oh!

7
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:21:31 AM »
If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens :)

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

All the time! Hair nets work wonders but the look is bit dated now.

8
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:08:59 AM »
This isn't a rumor, right?  ;)

I do not know. I never give forums my correct date of birth for security reasons, so maybe sanj has some inside info or it is her "forum's profile" birthday!

Thank you all so much for your good wishes - no, not a rumor. Today's the day - 21 again!

Yep, keep it down. :)

Sanjay

9
Turning night into day

11
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:11:49 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

12
Canon General / Re: 5 Reasons you Need a 50mm Prime
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:08:49 AM »
50/55 is a superb focal length.

It has taken a rap as it is 'normal' but normal is great many times.

13
Canon General / Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:07:20 AM »
Friends today is the magic woman Helen Oster's birthday.
Lets send her our best wishes!

 8) 8)HAPPY BIRTHDAY HELEN 8) 8)

14
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 17, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »
I guess I was wrong:

Canon should not make a 50mm which is sharp at wide aperture.

It is ok that Canon does not update its lenses for >20 years.

It is ok that other companies are making sharp 50mm lenses that are priced and not the company whose equipment I use.

15
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:12:21 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

In the press release Canon state that their target market is portraits, etc, which accounts for weak corner sharpness.

Hmmmm. Ok.
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures?

Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?

This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85