September 23, 2014, 04:33:57 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 - fussy III

Pages: [1] 2
1
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:25:08 PM »
Based on?  Better AF with more cross-type points spread further over the frame?  Faster frame rates?  Better implementation of Live View?  Ergonomics?  Viewfinder magnification?

Based on what? - Simple answer: on capacities regarding shadow-lifting, DR and resolution (as Mr. Northrup readily points out to anyone willing to listen).

And he is right. Lifted shadows look awful with Canon. I know that from experience with black and white plumaged birds. And resolution of D810 with a good lens is unsurpassed in FF. Guess everyone open-eyed would agree.

Whether I am going to switch to Nikon/Pentax 645Z will depend on Canon's sensor-politics in the coming 6 month (and partly on framerate and buffersize of the D750). The sensor is definately conditioning my love for Canon.

And since the sensor is a physically limiting factor to any output of any DSLR concerning each and every user, I would think that neither Mr. Northrup's nor my take on Nikon vs. Canon is too personal or biased. Who cares about numbers or DXO-charts when something is so obvious. Just view the files!

2
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 02:40:03 AM »
based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography.

Never went that far.

Just as example: You have a solid black marble of 12mm diameter full frame at f2.8 (2:1). Non tilted, its outline is sharp. As soon as you tilt, you can stop down as much as you want, you will not get the whole outline/conture into focus any longer. In addition, as was mentioned before by others, at a close range the angle of the focal plain does not change as much when tilting. So even if you cut the marble in half, you (the sensor) would still need to nearly face the surface of the cutting plain at maybe 30 degrees when tilting 20 degrees in order to get the plain into focus throughout ( I do not have any charts for that and may be off).

I just remembered that most of my examples have crashed and disappeared. Otherwise I could have sent you at least pictures of a key at appr. 1:1 and 2:1 that show how little change of perspective 12 degrees of tilt allow for when the task is to keep the entire surface of the key in focus.

I owe you examples now somehow, is can see that. But please understand that I will only post something once I find a subject worthwhile to photograph. I simply have spend too much time testing, buying and reselling lenses. I do not like it anymore.

Please do not invest too much money and be disappointed like I was. You might want to try the 8degrees that an EF to EF-Adapter allows for (ebay). Mine didn't last long and had a very stiff lens-mount. But you can check for the effect that way without investing to much.

What I came to use most beside the Pentax 67 100 Macro and a Tilt-adapter from Zörk is the Pentax 645 75mm with the life-size-converter that belongs to the 67-Macro. That way I can use the Mirex-Adapter Pentax 645 to EF with tripod food. It is more precise and sturdy than the Zörk- Adapter and I can change 645-lenses without taking the foot from the tripod or having to rearrange tilt-angle. And the 75mm is really light-weight and sharp.

Otherwise: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/step-into-the-world-of-miniature-with-david-clapp-11285
But I do not quite share the enthusiasm. Diffraction is high at f22. And there are all those close-range limitations mentioned before. And mostly, you will have vignetting when attempting maximum tilt on FF.
 

3
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:25:22 AM »
For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.

Here I would have too stress again that you are very likely overestimating the practical benefits. I think I understand what you are looking for, because I was looking for the same. And I did not find it because it doesn't work that way at this magnification. It will work for a daisy's blossom to some degree, but not for the three dimensional blossom of an Orchid, especially not for that of a smaller species.

Even selective focus is achieved more straightforward just moving round forth and back than by tilting. It will work for a big orchid's blossom or a daisy though, but artistically, it will mostly just feel like playing around rather than creating anything of special beauty or meaning. That is my subjective feeling of course. However, it is a feeling that came about in real life, so it is related to techne again while this time round, I believe there is no scientifical way of proving my feeling is "true". It is certainly what I would call a true feeling though.


4
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:12:31 AM »
Therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner."


Oh, I am positive that it CAN be demonstrated in a scientific manner. Otherwise I couldn't trust my knowledge. I was hoping I could leave the scientific demonstration to you.

I do not mean to be arrogant now, I just find the following sentence very fitting for our dispute: "There is an intimate positive relationship between epistêmê and technê, as well as a fundamental contrast." (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/)

Regards

5
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 12:54:09 AM »
Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.


The fact that this exists does not proove it will work for your purposes around 1:1. It might not even live up to the purposes by which the device is marketed. Just be aware of that possibility. This set-up is certainly useful for product-photography but also more clumsy than many others on the market with regards to plain tilt-movements.

6
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 10, 2014, 11:53:52 PM »
I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem.

Well, be assured I try to use my brain at all times.


7
Canon General / Re: Canon Says No to Retro Design for Them
« on: February 23, 2014, 04:18:47 AM »
If going retro is the same as to (re-)introduce some more straightforward mechanical design for the most important settings, than going retro for me is a good thing that should not be disregarded as if it was a mere fashion.

e.g., I'd be happy if Canon-lenses had an aperture ring again, especially macro-lenses and TS-E lenses. Having the Iso more accessable when wearing gloves would be another great thing. Overall, I really dislike the need to push little neighboring buttoms while turning a wheel.

Just because Nikon messed it up with the Df, Canon should not be to proud of their own rather lame design.

But I must admit there is one great thing about EOS-functionality that I wouldn't want to sacrifice to any designer's needs: It is the positioning of shutter-release, digit-wheel and how one's hand fits into the grip. Allows to adjust most everything manually with one hand, including ISO (although that I would prefer on a designated wheel, like I said, but maybe that is just me). Try setting all that single-handed on a Nikon and you will likely drop your camera in the process.

Conclusion: I wouldn't mind having a few more accessible wheels on top of the camera. The G series has always been ugly, but it worked. A7 isn't exacly pretty either.

8
Lenses / Re: A 500mm f/5.6?
« on: February 21, 2014, 08:21:14 AM »
Dear Plainsman and albi,

Personally, I wouldn't care about the price too much if it is a good lens. If Tamron makes it good AND cheap, that is fine. If Canon makes it excellent and expensive, even better. 

I do not believe that such a lens made by Canon would mean less profit to the company. On the contrary. Many people, e.g. birders, so far are investing in Zoom-lenses like the Tamron 150-600 not because they are cheaper or because they want a zoom but because they cannot carry a heavy Supertele in addition to binos and telescopes.

At the same time, these customers are complaining about resolution of their Zooms at the long end. Give them a 500/5.6 and they will buy it, even if it cost 3.000 Dollar. When needed, they could tweak it into a nice telescope or have it on a sniper-belt as a Photo-ID-tool at all times.

Personally, as a nature photographer,  I would want to have it as an addition to my 500/4.0, not as a substitute.

Whoever builts a 500/5.6 first will open a new niche, not close an existing one.

9
Lenses / Re: A 500mm f/5.6?
« on: February 21, 2014, 05:44:51 AM »
I am hoping for this lens (500/5.6) for so long now. To me it is all about weight and "croppability". I want to be able to use a 500/5.6 like a zoom by simply cropping it to 800mm or even 1000mm on a 24 Megapixel+ camera-body. Cropping in post allows for loose framing. Much better for action and wildlife than zooming in to tight while the action is happening. But it takes a quality prime to do that!

Currently I am following this cropping strategy by carrying a 500/4.0 on a 5D Mark II. In addition, I take a 70D with a 55-250 STM, a 24-105 and a 10-22.  To me, that is the best compromise. Lowers weight but retains image quality plus it is redundant to some extend. If rthe 70D lets me down, I still have the 24-105 and the 500mm prime for example. At the same time, I do not need to carry a 17-40 L or a 70-200 L because these are the focal lengths that I do not prioritize on.

To me, this combination of 55-250 and 500 L is much better than  a 150-600 Zoom that I cannot crop or use with a Konverter because image quality is going down on the long end. Ideally, I would carry a 500/5.6 IS instead.

To give a comparison here two different sets of equipment:

Combination A
The weight of 55-250 STM and 500/5.6 L IS plus 70D and 5D II would amount to appr. 4kg. Effective usable Zoomrange by cropping would be lets say 88-800mm with a gap between 400 and 500 mm. But the effective 400mm of the STM can be cropped to 500mm on the 70D with ok results. 500mm from an L prime wide open on a 70D will give excellent results. Same would be true when croppen to APS-C size from a FF-sensor.

Combination B
The weight of Tamron 150-600 on a 5D III is 2,9 kg, with a redundant 5D III it would be 3,85 kg. Cropping from 600 mm is hardly possible, even 500mm stopped down to f8 on a 70D is not really nice.

I much prefer the additional zoomrange and reliabilty of Combination A  over Combination B.

Conclusion: Please build a 500/5.6 L IS USM, Canon, and make it as sharp as possible (no DO please).

10
Lenses / Re: Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?
« on: December 20, 2013, 07:29:22 PM »
Dream lens! Nevermind the short zoomrange. It is exactly the range I use most oftenly for reportage/documentary photography and I always was yearning for shallow depth (which makes it neccassary to get close).
The 24/1.4 just wasn't wide enough, the Sigma 20/1.8 had difficult bokeh, was loud focusing and had terrible FF corner sharpness, the 10-22 or the 16-35 are versatile but do not offer a decent effect of shallowness. I'd buy the lens immediatly if it did cost less than 1.500 USD. If bokeh is pleasing and if corner sharpness is excellent (makes the lens a winner for landscapes), I'd even be willing to pay 1.000 more.  Not writing this to show off, I just really want to encourage Sigma to make this lens as good as it gets.   

11
Lenses / Tamron Announcement: 560/5.6 VC - Why NOT?!
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:10:13 PM »
Hello yee notorious manufacturers of compromising Telezooms out there? If not Tamron, who else will please built a portable long-range Tele of excellent optical quality? I am tired of hurling my 500/4.0, instead I am yearning for a 560/5.6 IS VR OS VC, something between 500 and 600mm, just no Zoom, please!

12
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:16:06 AM »
Looks like the Alpha 99 to me. Have been working with it. Excellent camera. Would find it difficult to do sports photography with peaking though ;) 

Cheers

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Comparing AF-tracking 7D, 60D and 70D
« on: June 28, 2013, 11:57:11 AM »
Never tired the 60D but have the 7D. My personal opinion of that camera for BIF is, it is extremely poor. Just from that alone I will not consider the 70D. I am beside myself trying to figure what direction to take. I love crop sensor cameras for birding. Seems Canon has abandoned top of the line of crop sensor cameras. As much as I hate to shelve the canon glass. If Pentax puts out a quality crop sensor camera Canon is going on the shelf. The K-5 is almost there as a pro-summer crop. I think the next one will be just enough to push me back to Pentax and Sigma fast primes. The Sigma primes are almost as good as Canon IMO.


Hi again ,
I can see what you are saying, Gary. I'm a birder as well, but even more so, I am a photographer. So I never carry a telescope and do my long-range observation on the swivel of the 60D using my 500/4.0. Besides I am photographing very shy mammals in deserts and steppes and here, the 500/4.0 sometimes seems unneccassarily heavy. So I am hoping for an ultra-high-resolving (thus cropable) 500/5.6 L IS USM or 600/5.6 L IS USM and a camera that will make the most of it AF-wise so that I can switch from mammals to falcons if needed.

At the moment, a Nikon D300S with the new AF-S 80-400 would probably come closest to these needs. And this IMO might be a combination perhaps preferrable to switching to Pentax.  Should Nikon come up with a lens as mentioned above, I would definately buy into the system, as Nikon AF works pretty well at 5.6 from what I have seen.

Best

We have pretty similar lenses. It gets heavy. I went with an older IV and love it for the AF. The only thing is it is god awful heavy. Combined with the lens it is getting unbearable. Anyway good luck. If it were me and you can lug around a 1D body get the IV used. Best thing I ever did anyway.

Gary

Hi,

Oh, I did buy a used MIV and I am very happy with it when I am stationary. It just happens to be too heavy to consider it for my hiking in the desert, because I always carry two bodies and make these LP-E6-bodies (60D and 5D II) so that I can save on both body-weight and accessory weight. It is unlikely I am going to buy another 7D. Besides positive comments here, I realize I lost all trust in it and I am still quite certain it will not be anywhere close to the Mark IV or 5D III AF-wise. Guess I'll wait for what the 70D and 7D Mark II will bring and if they are inferior to the 5D III's AF, I will buy this one instead and crop if necassary. But let's hope both 70D and 7D II will match the 5D III or MIV.

Best 

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Comparing AF-tracking 7D, 60D and 70D
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:56:25 AM »
Never tired the 60D but have the 7D. My personal opinion of that camera for BIF is, it is extremely poor. Just from that alone I will not consider the 70D. I am beside myself trying to figure what direction to take. I love crop sensor cameras for birding. Seems Canon has abandoned top of the line of crop sensor cameras. As much as I hate to shelve the canon glass. If Pentax puts out a quality crop sensor camera Canon is going on the shelf. The K-5 is almost there as a pro-summer crop. I think the next one will be just enough to push me back to Pentax and Sigma fast primes. The Sigma primes are almost as good as Canon IMO.

Hi again ,
I can see what you are saying, Gary. I'm a birder as well, but even more so, I am a photographer. So I never carry a telescope and do my long-range observation on the swivel of the 60D using my 500/4.0. Besides I am photographing very shy mammals in deserts and steppes and here, the 500/4.0 sometimes seems unneccassarily heavy. So I am hoping for an ultra-high-resolving (thus cropable) 500/5.6 L IS USM or 600/5.6 L IS USM and a camera that will make the most of it AF-wise so that I can switch from mammals to falcons if needed.

At the moment, a Nikon D300S with the new AF-S 80-400 would probably come closest to these needs. And this IMO might be a combination perhaps preferrable to switching to Pentax.  Should Nikon come up with a lens as mentioned above, I would definately buy into the system, as Nikon AF works pretty well at 5.6 from what I have seen.

Best

15
EOS Bodies / Comparing AF-tracking 7D, 60D and 70D
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:07:47 AM »
Hi,

My needs: APS-C-body that will track birds in flight accurately.

The recent talks claim the coming 70D would be equipped with the AF of the 7D. Most people seem to agree that this would make the 70D better than the 60D. However, my experiences with the 7D and 60D were different. I sold my 7D because I got many more hits of birds in flight with the 60D, simply because its tracking abilities were much more accurate, regardless of settings. I should mention that I am more than reasonably experienced with the matter.

I think the new 70D specs are great, but resorting to my personal experience, I'd wish it had retained the AF of the 60D rather than working with the unreliable and bitchy 7D's.     

Anyone besides me had a chance to compare 7D and 60D in the field side by side?

Any of those actually would confirm the 7D is better?

In the future, I'd be thankful for any direct comparisons of AF among 70D and the other cameras, even including EOS 1D Mark IV (which is clearly better for birds than the 60Ds from my experience, bjut too heavy for some purposes).

Cheers

Pages: [1] 2