October 25, 2014, 06:17:30 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172
1
Is it DO?
Hopefully not!  8)

The new DO system supposedly has vast improvement over the old 70-300 attempt - and if it works, it means less weight and length for the same image quality. With a lens the size of a 100-400L, what's not to like about it?

Price.

2
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: Today at 03:03:08 AM »
However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

Since you're willing to go ~5 years back:

In 2006 Canon has updated the 85mm f/1.2, and the 50mm f/1.2 was released the same year.
In 2007 Canon has updated the 14mm f/1.4
In 2008 Canon has released the 200mm f/2 and 800mm f/5.6
In 2009 Canon has updated the TS-E 24mm f/3.5, and released an all new TS-E 17mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro IS
In 2010 Canon has updated the 300mm & 400mm f/2.8 IS
In 2011 Canon has updated the 500mm & 600mm f/2.8 IS
In 2012 Canon updated it's non-L 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses, and released a new 40mm STM lens.

So, in the time frame you refer to, the 85mm L has been updated, the 50mm L is a new release, and the 24mm f/1.4 has been updated (though you find the not up to your expectations).

I agree the 35mm f/1.4 L is old, but unless you need that extra stop, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens.

As for the 135mm f/2, I'm not sure what you would expect from a mkII, beyond the letters "II" in the name. An IS?

The 14mm is an f2.8, not an f1.4.

3
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: Today at 03:01:36 AM »
Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.

I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.

I do not fully agree here, the 100mm L is a superb lens, but I have both the 50 Compact macro and the 100mm L and they do not serve the same purpose. I won't comment the 60mm EF-S since I don't have a crop camera. A 100mm is not a 50mm (though the perfect focal for a standard macro should IMO more be a 55-60mm).

 I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).

Absolutely agree.

4
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:15:10 PM »

FWIW, I leave batteries in RF-602, RF-622 and 560-TX transceivers all the time and never had a problem in any of the 15 or so units I have.  I only take the batteries out of my flashes because I have a bunch and only consistently use 2 or 3 of them.

If you leave batteries in the RF-602 trigger you are bound to have a flat batery when you come to use it if left in a camera bag, it doesn't have an On/Off button!

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:42:05 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

As I said...not even close.

Oh, I missed the bit where you didn't mention the TC, that was naughty of you. There are loads more FF images out there with 5D MkII/III's with TC's that are every bit as good as yours, I was just looking for 100-400's.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:21:13 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:55:34 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough. My tests between a 5D2 and a 60D using those two lenses showed minimal differences in resolving power of distant objects between crop and FF. Using a 100L, crop definitely resolved distance objects better than FF, but it most certainly was not twice as good... maybe 20 or 30 percent better. (no scientific measurements taken, the percentage is a guess)

I am told, no personal experience, that the second generation "Big Whites" will act the same... but however you slice it, to get that crop reach advantage, you need some of the sharpest glass that Canon makes.

I understand what you are saying Don, but my example crops fly in the face of that.

I used the best techniques possible to maximise the difference including using a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6 (nobody ever argued that isn't a great lens and without a TC gives little, if anything, to the MkII's), I did this to give the crop camera the biggest advantage its small pixels will ever have, it certainly isn't close to a real world situation, and the differences are just not there to any meaningful degree.

As an aside, I have tested my 50 f1.4 against my 100L Macro at f5.6, and the 50 is 'sharper', TDP iso charts agree with my findings.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:24:13 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961

9
Posted and discussed last week.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23222.msg452302#msg452302

If he considers the differences in systems enough reason to change, good for him, we should all do the same, but most don't consider the differences in systems enough reason to change.

I have several key reasons to stay with Canon for the foreseeable future, they are well thought out reasons that are every bit as convincing for me as his were to make a change for him, so what?

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: clown* photographer
« on: October 23, 2014, 12:57:12 PM »
It's not the size of the tool.. it's what you do with it.   ;D

I have an idea of who I think the tool is in this story.

Intimidating people because 'I have a big pro camera' is a dick move, who gives a damn what somebody else is shooting with? Who cares what you are shooting with?


11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 10:38:35 AM »
I don't agree with this "amount of light" argument. Consider a full frame sensor and an APS-C size sensor with pixels the same size as a full frame taking photos with the same lens at the same f-stop and the same distance from the subject. The signal to noise ratio for each pixel in the APS-C sensor will be the same as the S:N ratio as the corresponding pixels in an APS-C sized area of the ff.

True, but the 2.56x greater area of the FF sensor will gather more total light.  Comparing noise at the pixel level isn't the same as comparing noise at the image level.

You lost me on the image level noise, Neuro. It seems that an APS-C sized crop of the FF image and the APS-C image in this case would be identical. The number of photons hitting each pixel is the same and assuming the downstream operations are identical, what's the difference?

If you crop the FF to the crop cameras size they are identical, but that wasn't how your earlier comment was worded. If you crop the ff to the same size as the crop camera they are, effectively, the same thing, a crop sensor.

If you take your first situation and use the entire image from both cameras then the ff camera must have 2.5 times the area, if the pixels are the same size on each the FF camera must have 2.5 times as many, if they have the same number of pixels the FF cameras must be 2.5 times the size.

12
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 22, 2014, 10:07:09 AM »
My YN-E3-RT arrived with a set of batteries in it, which were dead, I don't leave batteries in it anymore, not least because I hardly ever use it, but I have had mine drain Eneloops too, though I have never been 100% certain I hadn't inadvertently left the power switch on, I trusted to my stupidity, maybe I shouldn't have :-)

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:40:49 AM »
No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.
You're right!  :-[
Thanks for correcting me. (Damn! I did it right at the 600 mm and then screwed it up)
Makes it even worse for the MFT system.   :-X

True, and it makes that ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0 at $2,299 a FF equivalent of the 70-200 f4 at a much more modest $1,299. Why do people keep saying crop camera lenses are much better value! Compare for exactly the same photo and they are often not.

Neuro and I have often used the example of the 24-105 f4 IS on FF vs the 17-55 f2.8 IS on APS-C, they are very close equivalents in IQ as well as focal length and apertures, and the FF lens can be had for a few hundred dollars less.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:18:55 AM »
Crop sensors don't require all that glass.
In principle you are right if you leave the DOF point away, but I have to correct you in some terms.

Have you seen the "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm F2.8"?  In FF equivalent it is a 600 f/2.8
That's wrong as you do not take the size of the sensor into account.
If you want to gather similar amount of light and want to achive the same DOF on FF
a 600mm f/5.6 would be the equivalent.

To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0

If you compare those two, the Canon is lighter, cheaper and even smaller.
Of course, you can take at MFT the new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:2.8 PRO.
This will be lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 70-200 but for the tradeoff of DOF and absolute light gathering on the same area (!) of the sensor.

And don't start with the "equivalent aperture", that's only for bokeh, the Zuiko is as fast as a 2.8.
...
Now, I know that a lot of FF fanatics ...
Of course f2.8 is physically always f2.8 but your comparison here is wrong.
And of course you can take wonderful pictures with MFT.
And I am not a FF fanatic. Indeed and I am very interested in Olympus MFT system (as you probably can imagine by my knowledge about the lenses).
But your argument is physically only correct when you agree in the tradeoff of losing shallow DOF and absolute light gathering.
This you can only compensate by using lenses with bigger apertures and therefore losing the size/weight/price advantage.

No, MFT is a two times crop, you don't lose one stop of aperture you lose two stops (inverse square law, the sensor area is 1/4 the size).

If you want the same DOF you need a 35-100 f1.4 on a MFT compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8.

Nothing touches the 135 format for selective DOF control if that is important to you, further, iso takes a two stop crop factor hit when talking equivalence too.



    100mm, f/1.4, 1/200, ISO 100, on a mFT (4/3) camera,

    Gets an equivalent shot on a FF camera as 

    200mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

15
Lighting / Re: Is this dangerous when using the 600ex rt´s?
« on: October 19, 2014, 07:51:20 PM »
It's no problem leaving HSS as default.
Your flash works much harder during HSS, and produces less light while doing so.

So there are at least two problems:  1) the increased power consumption will wear down your batteries faster, and 2) the increased power consumption will heat up your flashes faster.

They would only be an issue if you were constantly shooting above sync speed. Even when HSS is selected it doesn't actually come into effect until you do go over that magic figure, so keeping your flash in HSS just means you don't need to push another button when you get there.

There is nothing wrong and you will cause no additional wear, heat or any other issues if you keep your flash in HSS.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 172