July 25, 2014, 07:39:15 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39
1
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: July 24, 2014, 06:13:10 PM »
I also have to consider that a new 50mm Canon (F/1.8 IS?) could (will eventually) be delivered, so I'm not sure about having (in the future) two prime lenses with the same focal lenght.
Maybe something different (the 100mms you mentioned, or a good 35mm...).

You may also have to consider that a new 50mm f/1.8 IS will cost $300-$400 and still won't deliver the umph. If I was looking for a really small manual lens for my mirrorless camera, I would consider something like Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 (I think it is $500-$800 used).

40mm on crop will be 64mm angle of view in 35mm. It may be too narrow. If you  want to go to the route of Leica  lens. 35mm f 2.0 (Summicron) will be a better choice. It is about the same size of the 40mm f 2.0. If the price is too high, then you may try the 35mm f2.8 Summaron.

Well, 50mm isn't any less narrow than 40mm :). There are some interesting Voigtlander lenses too - 21/1.8 Ultron, 35/1.2 Nokton, not cheap though.

2
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: July 24, 2014, 09:49:50 AM »
I also have to consider that a new 50mm Canon (F/1.8 IS?) could (will eventually) be delivered, so I'm not sure about having (in the future) two prime lenses with the same focal lenght.
Maybe something different (the 100mms you mentioned, or a good 35mm...).

You may also have to consider that a new 50mm f/1.8 IS will cost $300-$400 and still won't deliver the umph. If I was looking for a really small manual lens for my mirrorless camera, I would consider something like Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 (I think it is $500-$800 used).

3
Rebel T5 doesn't count? Why?

IMO, Canon hasn't actually updated the Rebel line since 2012.  The T5 doesn't count, because it's basically just a cost-reduced T5i, which in turn is just a T4i with a few firmware changes and a couple of tiny mechanical tweaks (most of which were probably just cost reductions).

IMO, for now, Rebel SL1 is the best choice :) and if I'd want something better I would aim for 70D.

4
I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.

I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.

4K down-sampled to 1080p makes massive difference compared to Canon's ordinary 1080p and makes it look like an up-sampled 720p. There is a simple reason for that, dividing resolution by 4 almost eliminates the softness from false color produced by Bayer filter color-guessing technology (some call it - spatial resolution). So, you don't need a blu-ray player, or even a 4K display to enjoy UHD goodness :). It's not a gimic.

5
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: July 18, 2014, 08:45:56 AM »
For me, a speedbooster would be ideal, as long a IQ doesn't suffer unacceptably. Just imagine using a 35mm f2 IS. It would become equivalent to 1.4 IS in terms of light gathering! Or the 35mm 1.4L becomes f1.0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the FOV becomes similar to full frame, you can get shallower depth of field since you can frame closer to the subject.

That is correct , you get shallower depth of field than without a speed booster.

However, remember, the speed of a lens is relative to sensor format to begin with. So while f/1.0 sounds great, you have to multiply by 1.6x in order to gain equivalency to full frame, so f/1.0 on the EOS M would give the equivalent DOF as a f/1.6 on a FF camera.

So what the speed booster accomplishes in both DOF and FOV, is it "undoes" the crop factor limitations of the smaller sensor. Lenses become wider and faster, but that counteracts the effect of using a "full frame" lens on a crop camera. The lens would perform similarly as it would on FF.

That is my understanding of it anyway.

Yes. It's almost like they are covering one lie with another. The speed booster doesn't need any focal length or aperture conversions, you'll just get a FF image with it on, while using a lower ISO (which is a subjective value anyway). It just takes the FF image and "squeezes" it into APSC sensor, that's all, no magic, no FL/aperture widening. Can't imagine why are they making it that much more confusing ... although, BS works great for justifying the high price :).

6
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:53:36 PM »
EF 35/1.2L USM
EF 135/1.8L IS USM
EF 150/2.8L IS USM Macro
EF 100-300/4L IS USM

EF 20/3.5 STM Pancake
EF 60/2 IS USM Macro
EF 85/1.4 USM
EF 24-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM (new cheap kit lens)

EF-S/M 30/1.4 STM
EF-S/M 75/1.4 STM

7
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: July 15, 2014, 02:04:59 PM »
I would like to see someone make a quality speedbooster adapter for the EOS M with EF lenses! I would buy one as soon as it's made, as long as AF still works reasonably well.

Theoretically, the adapter will offer a similar field of view as full frame and give 1 stop more light. That would make the M system really interesting...

+1. This is a prerequisite for me buying into the M-system. (The other major prerequisite is a viewfinder, presumably an EVF.) Incidentally, since the Canon APS-C sensor size is 1.6X, the speedbooster could give 1-1/3 stops more light. However, to provide good corner resolution, it would probably have to be very good and therefore very expensive.

Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have 8)

8
Rebel T5 doesn't count? Why?

9
Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS Update [CR2]
« on: July 14, 2014, 07:01:53 PM »
Having the SX40 I skipped the SX50 to see about the SX60.  I will be very interested if it has a larger sensor like the Sony RX10 and the Panasonic FX1000.  I may hold off on getting the FX1000 until the SX60 issues.

I think the one with larger sensor would be called SX2 or SX1 Mark II :). You can't have crazy zoom range and bigger sensor in one body.

10
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 08:23:43 PM »
"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

Once again, this is totally subjective.
First, If I feel the UV filter has no effect on MY pictures (I have more of an effect, and I can't remove myself from the equation unfortunately), why would I bother putting it on and off?
Second, in the environment you describe I would cover my whole lens in plastic because sand getting between the rings is a bigger issue. In real world situation, I see a lot of dust in the air, or the occasional spray if I am shooting close to the water or in the rain. The UV filter is just easier to clean off.

In my case, it is filters 24/7 except when I am using the Lee system. I don't obsess over whether I need a filter or not, it is just convenient to have it on all the time rather than consciously putting it on and off.
I have seen many, many professionals who just put a filter on their lenses and no lens cap when they put them in their shooting bag for quick access.

To cite your own example: barrier contraceptives are useful for more than preventing diseases.
It is unwise to assume what works for one works for every one.

Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon >:() after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG :). Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does :) and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results :) ). It happens, please stop denying that.

11
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 04:53:41 PM »
"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

@neutronomist. Talking about sex :). Does the fear of STD's make you wear a condom 24/7? (or did? before marriage)
No offense, just kidding :).

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 12, 2014, 07:45:22 PM »
Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
And yeah, that macro feature is a very nice and unique selling point. I hope Sigma will include it in their next 24mm.

That feature alone make the 20mm Sigma a lens worth having IMHO. I consider it one of my specialty/fun lenses that may not win any technical awards but it sure is a great creative tool if used wisely.

I've attached two samples shot with this lens that show its capabilities.  Both shot with a 5D MkII.

Nice shots. But when I look closely I see f/8, the uniqueness is lost :) and the 20mm doesn't have that feature, or does it? I think it is 1:4+ at MFD, similar to many other wide angle lenses like 17-40L.

The MFD is shorter; 0.2m.

Attached: f/2.5, f/1.8. Hand held.

It is a lens I use rarely, so it's fine by my standards.

Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens :). Could be GAS infection.

13
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: July 12, 2014, 07:33:07 PM »
Just bokeh, no subject :)


IMG_0928 by ecka84, on Flickr

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 11, 2014, 07:43:57 AM »
Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
And yeah, that macro feature is a very nice and unique selling point. I hope Sigma will include it in their next 24mm.


That feature alone make the 20mm Sigma a lens worth having IMHO. I consider it one of my specialty/fun lenses that may not win any technical awards but it sure is a great creative tool if used wisely.

I've attached two samples shot with this lens that show its capabilities.  Both shot with a 5D MkII.

Nice shots. But when I look closely I see f/8, the uniqueness is lost :) and the 20mm doesn't have that feature, or does it? I think it is 1:4+ at MFD, similar to many other wide angle lenses like 17-40L.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 10, 2014, 06:56:10 PM »
My missing Art lens list is:
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART
Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART

Missing in this list is the 28mm, or is 28mm a dead prime focal length?

As a prime shooter, I don't really miss anything in-between 24mm and 35mm FLs :). Sigma has the old 28/1.8 DG Macro in their line up, which isn't that great on FF (actually, none of the 3 are). If I remember correctly, they released all three (20/1.8, 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 ) at the same time some 15 years ago. So, if they decide to remake all three lenses for their Art lineup, then 28mm would get the least of my attention, unless it would be superior optically by a reasonable amount. For me, something like a single 21/1.8 DG Art would be perfect :).

Actually the 20mm is a rear focus design and it doesn't change length when focusing. That makes it a bit of a different beast from its 24 and 28 mm siblings that have a front focusing design. I'm really satisfied with my copy by the way - it's a solid piece of glass that interestingly can generate quite nice bokeh when you use its near focusing ability.

Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
And yeah, that macro feature is a very nice and unique selling point. I hope Sigma will include it in their next 24mm.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39