October 23, 2014, 10:43:36 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 - Frodo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 17, 2014, 02:09:05 PM »
The lens you have with you, is the lens that will be used.  The 70-200 f2.8II is too heavy and conspicuous for the sort of photography I do.  I often go hiking with my 24-105 as main lens.  I had a 70-200 f4 and found that the overlap with the 24-105 meant I hardly used it and when I did it was at 200mm.  So I bought the 200 f2.8, which pairs nicely with a 1.4x converter for a close to 300mm lens.  I'm off to Australia for a fortnight on a work trip. If I owned the 70-200 f2.8, it would not come.  The 200mm will come.

It seems your main need is for photographing kids.  Unless you are shooting sports, I suggest that 70-200 is too long for a crop camera, as others have said.  My favourite kid photos are when I get close to them and relatively wide, shooting at their eye-level - kids soon ignore the camera.  This shows the kids in their environment (parties, playgrounds, beaches) rather than isolating them from it.  A zoom would be ideal for this.  A 24-105 on crop camera would be great.  The Sigma 50-150 would be good for something longer.

For portraits on FF, the 135 f2 would be better than my 200 f2.8 and I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice.

The 8.5 f1.8 is a nice cheap portrait lens and focuses fast.  But it does not focus close enough on FF, but on a crop would be tighter.  Finally this lens does not work well on an extension tube, although its okay with a 250D closeup lens for an emergency macro.

The 70-200 f2.8II is by all accounts a great lens.  But it is big, conspicuous and expensive.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why would Canon pick this combo?
« on: September 30, 2014, 02:13:25 PM »
Canon also sold crop sensor cameras as a kit with the 28-135, which is also a full-frame lens. 
At the end of the day, if you don't use the lens, its not cheap.
As a walk around lens on a crop sensor, I'd far rather have the 17-55 f/2.8 than the 24-70 f/4.

Post Processing / Re: Post processing, coma removal
« on: August 20, 2014, 02:57:03 PM »
Yes, I'd love to be able to correct coma.  My EF35/2 IS is a wonderful lens, but the poor coma renders it useless for landscape astrophotography.

Photography Technique / Re: Questions about Shooting the Supermoon
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:27:55 PM »
LOL, yes, and that was brave of you to post that!  I did the opposite when I first shot the moon.  I spot-metered the moon and then set the manual exposure.  Of course that turns white to middle gray, not really what you want, either.  I think spot meter +1 EV works well as a starting place if I remember from my last shot.

The Moon receives the same light from the Sun as we do on Earth.  So expose for a sunny day on Earth to expose the Moon correctly. 
In the days of film I used the "sunny 16" rule: f16 at the reciprocal of the ASA (ISO).  So 1/125 @ f16 for 125 ASA. 
You don't need f16 for depth of field and for a long tele, you need a higher shutter speed.  So f8 and 1/500 for 100 ISO or f8 and 1/2000 for 400 ISO.  I would bracket to be safe.

Photography Technique / Re: Questions about Shooting the Supermoon
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:18:34 PM »

2. Forgive my extreme ignorance on the subject, but I assume the so-called moon illusion that makes it appear larger near the horizon is just a psychological phenomenon, not something visible in-camera, right?

Yes, but the super moon is actually a bit larger, as the moon is a little closer to us.

You are right about the Moon illusion.  Wikipedia captures it well:

A popular belief, stretching back at least to Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., holds that the Moon appears larger near the horizon due to a real magnification effect caused by the Earth's atmosphere. This is not true: although the atmosphere does change the perceived color of the Moon, it does not magnify or enlarge it. In fact, the Moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it is near the horizon than when it is high in the sky, because it is farther away by nearly one Earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the Moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.

The angle that the full Moon subtends at an observer's eye can be measured directly with a theodolite to show that it remains constant as the Moon rises or sinks in the sky (discounting the very small variations due to the physical effects mentioned). Photographs of the Moon at different elevations also show that its size remains the same.

Note that between different full moons, the Moon's angular diameter can vary from 33.5 arc minutes at perigee to 29.43 arc minutes at apogeeā€”a difference of over 10%. This is because of the ellipticity of the Moon's orbit.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D+7Dii Vs 5D mkiii
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:41:58 PM »
An important question is: do you want 2 bodies or 1?
I went to Antarctica a couple of years ago.  I went for a 5DII and 7D for less than the price of a 5DIII.  I needed to have two bodies as I could not risk one failing.  I also needed the extra reach that the 7D provided on my 400 f5.6.  By the way that's a good BIF combination, but you have to maintain high shutter speeds for sharpness.  In my view, the 400/7D is sharper than 400/cropped 5DII.
Now I'm back home, I hardly use the 7D other than for watersports photography and when I do events when two cameras are handy.  There are times when I miss the better focusing of the 7D (especially with lateral AF points when shooting portraits wide open), but the quality of the 7D files are not a touch near those from the 5DII.  So now I'd like the 5DIII as a single camera!
But on balance, I prefer the two camera set up.  Roll on the next Antarctica trip!

I tried a slide adaptor in my reasonably good Canon scanner - results were pathetic.
I then made an adaptor that screws on the front of my EF 50mm macro with extension tube.  This tube holds the slide at just the right distance for 1:1 (actually a little less so I crop slightly when processing) and a bit further back is a diffuser made out of a plastic ice-cream container lid that was neutral in colour.  I can take a photo of the adaptor if people are interested.
I then use a flash on a TTL cord to illuminate the slide.  Use auto exposure but found I need to give about +1/2 - 1 stop to get the best image.
I clean dust off the slides reasonably well, but find that the last spots are much easier to remove in Lightroom.
I found that using the medium RAW file on my 5DII was about right - the full resolution file is more than the original slide and is wasted resolution.
I have a preset for processing the slides.  I find that I can "improve" the slides significantly by filling in the shadows yet retain highlights, as well as correct colour balance, and remove dust and fungus (lots of fungus on my Kodachromes, but at least they retained colour well). 
I produce two jpgs: a full resolution (of the medium RAW file) and one that will fit within a 1920x1080 full HD TV screen. Then I delete the RAW file.  Once the images are backed up I through away the slides. 
This works well and the sharpness is great.  The most time is spent in processing the image in Lightroom, but I think that this is a part of the process that makes a huge difference.
I ended up doing over 10,000 slides this way.

I have one of these lenses.
The focusing ring is very smooth and there is no backlash.  I think you would feel backlash when twisting the focus ring back and forth.
It is true that there is variability with the position of the distance scale in relation to the actual focus.  My first lens was about 1cm off along the distance scale.  The focus ring seized and I got a new one under warranty - this one is spot on.
I suspect the issue is the huge depth of field.  I would not rely on differences on the screen even at 10x.  Take a photo where you see "critical focus" when focusing at 10x from the minimum point and another focusing from infinity and a third in between.  Then examine the images on screen (or print).  That is the critical test.  I suspect that there will be little difference between the three images.

Canon has deliberately locked me, as an owner of a 5DII and 7D, out of its own software.  I can't imagine that there are specific firmware features of the new cameras that would rely on a specific version of DPP.  Even if this were the case, other processing software provides updates for specific cameras.

This is clearly a deliberate decision, probably by the marketing team.

In any case, I have Lightroom, which I've had since day one (actually before then, with Raw Shooter).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Auto ISO
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:12:45 PM »
I know this thread is about the 5D3, but on the 5D2, auto-ISO is useless.  On Av mode, which I use most, the shutter speed is 1/focal length.  I have steady hands but this often does not produce critically sharp images.  And on manual, Auto-ISO sets at 400.
Well, the Canon marketing gurus know their stuff - this is one of the reasons I'm considering upgrading.

Taken with my good old 17-40 and 50D.
Nice photo.
How did you get close enough?

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 06, 2014, 02:24:01 PM »
Yes, I like Dustin's reviews - thanks Dustin.
And yes, I like this lens - thanks Canon.
I bought it for the small size, the sharpness and relatively small depth of field wide open, and for the IS.
Its weakness is bad coma wide open - I've posted elsewhere on this site about that.

I possibly don't understand your problem.  I also produce different aspect ratios, e.g 16:9 for screen, etc.  Lightroom allows for the simple selection of aspect ratios in the crop function ("r").
If you want to expect a range of aspect ratios with one button click, I would never do that.  One of the most important parts of my work flow is cropping for composition and usually crops are not centred on the image.  16:9 will often be lower or higher to get more or less sky.  4:3 will be to the left or right (or more frequently up or down in portrait format).
I would never want a plug-in to crop automatically.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 01:05:51 PM »
Quote from: Frodo link=topic=19640.msg370447#msg370447 date
However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.
Is it possible for you to post this picture? I took a look at lenstip.com but I'm interested in a real life example of this coma issue at F2.0. That would really help in the decision I want to make.

Here you are.  I took this quickly off a table top tripod.  Details 5DmkII, 35mmf/2IS, 15 sec @ f2, ISO 1600.  The max aperture of f/2 allowed me to shoot at 15 seconds avoiding star trails.  However, you can see the coma in the lights on the bottom left and stars in the top.  Stars are sharp and coma free in the centre of the photo.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 04:31:15 AM »
I bought the 35 f/2 IS a month ago and used it with success in DC.  It is very sharp wide open and I have no hesitation shooting at f/2 for a nice shallow depth of field.  The Sigma would be better, but that lens is much larger and heavier.  It is much smaller and lighter and less conspicuous than the 24-105 and I find walking around with the 35mm to be a revelation and this is a big plus when travelling.  I'm considering getting an 85mm f/1.8 to match it.  The IS seems better than on the 24-105, but I haven't tested it.  I took some nice longish exposures of waves handheld, so its also a good waterscape lens.  However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.  My Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is much, much better.  If you need night lights near the edge of the frame and are critical, then this lens is not for you.
But I'm very happy with my purchase.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5