September 15, 2014, 05:34:57 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 43
181
Lenses / Re: What to Buy?
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:38:13 PM »
rs - thanks for the comment.  I think my best course of action is to wait (and wait....) for the D7 mark ii and keep an eye out for a used 100-400L!
You've not mentioned anything which you find restricting with your 7D (not D7! The last time Canon put the D before the number on a DSLR was with the 2002 D60) - all you've mentioned that's limiting you is reach, which is a focal length issue. Just what are you hoping the mk II version will fix that you're currently limited by?

I believe you'd be better off investing your money in lenses rather than bodies, unless there is a very specific reason for a body upgrade.

182
Lenses / Re: What to Buy?
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:04:28 PM »
The question was raised - what can't I do with the gear I have now - really the only limitation I perceive is the reach of my lenses.
If reach is the biggest issue with your 70-300L and 7D, you'll be very underwhelmed by going for a FF camera. While it will function with a 1.4x TC, it's not meant to. It will only physically not foul beyond about 250mm, and as the resulting combo is f8, it'll only AF on a 5D3 or 1D X - so forget about the 6D.

Buying a new body to give a wider field of view will not satisfy your need for a narrower field of view. Even a 7D mk II when/if it becomes available won't give you any more reach, although if it has improved resolving power, you could get away with tighter cropping. I'd say you need a new lens with more reach. Of the current range, the 100-400L is possibly the best budget offering from Canon, and the Tamron 150-600 might also be worth looking into, although the reviews indicate it loses some of its sharpness once you zoom in beyond 400mm.

183
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 11:58:27 AM »
It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.

11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.



It's possible. Anything where the diagonal sees less than 180' is possible. Just difficult. A rectilinear lens will need the corners stretching out loads to keep straight lines straight, and being such an extreme wide angle, expect huge stretching from such a lens. Clouds in the sky will take on a whole new lens created shape.

http://www.canon.com/bctv/calculator/calculator1.html will give you an idea about the AoV of such a lens.

The Sigma 12-24 is the nearest match that currently exists.

185
Lenses / Re: Lens adapters EF-S to EF
« on: January 24, 2014, 01:24:55 PM »
I've used my 10-22 on FF, and while the corners are covered when zoomed in beyond ~13mm, at any aperture or zoom setting the area outside of the crop image circle is beyond a joke. Not to mention the mirror/rear element clearance issue.

If you just want a cheap FF lens, get a 28-135. Or if that's too much, buy one used, or one of the many tiny 28-80, 28-90 or 28-105 lenses.

Having said that, a white box 24-105L is the most sensible option if you can stretch to it.

186
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:29:44 PM »
The foveon has no sensor pattern, the color pixels are stacked.  If by pattern you just mean a "grid", then the solution to that would be to randomize the sizes of the pixels, and perhaps also make them hexagonal shaped.  I had thought years ago that Fuji made a sensor with hexagonal pixels rather than square, but I think I was wrong. 

In film, color is present at all locations, in a very thin membrane.  The grain "resolution" is randomized a bit...it's an "analogue". 

Digital sensors should aspire to do the same thing, in my opinion.
Fuji Super CCD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
A recent Fuji sensor patent: http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-patent-x-trans-evolution-sensor-with-enlarged-green-pixels/

187
It's still a converted, processed, finished (not necessarily to the photographers liking) version of what came off the sensor. As much as it's an improvement over existing jpegs, it's still just more of the same thing. If you want to have the ultimate flexibitly in post, what can possibly beat recording exactly what the sensor captured?

I see it as another compelling reason why raw is superior. Not only have we seen raw conversion, NR and lens distortion algorithms etc improve, but now we potentiomally have a new, improved format to output to. By shooting raw we ensure that the one off moment can be revisited using these new systems (and any others coming up) at a later date, should we not be happy with how we've already processed them.

I might be getting this wrong, and it would not be the first time :)

There was a lenghty debate in this forum (among which a member from Sweden was banned) about sensors and RAW files. At least to me it seemed appearant that RAW is not raw, as in untampered, but rather a conversion of the light that hits the sensor into meaningful elements as light, shaddows, colors ect. In this discussion someone posted a link to a site where someone had used a lot of time trying to dechipher the different ways Canon had programmed sensorinformation, thus resulting in different RAW files based on camera/sensor. Hence, if this is correct, RAW is not raw..

While RAW is far superior to jpg in the relative? uncompressed data made available to postprocessing, the point of my question was that will these new type of jpg. files not make postprocessing easier or being able to stretch the boundaries of the existing jpg. system that we have today?

OK, so there is a debate about whether raw is truly raw or not. But regardless of what the reality of that is, raw is the closest manufacturers will come to recording the light captured by the sensor. They're not going to sneak in a new version of jpeg with less processing than their raw files on that same camera.

Jpegs are by their very nature an end product - much like getting a handful of 6x4's from your roll of film, and not getting the negatives back. It has NR and sharpening baked in, plus a whole host of other post processing tricks.

While it could provide quality improvements and be very welcome for users who already shoot in jpeg, those who output to jpeg from raw converters, and sharing images online etc, it won't replace raw. It'll also need a lot of buy in to be able to become the supported on all output devices (phones, tablets, computers, tv's etc) before any camera manufacturer dares to use it as the default format. For instance, many corporations still use Windows XP, and so do some end users. What would happen if you got an iPhone 6 and the images can't be viewed on anything even slightly old without codecs being installed all over the place?

These new standards take time to gain traction, and sometimes never make it, such as JPEG 2000.

188
It's still a converted, processed, finished (not necessarily to the photographers liking) version of what came off the sensor. As much as it's an improvement over existing jpegs, it's still just more of the same thing. If you want to have the ultimate flexibitly in post, what can possibly beat recording exactly what the sensor captured?

I see it as another compelling reason why raw is superior. Not only have we seen raw conversion, NR and lens distortion algorithms etc improve, but now we potentiomally have a new, improved format to output to. By shooting raw we ensure that the one off moment can be revisited using these new systems (and any others coming up) at a later date, should we not be happy with how we've already processed them.

189
Lighting / Re: Sync speeds beyond 1/500 sec (not leaf shutters)
« on: January 22, 2014, 06:47:28 AM »
What exactly gives one DSLR a sync speed of 1/500sec (e.g. a dated Nikon D40/D70, arguably an amateur camera) vs 1/180sec (e.g. Canon's 6D)?

Sensor size?  Although I do recall the original Canon EOS-1D having a 1/500sec sync...
If you know, how a focal plane dual curtain shutter works, it becomes fairly obvious: the faster the curtains move, the faster speeds you can achieve without running in slit mode. From a physical standpoint, only light speed is the limit, but for obvious reasons shutters move more slowly. Fast moving shutters were considered a professional feature because they allowed you to shoot with flash in bright light with large apertures. Now idea how the D40 ended up with this feature except for Nikon showing off the beauty of smaller sensors.
One of the curtains was electronic in both the D40 and the 1D.

190
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 22, 2014, 02:54:53 AM »
Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?

That's probably radius of the image circle.

Yes, the image height quoted in patents is the radius of the imaging circle. 

191
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:31:22 PM »
Rs, Where did you read that all L lenses carry a worldwide warranty?
I can't seem to find anything about the international warranty on L lenses, although I have found a few threads on it having ended in Australia, and presumably worldwide. Here's an example:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=942086

If I was to buy, for example, the Canon 24-70mm L f/2.8 from a UK retailer selling genuine UK stock, am I right in saying the warrantywith Canon is only a year? So after that year if anything goes wrong I’ll have to sort out getting it fixed by someone other than Canon or I will have to pay Canon to fix it?
Yes, just a one year warranty. After that, its entirely up to you what you do with a faulty product, although if its a lens of reasonable value such as a 24-70 II, I'd be tempted to give Canon a go first.

Based on that change of L series warranty, I'd be more tempted to stick with genuine UK stock.

It sounds like you didn't make it over to SWPP. If you're anywhere near Solihull, there's The Photography Show on at the start of March at the NEC - it looks like it will take over where Focus On Imaging left off, and there will no doubt be similar offers to what was available from SWPP. Again, tickets are free for pro photographers if you apply in advance.

192
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 21, 2014, 10:59:18 AM »
I think for now I will avoid Hdew Cameras and others like them, especially when spending a lot of money like that.


That's fine, it was a leap of faith for me and I'm yet to give it the ultimate test of getting a warranty repair, long may that continue.  I only offered it because it's helped me get the kit that I really wanted at times.

They seem good, but yes its the warranty repair part that I am not sure on. It is better to be safe than sorry when spening over £1400 on one lens, thats what I'm thinking anyway.

Well that probably just proves that you have more common sense than I do  :).  I did do a lot of background on them though and it was near universally positive across many different sites, more so in fact that the vast majority of mainstream outlets so I went for it.  I certainly wouldn't push it though as for example you never know if Canon's policy might change.
Buying from a UK retailer selling genuine UK stock does ensure that the product will have its warranty covered by Canon UK. L lenses carry a worldwide warranty, so that should mean a lens sourced from any country should still be covered in the UK. I'm not sure how or if a shop doing the import to circumvent Canon's pricing policy differs from you buying it yourself when you're travelling.

Having said that, you're not 100% safe anywhere - I've ordered gear from CameraBox (www.camerabox.co.uk), Jacobs (www.jacobs-photo.co.uk) and Jessops (www.jessops.com). Luckily I wasn't waiting for anything to be delivered when each of those stores went bankrupt, but there is the possibility that any retailer could go under at any time.

193
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm or 70-200mm for full lenght portrait?
« on: January 21, 2014, 07:24:41 AM »
The lens with the least distortion. So, assuming those are the only two lenses available, then the 70-200mm. However, rummaging through my personal gear, I'd choose the 50mm macro.

All lenses have distortion...use the lens correction options in LR to fix.
Log lenses have telephoto compression, wides have the opposite...so the photo's look is dependant on the focal length. Personallly, I like the 85mm perspective, it's a mild tele with minimal compression.
Perspective distortion here is the main issue. There is no right focal length to minimise perspective distortion, but there is a correct distance to recreate the look you're after. Typically about 5m or so, but it depends on the look you're after, and of course the space you've got available. Focal length should then be based around that distance and how much you need to fit in the frame.

The OP will probably find somewhere within the 70-200's focal length range will do it, but depending on shooting style, landscape or portrait, space availability and of course the height of the subject, a 24-70 could be more suitable. If funds allow, get both and choose the best one at each shoot. If just one and it's outdoors with plenty of space, 70-200?

194
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 18, 2014, 03:32:44 PM »
Rs, £1549 is getting better, I guess you need to join SWPP to be able to take advantage of these prices?

It's a camera show/photography convention in London, there are another couple of days left:

http://www.swpp.co.uk/convention/

Trade entry is £6 on the door (if you're a pro, I think a business card or equivalent might convince them on the door).

Camera World were better still at £1530. I didn't grab a shot of that show price though.

I see, thanks. Did you get that list of prices by going to the the trade show?
Yes

195
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 18, 2014, 02:13:38 PM »
Rs, £1549 is getting better, I guess you need to join SWPP to be able to take advantage of these prices?

It's a camera show/photography convention in London, there are another couple of days left:

http://www.swpp.co.uk/convention/

Trade entry is £6 on the door (if you're a pro, I think a business card or equivalent might convince them on the door).

Camera World were better still at £1530. I didn't grab a shot of that show price though.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 43