Messages

1276

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)

« on: November 02, 2011, 02:49:37 PM »

@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite).  With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).

I thought I had this figured out till I read HillSilly's post...

Neuro or any other Savior : Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do I get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF.

Ok so let say i use a 50mm f1.8 on both a 5d and 7d, subject is 10 feet away from both cameras. After capture and 100% crop (lets say we frame 1 feet on all sides of the head of the subject (to get some background) in the crop )... basically like this frame for a  passport picture

With image will show more blurring of the background?

1277

Canon General / Re: Buy one of these

« on: November 02, 2011, 02:29:59 PM »

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/628301-REG/Cokin_CBPW400_BPW400_Wide_Angle_Filter.html

I use it with a 17-35 on a 5D and it works well although, as I recall, not all the way down to 17mm.

Another great idea... I wonder if this will be compatible with the adapter ring I already have (it's not a Cokin... but Cokin compatible I think...)

1278

Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary

« on: November 02, 2011, 02:25:13 PM »

The Cokin P filter holder has three slots.  If you don't mind having only two slots, here's what you do: take a sharp utility knife and cut off the outer slot from the filter holder.  Voila, no more vignetting.  This 5 minute fix has served me well.

Good idea! ... however would like to know how wide can you go with 1 slot cut off (2 left) i.e. is 24mm ok?

1279

Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary

« on: November 02, 2011, 10:04:47 AM »

neuro, BTW, what ND filters do YOU use (if any), I think I've read somewhere on the forum from you about it and it's just now that I get interested too.

Go ahead John, Splurge.. OP is ok with digression in this regard 

1280

Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary

« on: November 01, 2011, 05:32:15 PM »

It is possible to get special adaptor rings for wideangle lenses (although I'm not sure about for the Cokin system), but there comes a point where the field of view is just too great. If you try the 17-40 on full frame, you'll get the holder in frame as well :p. The only alternative is to use a 100mm system, such as Lee or Cokin Z, but even then, at 17mm, you have to position the filter holders carefully and stacking becomes an issue.

Looks like I need to hand hold the filters sans the holder 

1281

Canon General / Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary

« on: November 01, 2011, 04:46:51 PM »

As some of you know, I am fairly new to the hobby... so much so that I have never used Filters before (did most of my stuff in PP). As I begin to broaden my creating wings a bit... I bought a cheap Filter kit off ebay: this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/200641087439?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

to go on my 24-105mm. I think it is great for the price... seems to work ok but there is something weird... at anything below 30mm or thereoff, I get black bars on the sides (severe vignetting); which I think are the edges of the filter holder showing up in the image.

Seems weird that I got graduated filters for outdoor/scenery shots and I cannot use this wide? Is this a defect or was the P series not designed for FF cameras like the 5D?

1282

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release

« on: November 01, 2011, 04:40:03 PM »

First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)

Seems there's an assumption that the increase is linear, when it's not.  Actually, it's more like 2 cameras.  Plotting the prices of current cameras from the T3/1100D through the 5DII, the best curve fit is a 2^nd order polynomial (R² = 0.99344).  Extrapolating that curve upwards, the next increment is $3600, then $5000, then the $6800 1D X.  Replotting the data including the $6800 price of the 1D X, fitting a 4^th order polynomial curve, and interpolating that curve by integer units also yields two intervening models, but with approximate prices of $4000 and $5300.

Made me smile  Thanks John.

The next time Canon deviates from a 2nd order polynomial, i'll create a new thread and ping ya!

1283

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)

« on: November 01, 2011, 03:36:59 PM »

I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Is this for RAW's or jpegs?

1284

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release

« on: November 01, 2011, 12:59:41 PM »

First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)

1285

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii

« on: November 01, 2011, 12:53:34 PM »

Try post processing 1k raw images like I do sometimes ... and see the time you save with this gimmick.  Trust me it is not fun sitting on the comp for a week merging all the AEB frames.... It may not be much for you, but for some it is very welcome.

I used to have a 1D2, and loved to take HDR shots with the 7AEB and 8fps. Now I have a 5D, I have almost given up on HDR since it is so much more inconvenient now.... I would like to get back into it once they have a decent set of functions on the 5D3.

I suspect that in camera HDR is becoming a tick-box thing that all new cameras of a certain grade must have in order to be worthy of the price tag.

I almost never use regular AEB brackets and use manual settings as sometimes the "darks" can be too dark.

One day I might be more comfortable with Manual bracketing, I don't like fidgeting with the camera once it has captured a frame and move it around even the slightest. ( it is on a decent tripod, yes)

As for your darks being too dark, how may AEB frames do you work with and do you use RAW or the jpegs?

1286

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii

« on: October 31, 2011, 02:43:23 PM »

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Multiple-Exposure Feature something new for a Canon Dslr!? I'd love to see this feature included in the 5D iii.

Just curious. What does in-camera multiple-exposure offer that couldn't be done with layers in Photoshop? When Canon announced this, I admit I was scratching my head thinking this sounded more like a gimmick than a 1D series feature. I must be missing something here.

I'm not anti-tweaking photos, but I think it's much more fun to think creatively about setting up shots and trying to get the image I have in my head right in-camera first. I have been able to set-up multiple-exposures in-camera with my classic 5D but am very limited by light conditions and distance I can move from the camera during the exposure etc. Plus not all find it easy to use photo-editing software!

Try post processing 1k raw images like I do sometimes ... and see the time you save with this gimmick.  Trust me it is not fun sitting on the comp for a week merging all the AEB frames.... It may not be much for you, but for some it is very welcome.

I used to have a 1D2, and loved to take HDR shots with the 7AEB and 8fps. Now I have a 5D, I have almost given up on HDR since it is so much more inconvenient now.... I would like to get back into it once they have a decent set of functions on the 5D3.

1287

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii

« on: October 31, 2011, 12:18:26 PM »

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Multiple-Exposure Feature something new for a Canon Dslr!? I'd love to see this feature included in the 5D iii.

+1: and maybe not 9AEB, but at least 5?

1288

EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii

« on: October 31, 2011, 12:17:08 PM »

i hope the new 1dx is telling us alot about the up coming 5dii, especially given the age we are in and the technological abilities of today.  i know the 1dx is the cream of the crop but even half of these features on the new 5diii would be a major upgrade. 

i hope the ff sensor stays the same, no need for a larger mp sensor.  whats the point?  i personally would like to see a higher frame rate, such as atleast 6 - 7 fps (half of the 1dx would suffice here).  The dig. 5 processor is capable why not.  high iso would be a major plus also, but i would like to see some more comparable features to the nikon d700 or the upcoming d800 such as more bracketing options, and lots of focus points.

who knows whats going to happen, but i can't wait.  if its not up to my spec, i have no problems going over to the nikon d800.  id pay around $3500 for the right camera.  oh btw, i don't care one bit about upgraded video features.

+1

1289

Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?

« on: October 28, 2011, 07:29:27 PM »

Thanks for the link.  I agree with the one comment posted to the review - that was a pretty bad misrepresentation.  As Dr. Croubie points out, the rear element of the lens is right at the back.  I think he mis-typed when stating it's at 300mm - I think it's at 70mm and the rear element moves further 'in' (away from the lens mount) as you zoom to 300mm - at least, that's how most extending zooms behave (except the 24-70mm which uses a reversed design).  So, it's 'compatible' at longer focal lengths, but not 'compatible' (= lens damage) at shorter focal lengths.

An apt theory.. since it will be used for longer lengths anyway, it could work. 

Dr. Croubie: Thanks for the extra pics, I would not have understood it well without them.

Is lens damage really a concern? I mean there's plastic hitting glass, so unless someone is careless, I would think the risk is limited if used with the knowledge that the floating lens hunts, No AF to be used and should keep the zoom at 300mm?... I guess not worth buying a brand new 2x over the 70-300mm unless one had one lying around....

1290

Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?

« on: October 27, 2011, 11:14:08 AM »

For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III

Ahhh the Internet, fountain of Truth.   

The source was: Shutterbug Magazine.

Aug 2011 issue

The reviewer was Farace or something IIRC.

Edit: found it on the "internet" too. Here's the URL for it:http://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56l-usm-long-short-it