Messages

31

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 09, 2012, 12:23:49 AM »

Well, I guess this is good news. I don't currently have much use for a 45 TS-E at all, but I do frequently use my current 90 TS-E. It is just about perfect optically. Perhaps new optical coatings, a slightly greater image circle to extend the sharpest image area even further off-axis and, of course, the new TS mechanism allowing independent control of movement direction, would entice me. But, at what cost? Now, with moderate lens movement, there is no sharper lens that I've seen in the Canon line-up. I'll just have to see for myself, but Canon will have a hard time convincing me to part with my Version I of this lens.

As to what other lens focal length that might fall into the TS-E lineup, I'd definitely vote for one in the 135-150 mm range, as for product photographers of all sorts, this focal length proves just about the best for full frame images of "things." At those focal lengths perspective distortion is greatly minimized, and room for lighting the subject is increased. Furthermore, I've also been lusting after the 17mm TS-E for my occasional architectural work. Looks like I'll have to think seriously of new ways to finance my lens wish-list program, before my wife decides to trade me in on a Version II.

Regards,
David

32

Lenses / Re: what 5 lenses would you want (exclude factors such as buissiness and body)

« on: December 03, 2012, 07:59:47 PM »

Lall the lenses are Canon, unless specified otherwise.

The basic 5, and couldn't, for some reason, expand on the number of lenses:
17mm f/4.0 TS-E, 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 85mm f/1.2 II, 90mm f/2.8 TS-E.

If anyone cares, the next 8 that would be on my list if I already had the above lenses, and if I had the funds (the 200-400, for one, is going to be pretty da%$ expensive): 100 f/2.8 IS macro or 180 f/3.5 Macro, 24 f/3.5 TS-E II, 35mm f/1.4, 200 f/2.0 IS, and the 200-400 f/4.0 IS, plus the light weight traveling 3 - the 40 f/2.8 pancake, the 24-70 f/4.0 IS and the 70-200 f/4.0 IS.

Last, what I actually have now: 8mm f/3.5 Belarus Peleng fisheye (this is a "cheapie"), 16-35 f/2.8 II, 24 f3.5 TS-E, 24-70 f/2.8, 50 f/2.5 macro, 85mm f/1.2 II, 90 f/2.8 TS-E, 150 f/2.8 Sigma Macro, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 1.4 converter II. These may not all seem so glamorous, but they get the job done, and done well.

That about does it.

Regards,
David

33

Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog

« on: December 01, 2012, 11:27:25 PM »

Here are two shots of my dog Bailey. He and his brother, Buster, are Giant Schnoodles from the same litter. They are each about 95 ponds of fun, very smart, very social, very loving and have the energy of small nuclear powered aircraft carriers . I caught the outdoor shot of Bailey in a rare moment when he stood still for about 3 consecutive seconds. Hope these display OK.
Regards, David

34

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D or t4i?

« on: November 27, 2012, 08:44:05 PM »

Others here have given you some parameters in which the two differ and which they thought mattered more. I've never done more than "handle" both cameras; I've never even shot a single frame with either. However, just from picking them up and looking through them, I've been able to form some opinion.

First of all, the 60D, while bigger and heavier, fits better in my average sized hands, while my right hand fingers feel uncomfortably crowded when trying to grip the T4i. After a long time holding the Rebel, my right hand would feel too cramped.

Second, and more importtantly, look through the viewfinders of both at the same time and do a an A/B comparison of what the same scene lfrom the same shooting position looks like in both cameras. You will find that the view through the 60D viewfinder is bigger and brighter. I believe that the 60D has a true pentaprism optical system for the viewfinder while the T4i uses the penta mirror system. The viewfinder mirror system is cheaper and inferior to the pentaprism for brightness and contrast, making manual focusing much harder. Furthermore the 60D viewfinder shows a slightly greater area of the image which will appear on your sensor and image file than does the T4i, and it also magnifies the viewfinder image a little more to make it appear larger and easier to see details in your field of view more clearly.

Last, the 60D body is a little more solidly contructed with a little more metal in its frame, making it feel like it could take a little more abuse and last a little longer in a more professional environment. I also seem to recall that the shutter is rated for slightly greater use in the mean-time-before-failure testing done by Canon themselves.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
David

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible positive 6D surprise? Should I wait?

« on: November 24, 2012, 09:48:57 AM »

Despite any rumors about low light performance of the 6D - or their relative merit - even if the technology of the 6D sensor and electronics remains unchanged from that of the 5D3 (a camera that I own and really like so far), it will, by virtue of a very slightly lower pixel count (20 vs. 22) have very slightly bigger light receptors for each pixel, making the 6D potentially that much better at capturing low light images. Whether or not that difference in capture performance exists is a matter of other associated factors, such as the formation of the focusing lens layer over the sensor wells, sensor well depth, associated electronic circuitry, etc. Finally, even if such a difference does exist, whether or not you would ordinarily notice it in your own work, given its likely small effect, is a question which will need to be answered at such time as you actually get your hands on both cameras and try them out. Good luck.

Regards,
David

36

Lenses / Re: Lenses for Ice Cream Photography

« on: November 22, 2012, 09:56:09 PM »

Others here have suggested that lenses are not the issue, but maybe lighting is more important. They are closer to the truth about this subject. Of course you need the proper lens, proper lighting, proper styling, but, most of all, you need a talented and experienced shooter, if, as you said, the results are critical to your family business' success. Perhaps you could eventually be that person, that photographer, but, if you need to get your pictures sooner than about a year from now, and if you cannot afford to spend hours and hours, weeks and weeks, practicing, learning and improving yourself, perhaps hiring a professional is truly your best option.

I am not suggesting that you hire me, but take a look at both my food portfolio and my people with food portfolios - only two of the 15 portfolios on my website - to see some good examples of food oriented images shot mostly for high-end editorial use, plus some for advertising type use. This will give you an idea of the road you'll have to travel in order to "get" where you'll have to be to do it yourself. I think you'll quickly understand that your best bet is to hire out this job. You can see my website information at the end of this post. Meanwhile, you can work on your skills and, hopefully, some day do the job properly yourself. By the way, there is no best lens, but the TS 90 is probably the most likely overall candidate, depending on multiple factors too numerous to get into in this forum post. Good luck to you.

Regards,
David

37

Lenses / Re: My unscientific 50mm macro shootout: Canon vs Zeiss

« on: November 18, 2012, 08:29:40 PM »

Your test generally confirms what I've for so long, as the occasion arises, gone out of my way to point out - the incredible performance of the "little 50 who could" (see the beloved childrens' story about a locomotive for reference); this modest little lens outperforms most every outlandishly expensive rival. It is constructed so that it feels like it is in danger of falling apart at any moment, but it doesn't and, if cared for reasonably well, will last a lifetime. It focuses to 1:2 as is, and to 1:1 with a matched extender which I never bought. It's amazingly cheap, and, even wide open at f/2.5, is better than most 50's and really pretty darn good. Stopped down one stop or more, it will at least match almost any 50 made and exceed most in sharpness. The focus motor is not USM, plus the focus ring is skinny hard plastic and has a litlle bit of a wobbly feel to it in manual focus mode. Despite all these shortcomings, this lens, if you can still buy it new, is a steal at its selling price.

The OP's test shows that this little Canon can easily compete with even a Zeiss lens costing vastly more money. I've shot 2 x 3 ft. nationally distributed commercial car posters for one of the "Big Three's" ad agencies with this lens on a 1Ds3, and the client, more used to medium format, thought it was plenty sharp and loved it. It ain't perfect, but it sure is a great deal, better than the "nifty 50" f/1.8, the 50 f1.4 (at least at apertures under f5.6 or so), the 50f/1.2 L at most matching apertures and more, as well as the Sigma f/1.4. Check it out for yourself on the-digital-picture.com website test. True, you can't shoot at very wide apertures with that kind of nifty bokeh, but barring that, this thing is amazing. It was designed about the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth and used an old tried and true optical formula that was more likely laid out on a napkin rather than a computer monitor, but, it just works.

Well, more than enough said.

Regards,
David

38

Lenses / Re: Help!! 17 TS-E vs 16-35 II vs 17-40 vs 14II vs. Tokina 16-28 2.8 for Landscapes

« on: November 15, 2012, 02:17:45 PM »

I've owned the 24TS, tried out the 17TS, and owned both the 16-35 v2 and the 17-40. My opinion depends on just how rich you are. If money doesn't matter, or at least matters little, then hands down, get the 17TS and 16-35 v2. The 16-35 is "killer" sharp and contrasty in the center, and depending on the QC of the particular one you buy, between good and very good on the edges and between fair and good in the extreme corners, where "un-flatness" of field rears its ugly head. A good copy of the 16-35 is always going to be better than a good copy of the 17-40, but, stopped down to, say, f/8-13, the advantage is very, very slim, except in contrast and distortion, where the 16-35 remains a little better still. The 16-35 is generally better on the wide side, from 16mm to about 28mm; at 35mm, the quality is lower. The 17-40 IQ is a little more even - not as good at 17mm as is the 16-35 at 16mm, but not as bad at 40mm as is the 16-35 is at 35mm. Also, don't under-estimate that the f/2.8 max aperture of the 16-35 helps a little with focus, both manually and in autofocus. All this means little, however, if the price of the 16-35 is prohibitive. And, the 17-40 is also a little bit smaller and lighter, but not much, and a comparative bargain.

As far as the 17TS is concerned, if you want the best extreme wide angle Canon makes, then this is it, period. It's very expensive, however, and, for landscapes, rather than exterior architecture and interior photography, I'm really not very convinced that a lens this wide is really necessary. But, if your style of shooting is one that that focal length works best for you, then run, don't walk, to the store to get it. Because of the lens's bigger projected image circle, neccessitated by the shift function, the corners of this wide angle, used with no movements, are really very, very good and very unlike any of Canon's ultra wide zooms. Of course, depending on how much swing and/or tilt you might apply in an actual exposure, the corner quality will vary quite a bit. No question though, if you need a 17mm focal length lens to be sharp across the entire frame, this is the only one to get.

The 14mm is a great lens and also better than Canon's ultra wide zooms in general IQ, down to the corners. However, it is short of the IQ performance of and, clearly inferior in versatility to the 17TS. If you need the extra angle of view that it affords, it is a great lens. But, for general travel and landscape type use, I see 14mm as potentially a lot of fun to use, but not exactly necessary. I see its use falling most into the rare times when you just plain need something as wide as possible because your back is literally to the wall, but you neither want to have the distortion of a semi-fisheye nor go to the bother of stitching a couple of 17TS images together - which yields a potentially even wider angle of view than does a single 14mm exposure. Or, when you want to use its resultingly exagerrated perspective to "make a point" in your picture. Otherwise, it's an expensive luxury that's not often neccessary for most people.

As to third party wides, I can't say because I don't own any. I would urge you to try them for yourself. If they work for you in terms of IQ, build, handling, reliability and longevity, fast and accurate focus, etc., by all means get one, because they'll always be cheaper. Cheaper and still adequate for the job at hand is always a good thing for those of us with less than unlimited resources. But, also keep in mind that a ghood "L" lens almost always holds its value better at the back end, when you may finally want to sell it years later, and you may sometimes even be able to sell it at a price higher than your original purchase price, or at least at a really good percentage of it. Good lenses, unlike camera bodies, really are, most of the time, closer to an actual "investment," even though that word is usually carelessly thrown around when purchasing almost anything that a salesman can talk you into.

Good luck,
David

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?

« on: November 12, 2012, 02:49:06 PM »

I was going to write a beautifully crafted medium length reply with reasoning so brilliant and persuasive that even the most pessimistic of complainers and Sonikon-centric leaners would instantly put away their fears and negativity. But then, out of the blue, a piece of the gosh-darned sky fell through my roof, landed on my desk and injured my typing finger.

So, having to make this short: don't be so down, don't simply frown, go out and take a picture of that great big shiny world out there. Canon, just like the weather, will surely change, and soon the lovers of other brands will be bemoaning their terrible fate. And, in any case, it's all a silly camera chimera, signifying nothing more than the anxiety of the times manifest in a new world-wide team sport - consumer product technical development gaming, set in offical international leagues with avid fanclub members voicing their opinion about, and concern with, being "left behind" all the time and everywhere.

As to the future, only the Oracles of Sparta really know and they won't tell us a thing without some very old drachmae and a really developed set of abs.

Regards,
David

40

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 08, 2012, 06:50:43 PM »

No lens elements, while leaving the light unchanged and, therefore, "perfect" obviously can't be called a lens. Yes, if one were able to correct all abberations and still define a desired focal length with only one physical lens element, it would necessarily be better than one which corrected the light equally with two, if only because more light would be able to be transmitted through an equally transmissive single element than through two. In this same manner, because, practically, if not theoretically, IS lenses seem to always use more lens elements for the same generation of focal length and aperture lens made by the same companies, usually the non IS versions are and  should be better, other factors not withstanding. I'm not technically savy enough to explain this with certainty, but it does seem so in reality. Furthermore, one must take into consideration how IS works. Some element (usually a "group" of lens elements) must move within the lens to compensate for the optically equal and opposite movement of the camera/lens combination in order to cancel out that movement, thereby minimizing the blurring effects of said movement during exposure. It will always be harder, with a correspondingly greater degree of potential errors, to keep such a lens configuration with laterally moveable elements true to its ideal optical path as well as to make aberration corrections with the least number of lens elements and most effective design of those elements possible, as the elements that need to be moved must be designed and grouped for IS functioning, rather than for their ideal placement within the lightpath for abberration correction only. In other words, in IS lenses, compromises with pure optical performance must be made, even though they may sometimes be very small and sometimes even irrelevant when, for instance, an IS lens is able to use a generation newer and better lens element design and fabrication process over a non IS lens using older lens design technology. Well, that's my take.

Regards,
David

41

Lenses / Re: Another 135L vs. 70-200 f/2.8 II question...

« on: October 27, 2012, 03:25:34 PM »

I was thinking of selling off my 70-200mm f/2.8 II and 60D and buying a 'like new' 135L + 5D Mark II (New, will pay extra $100-$300 if I have to). I rarely use my 60D nowadays due to having a 5DIII, because like everyone else, I fell in love with the full frame sensor.

I shoot mainly portraiture, and I don't like standing 200mm away from my subject when using this lens and find myself in the 100-150mm range. The reason I shoot 200mm is to get as much background blur as I can get. I also shoot headshots every now and then, so I'm wondering if the 135L makes a good headshot lens. Not worried much about IQ, since I've read many reviews stating that they were very similar. Also, the 70-200 is my least used lens because I prefer the look of my 50L and 35L, and have seen/heard the 135L has a more of a unique 'look' as well, so this is a plus.

I'm planning on shooting Weddings soon as well, and I know I'll probably miss the versatility + extra reach in this case. Since Weddings generally last the whole day and night, having the 70-200 on one camera along with another back up camera both attached around my neck at the same time is going to make the day a bit tougher due to my height and strength. I could always hit the gym, but... Haha  Going wider won't be as much as a problem, since I can have my 35L or 50L attached on one of the 5D's while having the 135L attached to the other 5D.

So under these specific circumstances, what do the you all recommend, keeping weddings in mind as well ?

5DIII / 5DII + 35L, 50L, 135L

or

5DIII / 60D + 35L, 50L, 70-200 f/2.8 II (Current set-up)

I am also very open to any other recommendations  Let's just keep in mind that I'm not looking to spend (In other words, no "Just buy the 135L and the 5DII" please , rather trade off if I can! I'd also rent, but I think I'd need more than a couple days. Plus, having 2 FF bodies with three amazing lenses seems to be a lovely option as well.

 

I've owned the 135 f/2.0 and currently own the 70-200 f/2.8 vII. Here comes my advice.

The 135 is a great lens and is awesome for tight head shots. So is the 70-200. The 135 doesn't have IS and is, of course, limited to one focal length. The differences between the maximum apertures and bokeh quality is not enough to ignore the advantages of the zoom and IS. And, if you get a 5d2, or even a 5d3, you will more than not make up for the extra stop of low light lens ability with the ability to shoot at ISO's more than one stop faster than possible on the 60D. The only other flies in the ointment are that if you don't have the 5d2 or 5D3, your 35mm f/1.4 will not afford you a wide enough viewpoint with an APS-C camera like the 60D. Furthermore, the 135 focal length on the 60D is just about the same as is 200mm on a full-frame 5D.

Best bet: sell the 60D and buy a privately used or Canon-reconditioned, or even new, 5D2. Then your lens set will be appropriate and your cameras will work great for wedding or portrait type shooting.If you want to spend even more, you might want to get another 5D3 and/or add a slightly wider lens, like a 24mm f/1.4 or f/2.8.

Regards,
David

42

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Forest of Autumn EOS 5dIII - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II

« on: October 27, 2012, 03:00:03 PM »

Very beautiful, plus they evoke a nice "feeling" - the mist unifying everything in a slightly colored connective web, the earthy smells, the dampness, the leaves crunching underfoot, the foggy memory of an early moning moment of solitude in the woods that is real, but doesn't quite seem so. Especially like the second and fourth ones.

Regards,
David

43

Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore

« on: October 26, 2012, 03:59:34 PM »

I am neither a corporate financial analyst nor am I even well informed on the relative performance of Canon vis- a-vis other camera makers, such as Nikon or Sony, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But, has anyone even wondered just a tiny bit whether or not there may have been just a tiny twinge of sarcasm in the OP by this site's administrator? After all, making just under a billion dollars profit in a single quarter in today's business climate doesn't seem very bad to me. What do you others think about that?

Furthermore, I doubt very much whether the dynamic range of Canon's sensors or even the available feature sets in their current DSLR lineup has even the remotest tangential connection with the current downturn in their profit margins. Could there eventually be such a connection in the future? Yes, but not for a very long time down the road, as although these values are hot topics in forums like this one and in DPR, in the minds of the vast majority of camera buyers, these currently matter almost not at all.

Common sense tells me that what is happening to Canon right now is probably chiefly related to (in order by significance):

1) The worldwide downturn in economic activity that is affecting most of the developed world
2) The movement to use cellphones instead of point & shoot cameras for everyday snapshots
3) Problems with production in both Japan and China
4) Increasing overall competition from many companies which have all struggled for increased market share during a period of slow-to-negative growth in the overall market
5) Less than stellar marketing, product planning and price point reaearch
6) Some, but not a lot, of the stasis and play-it-safe caution which almost always eventually affects market leaders (as Canon has so long been) in their fields of expertise

As to the ever popular ideas of Canon's supposed sloth or lack of ability in developing Sonikon-like sensors and their slightly less generous feature allocation to cameras down the price point ladder, I believe that the people posing these criticisms have a point, but not a very great one, and that Canon surely will soon respond to some of these by both introducing new sensor lines and upgrading features somewhat by either firmware updates or new model variations. The most recent firmware updates and price reductions are evidence of the beginning of this trend which I think we''l be seeing a lot more of in the future.

Canon didn't get where they are now by being stupid or unaware of their markets; they will undoubtedly improve their corporate governance to try to maintain their market leadership. I cannot say how or how fast they will do it, but I am very confident that they will, indeed, do it.

Last, I would be much more worried, in general, about Canon's business equipment divisions than I would about their photo business. Not only is the world-wide recession affecting this market way more than that for cameras, but I think that the trend away from printing towards the long expected but never realized "paperless office" is, by virtue of business cost cutting due to economic necessity, finally starting to be significant; since Canon's office eqipment business is mostly about paper printers, on one level or another, and that I'd expect the falling market in that category to continue indefintely, I'd think that that part of Canon's business is most in jeopardy, and that they need to somehow diversify or downsize that division very rapidly to make up for it.

Regards,
David

44

Software & Accessories / Re: The best Calibration system for screen to print?

« on: October 18, 2012, 05:04:27 PM »

There's already been good advice. Unless your monitor comes with some proprietary software, like my NEC 3090 does (Spectraview II), your best bet is to use something from Xrite or similar brand to calibrate your monitor. There are two types of instruments that will do the job - a colorimeter or spectrophotometer - and which you choose will affect your use options and the price.

The cheaper of the two will usually come with good simple software to profile your monitor or projector or even ambient room light - any device or environment that transmits light. These devices and their associated software can be excellent to set up your monitor. Coloimeters can't accurately calibrate reflected light; only a spectrophotometer can do that and also calibrate transmitted light as well. So, one must buy a system which include a much more expensive spectrophotometer to do both. Xrite sells them in several different packages, each one unlocking different features in the same basic software program, each package level "higher" (in price and designation) allowing you to profile more devices in more specialized ways. For intsance, if you have a "photo" spectrophotometer system, you can profile your monitor and your inkjet printer and paper choices as well, among other capabilities. If you'd care to, you could buy one of the later packages, and have your Fuji printing supplier print out a test pattern, the file for which you provide him, for you to then evaluate and then profile yourself. Then, you could, in turn, present the resullting ICC profile from his test print back to your printer, so that he can use it to dial in your particular print orders. Of course, this assumes that he would have to be amenable to using your profiles just to print your orders.

Another approach also depends on your printer already having an accurate ICC color-controlled workflow himself and his willingness to share his own profiles with you. If he is able and willing, and you have a good and otherwise calibrated (usually set up for sRGB, sometimes for Adobe RGB) monitor plus Photoshop, you can preview how your file will look printed out on his printer by applying his ICC profile to the View menu using the "Custom" Proof Setup command and then viewing the result with the Proof Colors command. If your image, using your printer's profile, looks wrong, you can edit it in photoshop to look correct using the provided ICC profile and save a new and differently named color-correct-looking version of the original file for sending to your outside printer.

This is a big and very complicated subject and requires quite a bit of learning beyond the little I've explained, but I hope I've shed just a little bit more light on the subject than just telling you what colorimeter to buy.

Regards,
David

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]

« on: October 06, 2012, 08:07:44 PM »

9K to compete, what a joke, Canon really are a big monopoly, I dont think I can last much longer, Ive wanted something better than the 5D2 for ages, and the 1DX is too expensive, I own a 5D3 but its not the advancement I was wishing for, its a great camera, but was always hoping for a camera imbetween 5D and 1D, this is never going to happen

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. I've owned the old 5D and then the 5D2, owned the 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3, and now own the 5D3 as well. From my point of view, the 5D3 is exactly that camera between the 5D and 1D. I'm very happy with it now and feel that only some future 46 MP monster with new sensor tech could lure me back to even near the old 1Ds3 pricepoint, as the increase in ruggedness and speed of the current 1D are not worth the price differential between the 5D3 and 1DX to me. If I shot sports, then my opinion might be different. But, I don't.

Regards,
David