April 16, 2014, 01:22:35 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 - vscd

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:25:24 AM »
This is nothing but a shameless marketing of Canon to take extra money from those who strongly waited for a new product on start of sales ). This applies to all company products regardless of how well they are on sale.

I may agree, but not to the full extend. The new lenses are expensive indeed, but they all have new technologies within... everyone want IS, aspherical elements, USM and everything in a small package but no one wants to pay the price. You can *always* get the old lenses, used, for a bargain. 

For example Canon builds create lense for a small price if they don't have the latest gadgets in it. You can get the new 40mm 2.8 STM for about 120$ or less... and this lense is fantastic, even wide open. Except of some vignetting which is no catch nowadays.

32
Now, please make it available for the 5DC, too! ;)

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: January 17, 2014, 04:38:56 AM »
@bdunbar79
Quote
I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3?


If you read carefully you would've seen that I already mentioned this, but you can compare by yourself on DXO. The results don't differ that much.

I'm no pixelpeeper, but there are some legends out there which people tend to build up further and further. In fact I think the 1dx is superiorexcept of resolution, but I don't think someone has to buy it if he already has an 1ds3. The differences between the 1-series and the 5-series are even well documented:

http://www.robo47.net/media/data/martin-wieser-kamera-setup.pdf

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: January 16, 2014, 10:14:40 AM »
But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X


Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.



Edit:  I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.

35
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:15:42 AM »


To compare... this is a results of a really cheap ISO200 Colornegative-Film, sold for 80 Cent in germany. The shot was done with an old Konica Auto S3 (38mm @f1.8). Nothing special, but check the High Definition Range. Nothing beats analogue ;)

36
Canon General / Re: Review - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 07, 2014, 06:38:54 AM »
The 85/1.2 on the other hand is one of the sharpest and thinest DoF lenses you can get (without standing a mile away) but it's also one of the most outrageously priced lenses.


I don't think it's outrageous, it's just complex to build. Just check the prices of the new 56mm 1.2 Fujilense for the small APS-C sensors. Or check some other fast lenses... on Zeiss you won't even get an AF on it.

The point is to decide wether you need it or not. To build a sharp f1.2 lense is nothing you can simply calculate and throw into the market.

Here you could get a glue about the complexity of the Canonball: http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/85er/objektiv.html    Especially check the 72 balls to hold the glass.

37
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 04, 2014, 03:04:44 PM »
I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms.  For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera. 

Correct.

I second that. I think Roger Cicala is surely someone who know a lot about lenses, but in this case I think he got the crowd wrong. I would never think of something the screw mounts in, when I hear of "plastic mounts". I guess they were all talking about the plastic rear-element which fits into the bayonett. Sorry, Roger, lot of verbiage for nothing... you thought too loud.

38
Canon General / Re: Review - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
« on: December 31, 2013, 08:52:27 PM »
Quote
Great work and proof that what's behind the lens has WAY more to do with the quality than the lens itself. Take a look at what Steve McCurry carries most of the time and what he used to shoot the "Afghan Girl" photo for further proof.

...of course the lense is just a fraction of the whole picture, but sometimes you need a tool to get something done. And don't underestimate the equipment of the picture you mentioned, it was taken with a Nikon FM2 camera and a Nikkor 105mm F2.5 lens. This combination is not that bad ,)

Greetings.

39
Canon General / Re: Review - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
« on: December 31, 2013, 04:52:02 AM »
I replaced the 85mm 1.8 with the 1.2 and I never regretted it. But, the 85mm 1.8 is one of the best lense Canon ever made for the given money. I would recommend everyone the small portrait lense, even on APS-C.

The fact that the 1.2 produces some very magic pictures is really true, but I guess this is nothing a starter would need for nearly 2 grands. The 1.2 catches a lot more light than some people may think and the shallow depth of field is even useable for landscapes (try to isolate a tree with a normal lense). From 1.8 to 1.2 you got 2,25 times more light... this is more than a stop. As I still work with film, this is something which sometimes saves a lot of situations.

40
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 29, 2013, 12:26:48 PM »
Quote
Then I suggest you try a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:1, without an extension tube and compare the reading on your camera with that you get from a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2, with the addition of an extension tube. Seeing is believing I guess ...

I really would like to try that if I had something uselessfull like a 50mm Makro 1:2. BUT. Both lenses would be focused to the closest point to get to their maximum magnification. Both would be set to an equal f-stop (and focal length of course) and both would be handled with the same sensor-sensitivity. So I doubt any difference between the shuttertimes. Doesn't sound to compelling to me. Maybe I'll find an old 100mm Macro with anything like 1:2 and compare it to the 100L with 1:1.

Maybe.

41
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 28, 2013, 03:42:52 PM »
Quote
According to this, you won't lose more light using extension tube than a macro lens, as the light lost is caused by the magnification.

I'm no expert, but not even convinced. If you go into a long tunnel with a light at the end, the light is getting lower with every step into the tunnel. An Extension Tube is nothing different, except of beeing not soooooooo long.

42
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 27, 2013, 08:31:20 AM »
Quote
For those who worry about the 1:2 magnification limitation, add Kenko or Canon extension tubes and you´re OK to go a lot closer.

Then you loose a lot of light. Why do you buy a makro anyway when you can get the same effect with extension tubes? And if it's so easy and without backdraws, then please write Zeiss to get a longer back between bayonett and lense, so the extension is already attached and they can claim real 1:1.

You could work for marketing.   :o

43
Canon General / Re: Post Processing: A Guide for Nature Photographers
« on: December 25, 2013, 03:33:04 PM »
I would exchange my knowledge of making a readable homepages with his photography skills. ;)    Damn  is the webpage ugly.

44
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 25, 2013, 12:23:07 PM »
>Excuse my ignorance but what is the point of a 2.0 lens for
>low light situations when you can't have Auto Focus?

Bright viewfinder and shallow DOF. Why do you need AF? If you have the right split-screen you can focus very exactly with those lenses. I admit that it's somewhat difficult with "normal" screens, but not with other Canon Splitscreen. Just try one. Another point would be to use the exact distancescale on the lense... just go 2 metres away and set the focus to 2metre. It fit's. Unlike AF equipped examples.


45
Lenses / Re: Review: Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: December 23, 2013, 03:00:13 PM »
In Europe (f.e. germany) they're called "Walimex" ;) The quality should be all the same because I think they were mady in exactly the same factory.

I *love* mine, especially for the price. The resolution is terrifice f.e. @f8 and it's not that big or heavy. The only thing I have to mention is a general one... don't use those lenses (just) for landscapes. Wideangle lenses in this range are not made for panoramic pictures, at least not in my opinion. Just use 24mm with straight optical lines and stitch a few together if you need more angle of view.

The Pixels on the border are curved, unsharp and the results may not be what you've expected. With film you have to, but with digitalcameras I would stitch. Wideangle lenses @14mm can be much more usefull for creative purpose, to catch the eyewithin rooms or to shoot in rather tight places.

Greetings.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10