July 30, 2014, 05:24:35 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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 28
Lenses / Re: Canon Announcements Next Week? [CR1]
« on: October 17, 2012, 11:08:58 AM »
Mt. Spokane previously suggested problems with fluorite crystal growth (a process which takes over a year for lenses that size) due to the power issues in Japan - that certainly makes sense.

I thought it was only the 1200mm f/5.6L that took that long to grow the flourite elements (~215mm diameter):

400 f/2.8L IS II appears to only be ~125mm diameter

800 f/5.6L IS has two (~140mm and ~120mm)

I haven't been able to find a block diagram for 500mm IS II or 600mm IS II, but I'd imagine they have a similar design to the 800mm (two large elements in the front of the lens), not like the 600mm IS I (one smaller element in the middle ~100mm diameter).

Lenses / Re: 17 - 40mm for Architecture?
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:23:29 PM »
I have read good things about the Sigma 15-30mm, and it seems to be optically one of the better third-party UWA zooms.  Enjoy your new lens, and post some examples.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:25:57 PM »
I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection.
Point of order - the phrase 'holy trinity of primes' usually refers to the 35-85-135 combo.
I always thought it was 24-50-85 for the Holy Trinity.  In reality, any three of 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 could be considered, IMO.

I like the idea of 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 100 f/2.  I like my 35 f/2, but IQ is not nearly as good as the 50 I, or 85.  Additionally, focusing is a joke compared to the 85 (similar speed to 50 I).  I had the 28 2.8 for a while, and it's focusing speed was surprizingly fast for non-USM (likely due to the really short travel of MFD->inf) and noticably quicker than the 35 2.

I think 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2 (EDIT: or 40mm f/2.8 STM) and 85 f/1.8 could be a good set as well.  I would not count the 24 and 28 IS lenses in with the unholy trinity, due to their near-L cost (even if their IQ is up there with current L lenses).

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: October 11, 2012, 02:31:53 PM »
I understand the limitations everyone is bring up about killing higher levels of ambient light with a faster SS, however, the 6D (which is what prompted this thread) is a consumer level camera (i.e. and 'entry-level' full frame DSLR).  For more advanced users that would have the need for a strobist setup and more complicated techniques, higher end cameras fulfill the need for a fast sync speed.  I would say the majority of 6D owners would not be limited by the lower spec.  I think we all need to compare apples-to-apples though, as far as sensor size is concerned.  Here's how I see it:

Full Frame

1/300 - Nikon F5
1/250 - Canon 1Ds series, 1Dx, and highest-end film cameras (EOS 620, EOS 1, 1N, 1V), Nikon D3, D4, D700, D800, F4, F6, F100, F90, F801 (N8008)
1/200 - Canon 5D series, prosumer film cameras (EOS 3, 5), Nikon D600
1/180 - Canon 6D
1/125 - lots of Canon and Nikon middle-to-low-end film cameras
1/90 -    "


1/500 - 1D
1/300 - 1D Mark III, IV
1/250 - 1D Mark II
1/200 - EOS IX (APS film SLR)
1/180 - Nikon Pronea 6i (APS film SLR)
1/125 - EOS IX Lite, Nikon Pronea S (APS film SLR)


1/500 - Nikon D1 series, D70, D70s, D50, D40
1/250 - Canon 20D through 60D, 7D, Nikon D2 series, D200, D300, D300S, D7000
1/200 - Canon D30, D60, 10D, Rebels, EOS M, Nikon D90, D80, D60, D40x, Dxxxx
1/180 - Nikon D100

One cannot compare sync speeds between cameras when sensor size is different.  Look up at the full frame section and notice where the highest-end film cameras ever made are, and also where the EOS 3 and EOS 5 were.  The industry does not look like they have made huge steps back as the forums seem to indicate (especially with regards to prices and other available technologies included in the cameras and flashes).  Prior to the AF era sync speeds were even worse (T50, T60 = 1/60, T80 = 1/80, T70 = 1/90), except for T90 (1/250).

I'm still a little baffled by the 1/500 sync speed on the oldest Nikon APS-C DSLRs, but clearly Nikon hasn't gone back to that since.

EDIT:  Added APS Film SLRs just for comparison.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?
« on: October 10, 2012, 11:47:58 AM »
I've only taken my 5D out in low light a few times since I bought it a few weeks ago.  My camera shows banding at 3200, and some noise (with no obvious patterning) at 1600 and 800.  The 800 and 1600 noise is pretty easily correctable in DPP (I always shoot raw), but the 3200 requires the slider to move further than I'm accustommed to and results in blurring of details easily visible at 50%.  Overall, I'm very happy with my 5Dc.  I did miss the extra 'reach' of my previous cameras (XT, XTi, 30D) when I went to a baseball game last week (front row, right field line, ~50 ft beyond 1st base), but I can always buy longer lenses in the future, or crop when necessary.

Lenses / Re: 17 - 40mm for Architecture?
« on: October 09, 2012, 11:17:37 AM »
For architecture I think a zoom in necessary.  My father is an architect and for a lot of shots you don't necessarily want to be a the widest FL.  14mm might be useful sometimes, but you might find that it is too wide in a lot of instances.  For architectural photography, I am of the opinion that you use the longest possible lens (most often ≤28mm) to show everything you want within the composition and give you a 'feel' of being inside the space.  Using 14mm all the time will result in all shots having the same ultra-wide perspective distortion.

Lenses / Re: Wide or ultra-wide angle with excellent corner performance
« on: October 06, 2012, 12:08:00 PM »
Damn, I cant believe how awesome this lens is for its price. I just checked out photozone's samples and the ones in samyang flickr groups. Freakin sharp and lovely contrast! O_o The corners are amazing for its class!

 ;D This Sammy 14 deserves a nickname. Any suggestions?  ;D

Samawide (a play on samurai)

Lenses / Re: Canon Rumors Reviews
« on: October 04, 2012, 05:54:46 PM »
I enjoyed the first review and noticed that it did talk about the rental aspect of it.  Also, I've noticed that Craig has mentioned a rental business a couple of times in posts.  Is that the same business?  What company is it (if you don't mind me answering)?  I figured it might be LensRentals, but I didn't see Craig or Justin (the 24mm reviewer) listed on the LR team webpage.

Lenses / Re: Canon Rumors Reviews
« on: October 04, 2012, 01:31:17 PM »
That's great news. I like to read/see as many reviews as possible - from DigitalRev, TDP, DPReview, etc. the different styles make them entertaining as well as informative.

This would be the kind of design I'd expect if they ever made a square format sensor. This has been discussed here before and only about 4% of readers seem to agree with me this is a good idea.

I'd love a sports camera that didn't force me try to jerk the camera 90° because there was a diving catch of a grounder instead of a leaping catch of a line drive. Let me shoot everything square and I'll apply the crop that doesn't amputate limbs later. (Or leave cropping to the client, as my primary customers prefer.)

The problem I see with that is the same as the problem you get when doing portraits.  Most printing is done in standard sizes (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 13x19, etc) to fit standard frames.  When you compose a picture, considerations are usually not taken of what the aspect ratio of the final print will be.  In the past manufacturers produced focusing screens with 5:4 lines so that you could ensure good composition whether you printed 4x6 or 8x10.  A square sensor would not help in composing a scene well within a given aspect ratio, without additional crop lines in the viewfinder.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2012, 01:10:25 PM »
...apologies to the 28-300L, but you’re too big and expensive for most people to carry around....

I can see Canon making it lighter and cheaper, something akin to the superzoom Nikon put out 2 years ago.

Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR - 83 x 115mm - 800g - 77mm filter - $1050 currently
Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - 92 x 184mm - 1670g - 77mm filter - $2570 currently

Hopefully it's not junk like the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM:
No IS, Micro-Motor USM (not Ring), no FTM, terrible IQ

Actually, comparing the Canon 28-200 to the Nikon 28-300 shows that the Nikon is marginally better than the Canon.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-200 vs. Nikon 28-300

The Nikon is definitely worse than the Canon 28-300, though (especially when it comes to CA and corner sharpness), as you would expect with the L designation and significant cost differential.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-300 vs. Nikon 28-300

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-M Begins Shipping
« on: October 02, 2012, 09:52:14 AM »
I think the two most important questions will be answered when reviews start coming out:

1) How quickly and accurately does it focus?
2) How good (optically) is the 22mm f/2?

But above those two is a question only Canon can answer:

1) Where are the other lenses for the system? / Where's the road map?

Lenses / Re: Broken 24-105...what should I do??
« on: October 01, 2012, 12:59:18 PM »
As someone who buys not-working/for parts cameras and lenses regularly on eBay, I would say you could get about $250-350 for a submerged 24-120mm.  That'll be a nice little chunk of change for a new replacement.

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:02:33 PM »
Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.
I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering.  Development of reasonable build quality, affordable FF zooms has completely died since 1998 (with the exception of 28-105mm II in 2000).  Timeline of metal-mount non-L zooms:

Wide angle:
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1993)

28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II (1988)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A (1988)
35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (1988)
35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 I USM (1991)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992)
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1996)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000)

50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
70-210mm f/4 (1987)
100-300mm f/5.6 (1987)
100-200mm f/4.5A (1988)
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1990)
100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (1990)
75-300mm f/4-5.6 I/USM (1991), II/USM (1995), III/USM (1999) - non-Ring-type USM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995) - non-Ring-type USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005)

28-200mm f/3.5-5.6   I/USM (2000) - non-Ring-type USM

Not everyone interested in a 6D (when it finally comes out) will be interested in spending $450 for the OK-but-old 28-135mm or $800 for the 24-105mm ($950 un-kitted).  There is definitely room in there for a $400-600 modern (latest IS version, ring-USM) normal zoom and a wide zoom cheaper than 17-40mm (maybe 18-35mm?)with at least ring USM (if not IS aswell).

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 05:04:03 PM »
maybe called EOS-S  (for studio).   ;)

I like that, I think Freelancer is the front runner right now for the possible name of said high-MP camera.

...it could be that this camera even has the rumored square sensor.

I thought we had all gone over this many times before that a square sensor cannot exist due to mirror clearance issues (unless of course it is 24mm x 24mm, which would be pointless)?

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 28