February 28, 2015, 08:03:53 PM

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 ... 29
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:05:45 PM »
Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.

That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)

So the noise from a EOS D30 (2001) is one stop behind the 1D X?  I don't think so.  Everyone understands noise is in constant flux throughout models, formats, etc.  So I think it is fair to leave noise out of the equation as it is not a constant like shutter speed and aperture.  Given two models of camera it is fair to make a comparison on the level of noise and how many stops of advantage one has over another, but to make a blanket statement is not fair.

Here's the math:

FF crop factor: 1
APS-C crop factor: 1.6

f/1.3 * 1.6 = f/2.0 equivalent 90mm (for background blur of 55mm f/1.3 lens in FF terms)
f/1.3 / 1.6 = f/0.83 equivalent (although your point is misleading as an EF-M lens has a flange distance too short for a FF DSLR - and most likely an image circle to small to cover a full frame sensor)

All you need to do is multiply the aperture (or focal length) by the crop factor to go up in formats, and divide to go down.

Lenses / Re: EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2012, 04:34:40 PM »
"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.
It only took 3 responses for someone to state the DOF-aperture comparison.
Yeah... DOF would be about f/2 compared to full frame, but you still get the low light advantage of f/1.3 and you get the normal lens look too if that is something you like.
And one more to correct the statement to not confuse people about the unchanged exposure triangle.  Good job, CR commenters.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:15:23 AM »
How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?
Absolutely I'd switch camps, it this proposed lens is $1000+ and/or replaces the 24-105mm in the Canon lineup I would be extremely disappointed.  Even if it has IQ equal to 24-70mm II for the same price as the lens it is replacing, I think the good image quality is an excellent trade-off for the expanded range of the current 24-105mm.  When was the last time you actually saw range shrink with a replacement lens?:

80-200 -> 70-200    ( 2.8 )
35-70 -> 28-70 -> 24-70    ( 2.8 )
20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35    ( 2.8 )
75-300 -> 70-300    ( 4-5.6 )
... or any number of lower quality variable aperture zooms

The only one I can think of is the mid-grade USM standard zoom:
35-135 (1990) -> 28-80 (1991) -> 28-105 (1992) -> 24-85 (1996) -> 28-135 (1998) -> 28-105 II (2000)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:13:36 PM »
I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D.  I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR.  It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer.  It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months.  If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period.  A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution.  A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

EDIT: Price correction on 28-135mm

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2012, 11:27:14 AM »
Seriously, if they release a 24-70mm IS, it'll be like $3K.  That'll make it the second most expensive Canon zoom ever (behind the waiting-to-be-released 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM).  Undoubtedly, it will have none of the compromises of the Tamron VC (distortion, slow AF).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 24, 2012, 01:23:14 PM »
A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L?  :D Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.

135 f/1.4 - 135/1.4 = 96.4mm (105mm filter?)
135 f/1.8 - 135/1.8 = 75mm (77mm or 82mm filter)
135 f/2 - 135/2 = 67.5mm (72mm filter)

A 135mm f/1.4 would put it in the same class as the 200mm f/2 (100mm objective) and 300mm f/2.8 (107mm objective) both in terms of size and weight.  A suggested 135mm f/1.8 is definitely more reasonable in terms of size, weight and price.

True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.
The EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are less than a decade old?

To put numbers behind it, Canon has made 159 different EF/EF-S lens models since 1987.  Currently Canon USA lists 68 lenses (I take issue with 5, as they are no longer in production and no longer available new - 300mm f/2.8 IS I, 400mm f/2.8 IS I, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, 15mm Fisheye).  Out of the remaining 63 lenses here is how they break down by release date:

0-10 years - 37
10-15 years - 10
15-20 years - 9
20+ years - 7

So his statement is correct - 37/63 (59%) are 10 years old or less, which constitutes 'most'

Lenses / Re: A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]
« on: October 22, 2012, 09:09:25 AM »
$15K?  $20?  The weight savings is probably one reason, but the change in the white paint is probably a driving force, too.  C'mon, who wants big, expensive lenses that don't match in color, right?

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:04:01 PM »
I was hoping my breakdown would add to the discussion, but it seems to have died.  I think that organizing them by image size shows that the overall distance travelled affects sync speed.

If I remember correctly from my Art Photography classes the vertical plane shutters at their highest speeds (1/1000+) never have the entire frame exposed at the same time.  Essential what happens is a slit between the upper and lower blades travels down the frame.  That is what affects the sync speed because the entire frame needs to be exposed during the short burst of light provided by the flash.  I would assume that the sync speeds listed above are the shortest intervals each camera is able to have the whole frame exposed prior to the dropping of the upper blade.  Someone with more intimate knowledge about shutter design may be able to backup or refute my statements.

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)

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 29