September 23, 2014, 12:30:27 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 28
256
Calibrated (transmitted) aperture, calibrated focal distance scale on the barrel, standard gears on the focus ring for a cinema rig, focus breathing.  Distortion correction, maybe? 

I don't think the premium for cinema lenses has anything to do with lenses not being able to resolve 2K or 4K or any other current resolution (maybe 8K, since that is 38MP).

257
Lenses / Re: New: Canon CN-E15.5-37mm T2.8 L S/SP
« on: August 29, 2012, 11:29:18 AM »
It's funny, because Canon already formally announced these lenses (CN-E 15.5-47mm and 30-105mm) back in April:

Canon adds CN-E-15.5-47mm and 35-105mm T2.8 L cinema zoom lenses
Apr 12, 2012
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/12/Canon-cinema-zoom-15p5-47-mm-35-105mm-T-2p8
(note that DP Review typo'd the title with 35 (instead of 30)

And now again, with the C100:

Canon unveils EOS C500 4K cinema video camera and four lenses
Aug 29, 2012
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/29/Canon-EOS-C500-cinema-eos-lenses

These lenses are just the 'cheaper' alternatives to the big CN-E zooms:

Canon announces seven EF Cinema lenses
Nov 4, 2011
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/04/cinemaeoslenses
CN-E 14.5-60mm T2.6 L S
CN-E 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S

But it looks like Canon's CN-E line is looking pretty thorough (at a price):

CN-E 14mm T3.1 L
CN-E 24mm T1.5 L
CN-E 50mm T1.3 L
CN-E 85mm T1.3 L
CN-E 135mm T2.2 L
CN-E 14.5-60mm T2.6 L S
CN-E 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S
CN-E 15.5-47mm T2.8 L
CN-E 30-105mm T2.8 L

258
Lenses / Re: When are Canon going to revise the aged 20mm F2.8 ?
« on: August 27, 2012, 10:50:42 AM »
I posted this a little while back, and I think it's relevant to any 'when will they replace this old lens' thread:

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (1987) discontinued shortly after 8-15mm Fisheye was released
50mm f/2.5 Macro (1987)
135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (1987)
35mm f/2.0 (1990)
50mm f/1.8 II (1990)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 (1991)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 (1991)
100mm f/2.0 USM (1991)
20mm f/2.8 USM (1992)
85mm f/1.8 USM (1992)
400mm f/5.6L USM (1993)
50mm f/1.4 USM (1993)

These are the oldest lenses that Canon still manufactures.  I added the 400 and 50mm since they are just about at 20 years old.  No lenses were annouced in 1994.  Two lenses from 1995 are still in production: 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and 28mm f/1.8 USM.

If I had to guess, the next lenses to be annouced will be replacements for:

35mm f/1.4L USM (1998)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998) - when entry-level FF is annouced
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (1998)
50mm f/1.4 USM (1993)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 (1991)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 (1991)

A 20mm f/2.8 USM or 20mm f/2L USM would be nice though, I just don't see it happening for a least another year.

259
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 25, 2012, 04:49:18 PM »
My wishlist would be:

Entry-level Full-frame model (preferably 60D sized) - barring that, a 5D Mark III
60D
8-15 f/4L Fisheye
16-35 f/2.8L II
24-105 f/4L IS
70-200 f/4L IS
200-400 f/4L IS
17-55 f/2.8 IS
35 f/1.4L
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8L IS Macro
EF 1.4x III
ST-E3-RT
3x 600EX-RT

I would prefer the lower weight and smaller package of the f/4 zooms and non-L 50 and 85 lenses (as well as the smaller, lighter 60D body and entry-FF).  Other stuff (135 f/2L, 200 f/2L IS, superteles) would be fun, but I feel like it would be underutilized.  I'd need probably three different bags to carry it for travel reasons (everything, medium kit, small kit).  Of course the 200-400 would probably need to be carried separately.

Edit:  I think I'd have to throw in 17 f/4L and 24 f/3.5L II TS-E as well, it is a wish list, after all.  I would find reasons to enjoy them.

260
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 25, 2012, 03:43:14 PM »
Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!
mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

Except high MP cams don't shoot mRAW or sRAW.  At least none that I know of.  I'm not counting the 5D3, 5D2, or 1Ds3.  The D800 definitely doesn't.
Oh, I get it.  The first time I read it I thought that the poster was saying that 5D II or 5D III were high megapixel and were unnecessary.  I see what was meant now.
your kindness made me so happy , thanks alot for your advices . and my last question ( i promise :D) if i want to take videos ( usually short one ) of architecture for somewhere that still images do not cover the scence , or do not transfer the feel of space .... what do you think i need ? ( i mean extra)
If I read what you're asking, is that you probably want to do some slow, smooth panning shots to better 'feel' the space.  I have no direct experience with that, but I would think the 17 and 24 TS-E's would be good for it and require a good, smooth pan head (or geared head) on your tripod and with accurate measuring of the level of the mounting plate.  Now if you're talking about follow shots or dolly shots much more equipment will be needed (rails, etc).

261
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 25, 2012, 02:55:40 PM »
This is how I read it...
1. EOS 1DX V
2.  EOS 3D
2.  EOS 5D IV
3.  EOS 7D II
Huh?
4.  EF 14-24
5.  EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS
6.  EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III
7.  EF 200 - 400L f/2.8 II IS
Sounds realistic
8.  EF 14L f.1.4 IS
Yeah, right.
9.  EF 24L f/1.4 IS
10. EF 35L f/1.2 IS
11. EF 50L f/1.2 IS
12. EF 85L f/1.2 IS
14. EF 135L f/1.4 II IS
I guess IS would be useful, sometimes.  The extra $25000 in cash would also be.
17. EF 300L f/2.0 II IS
Ha
19. EF 500L f/2.8 II IS
20. EF 600L f/2.8 II IS
hahaha
21. EF 800L f/2.8 II IS
22. EF 1200 f/2.8 II IS
HAHAHAHA
23. EF 2000 f/2.8 II Macro IS
24. EF 5000 f2/8 II Macro IS
25 700EX-RT (at least 16 of them)
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL.  Bonus points for creativity.

262
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:31:55 PM »
If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

263
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:37:33 PM »
I love my primes.  I do wish I had a full frame camera, though, because I would enjoy 35 more than my current 135 (with crop).  The other two FLs overlap on either system (56 and 80 with crop, 50 and 85 without).  The smaller depth of field would also be fun to take advantage of.  That's not to say I haven't taken good pictures with them, or have not enjoyed using them, but 'the grass is always greener...'

264
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:18:57 PM »
Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!
mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

265
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AF Assist for Canons 61/41 AF
« on: August 21, 2012, 05:43:12 PM »
I have been happy with my ST-E2, in a pitch black room I can nail focus with my 30D on a smooth (no texture) white wall at about 25-30 ft.  Impressive, considering I normally can't lock focus on a smooth, white wall in good light because there isn't even enough contrast to detect a phase difference.  Works perfectly with my 420EX flashes, and I've discovered in a small enough space line-of-sight is not needed to remotely trigger the slave flashes (do to reflections around the room).  Very happy with my purchase (although I didn't pay nearly what the MSRP is, because I bought it broken and repaired it).

Downside on the ST-E2 is that it takes the [now rare] 2CR5 battery.  Check to make sure it is available in your area (locally, or supplied by retailers that ship to Trinidad) before buying.

266
Its tricky, because the common sense is that the IS isn't going to do you any good for sports since people are moving so fast...
I somewhat disagree with that, because the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the same as just bumping up your ISO one stop, and unless you're already at the upper limit of your camera, or the upper limit of usable image quality, I think the f/4 IS is definitely a good sports lens.  Additionally, sometimes you don't want 1/250+ action-stopping shutter speed, and in that case the panning mode with the f/4 IS is more valuable than the f/2.8 non-IS.  The idea that only f/2.8 lenses are professional is becoming less true every year with the advances in digital technology.  In film days ISO 1600 looked pretty bad, now you can't buy a DSLR camera with IQ as bad as even the best ISO 1600 film (and the difference is probably a stop or two better).

You can't think just in terms of exposure for sports.  You need to think in terms of types of AF sensors that are accessable to the camera for focusing.  An f/2.8 lens MIGHT be able to use dual cross types, for instance, whereas a partcular f/4 lens cannot.  This is exactly why I have 300 f/2.8L vs. the 300 f/4L.  High action focusing in low light.
Fair enough.  I'm wondering though, how does the 18-year-old technology 70-200mm f/2.8L USM compare to the 6-year-old 70-200mm f/4L IS USM?  Read Roger Cicala's articles regarding Canon AF accuracy, there is a real possibility that the f/4 IS is actually more accurate without the cross, than the former is with it.

What about framing on the long end (assisted by the IS)?

I think we can all agree that the f/4 IS is sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS, so it also has that in its favor.

I'm not trying to argue, just things to consider for the OP.  I hope my my tone isn't coming through as argumentative.

267
Its tricky, because the common sense is that the IS isn't going to do you any good for sports since people are moving so fast...
I somewhat disagree with that, because the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the same as just bumping up your ISO one stop, and unless you're already at the upper limit of your camera, or the upper limit of usable image quality, I think the f/4 IS is definitely a good sports lens.  Additionally, sometimes you don't want 1/250+ action-stopping shutter speed, and in that case the panning mode with the f/4 IS is more valuable than the f/2.8 non-IS.  The idea that only f/2.8 lenses are professional is becoming less true every year with the advances in digital technology.  In film days ISO 1600 looked pretty bad, now you can't buy a DSLR camera with IQ as bad as even the best ISO 1600 film (and the difference is probably a stop or two better).

268
Lenses / Re: Wider lens for new FF user - 35L vs. new 28 IS
« on: August 17, 2012, 01:38:04 PM »
It just seems like the 28 IS will work in my specific need (small, wide, low-light for non-moving stuff, still handles polarizers, not too wide for general walkaround use) without any degradation of IQ compared to the closest L lenses.  Seems like a win in my (admittedly bizarre) little world.
Yeah, seems like the IS would be important to you if you want to shoot lower light stuff (shutter speeds in the 1/8th, 1/15th area) without the need to carry around a tripod. If its a lens you'll use when you have a tripod around a bunch, then I'd just get the older 28mm f/1.8 and save a few hundred bucks, as it resolves nearly as well.

The 28mm f/1.8 is worse in corner resolution than the new IS version.  Comparison:

Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS USM ( both at f/2.8 )
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And wide-open for the f/1.8 is even worse, and if wide open is not usably sharp, then you're giving up the advantage of the wider aperture and might as well go for the lens that is sharper at f/2.8 (and has IS to boot), albeit at a higher price than the f/1.8 version.

269
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 01:17:51 PM »
Using the past tense tends to convey that something has happened.  The title is misleading, as it is currently only a rumor (albeit from many trusted sources apparently).  No leaked pictures or spec list?  I'm glad CRguy wouldn't put a half-baked rumor like that up like it is fact.

CR guy CRed rumors as CR3 too in the past... what´s the difference?

Future tense vs. past tense.  Additionally, CR3 tends to include pretty detailed spec lists, leaked pictures, etc.  Not just 'trusted sources say this is coming'.  Craig is more of a journalism that specializes in Canon equipment and future annoucements and the writing style on CR reflects that, the writing style on SAR is lacking in that regard.

270
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 11:14:20 AM »
Using the past tense tends to convey that something has happened.  The title is misleading, as it is currently only a rumor (albeit from many trusted sources apparently).  No leaked pictures or spec list?  I'm glad CRguy wouldn't put a half-baked rumor like that up like it is fact.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 28