October 01, 2014, 04:20:32 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 28
301
Close, but EF-S lenses will not work on FF cameras for another reason.  In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus, meaning that the rear element is able to protrude further into the camera body that a 35mm lens.  This is only allowed by decreasing the size of the reflex mirror.

well that is not close.. it is exactly what i have quoted from bobatkins an written in my first reply.

no need to repeat it :)

That's exactly what I was thinking  :P

Sorry for the repetition, I did not read the quoted text.  What astro said about lens compatiblity between Nikon and Canon has nothing to do with DX/FX or EF/EF-S compatibility, only with FBD, which is a different story entirely.

In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus...

Actually, the -S in EF-S stands for small image circle.  Yes, I know Wikipedia says it stands for short back focus, and Bob Atkins and lots of other sources do, too.  But they're wrong.   :o

Citation?  I know incorrect information gets disseminated pretty rapidly and thoroughly on the internet, but do you have any citation for the correct abreviation?

302
If 7D2 is going to be full frame so yeah going to upgrade with those rumored specs!
IMHO, the only way a FF sensor on 7D2 would make sense, would be If they also gave it a crop sensor mode.  Something to allow current APS-C shooters with lots of EF-S lenses continue to use their glass.

that is not possible with the EF mount and EF-S lenses.... or is it?

Well 7D to 1100D have already EF and EF-S mounts so why not?

they are not FF.
the APS-C sensor has to cover a smaller image circle.

you can adopt nikon lenses on canon cameras but not the other way around (flange distance). so it´s not always a bi-directional compatibility.

Quote
The "S" in EFS stands for "Short back focus", which means the distance between the rearmost optical surface of the lens and the film (or in this case the digital sensor) is shorter than that of a normal Canon EF series lens. A shorter back focus does have some advantages when designing wide-angle lenses, but there's a limit to how short it can be in an SLR lens since it can't be so short that the SLR mirror hits it when it flips up. The lower limit on the size of the mirror depends on the size of the film (or sensor). Medium format SLRs need a big mirror, 35mm SLRs need a smaller mirror and SLRs with a digital sensor smaller than a full frame 35mm frame can use an even smaller mirror.

Since the sensor in the Digital Rebel is only 22.7mm x 15.1mm, smaller than the 24mm x 36mm full frame 35mm frame size, the SLR mirror can be (and is) smaller, so it can use a lens with a shorter back focus than full frame cameras, hence the EF-S lens.


http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

Close, but EF-S lenses will not work on FF cameras for another reason.  In the Canon system the EF-S stands for short back focus, meaning that the rear element is able to protrude further into the camera body than a 35mm lens.  This is only allowed by decreasing the size of the reflex mirror.

In the Nikon system, they kept the mount and specifications for intrusion the same for their 'DX' lenses.  Therefore, you can mount any DX lens onto an FX camera (full-frame).  The only difference is DX lenses will not project an image on all parts of the FX sensor due to the smaller image circle.  The D70 is an example of a Nikon camera with a mirror the same size as a 35mm film camera, despite having a smaller sensor size.

If you tried to mount an EF-S lens on a full-frame or 35mm camera, the reflex mirror would either prevent the lens from mounting, or would break the mirror when the shutter is pressed

303
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)
« on: June 10, 2012, 12:37:26 AM »
The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it. 
 
Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon. 
 
Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens.  I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it.  Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular.  I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.
Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?  Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L?  I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor.  The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made.  I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

I was replying to the OP, he noted that he was on a budget.  You are welcome to the Canon 75-300mm lens, if you think it is great, go for it, I'm not going to knock someone for their choice of lenses, we all have to make buying decisions that are right for us.  The 100-300 is weak at 300mm, but its strong at 100-200mm, and its cheap.  It and the 70-210mm f/4 which is better, both pickup where his 24-105mm L leaves off.  A 200-400mm lens leaves a gap for him to fill.
 
Obviously, we would like to recommend top lenses, but if he is looking for a place holder to extend his focal length for now, the 70-210 would be my first recommendation.
 
Here is a cat photo with my 70-210mm f/4 taken a few years back with my 30D or 40D.  This is a 100% crop at 200mm and wide open aperture.
 

 
 
Impressive shot. Have you owned any of the other lenses I mentioned?  If I do decide to sell off my telephoto zooms, I would like to get the best bang/buck replacement (since they are all in the same price range) and I would value your opinion on the choices.

if the long zoom needs to cost less then i'd get 55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc over the ones you mention
Except that the 55-250mm is an EF-S lens that will not even mount on the 5D3.

304
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)
« on: June 08, 2012, 04:34:08 PM »
The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it. 
 
Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon. 
 
Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens.  I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it.  Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular.  I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.
Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?  Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L?  I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor.  The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made.  I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

305
I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.
Looks like Sony is the first one out the door with a camera like I described (the new RX100).  It's pretty amazing to see it along side competitive cameras and how it is just about the size of the Canon S100, despite having a sensor over 4 times larger (Nikon CX format) and having a good range fast lens (28-100mm f/1.8-4.9).

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/4

306
Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses
« on: June 04, 2012, 01:06:04 PM »
I wouldn't dismiss Ebay so easily.  I tried selling an item (ef-s 17-55) for the first time last month, and it took me about an hour to set up the page.  Assuming you buy it used/refurbished and sell it for the same price, you'd lose about 12% due to Ebay/Paypal fees, which would be covered by a 2-3 week rental.  You could do better on other sites, but at least there is some protection with Ebay.
I would not take this advice.  Reason being is that if you are new to eBay and have no feedback (or very little feedback) you will not get the same selling price as more established and trusted sellers.  My auctions go for good prices because I time the close of the auction well, have excellent feedback (100% and 90 star rating), and have very well lit and detailed photos in the auction.  If it weren't for my good feedback, my auctions would probably close at prices 20-30% lower.

307
I was thinking yesterday about how small APS Elph cameras were back in the 1990's (with APS-H sized 'sensors') and put a table together to see just what kind of cameras they were able to cram into these small packages (most importantly physical dimensions, weight, and lens - FL, zoom, and aperture).  Here's what I put together, information obtained from Canon Museum website:

ModelLensSizeWeight   Released
ELPH24-48mm f/4.5-6.290 x 60 x 27 mm190 gMay 1996
ELPH 490Z22.5-90mm f/5.6-8.9   120 x 65 x 47 mm   290 gJune 1996
ELPH 10 [AF]                               25mm f/6.7110 x 63 x 43 mm180 gNovember 1996
ELPH 260Z30-60mm f/4-7.8113 x 59 x 38 mm175 gJuly 1997
ELPH Jr26mm f/2.890 x 60 x 24 mm125 gSeptember 1997
ELPH 370Z23-69mm f/4.5-9.995 x 65 x 32 mm205 gMarch 1998
ELPH LT23mm f/4.885 x 55 x 35 mm115 gSeptember 1998
ELPH 224-46mm f/4.2-5.687 x 57 x 25 mm181 gMarch 1999
ELPH LT26026-52mm f/4.2-6.793 x 63 x 30 mm150 gMarch 2000
ELPH LT27024-65mm f/4.5-895 x 64 x 35 mm180 gFebruary 2001
ELPH Z323.5-54mm f/4.8-7.698 x 50 x 33 mm150 gMarch 2002

Compare that to a few modern digital cameras:

ModelLensSizeWeight   Lens Equ.   
G1X (3/2"sensor)   15-30mm f/2.8-5.8   117 x 81 x 65 mm   534 g   28-112mm   
S100 (1/1.7" sensor)   5.2-26mm f/2.0-5.9   99 x 60 x 28 mm   198 g   24-120mm   
ELPH 320HS (1/2.3" sensor)   4.3-21.5mm f/2.7-5.9   94 x 57 x 21 mm   145 g   24-120mm   
ELPH 530HS (1/2.3" sensor)   4-48mm f/3.4-5.6   86 x 54 x 20 mm   163 g   28-336mm   

Back in the APS film days that absolute best zoom was a 4x (490Z - 29-117mm equivalent with a very slow f/5.6-8.9 aperture).  Nowadays we have smaller, lighter cameras with 12x zooms (see 530HS).  In comparison the G1X looks huge, despite having a smaller 'sensor' than all the film cameras.  Small, light cameras can be made with larger sensors, but at the cost of zoom range and maximum aperture.  I highly doubt most amateurs would want to give up zoom range for a larger sensor (most of whom would not understand what the larger sensor or aperture would mean in terms of DOF, IQ or high ISO noise).  I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.

Slightly off topic post, but I figured it was kind of related to the subject.

308
This weekend I actually did an inventory and added up the total, depreciated, used value of all my equipment, and came up with $1850.  Quite amazing, considering I have only paid out-of-pocket about $650 for all of it.  Seeing the total value of my kit makes me think insuring it would be a good idea.

I would probably get a 40D or 5D Mark I and other used items and start building up a similar kit to what I have now (except update to a 70-200 f4L or f4L IS).  A Nikon D600 (or the Canon equivalent surely to follow shortly thereafter) would be very tempting.

309
Canon General / Re: Official Discontinued List
« on: May 23, 2012, 02:17:43 PM »
Of the 14 lenses Canon released in the first year of EOS (1987, the 28mm f2.8 was one of them), only 3 are still being made.  All the lenses released in 1988 (8 totel, 24mm f/2.8 was one of them) have been discontinued.  Here's a list of the oldest lenses Canon still makes (all designs from 20+ years ago):

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (1987)
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)

310
I will preface my posting by saying I have never filmed any cooking.

Just some random thoughts:
- Use sealed L lenses (will help prevent ingress of steam, which could lead to fungus and other damage)
- Get an EF 100mm L Macro IS or EF 180mm Macro (for their long MFDs for closeup shots and awesome H-IS system - in the case of the 100mm)
- Always use UV filters
- Get LensCoats for any lenses you use, to help keep the body of the lens clean (and provide one more barrier)

311
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Officially Discontinued?
« on: May 15, 2012, 04:35:59 PM »
I guess that's one way to force you to buy the more expensive of the 2 lenses...  but it was inevitable.
Isn't this exactly what happened when Canon transitioned from 70-200 IS I to 70-200 IS II for $500 more?  A short period of time where both were available, then suddenly v. I went out of stock, never to return.

312
Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: May 11, 2012, 01:22:29 PM »
Just took delivery of a 50mm f/1.8 I from eBay listed as 'untested' for $59 shipped.  To my surprize, the lens is in like-new condition without a single imperfection on the body or lenses (amazing, considering this lens hasn't been in production since 1990) and is functionally perfect.  I'll sell my 50mm II on CL for $80, and actually profit from the upgrade.

313
Technical Support / Re: Orange cone ruins photo
« on: May 07, 2012, 06:56:46 PM »
...many of my pictures were affected by the hi-vis green shirts that they gave to all the participants.  The shirts also REALLY threw off the metering...

Yikes, that's almost as bad as the top LCD light leak.  :o

This was not a complaint, neuro, only a statement of fact.  I love my camera and don't fault it.  No reason to be judgemental and sarcastic.

As for mdm041's suggestion, I tried that exact method this year, but the lighting changes by the minute since marathons start near dawn and go til mid-day (and it was partly cloudy, so the sun kept coming and going).  Many shots were better this year than last, which I am happy about, but I do not blame my camera for my own inexperience with sports photography and skills that fall short of its ability.

314
Technical Support / Re: Orange cone ruins photo
« on: April 30, 2012, 03:14:55 PM »
I photographed a few friends in the St Louis Marathon last year, and many of my pictures were affected by the hi-vis green shirts that they gave to all the participants.  The shirts also REALLY threw off the metering, resulting in quite a few under exposed photos (I was using Av then).



EDIT: This isn't the worst example, but I wanted to protect the innocent, so I used a picture without faces.

315
...I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now...
Like the 120MP APS-H sensor (August 2010)?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canons-120mp-aps-h-sensor/

I'm sure Canon could do anything up to their most-dense 1/2.3" in a full-frame camera, but it'll all depend on what consumers (in the general sense of the word) demand, or what Canon can convince buyers they desire (and of course how much said device will cost to produce).

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 28