October 21, 2014, 10:46:45 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 - Fleetie

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
16
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 01:49:16 PM »
Quote
Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod
[/font]



What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a shutter time of 1/12000 s ?!


17
Where's Neuro, claiming to have personally built a cryostat with a cooled volume large enough to put his 1DX in and several BIFs, and taken a series of 14-shot-per-second bursts, all at 7.8 nanoKelvins?   :-)
 
 

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS SL1 in White Coming Soon
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:07:42 PM »
Three threads about a white version of a bottom-of-the-range SLR? And that's just in this section.


Is the news that slow these days?


Actually, yeah, I guess it is.


19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Removal of IR Highpass filter
« on: October 16, 2013, 02:15:06 PM »
Why is the 1/4 wave plate there?


Don't know much about wave plates, except that a CPL has one following the linear polariser, to retard one of the fields by 1/4 wave, making the resultant passed light circularly polarised. That is desirable because the camera doesn't like linearly-polarised light; it can give unreliable metering etc..


Also I have noticed an effect of linearly-polarised light when looking through the viewfinder of my Olympus film SLR, right upwards at the blue evening sky. Such sky exhibits reasonably strong linear polarisation, and it showed when I looked through the viewfinder. I don't remember the detail of how it looked, but it was odd, and "wrong". I think half the image was significantly darker than the other half, and I think the border between the 2 halves ran vertically from top to bottom in the middle of the image.


So why the 1/4 wave plate in a DSLR? To circularise any linearly-polarised light? Seems unlikely right before the sensor; you'd want one before the whole flange/mirror-box if anywhere, for that.

20
Thanks, guys (for the retail prices).
 

21
So, what are the retail prices for these two?
 

22
Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 15, 2013, 03:47:42 PM »
I'll re-post here something I originally posted about the 24-105L elsewhere; it's more relevant in this thread than in the original one, anyway.


Recently I have been gaining new respect for my 24-105mm lens. I've been finding it sharp pretty much down to pixel level (on my 5D3) at both ends of its zoom range, and wide-open at f/4.I was out with it today (well, yesterday now), and I shot a big public clock face at f/4 and exactly the same at f/8. I could not tell the difference on the LCD at maximum playback magnification, and I couldn't tell between them back home, either.


Also, interestingly (I thought), on a previous trip when I had that lens as my walkabout, I shot an information notice board by the side of a canal. This featured in one area a map with tiny, tiny street names on it; black text on a white background. Conventional wisdom says that SOOC JPGs aren't the best for sharpness, so I took the RAW into DPP and played around with the sharpness sliders. I was unable to improve the legibility of that tiny, tiny text compared to how it was on the SOOC JPG.Sure, I could make it *look* sharper, i.e. have more edge contrast, by playing with the sliders, but always at the cost of actual legibility.


And at any rate, I think the lens, given that it is considered "good, but not super-sharp", did very well indeed. Maybe I'm blessed with a good copy, or maybe my expectations are not "high enough", but I'd say my copy is sharp to damn-near pixel level (on my 5D3), wide-open, and at both zoom extremes.

It certainly does exhibit CA at the edges of the field, but DPP does a very good job of removing that.


I'm curious about the 24-70 f/2.8 L II though, because of the extra aperture, so I may yet buy one. But the 135 f/2 L is probably next. Oh, and the next EOS M when/if they ever get around to releasing it!!

23
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:20:50 AM »
Thank-you, AlanF.
 
I have been "biting my lip" over this for a very long time now on here. It infuriates me when people whose first Language is obviously English consistently get this wrong, and then claim "it's not important" if challenged about it.
Almost all English people get it wrong, or at least the ones who write on the internet do. I suspect that people whose first language is not English actually do better, statistically, than the rest at spelling "lose" (vb.) and "loose" (normally adj.).
There are no excuses for those whose first language is English.
 

24
I agree this guy does seem to have succeeded in making a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
 

25
Recently I have been gaining new respect for my 24-105mm lens. I've been finding it sharp pretty much down to pixel level at both ends of its zoom range, and wide-open.


I was out with it today (well, yesterday now), and I shot a big public clock face at f/4 and exactly the same at f/8. I could not tell the difference on the LCD at maximum playback magnification, and I couldn't tell between them back home, either.


Also, interestingly (I thought), on a previous trip when I had that lens as my walkabout, I shot an information notice board by the side of a canal. This featured in one area a map with tiny, tiny street names on it; black text on a white background. Conventional wisdom says that SOOC JPGs aren't the best for sharpness, so I took the RAW into DPP and played around with the sharpness sliders. I was unable to improve the legibility of that tiny, tiny text compared to how it was on the SOOC JPG.


Sure, I could make it *look* sharper, i.e. have more edge contrast, by playing with the sliders, but always at the cost of actual legibility. And at any rate, I think the lens, given that it is considered "good, but not super-sharp", did very well indeed.


Maybe I'm blessed with a good copy, or maybe my expectations are not "high enough", but I'd say my copy is sharp to damn-near pixel level (on my 5D3), wide-open, and at both zoom extremes.


It certainly does exhibit CA at the edges of the field, but DPP does a very good job of removing that.


I'm curious about the 24-70 f/2.8 L II though, because of the extra aperture, so I may yet buy one. But the 135 f/2 L is probably next. Oh, and the next EOS M when/if they ever get around to releasing it!!

26
Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 20, 2013, 08:08:43 AM »
Doesn't matter, since Nikon doesn't build f1.2 lenses for their system Canon will keep them coming :-p ... no matter if f1.2 with current sensors is really necessary or how many people actually are able to focus them wide open.

...or how much Canon has to secretly push the ISO to compensate for light lost due to the extreme oblique angle of light from an f/1.2 lens, especially since higher sensor pixel density means more push is needed.
No, you're not getting away with that, Neuro!

In an earlier thread, you objected to my saying something like "secretly" about this issue, by retorting that it is explained in some documentation somewhere (I forget the link), and is therefore not a secret.

You can't have it both ways. Stop sitting on the fence. Make your mind up, and stay with it!

:-)

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 10 Signs You're a Photo Geek
« on: September 20, 2013, 07:58:36 AM »
...or if you carry and use pupil-dilating eyedrops to achieve a lower f-number and increased OOF blur.

Having had this done twice recently, it's unpleasant. You can't read for a couple of hours afterwards, and things are too bright, not surprisingly. It's not worth it, folks; don't bother!

28
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M Update Information [CR1]
« on: September 19, 2013, 08:04:59 AM »
I'm quite excited about a better EOS-M coming out.  The original, after the firmware update, seemed to be a very decent camera.  I mean, this is a Point and Shoot for crying out loud.

I played briefly with the Canon 70D.  It's an impressive camera.  If that sensor is going into the EOS M..  That's going to be a beautiful thing.
Yes, I am getting impatient for it, too. I wish they'd just announce the thing!

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 10, 2013, 07:03:01 PM »
Well the interesting point for us lot is that they decided NOT to increase megapixels, but instead stayed at 8MP, and increased the size of the sensor and so the size of the pixels.

Also, the lens is now f/2.2 .

Both of which will give better low-light performance, as we all know.

Also apparently it has optical IS now.

And a better flash system, though flash doesn't interest me much.

Apparently it will also produce 28MP panorama images too.

I will be getting the iPhone 5S, but mainly because:

* My current phone is a 4-year-old shed
* I am invested in the iEcoSystem already : MacBook Pro Retina 13" and Apple TV, so it will integrate perfectly.

However, I won't be looking to use the iPhone as a serious walk-around camera. I am still impatiently awaiting the high-end EOS M for that.


30
Lenses / Re: How to fix zoom creep on EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens?
« on: September 09, 2013, 07:25:35 PM »
I use black electrical insulating tape on the barrel of my 24-105L. It's still working fine; I'm pleased with the fix.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19