Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 26, 2012, 02:47:41 PM »

Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.

My (admittedly limited) findings:

1. The f2.8 is much more substantial in size/weight than the f4. The f4 is quite dinky in comparison!  As I often use the 70-200mm as an "always in the hand rather than on a strap walk-about" lens I'm conscious of the fact the added weight would be an issue after a while. Hand cramp is a cruel mistress. (Cue comments about the best strap to use.)

2. Focusing with the f2.8 was maybe a bit quicker but not definitive. We're talking tiny fractions of a second here and my perception - you want to believe a newer, more expensive lens will focus quicker.

3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.

4. Colour - both allow you to take colour images  No obvious fringing horrors. Both were good enough for me (I'm going through the obligatory convert-everything-to-black-and-white phase).

5. IS on the f2.8 is much quieter than the f4. Shhhh!

6. The f4 has more vignetting (duh!) but nothing that would ruin any shot. The miracles of modern software can cure many ailments.

So I reckon the f2.8 at twice the price and twice the weight is not necessarily twice the lens. However if I couldn't live without that wider aperture I wouldn't shed a tear as I parted with the money. The f2.8 is very good but not essential to me. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in transit. Offer void in Utah.

At least now I can put that money aside for the 42mp 1D XMF due in Feb 2013 (oops, did anyone see a cat getting out of a bag?).

If you feel strongly that I've missed a point or my opinions are complete poop, I reserve the right to ignore you!

3 : Based on the samples of each lens that I've owned, I'd agree. Others will probably lambast you for saying it, though. Expect some heat!

6: Why "Duh!"? I'd expect more vignetting from the f/2.8 version. But vignetting does not bother me, so I haven't paid any attention to it.

As for reserving the right to ignore those who consider your opinions poopy, well good on you! You've gone out there, done some tests, and arrived at a conclusion, rather than just relying on web reviews and the opinions of people like me. Can't argue with that.

32

Lenses / Re: Lenses that inspire you?

« on: July 22, 2012, 07:06:05 AM »

I've been a firm believer that upgrading one's gear usually doesn't improve one's photography. However, I recently picked up the Canon 85 f/1.8, and I must say, this lens has definitely improved my work. Why? Interestingly, it's due to more than the image quality. Yes, it's a great, sharp lens, but it's really not head-and-shoulders above some of my other lenses.

So if the image quality of the lens isn't leading to noticeably better images - what's changed? Inspiration. For a number of reasons, when I shoot with the 85 I feel inspired.

First, the focal length. I spent most of last year shooting with a 50mm, so the focal length is a little longer, and it inspires me to shoot from different perspectives.

Second, the feel. The size and weight of the 85 on a 5D feels just right to me. It's light enough to not wear me out after a full day of shooting, but it's also solid enough that it doesn't look or feel like a toy.

Third, the image quality. There's no denying, this is a sharp, impressive lens. It may not produce quite the background blur of the 85 f/1.2, but the image quality is still pretty awesome. If I nail the exposure, focus, and composition, I can be quite sure that the lens will do the rest.

The 85/1.8 is a pleasure to use; great value, too. Nicely-built, and it gives great bokeh. I enjoyed it on my 7D, and I still enjoy it on my 5D3. It just feels nice!

Next on my list are the 2X TC and then the 85/1.2. That second one might take a few months though.

33

Lenses / Re: sigma 30mm f1.4... anyone used?

« on: July 20, 2012, 11:18:03 PM »

Yes, I have had both. I started with the Sigma 30/1.4 on my 7D.

It was appallingly bad in the corners. Like 10 pixels of CA/smear.

I said to myself, "I've just paid £1200 (camera) + £400 (IIRC) for this lens, and the overall image quality is worse than a £300 P&S camera's.". There is more to it than that, of course, but no, the lens was quickly returned and I got the Canon 50/1.4.

While the Canon 50/1.4 does suffer from quite bad "halation" (light smear, loss of contrast, etc.) wide-open, once stopped down to f/2 or so, it is very sharp, but you still have the f/1.4 option when you need it.

My experience with the (admittedly one sample of) Sigma lens was so bad, that I doubt I'll buy another Sigma lens ever again.

34

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM

« on: July 20, 2012, 08:04:12 AM »

The 70-200 f/4 L IS is a stonkingly good, SHARP lens.

I used to have it. I traded it up for the f/2.8 version, which seems a little less sharp, if anything, though still good.

I'd advise hanging on to your 70-200. You can always put a 1.4x teleconverter on it, and still have working AF.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - EF 135 f/2.8 & 180 f/3.5 with Apodization Filter

« on: July 16, 2012, 09:34:44 AM »

Yes, as I understand it, what you are doing is similar to applying spatial filtering in a Fourier plane, to remove HF components, so that the bokeh disc is less harsh more smooth-n-creameh. It kinda acts as an LPF for the bokeh disc, getting rid of things like harsh annular bokeh, which looks awful.

Probably isn't quite that simple though, cos you DON'T want to remove any HF content from the in-focus part of the image!

However, I am sure this is only an approximation to the full truth. It's a long time since I did signal theory at uni, and even then, it was more in the acoustic and crystal lattice fields (at different times in my academic life)!

Educate me, if anyone knows more! :-)

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - EF 135 f/2.8 & 180 f/3.5 with Apodization Filter

« on: July 16, 2012, 01:12:16 AM »

Reading the machine translations, my guess is that the technique involves something like 2 immiscible liquids, one coloured, i.e. semi-opaque, in a gap between 2 glass elements. Within the gap between the 2 outer glass surfaces, the clear liquid is in the middle (the optical axis passes through the middle of the zone of clear liquid), and the opaque liquid is in a ring around the edge, outside the clear liquid.

A force, controlled electronically, perhaps via piezo actuators, moves the glass elements apart or together, changing how the liquids are dispersed in the liquid gap, and thereby changing the "width"/"aperture" of the "iris" formed by the opaque liquid. Also, towards the edge of the opaque liquid, it is thinnest there, so its optical attenuation is lower at that edge, so optically, the attenuation at that edge is not a step function, but rather a function of the shapes of the enclosing movable glass surfaces.

Or not.

I dunno. I'm guessing!

37

Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.

« on: July 02, 2012, 03:19:11 PM »

Very droll, Neuro! :-)

38

EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?

« on: July 01, 2012, 03:20:01 PM »

A few thoughts :

I have an Olympus OM2-SP (Spot/Program) SLR dating from the mid-1980s. It is black, and I was very lucky to find such a mint example on eBay in perfect working order. It is a Beautiful Thing (TM). I caress it and admire it. Owning it, and the 50mm f/1.2 lens and the 55mm f/1.2 lens, makes me Happy. It's about 27 years old and mint, as is the 50/1.2.

I am also lucky enough to own a 5D3 and a 7D. The 5D3 especially is also a Beautiful Thing. It actually makes the 7D feel plasticky! And the 7D is NOT plasticky!

But in 27 years' time, apart from the fact that I'll be dead, will the 5D3 be usable? Unfortunately, I fear not. I doubt that USB will be around in any compatible form, or indeed compatible card-readers.

On the other hand, although 35mm film, and will by then be a rare commodity indeed, and processing services more so, I expect that film SLRs will still be usable, for those who really want to use them.

The film SLR could in a sense be seen as an "heirloom". Maybe not so much for an Olympus camera, but consider a Leica M-series rangefinder film camera. They are heirlooms. The M9? No, it can't be; it won't have the necessary longevity, I fear.

I find this all rather depressing. The 5D3 and the M9 and so on are wonderful, high-quality pieces of engineering, but they seem doomed to be ephemeral.

I don't REQUIRE my 5D3 to last many years; if I'm still around and into photography and still cashed up in 4 years' time, no doubt I'll buy a successor, but that's not the point I'm making. It seems a shame that such wonderful things won't last 20, 30, 50 years and still be usable by most people.

(I'm just old and sad!)

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D MkIII difficult assignment. REALLY low light show coverage issues.

« on: June 08, 2012, 12:51:20 AM »

I enjoyed all the photos too.

I LOVE hi-fi, me!

It was my money-drain before photography.

I noticed the pair of Spendor speakers; I used to have SP1 speakers before I got burgled and some **** stole them.

Those ones look kinda like the size of SP1s, but with only 2 drivers like SP2s.

Now I use Dynaudio Audience 52SE, which are smaller and have less bass, but awesome mid and treble.

I'd use electrostatics if I had a bigger room.

Once I've finished buying photo gear (heh, yeah... ), I wanna go back and put more dosh into the hi-fi and get a nice valve amp. Used to have QUAD IIs when I was 18-21 but sold them as I was a poor student. TDP has reworked the QUAD II into a new version, or I might just think about getting one of his own EAR amps.

But I still have at least 3 lenses to buy! Extender 2x, 85Lf/1.2, 24-70LII.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Old News... Great News!

« on: May 12, 2012, 03:13:13 AM »

That's pretty cool! You sound like a lucky guy!

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Shock announcement by Ken Rockwell on his blog - 5D Mark III better than D800?

« on: April 17, 2012, 05:51:18 PM »

So maybe some of KR's biggest haters in these threads are KR himself, whipping up some activity to increase traffic to his site - to support his growing family!

42

EOS Bodies / Re: And now, a bit of finicky semantics: Is this 5D3 or 5Dω ?

« on: April 17, 2012, 07:29:19 AM »

ω is Ω = omega. When it is in a word, we pronounce it like an o.
It has nothing to do with w.

Exactly. I thought he was asking whether the 5D3 was gonna be the last model in the 5D line, when I saw the subject header.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory

« on: April 16, 2012, 05:08:00 AM »

5d mark iii light leak

light leak with normal operation in sunlight

That would explain my consistent under exposures in direct sunlight!

Of course it would.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 08, 2012, 11:51:53 AM »

... it just doesn’t appear there is an issue to me.

Wrong.  It's a HUGE issue for anyone who's favorite photographic subject is the inside of a lens cap!!!

All sarcasm aside... does anyone not see how this could be a serious issue for astrophotographers? 

If you are using a headlamp or the LCD backlight to set your exposure for a night sky capture, you could be in serious trouble.  I'll be doing some tests tonight and will follow-up tomorrow.

I fear the 5D3 may not be suited for astrophotography at all if this problem affects nighttime exposures.

Erm, no.

Because you would NOT rely on the camera's idea of what is correct exposure when doing astrophotography. Because if you did, the camera would seek to make the picture's lightness similar to that for normal photography.

You simply don't use the camera's exposure system when photographing star fields, because the overwhelming majority of the field is near-black.

You go to manual, or bulb.

Unless you're doing high-magnification photos of the Moon or other frame-filling objects, in which case you're now doing daylight photography, and basically, the terrestrial sunlit "Sunny f/16" rule applies.

Also, you're unlikely to be using headlights or bright torches anyway when engaged in astrophotography, because doing so would destroy your night vision.

BUT, please do report back your findings, because it will be a useful data point.

The 5D3 is the most light-sensitive/noise-free DSLR that exists in a conventional-size (non-integrated-grip) body at the present time, AFAIK.

So it would seem, it's the best such DSLR for astrophotography. (Possibly barring the 60DA, but even then I suspect the 5d3 wins on low-light performance.)

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?

« on: April 08, 2012, 11:08:11 AM »

Dan Chung reported that the 5DIII consistently under exposed by about 2/3 stop compared to the D800. Could this be why?

Very unlikely. Plus, what is "over/under-exposed" is very subjective.

Personally, I prefer to slightly "under"-expose relative to what my 7D and my 5D3 "think" is the correct exposure, because I think it results in better colour saturation. I find colours tend to "wash out" slightly at the exposure levels that the camera indicates when exposure compensation is set to 0.

IMNSHO, there's NO WAY that in real-life shooting scenarios, this effect could cause an exposure deviation as large as 2/3 of a stop.