46
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 03:19:11 PM »
Very droll, Neuro! :-)
June 20, 2013, 06:45:28 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.
47
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!)
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!)
48
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.
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.
49
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! 
50
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!
51
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.
52
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.
53
EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue
« on: April 08, 2012, 11:51:53 AM »All sarcasm aside... does anyone not see how this could be a serious issue for astrophotographers?... 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!!!
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.)
54
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.
55
EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue
« on: April 08, 2012, 10:48:00 AM »
I have no idea, none, ziltch!
Thanks, Craig.
Well clearly there is a very slight light leak through the LCD and also from the LCD backlight LED to the metering sensors.
But the leaked light is very little; down in the nanowatt or less range. It only shows up when there is no TTL light to swamp it.
With all caps on, and light on the LCD, you get leaked light of say 1nW (GUESS, not real!!!) on the lighting sensors. In the absence of any other light, the sensors do detect this.
With the lens cap off, and say 1uW or likely more of TTL light hitting the metering sensors, you simply don't see the effect of the 1000 times smaller (or even smaller than that) leaked light.
I don't think the 5D3 would've made it through Beta if this had been a real issue with the lens uncapped.
56
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 07, 2012, 07:25:22 PM »
Yes, I agree it does look bad for the brand.
I bet there are some very worried people at Canon's DSLR design department today. Brown trousers all round.
I still don't think it's a real-world issue, but it is slightly careless, and a potential marketing/image disaster.
I also predict that this is going to get used as an excuse for poor exposures by those who don't like to admit to making mistakes themselves! "IT was my 5D3 that screwed up!"
(The "Smite" feature is gone, so I can say it!)
I bet there are some very worried people at Canon's DSLR design department today. Brown trousers all round.
I still don't think it's a real-world issue, but it is slightly careless, and a potential marketing/image disaster.
I also predict that this is going to get used as an excuse for poor exposures by those who don't like to admit to making mistakes themselves! "IT was my 5D3 that screwed up!"
(The "Smite" feature is gone, so I can say it!)
57
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 07, 2012, 04:45:40 PM »I think that is an understatement in real-world situations.Such a small amount of light would be TOTALLY AND UTTERLY swamped in any real situation, with a lens on. And remember, when the camera decides what exposure to use when the shutter is fired, it does so with the lens WIDE OPEN, before it stops down the lens and begins the exposure. So I think it would be hard to contrive a situation where the light coming in through the LCD would be anything other than negligible compared to the light coming in through the wide-open lens.
I suspect that misses the point. It's the metering that's affected - similar to leaving the VF eyepiece uncovered when metering on a tripod. Extraneous (non-TTL) light hitting the metering sensor results in an underexposed shot, potentially resulting in lost shadow detail. Not saying this is a huge issue in real-world shooting, just defining the problem.
The huge difference in quantities of (TTL light) and (extraneous/"leaked" light) with a wide-open lens on (certainly when holding the VF to the eye, anyway - and that issue is definitely outside the scope of the present discussion anyway) means that the LCD leak is a non-issue almost always, or always. IMO.
So I stand by my assessment of the scale of the problem.
That is not to say I don't think Canon messed up; I think they have done by not incorporating better light sealing.
58
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 07, 2012, 04:16:51 PM »
I think it is important to point out the following so that some people don't come away with an untrue impression of the scale of this problem.
Looking at the above video with the sun and the orange paper, it would be easy to come away with the impression that exposing the LCD to bright sunlight would cause the exposure used in a picture to change down to a half of the value that would be used without the sun on the LCD.
That is NOT the case.
Remember, in real life, taking a picture, a lens would be on the camera, and wide open. There would be no visible or significant effect on the exposure in that case; the light coming in through the lens totally dominates, and that coming through the top LCD becomes insignificant.
Looking at the above video with the sun and the orange paper, it would be easy to come away with the impression that exposing the LCD to bright sunlight would cause the exposure used in a picture to change down to a half of the value that would be used without the sun on the LCD.
That is NOT the case.
Remember, in real life, taking a picture, a lens would be on the camera, and wide open. There would be no visible or significant effect on the exposure in that case; the light coming in through the lens totally dominates, and that coming through the top LCD becomes insignificant.
59
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 07, 2012, 04:07:44 PM »
It just seems to leak through the back of the LCD itself; not round the sizes.
I just tested mine with a VERY powerful (~50mW) green laser pointer, so I could try out different areas on the LCD. Pretty much anywhere on the LCD and down the exposure reading goes.
At ISO800, mode set to "P", I got 10s exposure with no light and 5 or 6 seconds with (A LOT!) of light.
I don't think it's a serious issue in real life. But I couldn't reproduce the behaviour with my 7D, though I didn't try very long, and didn't use the hella bright laser pointer for that.
When the lens cap is on and the VF cover is on, we are talking TINY amounts of light leaking to make the exposure reading change to 5s. Such a small amount of light would be TOTALLY AND UTTERLY swamped in any real situation, with a lens on. And remember, when the camera decides what exposure to use when the shutter is fired, it does so with the lens WIDE OPEN, before it stops down the lens and begins the exposure. So I think it would be hard to contrive a situation where the light coming in through the LCD would be anything other than negligible compared to the light coming in through the wide-open lens.
I just tested mine with a VERY powerful (~50mW) green laser pointer, so I could try out different areas on the LCD. Pretty much anywhere on the LCD and down the exposure reading goes.
At ISO800, mode set to "P", I got 10s exposure with no light and 5 or 6 seconds with (A LOT!) of light.
I don't think it's a serious issue in real life. But I couldn't reproduce the behaviour with my 7D, though I didn't try very long, and didn't use the hella bright laser pointer for that.
When the lens cap is on and the VF cover is on, we are talking TINY amounts of light leaking to make the exposure reading change to 5s. Such a small amount of light would be TOTALLY AND UTTERLY swamped in any real situation, with a lens on. And remember, when the camera decides what exposure to use when the shutter is fired, it does so with the lens WIDE OPEN, before it stops down the lens and begins the exposure. So I think it would be hard to contrive a situation where the light coming in through the LCD would be anything other than negligible compared to the light coming in through the wide-open lens.
60
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?
« on: April 06, 2012, 06:29:02 AM »After first time trying a film I left digital for a long. I came back for digital only for textures and for shooting video.
I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect.
And I love film.
My film background is Olympus, too!
I started with an OM30 when I passed my O-levels at 16; got money from family as a reward for doing well.
A couple of years ago, I got back into photography, and picked up an OM40 and some nice glass (see my sig below) on eBay.
Finally, I got an OM2-SP in beautiful condition and fully working, for £90 on eBay, last August. A bargain!
But I don't shoot it much these days because of the crippling development costs. Ouch. £15 for dev+scan (no prints) on a 24-exposure roll. (But as someone else said, I have had no hesitation dropping over £7k on digital equipment in the last 2 years. Hmmm...)