December 22, 2014, 09:29:11 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] 5 6 ... 19
46
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 12, 2013, 08:06:18 AM »
I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.
So there are people with taste for older glass on this forum too. :) I'd turf out your fungus lens before it infects others and recommend you try the Rokkor 58/1.2.... you will like it.

To business - I'm deeply skeptical that the T-stop of the OM 50/1.2 is slower than the EF 50/1.4. Although there should only be 1/3 stop in it, none of your cameras are capable of detecting light that comes from faster than f/1.6. The 7D (iirc used for your test) is not capable of detecting light from a cone faster than f/2.

Nevertheless, Canon cameras appear to register better sensitivity when coupled to EF lenses. This is because the camera knows that it's connected to a fast lens and silently boosts its ISO. Of course, it has no idea about the OM 50/1.2, so it does nothing and gives you a faithful measure of the detected light.

I tested this quite carefully - the trick is to partially rotate the lens so that the electrical connection is severed - it's real. Curiously, my ZE 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 lenses also appear to be faster than they really are...

Others tested the 50L and found it behaves like a 50/1.6 on a 1D4 / 5D2 and a 50/2 on a 7D. I can't speak to a 5D3 - I decided that I'd be upgrading when I got to be better than my camera.

Canon is not the only culprit caught up in this game. Nikon, Sony and Pentax were also caught cheating customers out of large aperture. Per my comments, my Fuji X-E1 doesn't cheat with SLR lenses (but I've no idea whether it does with fast Fuji lenses.)

Now all this returns to the question of which lens is sharpest wide open. Well, the short answer is they're all pretty good at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2.   Since the sensor doesn't actually detect light from a fast cone, it can't contribute to the bokeh - but since it's inside the mirror box, it could bounce around and degrade the contrast. Bear in mind that there's more than half a stop between f/1.6 and f/1.2 so 30% of the light intercepted by the lens is bouncing around...

I used the 7D in fully-manual mode with 1/50s and the lenses wide-open.

I have a hard time believing the Canon camera is silently boosting its ISO.

What ISO gets reported in the EXIF data?

The Canon 50/1.4 produced a slightly brighter photograph than the Olympus 50/1.2.

I am not saying you're lying. I am saying I find it hard to believe.

47
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 09:03:34 PM »
The OM 55/1.2 is soft when wide open and sharp at f/2. I'm not finished with it yet. typically $550+

The OM 50/1.8 is sharp at all apertures but has weird bokeh - probably a result of its rudimentary aperture control. That said, they can be had for about $30 and are compact, well made and robust.

Ah! A Zuikophile!

Yes, I have both of the f/1.2 lenses: The 50/1.2 and the 55/1.2. The 55/1.2 is NOT the older one with the radioactive glass element.

They are both pretty terrible wide-open, but pin-sharp at f/2.

I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1282664807273.38454.1849695638&type=1&l=33b6f14d3f

I also have a Zuiko 50/1.4 silvernose that I had cleaned internally and it came back in really good nick, nice and clean.

And a 50/1.4 that has SOME fungus inside but not a huge amount.

And a final-version 50/1.8, the final version they did. That is totally 100% clean inside and out.

One day I intend to do a rigorous comparison of all of them.

I like the 50/1.8 cos it is tiny (short, almost pancake-y) compared to the f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions. So more portable.

When the EOS M II comes out, I intend to get it and use it (sometimes) with the Zuiko 50/1.8 on it.


48
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 03:38:51 AM »

I just reran the numbers starting with image circle sizes (43.2mm & 27.3mm) and working from there, and my original calculation of 5/4ths stop is a bit off now, and it is actually pretty damn close to 4/3rds stops (-1.32426072248723) which would be a very convenient factor (except for the goofy 1/6th stops you get when going from a half stop like 1.2, but that really only affects two lenses).

That would make an 85/1.2 convert to a 54(53.7)/.75(.749) that behaves like a an 85/.75 on crop.  Yes please  ;D
So the focal length is effectively unchanged at 85mm? Even though you're dividing it by sqrt(2) and multiplying it by 1.6 (for crop)?

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Links
« on: July 02, 2013, 06:40:40 PM »
http://youtu.be/T5JzfCoUSUI
That is actually awesome!

I mean, someone has WAY too much time on their hands. How long would it have taken to animate that lot?!

But it's funny as hell! Brilliant!

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70D Reaction
« on: June 30, 2013, 08:34:19 PM »
He's been watching Canon bring out "new" cameras and is realising that Canon just deliver warmed up vomit each time a new camera is announced.

For being 'warmed up vomit' the 1D X and 5DIII take pretty good pictures.
I hope you meant, with 1dx and 5dmk3  you can take good pictures as you can do with a iPhone with  little skills

I don't understand your statement - can you clarify what you mean?

I assume he meant that you can just point and lick <--- CLICK! with an iPhone, and it comes out in focus. He hopes that the same would be true of much more expensive cameras like the 5D3 and 1DX.

51
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: June 27, 2013, 11:28:47 PM »
https://dl.dropbox.com/s/9ze8957w7akt6nx/31140034.JPG

Taken recently with a film camera, Olympus OM2SP, on Kodak Portra 400, through an Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.2, wide-open.

I'm expecting a film scanner to arrive today, so I'll only have to pay for the development, and not the insane high-res scanning prices. I'm excited!

52

Here's my go at it. I used the 60D for this one and cropped the heck out of it.

60D
70-200mm f/2.8ii @200mm
f/2.8
1/3200
ISO 3200

Cheers,
-Tabor
What are all those white specks around the Moon?

Don't tell me they're stars; they can't be at that exposure.

Is your camera suffering from a very noisy sensor? Or did you add them manually in Photoshop? Or let Jackson Pollock loose on your image?

53
Advice?

Yes, I have advice, if you're in the UK, especially anywhere near Manchester:

Hire Kate Bush and her "Cloudbusting" machine.

It's raining enthusiastically here.

54
Film - what is that.   Wait, last seen around 1044 when the Normans invaded in England  :)
It was 1066 FFS.

Anyway I'm currently having some fun with some rolls of Kodak Portra 400 and my Olympus OM2SP film camera and Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 lens.

It is expensive though, compared to digital's zero-cost-per-shot (once you've bought the gear).

55
Canon General / Re: improving IQ in landscape
« on: June 19, 2013, 07:32:33 AM »
See also The Brenizer Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_method

You can use it to get "wide angle" images as though they were taken with a very fast (low f-number) wide-angle lens, so you can get a lower DOF than would be possible with a real wide-angle lens.

Think about it: Stitch together 3*2=6 images taken with a 70-200 f/2.8 wide open, or maybe a 135/2.0.
You get the same DOF with the final image as you do per component photograph.

56
Wandering round the local public gardens where I take a lot of pictures, armed with my 7D and 70-200mm f/4 L IS , some little kid goes to its mum:

"Mummy, why has that man got a gun?"

"No, that's just a flash camera."

57
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 18, 2013, 10:26:57 PM »
No DSLR is a medium format camera killer. I like the images from the H5D-60. If you are in the fashion and fine arts business this camera is the one and only.

But the new big megapixel camera(s) from Canon are really good.

Hint: I donĀ“t know what Canon put on the market, but the 46.1 MP, 5 frame per second, Dual DIGIC 5+,
ISO 50-12800, 1DX AF, 2 CF Card slots works really good.

Are you claiming that you have actually USED a Canon "Big Megapixel" prototype? So far, there have only been rumors about such things, no concrete information whatsoever. Your claim sounds a little far fetched, but if it is true, then it would be pretty major rumor news for CR...
M.ST has been posting stuff for quite a while now that makes it clear that he is one of those who get to test out Canon's cameras before we get to hear about them officially.

He's clearly subject to an NDA.

So (IMO) let's keep listening to what he has to say and let's not push him to reveal more.

I am prepared to believe he has access to the information he shares, so I enjoy reading his "hints".

58
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Who Invented the Video Camera?
« on: June 10, 2013, 04:16:13 PM »
It is appropriate ton separate the acts of

1) Converting an (optical) scene to an electronic signal
2) Recording the signal

IMO, (2) is irrelevant. You totally can have a "video camera" without having any means to record the signal. You still have a video camera, for, for example CCTV for remote viewing. Applications include viewing inside dangerous or inaccessible spaces (pipes or nuclear reactor chambers), and security. I'm sure there are many others. Early TV broadcasts were transmitted live, because there was no means of recording the signal and playing it back later. (Or if there was, it was not practical or economically feasible.)

So I'll agree with Farnsworth or Baird. I don't remember who did it first.

59
Lenses / Re: Anything shot with 70-200 f4 IS USM + 7D
« on: May 28, 2013, 07:45:48 AM »
Wow, nice picture :-)
I was considering f/2.8 is ii but it is too heavy and expensive too :-(

how much soft at f/4?
Thanks.

Well I got the 70-200mm f/4 L IS  first,and later traded it in to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.

Which was an expensive way to get there, but never mind.

I found the f/4 (IS) version of the lens to be VERY sharp; it certainly didn't disappoint me in that (or any) sense.

I just had to have the f/2.8 one in the end, though!

The general feeling round here (CR) seems to be that the f/4 IS version is about as sharp as the f/2.8 version,
and both are VERY sharp.

The non-IS versions are reckoned to be less sharp, I seem to remember. Also, not weather-sealed, IIRC.  BUT that's just me recalling what I've read on here about them. I have no experience with the non-IS versions myself.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19