October 30, 2014, 02:46:51 PM

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
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.


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.

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)?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Links
« on: July 02, 2013, 06:40:40 PM »
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!

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.

Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: June 27, 2013, 11:28:47 PM »

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!


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

70-200mm f/2.8ii @200mm
ISO 3200

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?


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.

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).

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

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."

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".

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.

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?

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.

EOS Bodies / I Had a Dream...
« on: May 25, 2013, 07:07:25 AM »
This is going to sound a bit sad or obsessive.

I had a dream the other night, in which I had some digital camera - a small, rangefinder-ish-sized one, or like the Fuji X ones that are coming out now.

It had a manual-focus, wide-aperture lens on it, and I manually focused it, and got a great picture, with great bokeh. It had blossom or something in it.

I think the lens was probably one of my Olympus OM film camera lenses; probably the 50mm f/1.2.

I woke up, remembered it, thought about it. It was one of those dreams that changes your mood about something.

I found I really WANTED such a nice, small digital camera I could fit my manual-focus lenses to, even though logically, AF is better and more reliable and usually faster.

I realised that actually there isn't a lot out there at the moment that I could buy that would let me do that. I could buy a current Fuji one and a Fuji->OM adapter, but the newer ones still seem to be fixed-lens ones. The X-Pro one is a bit old now, and I think I would prefer to get its successor, if one comes.

I could get the EOS M, and the EF adaptor and then use my OM to EOS adaptor, but given the bad press the EOS M has had, and the fact that a better one appears to be imminent, it would probably be a bad use of funds to buy that now.

It has made me search for somewhere I can get decent film (Velvia, for example, seems to have a good reputation). I have a nice film camera I could use; I think I'll have another play with film in the near future.

For now, it's a lovely day, so I'm taking my 5D3 and 24-105L out.


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