March 01, 2015, 08:11:14 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 - dhofmann

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to announce medium format dslr?
« on: August 06, 2012, 04:55:53 PM »
One strategy to allow EF lenses on a medium format body despite the smaller image circle is to apply vignetting correction in firmware, provided the vignetting isn't too severe.

Increasing the flange distance to accommodate a larger mirror will lose infinity focus on some lenses, but maybe Canon has designed this problem out of their new lenses. So this might be an alternative to a mirrorless medium format body.

And of course, an adapter with glass can fix both problems, but the results may not be pretty.

I use the 70-200 with the 2x for now but the images are soft at 400 and AF is slow, but I'm in no hurry... yet.

Ditto. If only the 400mm f/5.6L lens had image stabilization. Maybe the new 100-400 will be just as sharp at 400mm. If so, a tough decision awaits about whether to keep the 70-200!

EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade from my T3i Need Advice!!
« on: July 30, 2012, 02:54:40 AM »
Do you want autofocus for video? And do you shoot indoor or outdoor sports, daytime or nighttime, and how close can you get to the action?

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Im looking into getting a new camera
« on: July 27, 2012, 04:42:56 PM »
I'd get a T2i refurbished from the Canon store ($480) plus the EF-S 15-85mm lens ($640). It only goes just a little above your stated budget. There's no need to spend extra money on the T3i or the kit lens.

Edit: order Saturday, July 28 through Monday, July 30 and use promo code EOS712 to save 15% off the price of the camera and get free shipping. Total price: $1047.98 shipped (by my calculation).

Edit 2: sorry, the above promo code doesn't give free shipping. This one does: SHIP712. You can add both promo codes to your order at the same time. Also, you may have to pay sales tax on your order.

Portrait / Re: My photos look so dull
« on: July 18, 2012, 03:14:57 AM »
There are three main problems:

1. The images are underexposed. Watch the histogram on the screen when you take the photos. If you took the photo in RAW, Photoshop can fix this, but it will create some grain.

2. The light source is directly overhead, creating shadows on the faces. It needs to be a little more to the front of the face, especially with the woman, because both eyes are in shadow in both of her photos.

3. The white balance is slightly off in the first two photos.

Using natural light can be a challenge in getting good photos, but the rewards are great. I second the suggestion to learn Strobist Lighting 101. It will teach you what good light is. With good light, you can completely eliminate the need to use Photoshop.

Lenses / Re: Which L lens will be the first mark III?
« on: July 14, 2012, 01:37:25 AM »
I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.
See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.

Lenses / Re: Which L lens will be the first mark III?
« on: July 09, 2012, 05:14:19 PM »
I'm going to go with the 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens, unless it acquires image stabilization, in which case it would become the 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

The reason is because it's soft and has very low contrast wide open. Being an L-series prime, it should have better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but it doesn't.

Macro lenses are all telephoto lenses, so the field of view is so narrow that distortion is not noticeable. What macro gives you beyond non-macro lenses is the added ability to get so close that an eyeball would fill the whole frame and still be in focus. Plus, macro lenses tend to be very sharp.

How about a refurbished T2i ($480) + 85mm f/1.8 ($390) for the head shots + 100mm f/2.8 macro ($520) for the close-up details + 50mm f/1.8 ($110) for the head and shoulders shots + EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($735) for full-length shots and video? Total price: $2,235 + tax & shipping.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:27:23 PM »
What focal lengths are you using? If you tend to use 200mm, then the other lenses you mentioned (50mm f/1.8, 17-40mm f/4, 24-105mm f/4) will require cropping to achieve the same field of view, so you wouldn't get the fine details that you can get with your 70-200mm lens.

You can use software to reduce noise, at the expense of some resolution. But you can't use software to increase resolution. So if you're taking photos from a distance, I'd stick with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. It has a greater focal length to aperture2 ratio, so it will let in more light at longer focal lengths.

Lenses / Re: lens belt?
« on: June 15, 2012, 02:50:29 PM »
That LowePro looks interesting. I've been considering a Cotton Carrier vest (or a copy of it). I'm trying to avoid the problem of the lens swinging against my leg as I walk.

Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.
« on: June 04, 2012, 04:30:52 PM »
If we assume a perfect lens, at f/2.8 and 50% contrast, you can resolve about 247 lp/mm...

How do you determine that number? The common formula of "1600/f-stop = lp/mm" means a perfect lens at f/2.8 would resolve about 571 lp/mm, over twice your figure of 247 lp/mm.

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 30, 2012, 01:56:45 PM »
Did you try it stopped down then?

Yes, at f/5.6 and f/8. It's still not as sharp as the non-L superzoom.

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 29, 2012, 07:46:57 PM »
I keep hearing that the 17-40 is less sharp than the 15-85 - but on a aps-C you will find it sharper, particularly at f5.6 or slower.

Why do you keep repeating that long after I disproved it in my original post? (Hint: follow the link I provided.)

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 29, 2012, 06:19:05 PM »
If it is a stationary object then a monopod/tripod is the answer.

IS would weigh substantially less and be significantly more compact than a monopod or tripod.

I am not convinced that the 17-40 is not sharp, especially at f/5.6 or slower

It is less sharp in the corners at 24mm than the non-L 15-85, even at f/5.6 and f/8. Given that the 17-40 is an L lens and not a superzoom, it has two reasons why it should be sharper than the 15-85.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5