December 18, 2014, 12:59:10 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 - Plamen

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
46
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method
« on: February 04, 2013, 08:47:18 PM »
Liveview AF (contrast Detect), at least on the 5D MK II and 7D  has turned out to be inaccurate and inconsistent.

The accuracy of LV depends hugely on the light level. Without knowing that, I would take those tests with a grain of salt.

My own experience with the 5D2 and the 100L, LV, is as perfect focus as it gets, even in artificial but not too low light. In low light, it is unreliable or it just cannot focus when PD has no problems.

47
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 04:35:39 PM »
If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway.

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.

I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

I always thought focus distance was part of the factor in DOF. Again, I'm not a lab tester of this stuff, I was only assuming another benefit to the amazing APS-C sensor :)

My remark did not include changing distance. After all, you could use the EF-S 60 macro, which is excellent.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 01:40:04 PM »
If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway.

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.


49
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:35:27 PM »
Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.

I do. The 17-55 is sharper on the same crop body. What is even more amazing that it compares well to the 24-105 even at f/2.8 (and the 24-105 at f/4).

But the 17-55 on crop is softer than the 24-105 on FF. Not a huge difference, but it is easy to see. I have one  comparison on my site, and of course, there is also TDP, PZ, etc.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:27:43 PM »
Crop body = 1.6x extra reach. Talking about the 7D, you also get 8fps. That's just awesome. After buying the 5D Mark III, I was planning on selling my 7D and EF-S lenses, but I decided against it. Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.

The 17-55 is a great lens, indeed, I used for several years. But ... the 24-105 on FF is even better, and not much different in weight and price.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:24:24 PM »
Quote
Most of the time, it puts less
Oh really...take a picture of a ruler with the same lens on each camera then crop out a 1" segment of the ruler...you will have more pixels with the crop camera.

Most of the time, you do not use the same lens (same FL) to shoot the same object.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:24:10 AM »
That crop body will put more pixels on target, birds in flight or that child playing BB in the gym, than will that FF camera, pixels on target determines IQ.

Most of the time, it puts less. You put more pixels on target only when you do not have high mp FF body (D800 and all that the future will bring), and need to crop a lot. I do not have a single photo taken with my FF body which is cropped more that just to do small corrections.

53
EOS Bodies / Re: making a case for that crop body camera
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:43:55 AM »
A crop camera body utilizes the center portion of a full frame camera's FOV using the same lens, but...according to Canon's MTF characteristics,
 that's precisely where most lenses are at their best.
So far, correct.
Quote
Therefore that crop camera only gives you the very best of that lens.
Now, this is incorrect because your just ignored the fact that the image from a crop camera has to be enlarged 1.6 times more.

See this and this. It is about center performance; the FF advantage in the corners still exists (most of the time) but decreases.

54
Lenses / More comparisons
« on: February 02, 2013, 11:06:13 PM »
More comparisons here.

55
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 11:04:33 PM »


Why not just try and tell me which of the four images I posted many pages ago are shot with which lens, surely that should be easy seeing as how the 135 has a "unique look"? And that is my point, yet again, it is not about comparisons, it is about the FACT that nobody can RELIABLY tell what image was shot with which lens, nobody who alludes to this "unique look" can reliably identify it, if you can't reliably identify it it isn't "unique".

I answered that already, several times. It is not hard to use a lens with a unique look in a way that nobody can tell the difference with a f/4 zoom. It has unique look when you use it in a unique way.

I have comparisons of the 24-105 with the 50L, the 85LII, the 35L. You would not be able to tell a difference, and even under 100% it will be hard to say which is which. I can post them if you insist. So what now, since nobody can tell the difference in those shots, those three primes are useless?

56
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 09:38:11 PM »


First, the "comparison" plamen posted IS NOT relevant or the situation I have constantly referred to, I KEEP saying FOR THE SAME FRAMED IMAGE, that means moving forwards for the 100.

Exactly what I did. The error was about 10%.

I will post some more.

57
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 06:07:54 PM »
I was too lazy to use a tripod and frame carefully.
The framing is rather different, moving the 100L towards the doll would have resulted in more background blur. No doubt the 135L is much more bokehlicious(tm), but if you want to do a comparison it'd be done properly, or you can also save the upload time...

Wow - tough crowd! We have 12+ pages of posts and this is the first direct comparison, if I am not mistaken. And I am been hammered for 10% or so difference in framing, and for wasting bandwidth!

58
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:55:13 PM »
This is shot on FF now. Too cold outside, so I took two quick shots inside. The doll is about 1.5x the size of a human head.  In the 135L shot, the doll is a bit larger - I was too lazy to use a tripod and frame carefully. The "model" here is too close for the 135L to really create a dramatic difference but it is still different enough.

The harsh light in the background is there on purpose. The flowers were very close to the doll, maybe 50cm or so. Developed in LR, no lens corrections. The 135L image got less exposure.

135/2



100/2.8

59
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:21:58 PM »
The f/2 exposure is also about a stop darker. Just rendering the background that much darker also serves to significantly make it fade away -- you've essentially got a double whammy going on.

Normalize the exposure between the two images and the difference will still be there, but it won't be as dramatic as your example suggests.

Here we go (it was 0.2 stop darker), 135/2 vs. 135/4. I just realized that those are images taken with a crop body. Anyway,




60
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:44:33 PM »
Indeed, it'll be just about the same difference as between 135 f/2 and 135 f/3.5. Different? Yes. Dramatically different? No.

Judge for yourself, 135/4 vs. 135/2 (f/4 is closer to the truth than f/3.5, and I do not have a f/3.5 version of that picture on my computer anyway):






Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6