August 20, 2014, 07:39:54 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 - mb66energy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Owners Post Your Pictures
« on: June 29, 2014, 09:05:29 AM »
I have great joy with my EOS M - I use it as replacement for my S95 (much much better texture rendering especially with higher ISO), as a "intelligent lens backcap" for wide to standard focal lengths and as a small camera for experimental photography. Another great thing is the contrasty and contra light proof (o.k. "resistant" would be a better term) standard zoom (1st picture).

My 55mm B&W ND 1000 filter came in use with the standard zoom - and the EOS M is a nice option for experiments with long exposure during daylight (2nd and 3rd picture with 30 sec exposure time). The EF-M 11-22 is just a little bit more expensive than a B&W ND 1000 filter with 77mm or 82mm filter thread - so this is a valuable option if I will do long exposures with an ultrawide ....

Lenses / Re: Canon 135L F2.0 - Am I expecting too much
« on: June 29, 2014, 08:43:21 AM »
I observed the same behaviour with the sister lens, the EF 2.0 100 - in some situations I have seen strangely coloured objects before and behind the focus plane. Just (newer) apochromatic designs do not show that behaviour:

The Voigtlaender 125mm 2.5 and the (Carl) Zeiss 135mm 2.0 APO - both apochromatic designs.

I thought about "sidegrading" to one of these lenses but (1) both do not have autofocus and (2) are expensive and (3) the raw situations where these LOCAs show colour fringing aren't worth (A) the extra money and (B) the extra complication with more gear to choose from ...

Enjoy your surely great lens - best - Michael

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 24, 2014, 03:11:26 PM »

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Superteles with IS have large elements.

Weight and energy consumption should therefore be even greater, per your explanation.

Does the larger housing of the superteles provide more space for the mechanism that moves the elements?


Superteles have large front elements but the IS group is mostly a thin lens element of much smaller diameter nearer to the bajonet than to the front element.

In standard lenses and wide angles you need smaller radii for the lens surfaces so the lenses become thicker and have higher mass - this implies higher forces to reposition them fast enough to counteract camera shake etc.

But your argument - in a tele you have more space - might be an additional reason.

A third one: A 2.8 300mm lens typically costs several thousands of dollars - 500 dollar more for a fast IS isn't prohibitive, it's a 10% increase of the cost or price. For a fictional EF 1.8 50 IS it means a 500% increase of cost or price!

"Tested" some FD lenses with the EOS M via FD->EF-M Adapter
FD 4.0 17 / FD 2.8 28 / FD 3.5 50 Macro / FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. (chrome ring) / FD 1.8 85 / FD 3.5 135 / FD 2.5 135 / FD 4.0 200

Only the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. showed very good quality and is interesting for me because it has a higher aperture than all my other lenses. This one might be in the photo bag you mentioned.
In the tele range the EF 4.0 70-200 is far superior to the above mentioned lenses. The EF-S 60 Macro is crisper than the FD 3.5 50 Macro.
FD 4.0 17 never was a very sharp lens but is interesting for video because it has very low distortion.

The major drawback of the EOS M is the fact, that you cannot find the right focus setting via the display easily. A electronic viewfinder of a future EOS M would be very helpful for that.
But if you use more or less static objects/subjects using the FD lenses via EOS M might be a good way to experiment with these older lenses.

If you want use the lens on your 5D, this link might be helpful:
There you can convert one or two of the most promising FD lenses into an EF mount version - for me I am thinking about the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. ... but still waiting what Canon will do in the 50mm range ...

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 22, 2014, 06:58:48 AM »
What about a 7D C(inema) as a parallel development with
  4k Video at reasonable frame rates
  a hybrid viewfinder

and a photo related 7D mark II which will be anounced later
with a totally new sensor tech.
Preferably a sensor which separates the whole incoming light
e.g. by interference filters to feed three photodiodes for R-, G- and
B-channel ... just dreaming about nearly lossless color separation
and a 1:1 mapping of imaging and image pixels!

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 01:16:00 PM »

I do expect the Canon EF-M 55-200 to be a better perfermer in terms of IQ than both the much more expensive Fuji [which is not great] and the Sony lens. But lets wait and see .. MTF charts anyone? ... and then test results and pictures. :-)

Of course this lens only was announced, because I recently purchased the EF-S 55-250 for use as light telezoom on both my 7D and via adapter on the M.  ;D


I know that feeling but it doesn't work always: After I bought my 5.6 400 I was shure an IS version or the 100-400 unicorn lens as mark II would be available instantanously - 3 years later both aren't available.
But that feeling is a good anti dote against GAS ...

EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: June 16, 2014, 11:17:59 AM »
We’re told the top plate has a noticeably bigger bump around the viewfinder than the current EOS 7D.
A hybrid viewfinder perhaps?  Or maybe the return of eye controlled autofocus?

Hybrid viewfinder: First thing I thought myself. Would be a great thing and excellent with eye controlled focus + a very fast AF system without and with live view ... might replace my 40D + 600D combo for photo + video.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 05:04:28 PM »
The 4.0 70-200 L (non-IS) in 2005 for the 20D - still in use as an allround telephoto lens.
The 5.6 400 L followed some years later.

135 L was on my plan but I preferred the 2.0 100 due its smaller size and similar IQ.
100 L Macro was an option but 100 Macro had similar, sometimes better reviews in
terms of IQ and the L was twice the price - the non-L version won.

Haves in black - new ones in red:

EF-S 10-22 | 60 ||
EF-M 11-22

EF 2.8/24     | 2.8/40                 | 2.8+2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200 | 5.6/400 ||
EF 2.8 24 IS | Sigma 1.4 50 Art | 2.8 100 IS Macro + 2.0 100 | 4.0 70-200 IS | 5.6 400

2 x 40D || 2x TC ||| 600D for video ||| EOS M + bunch of FD chrome rings
2 x 600D for video and photo + 2 x EOS M with EF adapter as intelligent back cap

Add a fast APS-C and/or a slow high MP 35mm camera

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:06:50 PM »
Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?


There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...

EOS-M / Re: New Job for my awesome EOS-M
« on: May 05, 2014, 10:38:18 AM »

Yes, So many People come to as me about this fantastic Tiny EOS-M with a big Lens

The EOS M is not far away from an intelligent lens cap which can stay on the lens to be alway ready to "shoot that lens" ...
so the EOS M has solved the problem to integrate a second body into smaller backpacks: It nicely fits into lens compartments with the lens attached!

EOS-M / Re: Where is the M-3 with the dual pixel sensor!!!!
« on: May 05, 2014, 10:32:04 AM »
Take your pick of currently available systems from Fujifilm, Sony, Olympus, Canon or Nikon. Loads of MILCs to choose from. Why wait for some mythical M3 that will prob never see a US or Europe release?

The current gear available today is more than good enough. The only limitation is the photographer.

In my opinion your last sentences are mostly true.

I love my EOS M because it has two real advantages:
  - small and lightweight
  - standard zoom is much better than the equivalent standard zoom for DSLRs

O.k., manual mode is awkward in terms of control, an EVF would be very helpful.

But: Give that camera
  - a control wheel near the shutter release button (e.g. for exp time) and
  - a second control wheel concentrically to the lens mount (e.g. for aperture) (like S95 etc.) and
  - an ISO wheel +
  - a tiny LCD which shows just aperture, exp time, ISO and remaining shots/minutes.
  - a larger battery (with it's compartment acting as substantial hand grip)
and that camera is a winner for a lot of people - for these who enjoy photographic tools and are willing to pay e.g. 1000 $/€ for such a body. And it might be a winner for Canon: Advertising for a series of feature oriented EOS M like bodies (larger display, Wifi, 2nd display for selfies, etc.)

For me EOS M has replaced the S95 successfully as "always with me"-camera with extended capabilities and much better image quality especially at ISO bigger/equal than 400 ASA.

Curious to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this new Sony and where you think Canon falls within the competition.

(1) Roughly 500 shots per battery charge (CIPA) would be a main caveat for me - if I pay 1000 € or above I think sth. like 1000 is the right amount of shots per battery charge.

(2) Needing an EVF to precheck a possible photo is a further caveat for me - I really like to check things powerless, directly by using an SLR and the focus ring.

Bringing new products to the market every month might show some progress. On the other hand REAL progress in e.g. dynamic range, sensor resolution, etc. is cancelled by some "degression" in the hardware quality of the controls. Comparing my 40D with a 70D will shurely show better IQ but the feel of control over the camera is much better with the 40D. Bad control over camera parameters costs time and photos.

So I am willing to wait for e.g. a 7Dii with better IQ, better control switches, better AF system. Slow net progress has saved a lot of bucks ...

Lenses / Re: EF 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600
« on: April 27, 2014, 05:00:37 PM »
I have around $1,200 in my new lens budget and am debating between these two lenses.  I'd like to purchase in the next month or so as we plan to take a vacation to Alaska in June and I really need a longer lens for wildlife shots.  After the AK vacation, I would use the lens primarily for wildlife closer to home (wild turkeys, bears, deer, maybe a few birds, etc.) and some limited outdoor sports like baseball and soccer.

For the applications you mentioned IQ matters. I attached three pictures with my EF 5.6 400 (EDIT: All taken with EOS 40D) which I bought primarily for condensed landscape shots etc.
First attached image:
  - Sharpness/contrast close up (meaning 4m distance) and wide open is phenomenal. It is a 100% crop taken with 40D - not a pixel monster but pixel size is close to 5Diii

Second image:
  - landscape through a lot of atmosphere: This is NO ART FILTER of some software like gimp or photoshop, it is a straight image ... The weather was cloudy but with intense sun so you have a lot of turbulence in the atmosphere.

Third image:
  - Moderate agricultural action shot where I had to place things attractively (more or less) without the chance to get the whole apparatus on the photo - here a ZOOM HAD BEEN VERY HELPFUL

My conclusion is:
  - in the close focus or nearer range (<= e.g. 200m) the IQ is dominated by the lens
  - depending on weather conditions for distances of e.g. 200m or more the quality of the atmosphere dominates (or select a weather of stable temperatures, then atmosphere has good optical quality)
  - a zoom is helpful if you cannot change your position or you have no time to do so. This is a very common statement but it applies perhaps to your scenery very often.

My other tele lens is a 70-200 2.8 II and I have a 2xIII extender.  This lens is still really good even with the 2x extender, so maybe I should continue with this combo and save my money toward an 85 1.2 II?

I have used the 4.0 70-200 non IS with the 2x TC mark i - a good combo at f/8, better at f/11 (with TC), but the long exposure times give much more smearing for long distance shots so f/5.6 with the EF 5.6 400 is a large benefit.
The CAs introduced by the teleconverter are handled well with DPP or DxO and they improve the IQ substantially.

I think your 70-200 lens with 2x TC is quite a good alternative which gives you acceptable IQ combined with flexibility and no additional cost. Just here correcting CAs will help a bit.

From reading reviews and looking at the lens sharpness tool at TDP, it appears the 400 is sharper overall.  But it of course lacks the zooms flexibility and vibration control.  At this point, I'm leaning a little toward the 400 5.6 as I expect I would use the zoom primarily at 400+.


If the EF 4.5-5.6 100-400 would exist as a mark ii version with 4 stop IS and equal IQ @ f/5.6 and 400mm like the EF 5.6 400 for 2300 $ I would think: The 1000 $ premium compared to the prime is well invested and that lens would replace my 4.0 70-200 AND the 5.6 400 - so if you can live with your lens-TC combo do that and wait for some development.
Think about renting a 5.6 400 and run your own checks. Lenses are not only about IQ but also about handling, AF speed, mass, size, haptics etc. and the 5.6 400 handles very well.

Just my thoughts - Michael

EOS Bodies / Re: dual pixel tech going forward
« on: April 27, 2014, 03:07:42 PM »
So I think we have some substantial "overlap" now - great.

The silecs paper is interesting read! It's funny what they put together in these dimensions and 20 million fold to make an image sensor that really works well. But the improvements are gradual and ...


The alternate "every other pixel" had no deflector, and passed all of the light without filtration. Here is the article:

The ingenuity of this design results in only two "colors" of photodiode, instead of three: W+R and W-R, or White plus Red and White minus Red.


... I agree that this is the "Königsweg" as we in germany say, the "kings way": Splitting the color instead of filtering out miswanted colors (throwing light away) at the cost of system efficiency.
I read about that technology and I think they use interference filters which reflect a part of the spectrum and transmit the opposite part of the spectrum.
An alternative might be a sensor which uses a prism or optical grating to separate wavelengths and three or four photodiodes to sense the colors.

These sensors are the counterpart to OLED displays which omit filtering (like LCD displays) and produce light in the wanted colors directly. It is the way of the future.

Before I forget: I found an interesting patent about a dual photodiode per pixel architecture which is used to increase the DR to 120 dB called "Dynamic-Range Widening in a CMOS Image Sensor Through Exposure Control Over a Dual-Photodiode Pixel". They have a pixel split into a L shaped photodiode with 75% area and the 25% area which complets the L-shape to a square (might be not available at the moment due to a web site update):

Best - Michael

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23