March 05, 2015, 01:59:21 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 - mb66energy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32
31
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 10:37:39 AM »
So I should wait before I buy a 5D classic until I know the prices and the specs ...

After owning a 4k TV (to view EOS 20D images near their original resolution) I am interested in more pixels and waiting for a 10k Display ...

32
Lenses / Re: Would you buy this lens? Small, lightweight, 17mm/2.8
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:20:40 PM »
I am interested in something like 17mm, compact, not too expensive.

I think f2.8@17mm for full frame is not possible to produce for 500$ but f4.0 might be possible - I just think about the FD 4.0 17 I own: A little bit soft, roughly 700 german mark 20 years ago might transform into a 500 EUR high quality lens with plastic housing but (more or less) current lens technology (like e.g. 10-22 EF-S).

I like high quality in the corners so I wouldn't be satisfied with the IQ of the 17-40mm - but with f4.0 a better correction is possible IMO.

33
I had the same decision to make 2 or 3 years ago:

IS would have been nice but the L grade macro lens
was at least 2x the price (420 vs. 899 Euro at the time).
The wonderful EF 2.0 100 was in my bag before. This
lens has some advantages compared to both 100mm macros: very compact,
high max aperture, very fast and reliable AF, and last but not least:
great image quality.

The center sharpness of the L lens is better,
but corner sharpness isn't after different tests,
at full aperture and f/4 - I very often use near open
aperture and place objects far from center/need the
full frame sharp (landscape etc.).

CAs are better for non-IS lens ...

Less flares for non-IS lens with similar contrast in contralight situations ... perhaps the less
complicated design without IS system/elements.

non-IS has some distortion - IS-version has practically none but has not mattered to me
(landscape, macro, - in case of architecture might be managed in PP)

Vignetting is less visible in the non-IS version ...

I skimmed the following tests/pages:
Lens qualtity at the digital pic:   http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=2
Flares at the digital pic: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=3

Review of photozone (24 x 36):
non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
IS / L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1

If I hadn't had the EF 2.0 100 before I might have bought the L version (with IS compensating
some aspects of larger aperture) and welcomed the weather sealing.
But for my situation it was (up to now) a good choice.

34
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:58:21 AM »
Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.

YES YES YES!

Add a 36x24mm sensor model with EF mount and a new lens series that can use this EF mount and the volume between flange and sensor. These weren't compatible with EF SLR's ... o.k., but very interesting for high quality wide angles.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: CN-E 35-260mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens
« on: January 11, 2015, 08:14:52 AM »
IMO it is always a good idea to see immediately what you get - and if I think in "4k" + "movie" I see hardly a good method to do some on the fly high quality processing to get images consistently soft. We speak about calculating soft focus effects for 24 x 8 MPix frames per second resulting in 192 full color MPix per second which is roughly 1.2 GByte per second.

Another reason for the existence of such lenses might be the fact that "hardware softening" changes the bokeh differently from the main subject - this would be a hard job (if possible) in post.

Just my 2ct ...

36
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: January 11, 2015, 04:03:12 AM »
pre buying:
1. Check a PDF file with search feature - to see if the things I want are possible

after buying and before first use:
2. Check PDF file for warnings/precautions and similar stuff

after that:
3. Use the camera and profit from the heavenly situation that I can check the results of settings/procedures immediately.

Best manual ever: The manual of the 1973/4 Canon EF I bought 30 years ago ... some chapters about the use of different focal lengths, right exposure of darger or brighter than average objects, etc.

37
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 11, 2015, 03:54:32 AM »
An upgrade path usually has alternatives. I added my gear list to give others an idea what a moderately priced but very flexible lens set might be.

The big plan (experience with FF like Canon EF, Ftb, later F-1n) was to use the following focal lengths with FF:
24 f/2.8 - 50 f/1.4 - 100 f/2.0 & 100mm macro - 200 f/2.8 - 400 f/5.6
At the photokina in 1990 (?) I fell in love with the EF 100 2.0 - bright, very compact, very responsible and silent AF operation.

In 2005 I started with the 20D and the EF-S 60mm macro and -  months later - the non-IS f/4 70-200mm joined the bag. Image quality was great just compared to what I achieved with Kodachrome 25 and very good FD lenses. And the possibility to check images on location for quality (technical + artistical) was a great gain which brought me back to photography.

After using the 60mm and mostly the 200mm of the zoom with the 20D I saw it as a perfect walk around lens and the old focal length-list was fine just for the crop format so I decided to
  - use the EF-S 60 and wait for a compact high quality 50mm lens - the EF 40mm with excellent flare resistance is FOR ME one of the gems that might work until I really need f/1.4
  - use the very good EF 4.0 70-200 until I really need a higher aperture lens with 200mm

I am always open for FF lens wise but there has to be a need for FF to go that path. Maybe with a 5D mark i to collect some experiences or maybe with a slower 52 MPix body (2 fps are sufficient for me).

But my biggest upgrade of the decade will be presumably the 4k TV I bought 2 days ago: now I can view my 1ß year old EOS 20D photos near their native resolution and ... it is BREATHTAKING! Zooming by head motion is very natural and it is a joy to view landscape or macro photographs in their full clarity and dynamic range (of 11 EV what the TV panel delivers) on a screen with size and resolution of a very good 20x30inch print ... APS-C delivers to me with good lenses and good technique (after a lot of trial and error) ...

38
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: January 10, 2015, 06:16:37 AM »
After fiddeling two hours to connect my just 11 years old DVD player with a cheap Full HD monitor I decided to buy the mentioned Samung 40 inch UltraHD monitor and ...

Viewing of high res images is done by the on board OS/Software of the TV, reading files from USB:
+ Viewing EOS 40D images at 7 MPix (3240 x 2160 screen pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio of the images) is ... BREATHTAKING!!! (Distance to the screen roughly 50 cm, pixels not visible to me)
It is like looking at a very good and well lit print in 50 x 75 cm with great color reproduction and high contrast. From reviews I remember contrast values between 1000 and 3000 meaning 10 - 11,5 EV.
It is more "beeing there" than "looking at a photo of" ...

Usage as Desktop:
Cannot report about it because the graphics card of my PC is to primitive for that display. I like fanless graphics cards so I have to find a fanless card for 3840x210 resolution @ 60Hz.
UPDATE 2015-01-16: After several hours of image watching I am not shure if that TV/display is a PC monitor replacement: At 50cm distance you are off axis by 45-60 degree. In that case a curved display might be more efficient - and some improved panel technology like OLED. But I will do the relevant "tests" soon.

Mirroring a tablets screen:
Works after easy setting up the connection. Resolution is only 1280x720 (800) what the mini tablet can do but it is absolutely sufficient to bring readable content to the screen or to view a you tube video via the tablet on the screen.
There is a lag between user input and response of the TV screen but for the use from time to time it is no problem.
Just thinking of camera with life view engaged + tablet with EOS Utility to mirror the camera view to a larger screen ...

Common remarks about the display:
+ Viewing angle isn't the problem. @60 degree off center axis colors & contrast are flat, but at normal wide viewing angles colors are at least good.
+ Very good color reproduction out of the box but I read some reviews that showed very high color precision after calibration (cannot do that at the moment)
+ Good brightness - reviews report up to 450 cd/m² are possible
+ good black levels - good for me as SF fan. Space has to be deep black ....

o Motion reproduction is IN MY OPINION absolutely o.k. The simple upscaling of the TV set is mentioned in some reviews resulting in harsh detail loss for fast moving objects. I haven't observed these effects but I only used FullHD content via USB and DVD via SCART (1k resolution or less).

- A little bit cloudy but visible only in special situations e.g. the blue background screen of the satellite receiver I will use furthermore.

The panel technology is PVA which I have used with a very good EIZO S2100 computer monitor in the last 5 or  years.

Usually I am NO early adopter but in this case I hurried because
(1) I want resolution - a dream of mine came true: looking images near the resolution they have in a singel view.
(2) some sharpness loss in TV/video mode is acceptable for me
(3) I see no longer too many problems in high resolution displays: proven technology
(4) There is some risk that 40 inch Ultra HD displays will vanish from the market soon because "it is to small for the resolution" and
(5) 40 inch for Ultra HD seems to me ideal as computer screen used for image editing but also for text writing, drawing, programming, etc.
(6) 4 x HDMI 2.0 and 3 x USB (1x USB3.0) gives some options for future extensions - future entry models might be less well euipped after Ultra HD is adopted by the masses.


The Samsung UE40HU6900 has visible brightness variation with the viewing angle but colors seem stable. Reviews show that this display gives good color reproduction, contrast and brightness. The week point seems to be motion reproduction for movies, but this might be solved by using a high quality external tuner.

My usage scenario is at the moment
  * replace the defect DLP beamer (50 white pixels within 2 weeks after just 1750 hrs of operation)
  * have a device to display photos near their native resolution
  * plan to use it as computer screen in my living room with a PC in the room above (need a new graphics card for that purpose)
  * view contents of my tablet via Miracast wirelessly.

At 500 Euro it seems a bargain ....

If I buy that display/TV I will give feedback!

39
EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 10, 2015, 05:37:30 AM »
My standard setup is an APS-C SLR with 100mm macro or f4 70-200 lens. But sometimes I need a wider angle and I hate to change lenses: EOS M rules as wide angle body in the bag or around my neck as fast wide angle camera with EF-M 22 and EF-M standard zoom.

For my work as teacher the EF-M allows to produce small videos of physics relevant procedures for analysis of these videos by the scholars. The EF-M with e.g. the EF-S 60 Macro is very versatile and sports a distance scale which is sometimes very useful. This is another use of that camera - the small size is very welcome and the extended possibilites with Magic Lantern help very often.

The third scenario is "going light" - e.g. if I walk into the town to do some "sports" and shopping afterwards. The EF-M with EF 40mm or the EF-S 60mm is + the small Manfrotto 709 mini tripod use very little room in my medium sized day pack.

IQ is excellent in absolute terms - o.k., larger sensors etc. are better, but not that much.

40
Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro  zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX?     ::)

Oh, and does Nikon make optically great TCs?   ::) ::)

flare artifacts: It depends on the strength of these artifacts. If the correction is only relevant for passionate pixel peepers ... I would accept it.

TCs from Nikon: Don't know because I have no experience with Nikon. But what I have heard in the last 25 Years about Canon's TCs: They are designed into the resulting lens+TC combo and show extremely good quality. But if I use a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for me.

Let's wait for the reviews and what will Canon's answer be in 2016 or 2017 ...

Flare artifacts:  looking at the sample image pair linked above, even after 'correction' the flare appears pretty bad – there is still a very noticeable veiling glare on the image.  I'd be interested to see what a shot with a strong light source (the sun, for example) a bit outside the frame looks like. As it is, the lens should probably come with a 'black box warning' not to use it for backlit shots.
I think comparing both images isn't a good idea - I would wait for comparisons between the new Nikon lens and a "classical" lens of high quality.

TCs:  Nikon TCs don't have a stellar reputation.  It is amusing that you bring up TCs as one of two criteria which would make the lens interesting, but then turn around and say that they don't matter to you...

"But if I use a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for me." perhaps a matter of my non-native english ... I meant "But if somebody uses a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for that person."

41
Lenses / Re: New Canon 100-400mm Mk2 lens with 2x extender mk3
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:09:05 AM »
@Bennymiata: Good remark about CF tripod. I bought mine for two reasons: (1) smaller weight savings and (2) much higher vibration damping compared to aluminium. This is valid just for the cheaper SIRUI tripods.

Another idea: atmospheric turbulence is a factor with longer focal lengths. With 300mm equiv I havent seen it to often. with 640mm equiv (EF 5.6 / 400) it is a factor, more so with 1280mm equiv.

Using live view in 10x mode you might see strong variations of sharpness and there is no way to be fast enough to correct these variations and hit the shutter.

A solution which comes into my mind is: Use live view without magnification (or viewfinder) and focus manually - this might average the sharpness variations and might lead to a good compromise. I will try to find a photo and make it available here later.

Another check procedure that comes into my mind: Try focus methods in a room where you have constant temperatures (= no/low turbulence) and look how your methods perform. One of the first photos with my EF 5.6 / 400 was a close up and it was tack sharp, contrasty, with well defined textures of a wooden table and a computer mouse. My first outdoor shots were landscapes in a sunny landscape after a cold night (-5 degree celsius) including dark brown crops (? areas which were prepared to grow corn) - a good condition for heavy turbulence!

Good luck - Michael

42
I believe it was DeWitt Jones who called landscape photography "visual extraction" or something like that. Choose a quality telephoto zoom and you'll be happy.

Good finding: I just wanted to propose
(1) f/4 / 70-200 if flexibility is needed     OR
(2) f/2.8 100 Macro if macro is a concern
because I like to extract nice setting in landscapes.

But this might differ from landscape to landscape. Germany is one of the more dense crowded regions and therefor it is full of artifacts. So ultra wide will add to many artifacts and disturb the image ... or I am not good enough to integrate lots of artifacts in a landscape photo ;)

43
Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro  zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX?     ::)

Oh, and does Nikon make optically great TCs?   ::) ::)

flare artifacts: It depends on the strength of these artifacts. If the correction is only relevant for passionate pixel peepers ... I would accept it.

TCs from Nikon: Don't know because I have no experience with Nikon. But what I have heard in the last 25 Years about Canon's TCs: They are designed into the resulting lens+TC combo and show extremely good quality. But if I use a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for me.

Let's wait for the reviews and what will Canon's answer be in 2016 or 2017 ...

44
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:07:59 AM »
Tough question - personally I never liked the idea of two or more monitors. My idea of a good screen is a Desk of 800 x 1500 mm with a built in monitor of nearly the same size including at least a WACOM area of let's say 200 x 300 mm and at least 150 ppi. OLED would be welcome - if you need just to read a document power consumption will be 10 Watts, if you view a complex technical drawing, it is more. A good idea are some scenes in the movie Oblivion, where they use similar devices.

But back to reality: I am searching a smaller Ultra HD TV set. 3840x2060 pixels seems to be good enough to replace a lot of two monitor solutions and has enough height to show portrait mode pictures at ~3MPix. And it offers the chance to view my EOS 20D images at full resolution!

40 inch is what I search for - the resolution is 110 pixels per inch.

And I think I will buy one as soon as possible before they vanish from the market. Just now I hear very often "40 inch is to small" - valid for a TV set but not for a computer screen. At the moment Ultra HD TVs are low price - heard about an inititative to push them into the market. 40 inch (without 3D, but including 4 x HDMI 2, Miracast, etc. are about 400-500 Euro.

How good will a 40" monitor be for retouching? From my limited experience, monitors larger than 30" aren't that good for retouching... Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I have retouching done only in homeopathic doses - no experience in that field. And I do not own that display yet but after 25 years of computer use I tend to the opinion "larger is better".
One thing is very important if you do color-critical retouching: You need good color stability from different viewing angles.

The Samsung UE40HU6900 has visible brightness variation with the viewing angle but colors seem stable. Reviews show that this display gives good color reproduction, contrast and brightness. The week point seems to be motion reproduction for movies, but this might be solved by using a high quality external tuner.

My usage scenario is at the moment
  * replace the defect DLP beamer (50 white pixels within 2 weeks after just 1750 hrs of operation)
  * have a device to display photos near their native resolution
  * plan to use it as computer screen in my living room with a PC in the room above (need a new graphics card for that purpose)
  * view contents of my tablet via Miracast wirelessly.

At 500 Euro it seems a bargain ....

If I buy that display/TV I will give feedback!

45
Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro  zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32