October 26, 2014, 03:32:19 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 - Ellen Schmidtee

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 30
391
Lenses / Re: A Lens Roadmap? [CR1]
« on: February 11, 2012, 01:35:41 PM »
To judge by forums I read, it seems the 50mm f/1.8 II is a very popular lens (esp on among owners of APS-C cameras) on account of it being a cheap fast lens.

Canon might have decided to thrown in IS to increase sales (& possibly the profit margin), and make even more money on the lens.

I'd much rather see a 50mm f/1.4 with ring based USM. Accessories in the box and IS would be welcome.

392
Lenses / Re: A Lens Roadmap? [CR1]
« on: February 11, 2012, 09:51:06 AM »
I wouldn't even consider buying any of those.

Considering the review of the new Samyang 24mm f/1.4 I've just read, make an EF 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ and a reasonable price, and I'll buy one.

393
Lenses / Re: Sigma 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye... any input??
« on: February 10, 2012, 10:20:34 AM »
I've being using a Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 & a Samyang 8mm f/3.5 (diagonal fisheye made for APS-C bodies) for a while.

Photos of bands, both on stage and in the street, and using it as an ultrawide lens got me great results and positive feedback. I can get a whole scene, say the band playing + people dancing + crowd watching, and people like it. I didn't have to correct it, and nobody commented it's distorted or gimmicky.

I've used the EF 15mm f/2.8 to take photos of nature lanscape. Here I have to very carefully compose and correct the distortion, but the results are panoramic and impressive.


I've recently bought a Sigma 8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye for use on my 5Dmk2, and would appreciate advice as well.

394
EOS Bodies / Re: Is anyone else as...
« on: February 09, 2012, 09:47:03 AM »
...completely unmoved by Canon's recent gear as I am?

Me too.

For lenses, I'm interested in fast, low-CA lenses. And no, 2.8 isn't fast. 1.2 or 1.0 is fast.

I'll settle for reasonable priced (= closer to current non-L, rather than L) primes with f/2.0, though reading reviews like this make me think again...

For cameras, I'm interested in high ISO and low noise and more dynamic range. Not more pixels. 10...15mp is fine.

I would go that low, but 18MP would be just fine.

Seriously, it's been years since Canon released *anything* I actually wanted to go out and buy.

My last three lenses are Sigma or Samyang, and so will be my next two. I would have bought an EF 24mm f/2 USM, but Canon would rather sell an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM to somebody else.

395
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 09, 2012, 09:21:58 AM »
Canon has 3 current 70-200mm lenses F4, F2.8 and F2.8 + IS

Canon has released a 70-200mm f/4 IS over five years ago.

396
EOS Bodies / Re: 40MP Canon that's not the 5D3?
« on: February 09, 2012, 03:23:45 AM »
If they want my $$ they had better listen. I want the 40+ MP, 16Bit, without the AA filter just like the D800E. 1FPS and 800 ISO will do. Not over $6000.00. I'm close to jumping to MF anyway.

sounds like you shoot landscapes, the Nikon D800E and a 14-24 Nikkor will set you back less than $6k
just something to think about since canon dont have any 14-24 competitor

If Canon makes a 24mm f/2.8 IS instead, it must be more important to it's clients.

397
In todays market with decent high ISO and mirrorless options the worth of primes has I'd say become more about space saving.

I bought a 5Dmk2, rather than some APS-C or m43 or whatever, because I care about low light performance more than I care about equipment size & weight.

I care more about what I can get out of the equipment I have now than what I could get out of the equipment I might have in a couple of years.

In other words, I'd rather have a 1-2 stops faster lens now (and for the years in which I'll own the lens) rather than another 1-2 stops cleaner body in two years, which would perform even better with faster lens.

398
Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses
« on: February 08, 2012, 05:04:33 AM »
I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:

  • EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro:  ~2x the price of the non-IS version
  • EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye:  ~2x the price of the 15mm f/2.8 prime Fisheye, while losing a full stop

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes.  So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

I think it's illogical to compare the prices of the 8-15mm f/4 and the 15mm f/2.8 as (a) a zoom lens is more complex than a prime, and (b) the 8-15mm can do the work of both a FF circular fisheye prime and a FF diagonal fisheye prime.

399
Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~
« on: February 07, 2012, 07:08:10 AM »
If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, reduced minimum focus distance, possibly better image quality.  They've definitely got some positives.  I say, "well done Canon!" for giving these guys an update.  They might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm keen to read some reviews on the 24mm.

I already have the 24-105mm and carry it with me anyway, so "smaller, lighter, cheaper" is of no consequence. The MTF charts are not impressing, and are worse than the new 24-70mm f/2.8's.

I say "yawn, see 3rd party lens manufacturers get my money".

400
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 07, 2012, 04:45:34 AM »
Holy crap, it's real!

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm

And yes, it's EF.  As I stated on the page for the new EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, the long drought of Canon non-L primes is finally coming to an end!

I want a 24mm prime for two reasons - shoot in low light situations, and panoramas using a tripod. I've considered buying the 24mm f/2.8, but the max aperture and IQ at corners made me decide against it, and wait for Samyang 24mm f/1.4, even though it's fully manual.

The new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is as slow as the 24mm f/2.8, and from the MTF it appears to me the corners wouldn't be significantly better, so I'll pass. Had Canon made a 24mm f/2 USM with good corners, I would have bought it.

So, with all due respect to "up to 4 stops of shake correction", I'd rather keep on waiting for the Samyang f/1.4, and gain two stops aperture.

With this trend, the most I'll spend on the new primes would be to upgrade to 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice] non-micro-USM.

401
Lenses / Re: Three New Lenses~~~
« on: February 06, 2012, 09:06:55 AM »
This looks suspicious to me.

Say Canon makes a new 24mm prime. Why make it f/2.8 (rather than f/2) & why add IS?

If Canon makes a 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ, I'll buy it immediately. If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

402
Lenses / Re: Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG - what should the circle's diameter be?
« on: February 04, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »
Is your body FF or APS-C?

For FF, then isn't the WIDTH about 36mm, rather than 24mm?

AFAIK, diagonal fisheye (15mm on FF) would cover the whole frame with a diameter of 43mm, while a circular fisheye (8mm on APS-C) should create a circle contained within the frame, so it's diameter can't exceed 24mm.

403
Lenses / Re: If you could buy one ...
« on: February 01, 2012, 06:55:00 AM »
I would buy a 35mm f/1.4

For my uses, I'd rather keep on carrying the 24-105mm over the 24-70mm. I prefer the additional range & IS over the one extra stop.

I already have an EF 50mm f/1.4, don't need sealing, and I wouldn't cough up the money to gain 1/3rd of a stop.

I have & use the 35mm f/2, and USM, extra full stop, and improved IQ will be welcome.

404
Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 01, 2012, 05:33:44 AM »
Hopefully, there will be better options than TIF, maybe a version of DNG will catch on at some point, or PSD with lossless compression.  Sure, baseline TIF will be around, and will be supported, but may not be the best solution.  Also, TIF contains less information than CR2.

This is the same problem as in other areas of computing: data formats evolve and create obsolete files.  Fortunately for us, so long as we keep our files in managed libraries like LightRoom, we'll probably have the option to migrate the whole thing to the newest/bestest format in one command.

TIFF probably contain less info than CR2, as it wasn't designed to serve as raw format, but rather as a format to keep image data from scanners & faxes. IMHO, TIFF is more likely to be readable in the far future, so it would be a case of something is better than nothing.

I'm not a fan of TIFF, and share your hope that something better than TIFF will become, at least for the purposes we're talking about, an industry standard. DNG seems to do a good job, and is half way there, so why not?

405
Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:38:45 AM »
I'm writing this with my "computer guy" hat on.

TIFF is largely obsolete, and you should avoid it, generally-speaking.  Technically it has no advantages over RAW or PSD.  I'll give one exception at the end.

RAW: Your RAW file represents the full information from the image capture, and this possibly can never be reproduced exactly.  RAW files are your jewels.

PSD: These represent all the post-production work you have done to make the original capture conform to your vision.  While you could reproduce this work, it would take time and effort.  You should keep those PSD's in which you have invested a lot of effort.

JPEG: JPEG is largely an "output" format.  It loses a significant amount of your original capture.  For a photographer, save JPEG's as a convenience if you expect to need to send them out again for general use.

Exception on TIFF's: This format has been around a long time and has a very regular structure.  My guess is that 50 years from now, it'll be easier to import or use an uncompressed TIFF than any of the above formats.  (Think phonograph records: even after needles are no longer made, they can still be played with lasers)  For those rare, no, for those extremely rare, very valuable photos that could be important in 50 years, keep them also in TIFF.

I think TIFF is here to stay, as it is an open standard, easy to add to image processing software via libtiff, already included in many such softwares, is lossless, and has 16 bit support in both color & greyscale. There's nothing else in that not so niche corner.

The day I see CR2 support fading, I'm going to convert all my photos to TIFF, not because I think each and every one of them is very valuable, but my disk is my photo album, disk space is cheap, and I hope in two generations my family would enjoy that photo album as much as my cousins & me enjoy our grandparents'.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 30