Messages

451

EOS Bodies / Re: How the iconic post-Sandy 'New York' cover photo shot w/ ID-X

« on: November 12, 2012, 12:44:37 AM »

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?

I want to know too!

452

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 11, 2012, 11:30:38 AM »

Thank you Tim!
Since you know what you talking about, could I please ask you two questions:
1. Does IS mechanism reduce only the sharpness of a lens or causes any other type of IQ reduction?
2. Is the IS reduction of IQ enough that it is visible to the eye? (I do not have IS and non IS version of the same lens to make a comparison.)
Appreciate your reply.

453

Site Information / Re: Missing Persons -- Brian??

« on: November 10, 2012, 11:29:10 AM »

@distant.star... that's very kind of you to think of someone who suddenly stopped posting.  +1

Yeah... +1

454

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 09, 2012, 09:56:14 AM »

I observe (sometimes) with my 24-105 that if the IS kicks in heavily, the bokeh SUFFERS.
The focussed parts are still quite sharp, but the bokeh gets wild and rough.

This makes actually some sense, as the theory says that "good" bokeh comes from well aligned elements, we all agree that most primes have a "better" bokeh than zooms.

Hmmm. 'Kicks in heavily'?? 'Wild and rough bokeh" hmmm. You seem to have a better eye than me!

455

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW

« on: November 09, 2012, 08:49:35 AM »

In all practicality, if you do not feel the need for RAW, you do not need it.
If you are happy with JPEG, no need for RAW. It is generally an overkill and time consuming.

456

Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.

« on: November 08, 2012, 11:51:22 AM »

Thank you. Am using my commonsense now.

457

Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.

« on: November 08, 2012, 10:54:23 AM »

Thank you and understood.

Btw Amazon had 6+ in stock, now only one remain.

458

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 08, 2012, 09:30:36 AM »

My feeling is that IS would affect IQ as the lens or lenses in the IS unit are moved off center, to negate movement of the photographer. This process of moving the lenses off axis in the optical path would have been "allowed" in the design, but it'll be a case of "....the lesser of 2 evils".

This makes a lot of sense to me!

459

Canon General / Re: Amazon policies.

« on: November 08, 2012, 07:43:52 AM »

Why don't you like my cousin in Saudi Arabia?

460

EOS Bodies / Re: New crop bodies coming!

« on: November 08, 2012, 07:15:59 AM »

Such blatant optimism wont take you far. 

461

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:29:28 AM »

Sanj, how could it do anything to IQ? It is a mechanical device outside of the row of elements in the lens, it is not optical.

The only way it would affect optics is if it doesn't work properly.

But really this thread is about a non issue. There is no IS vs non IS lens that Canon makes that would be equal, those that are close the IS version is superior to the Non IS version.

I don't know but am trying my best to understand!
I bought the X100 and asked the Fuji 'guys' about IS and this is what they said:

Hello Greg and Billy.
Great video, great camera! Mine will be with me end of this month...!!
Could you please educate me on one point:
Why is incorporating Stabilization into the camera a bad idea: Does it:
a) Increase costs?
b) Increase size?
c) Reduce quality?
Asking because I am sure ISO 400 results in better quality than ISO 3200 (which 4 stops stabilization would provide.)
I understand that u guys strongly believe that this camera does not require IS but my question is: HOW CAN IT HURT?
Sanjay Gupta 1 year ago
   Reply
A) Yes, B) Yes, C) Yes as the ability for customization of the lens to the sensor would not be possible (well at least cost effective). I believe in I.S. however not so much with a 35mm equivalent lens. Especially the quality of ISO settings up to 3200 and a fast lens should allow for decent shutterspeeds for most situation. Others, use a tripod, or enable the flash.

Fuji Guys - X100 Frequently Asked Questions	Small | Large

462

1D X Sample Images / Re: vancouver zombie walk with 1DX EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: November 07, 2012, 11:27:48 PM »

Not bad, but the eyes look like they don't belong in that face. A big part of it is not just the selective color processing but also that they're the only things that're sharp due to the shallow depth of field. I'd like to have seen the shot stopped down a bit more, at least enough to have the whole forehead sharp. Really, this particular shot would have been perfect for f/8 - f/11 so you could be hit by the full impact of all the grittiness rather than have some or much of it safely softened and eased out of your mind. I'd even have done so if it meant boosting the ISO -- grain would help, not hurt, this picture.

Just because you can shoot wide-open at a low ISO with only a sliver of the frame in sharp focus doesn't necessarily mean you should....

Cheers,

b&

Your suggestion would make this image boring, passport type, to ME.

463

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder

« on: November 07, 2012, 11:25:47 PM »

My Zeiss 35 has terrible vignetting at 1.4. That perhaps is the most expensive 35mm.

Lets see how the Sigma competes with that. But I would be more interested in the sharpness at 1.4 than the vignetting problem which can be fixed in PS.

464

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 07, 2012, 11:19:17 PM »

Yeah, the question: "How does IS reduce quality." needs to be addressed. NOT how IS can reduce quality.
All lenses have IS on/off switch.

I really want to know.

Thx!

465

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 07, 2012, 10:34:31 PM »

Hi,
    IMHO, every element added will decrease IQ by a bit, so a lens without IS will have slightly better IQ than lens with IS (when both lens are from the same generation and same grade) under perfect shooting condition.

So you believe a lens with one element is sharpest?  Maybe one with no elements is the ultimate?

That would be so. Looking through a hollow tube will always give you the clearest sharpest image. You can not improve the light when it is in it's near perfect unrestricted form.

If you believe that, then why buy a lens?  You can get a sharp image without one?  Why don'y you start selling them, you can sell sharper lenses for just the cost of a roll of toilet paper.
Multiple lens elements do, in fact correct the various abberations that come from just one element.  Thats why the lenses that are sharpest have multiple elements.
Your theory seems pretty badly flawed when compared with the real world.

Well one does need a lens to take a picture!!

It seems correct that one cannot improve on light/optics 'when it is in it's near perfect unrestricted form.'

No flaw here.