July 26, 2014, 04:17:11 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 291
1951
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 06:47:02 AM »
This thread is a cross-post, more responses here (why do people think their thread is so important to justify posting it multiple times?): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12740

Could be an oversight or some technical problem from the user end ...

Probably not, he cross-posted it in different equally appropriate sections, probably to gain the widest reach for this open letter. I'm not really infuriated :-p but I just noticed it so the mods can merge the threads - it's more productive to see all answers at once.

Btw: I'm not arguing that people handling dslr equipment and doing postprocessing should be able to use a bb system :->

1952
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 05:32:32 AM »
This thread is a cross-post, more responses here (why do people think their thread is so important to justify posting it multiple times?): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12740

1953
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 05:30:21 AM »
I found that 600EX-RT & ST-E3 RT system failed to meet my expectations.

In hindsight, Canon's rt system probably isn't designed for large studio setups, but as a more reliable version of the old optical system plus the "group flash" feature to quickly set up some flash lighting on the road as an added incentive.

After all Canon is a mass manufacturer and always balances price (as high as possible), reach (as large as possible, from Rebel to 1DX) with cost (support, development for an ettl-3 system with remote zoom & 2nd curtain remote sync). Plus Canon's profits seem to be doing ok even w/o being overly innovative...

1954
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: February 03, 2013, 03:57:15 AM »
Sorry for the delay to answer your request been quite busy

Which probably makes your advice a good one :-)

the trick is to make sure your subject would normally be a silhouette when not flashed
that way the pixel wells are empty when the flash fires at the back of the exposure to fill them up

Great advice, thanks again - as most things, it seems obvious if you know the technique, but I didn't think of it or read it anywhere else. I'll certainly use that when I want to integrate a low light background.

EDIT: Um, another probably dumb question: Why did you shoot that @iso100 - for demonstration purposes, because of the added dynamic range, because of highest possible iq or because you are on full manual? Afaik iso400 whouldn't have made such a difference, but the background would have been captured with a faster shutter time?

1955
Lenses / Re: More comparisons
« on: February 03, 2013, 03:35:44 AM »
More comparisons here.


Thanks, there are some with more comparable framing (esp. the book shelf)!

The 100L, being mainly a macro lens, doesn't need a very large open aperture since for objects near the lens the bokeh is bound to be strong, and the problem usually is a too tiny dof. But I'm not surprised that for head+shoulders portraits the 100L cannot eliminate the background, that's why it's "only" dual use and there are fast primes. But it's also my experience that f2.8 for portrait distance still "integrates" the background.

The 100L is a great "budget" (€900, argh) alternative, esp. since I've got the Kenko 1.4x tc to have stronger compression or macro working distance when I need it.

1956
Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 03:30:37 AM »
I'd like to comment that I read the purple thread but didn't write anything because the op really seemed disturbed (though of course I cannot tell from just reading some outbursts). But towards the end it got more calmed down and had an interesting topic - how important is camera gear in comparison to other real world issues?

I found some thoughts on this valuable, esp. since I recently spend the money originally reserved for top 5d3+24-70ii gear for other, but more important real world purposes, so I'll end up with a 6d+24-70vc ... but I'm happy with my decision.

Could not agree more, the karma thingy was removed as well due to thin skin of some.

As far as I remember karma was removed because there was some abuse and, imho more importantly, it just didn't work - people confused "agree/disagree" to a particular post with an overall rating of a poster, so being critical esp. towards Canon products drove your karma into the ground which I find unfortunate for matter of fact discussions.

It ended with the racist rant. Most countries have laws about that.... to allow it to remain, particularly after the moderator was made aware, is to invite legal action against CanonRumors.

Well, I didn't read the post, but there's always freedom of speech that has to be weighted against opinions (idiotic as they may be), to remove a racist post is probably more good taste and common political sense then preventing a lawsuit.

1957
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 02, 2013, 06:18:26 PM »
You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.

Doh, typo - it is "hood", not "cap". Canon was smart enough that with a step-up adapter even 82mm filters fit into these lens hoods, I was surprised myself when I discovered it.

1958
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 06:15:32 PM »
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!

I didn't want to cause undue alarm or attack you, and the surgar-coated version is also available  ... I just tried pointing out that some tiny headroom for even further future improvement exists, but your input is very much appreciated and even at the current state great and very helpful  :-)

Maybe I'm a bit over-critical, but I often observe researchers that for some matter discover exactly what they went out to find and knew before - it was a bit like that with your comparison shots: We know the 135L has better bokeh, so why bother with a real comparison to prove it :-p ?

1959
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 02, 2013, 04:54:52 PM »
Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

I have to say this would matter to me, for two reasons:

* compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens hoods, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.

* price: there are only so many good 82mm filters (the b+w mrc nd filters are just being released), and they are very expensive. So if I pay €80 for a 77mm filter, €180 for a 82mm one I really don't want to know what 95mm filters with the "early adopters" premium would cost.

But I know people that can afford a €3000+ 24-70/2.8IS will be able to get around these limitations, but I like that the cheaper Tamron & current Canon mk2 "only" have 82mm threads.

1960
Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:43:48 PM »
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/06/Fotodiox-launches-WonderPana-Filter-Systems-145-66


Ugh, not exactly inconspicuous or easy to transport :-o

and did notice quite a bit of flare...


Flare control is an issue with uwa lenses since you are bound to have light sources in the frame, the aps-c flavors differ quite significantly, too ... let us know your findings, personally I'm happy my 17-40L is said to be rather flare resistant. Btw: Removing flare is hard to impossible, but if you want to add cool looking flares, there are multiple nice photoshop plugins out there :-o

1961
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:40:30 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...

Depends on how much you're looking to isolate the subject and how much you're looking to put it in context. Each has its place, in other words.

You constantly write reasonable things, please keep posting on CR :-)

1962
Lenses / Re: A Hands on Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 03:39:03 PM »
Quote
For reverse macro to produce ok results a wider ~24mm lens lens is needed *and* it has to be sharp at the aperture you shoot with - and since the aperture cannot be manually set on the 50mm, that's the very unsharp 1.8 setting.
this is actually not true. you can use any aperture you would like with reverse macro so long as you engage the DOF preview button before you unmount the lens. the aperture will close down to whatever you set it at and then will hold after you unmount the lens. i have used the 50mm at 5.6 to get a bit more DOF as at 1.8 reversed it is ridiculously narrow.

Damn, I didn't figure that out when I tried the reverse macro - stopping down doesn't improve the mediocre max. magnification of the reversed 50mm lens, but it sure would improve the iq.

1963
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5D2 in camera JPEG sharpening method
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:17:31 PM »
Personally i like 5D2 in camera JPEG sharpening method rather than 6D, but luckily i often use RAW file, so i can manage my own sharpening method.

The 5d2 has the sharpest sensor output, esp. at lower iso, of the 5d2/5d3/6d generations, so it can do with less in-camera postprocessing. The 6d is at the other end of the scale, it trades some sharpness for higher iso capability - to compensate, Canon obviously has implemented more aggressive sharpening. I don't think you can do anything about this except bug Canon for a fw update.

I remember this issue being discussed when the first 6d raw and jpeg samples were out. This is more or less the difference between the "pro" 5d2 and the 6d which is tuned for sooc amateur shots, Canon has to protect their 5d3 after all :-o

Btw. the difference between your sample shots is really larger than I'd have expected it, maybe some other problem is at work here in combination with the above sensor difference.

1964
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:48:04 PM »
So, if you stand in the same place and take a shot with a 50 f/2 and 200 f/8 and crop the 50 to the same angle of view as the 200, you get, for the most part, an identical image.

Thanks for the explanation! Though I have to comment/ask if the bokeh is not also very dependent on the lens build, i.e. the design of the aperture (blade number and rounded or not) esp. with point highlights in the background?

1965
Reviews / Re: Meike grip MK-6d for Canon 6D REVIEW
« on: February 02, 2013, 11:39:20 AM »
Pricegap:  :'(

I recently started buying all plastic items, cables, tripod plates, ... from China via eBay, up to €22 there's no tax or vat, up to 150€ only vat (MwSt) ... even considering the fact domestic importers have to pay both and add a profit, the price for plastic items is ridiculously high via Amazon Germany, I'd rather wait 2-3 weeks for a delivery from around the globe.

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 291