January 26, 2015, 05:29:51 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 - TAF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 19, 2015, 04:35:29 PM »
You need to get a cat...they're the only subject worthy of such a lens.

I wonder if Sigma is planning a 0.95 (or maybe a 0.75 to be the fastest ever) just to stake the claim?


2
Lenses / Re: TS-E Depth of Field newbie question
« on: January 15, 2015, 11:34:01 AM »
I'd like to add my thanks to the folks who have replied.  I've always been intrigued by a TSE, and this discussion is helping me to understand how they work.


3
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 13, 2015, 07:20:43 PM »
Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this?  Other than to say that you can?  Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this?  People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is.  Please let me know if I am missing something.  Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is

Stability.  A camera held to your face with your elbows locked to your chest is quite stable.  A camera at waist level against your body with the neck strap taut is even stabler.  Further, it provides a distinctly different perspective in your photos.  Someone recently mentioned the work of Vivian Maier.  Check out her work and you'll see what I mean.

That same camera held upside down over your head lets you shoot over the crowd.

The 'viewfinder on top' has a number of advantages.  I've got several Rollei TLR's, and still use them.  I've also got an Angle Finder B (modified) for my 5D3 to sort of simulate the capability.

As I've stated before, the optimum mirrorless for me would be a FF with an EF mount with the viewfinder on top.  Like the Rollei SL66 (or more to the point, the 3003).


4
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 13, 2015, 01:34:18 AM »
Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.

Even better would be a FF sensor with EF mount.  That would be my ideal camera.

5D3w (for waist level)


5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Firmware Coming for EOS 5D Mark III
« on: January 04, 2015, 07:52:22 PM »
No one seems to have thought of the 'other' possibilities...

The camera is a Chinese counterfeit...

or Canon accidentally shipped a new modified model with new firmware...




6
I voted "Yes"; however, there is a caveat.

It is not that I find myself using my 5D3 less, it is that I find myself taking more photos because I have the iPhone 5s with me at all times, most significantly times when I would never have had my camera with me in any event (business trips, simply out shopping, etc.)

The person who's signature says the best camera is the one you have with you is quite correct.  The iPhone may suck as a camera, but it beats having no camera at all... (it does, however, make a superb copy machine for things like business cards, prescription bottle labels, and directory listings, none of which the 5D3 would be very useful for, since you'd never had the camera when you need to look up the info in the image)

7
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 11, 2014, 06:58:59 PM »
Too many manuals are reference manuals, not user manuals.

Reference manuals assume you know the basic and why you would want to ... User manuals tell you they why and limited about of the how.  You need both - users to start and reference to answer detailed questions.

For example, a dictionary is a great reference manual (you can find the definition of any word there) but it fails to teach writing


Which is why there is a large market for 'aftermarket' how-to manuals.  Most manufacturers manuals are not nearly as helpful as one would like.

As for dictionaries - how many remember asking our parents how to spell a word and being told to look it up in the dictionary?  Need I explain further for the younger crowd who don't remember life before auto-correct?


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:04:53 PM »
And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.

I'm torn here. 

To simply pull the mirror assembly out of the body is a nice science project for Canon, but it won't reduce the size.  For all the great comments we've seen on this thread about EVFs with more useful information / focus peaking, more reliability without a mirror mechanism, etc. the basic draw of mirrorless is to make it smaller, so a good chunk of folks who did like the EOS-M's small form factor would find such a body a step in the wrong direction.

So my gut is telling me that Canon will stay conservative (for now) and do the following things with the next EOS-M:

  • A more modern sensor, DPAF, etc. = 90% likelihood (fair amount of speculation that it will be the 70D sensor itself)
  • Improve AF speed = 100% likelihood (one would assume the prior bullet point would greatly assist this)
  • Offer some form of an EVF -- either a modular one (Canon loves it's grip and wireless transmitter upcharges...) or possibly a split into a non-EVF body and a better body with an integral EVF = 75% likelihood
  • More native EF-M lenses (for smallest possible size) = No idea.  (They've been so slow on pushing out EF-M glass.)

Canon really has to do the first three things or I think it will remain DOA to enthusiasts or pros looking for a second body.  Some folks love their EOS-M bodies, but I will not touch one without a viewfinder.

- A

I must respectfully disagree with you that the primary objective to getting rid of the mirror is to make the camera smaller.  It is my contention that the reason the EOS-M was a failure was that it lacked a viewfinder, undoubtedly because they were aiming for minimum size.

Size drove the design, right into the ground.

The only way to use the camera is to "chimp", so what is otherwise a superb piece of equipment is reduced to a P+S for a great deal more money.  I bought mine during the great blowout sale, and enjoy it, but I understand the limitations.

Take DSLR, remove the mirror and prism, and put on a rangefinder (optical or EVF), and you've got a much better form factor for taking pictures, with all of the additional benefits mentioned above.

As for pros looking for a second unit, which is more likely to sell, something that can use all the same lenses, or something that needs a different series or an adapter?

I'd be interested in a nice FF rangefinder (EF) with removable viewfinder in the size of a classic full size to I have something to hold on to.

I'd "pull out the plastic" for a FF model using EF lenses in the form factor of the Rollei SL3000 (for those of you not familiar, think 35mm Hasselblad 500) using an EVF on the top.  That could be a game changer for Canon.

9
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: November 21, 2014, 10:50:03 PM »
The first lens I tried was a Canon 50/1.2 FD, since I had it (so $20 for an adapter was all it cost me).  Very nice, and since I also had an FD bellows, it has been a useful macro.  I won't be buying a 'modern' macro lens, as this setup is quite adequate for my needs.

Then I started experimenting with really old view camera lenses (various Ektars and even older stuff).  Quite a lot of fun, and the images tend to be unique.  The 'period' look had/has as much to do with the lens as it does the film.  In monochromatic mode, the pictures look like they could have been shot in the 50's.

I'm not sure I would recommend spending significant money for such things, but if you like experimenting (and yard sale-ing/antiquing), you can acquire a wide selection of interesting lenses cheaply (next weekend, the one after Thanksgiving here in the US, is a perfect antique store weekend).  The various adapters are inexpensive as well.


10
Nope, leave it on all day (when in use) only switch off to change lens or card

Regards

Everyone does realize that there is a switch built in to the card and battery doors that automatically switches the camera off when the door is opened, correct?  Hence, no need to manually switch it off to change a card.

Not so sure about the lens change.  It might be prudent to power off for that but I've never had a problem.


The 5D3 manual specifically states on pg 33 to power off the camera before opening the door.  I am inclined to stick with the manufacturers instructions.

I couldn't find anything about changing lenses with the power on (or off), but prudence suggests powering off is a good idea before breaking or making electrical connections.  As you twist the lens, you can bet that the contacts short across each other.

Personally, I alway switch the camera off if there is a lull in the action, because inevitably if I don't, I end up bumping the shutter and getting the ground etc...


11
Reviews / Re: Canon EOS 7D MK II Field Review of THE APS-C DSLR KING .
« on: October 13, 2014, 05:01:36 PM »


 THE APS-C DSLR KING

...EOS 7D Mark II is like a small EOS-1D X and it’s got all the performance with half the size, and all of the quality with none of the compromise...


So the 7D2 is as good as a 1Dx, without any of the compromises (?) inherent to the 1Dx?  Interesting.

I would have thought being king of the APS-C is sort of like being king of, I don't know, Cleveland or someting.  One would rather be a prince of New York any day.

I'll stick with FF, thank you.


12
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 05, 2014, 11:07:25 PM »
All future Canon cameras will come "Life Pixel" prepared so they see UV and IR as well as visible light?

With a dial selection to choose which light band you record?


13
Post Processing / Re: Digital "Enlarger"
« on: October 01, 2014, 07:46:52 AM »
An enlarger is a projector for film, right?  So why not take a digital projector (of the sort used in offices to project Powerpoint slides), set it up aimed at the wall, set the photo file to 'inverse' (or is the setting actually called negative?) and you then can adjust the distance until you have the right size image you want.  Focus properly, tape the paper holder to the wall, put in your print paper, and you've rigged up a digital enlarger.

Proceed normally from there.

Decades ago I would turn my enlarger head 90 degrees and tape the paper to the wall so I could get massive amounts of enlargement.  Same deal here.

Would that satisfy the urge to go analog from digital (cheaply)?


14
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:00:45 PM »
I would like an EF 20-150/f2.8 L IS USM
 

15
EOS-M / Re: The firesale begins... EOS M in UK £199
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:47:41 PM »
I'm hoping for another round of sales here in the US.

I was going to LifePixel mine, but I like it too much...so I need another (cheap) for conversion.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11