Privatebydesign - many thanks for all the very useful information, references, and hands on use experience you've provided. I see a MkII TS in my future.
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.
For about $150 you can get a back for your 4x5 camera that will let you put the 5D3 body on. I would suggest starting there; that way, you can use your LF lenses to create a baseline for comparison. You might find that the optics have quite a bit to do with it. And you get to use all the movements with your digital 'back'. I realize that it doesn't cover the full field of view, but then again, with live view, you get skip the part where you trade the ground glass for the film pack.
It would be a cheap way to experiment until you find the settings that get you what you want.
I've been playing around with some old Ektar lenses on my 5D3 (with a real kludge of an attachment), and I find the images very interesting, so I just bought myself a LF camera (a Graphic View w/203mm lens), and plan on getting one of those back as soon as the camera arrives. I'll even be doing some film, because there is still something about it that strikes my fancy.
If you are a serious LF user, the TS lenses might not be enough for you movement wise.
The trouble with them is the small format cameras mirror box, it is so deep you often get shadowing.
As for the smaller lenses having less movements, well they need less! Tilt degrees are directly related to the focal length, Policar's 4x5 lenses have a 135 format 3x crop factor, that means any lens he used to get the same fov would need one third the tilt. If he used 30º of tilt with his 300mm on the 4x5, he could use 10º tilt with a 90mm on a 135 format for the same identical image.
It turns out Ed Hetherington had the same sort of thing happen and sacrificed his Canon EOS 5D Mark II and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II for some fun photographs. The good and bad news? The lens lived, but the camera is touch and go.</p>
So answer this question, do you ever back-up your computer to make sure you don't lose the important files/photos you have saved??? Having a 2nd memory card slot is the same thing when it comes to a camera! I guess we're not going to agree on the importance of having back-up files!
My point is from a retail price standpoint, I'd much rather have a camera with a 2nd memory card slot and pop-up flash vs. a camera that had one card slot and no pop-up flash, but had GPS and WiFi. If you talk about the "wants v. needs", how many people really need GPS and WiFi?
- integrated grip
Wow...that would make me not buy it for sure!
I would imagine that's what a potential 70D would be for. I add a grip to every camera I buy and it's definitely useful for sports and any time you're shooting in portrait orientation. I think it would also enhance weather sealing for me since adding a grip always introduces another point of failure for the seals.
With or without a grip, none of these DSLRs can be considered small, I consider the benefits outweigh the minor drawbacks.
A non-removable grip is a catastrophe for me, as it makes the camera not fit where I want it, and it makes it heavier and bigger than it needs to be for the 99% of the time I don't need a grip. If you want a grip, buy a grip. I never have, and I never plan to. That's the beauty of a removable grip - those that want one can have one, those that don't aren't forced to have one. This is one reason I'd never buy a 1D body.
It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.
I've taken my 70-300L down the beach a few times, to shoot surfers and things, the wind is always blowing a gale down there. Am I going to point my $1500 lens straight into the wind and have the front element sandblasted? Hell no, I point my B&W MRC filter into the wind, it only cost $60 or so, it has no measurable difference on IQ (as i tested on my 7D), and it's Multicoated so no extra flare in *normal* situations (i don't feel like testing it by pointing at the sun).
As to whether it's *needed* for weathersealing? Don't know, don't care. It can't make the sealing *worse*, and since it doesn't make the images worse either, then to me it's a no-brainer.
As for impact damage? Some people will claim that Hoods are better. They may be, it all depends on too many variables of height, floortype, angle, etc. Why not just use both? (And why not just don't drop it?) Hoods help a bit with less flare too. And if i dropped it i'd be more concerned about the IS elements rattling around and the mount breaking off the camera body than the outer elements smashing...
What's Ferrari's name for the color of the first car? Perhaps "Mustard-fed stallion droppings"? Probably not terribly poopular...
I suspect an urban myth.
You suspect wrong. Chuck Westfall has indicated that he recommends using a filter to complete the sealing of all sealed L-series that have front filter threads (i.e. not the supertele lenses). Hearsay, yes - but he's Canon's technical guru, so the source is a good one.
Beyond hearsay, there are a few lenses which Canon explicitly states require a filter to complete the weather sealing. Those are lenses with front element groups that move 'within the barrel' either for zoom extension or focusing. Check the instructions for the 50mm f/1.2L, 17-40mm f/4L, or 16-35mm f/2.8L II and you'll see the following statement: