Messages

1576

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 26, 2011, 10:22:12 PM »

When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...

Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.

At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.

Yeah I was shooting with the 50mm f1.4 but it's not always practical to shoot at f1.4 as I often need more depth of field than that.  There are only certain shoots you can shoot wide open like that. 

My shots where focused correctly... the slight softness was due to motion blur.

Motion blur of the camera or the subject?

I have shot with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop camera and gotten crisp shots at 1/20th of  second.

So? I've taken sharp shots with the 50/1.4 at even slower shutter speeds of static subjects, hand held.

Anyway, you seem to have convinced yourself that you need IS on whatever lens you use, so good luck.

1577

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 26, 2011, 05:03:01 PM »

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

As a wedding photographer I think think that IS in the 28-70 would be extremely useful.  My experience at weddings is that I just can't get enough low light capability (as i really prefer to shoot without a flash).  The last wedding I shot was shot mostly at 5000 ISO F3.2.  With a 50mm f1.4 lens.  I was still only getting 1/50th of  second. 

I really would have liked a zoom like the new 28-70 with optics almost comparable to the 50mm f1.4 and ideally with IS.  Without IS at 50mm some of my shots where slightly soft, which is a shame as far as I am concerned.

AND... that was not even a very poorly lit wedding.. like I said at weddings you just can't get enough low light capability.

When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...

Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.

At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.

1578

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 26, 2011, 02:57:02 AM »

If we were to assume for a moment that the 5D3 will come with a 24-105/F4 II and that the IS gets an upgrade in that, why do you want IS in the 24-70/F2.8 II?

The implication there is that the IQ between those two lenses would be roughly equivalent in order to keep up with the demands of current and future sensor technology.

Excluding DoF masking, 1/50 50mm @F2.8/ISO100 is 1/25 50mm @F4/ISO100 or 1/50 F4/ISO200.

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

1579

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 25, 2011, 09:43:49 PM »

Will this be announced at the same time as the 5D3 or 1Ds4/1D5?

1580

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 24, 2011, 01:43:23 PM »

24-70 f/2.8L II

• Focal distance f=24.74 – 67.50mm
• Fno 2.92 – 2.91

70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

• Focal distance f=72.21 – 299.52mm
• Fno 4.65 – 5.85

55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

• Focal distance f=55.60 – 203.11mm
• Fno 4.16 – 5.88

How does Canon get away with advertising a 70-300 as f/4-5.6 when it is really a f/4.5-5.6? Full 1/3 slower!

Or a 24-70 when it is a 24-67? 7% difference there.

Do they not care because almost nobody will shoot with it wide open anyway?

Or do they tweak the lens a bit post-patent to get the extra numbers?

1581

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond

« on: April 23, 2011, 01:06:29 PM »

*yawn*

this topic has been covered in depth in numerous other places by those far more knowledgable on the topic.

the sky is not falling.

1582

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1V Experience?

« on: April 23, 2011, 01:04:37 PM »

I will tell you this much...

If you pickup a 1V and use it, you will not ever again enjoy using the T2i as you do now.

But, shooting with film is a worthwhile lesson because the medium is not nearly as infinite and you have to have a better idea in your mind of what the result will be than with digital.

1583

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:40:51 AM »

2011 will tell a much different tale as without a doubt, the earthquake will impact numbers.

1584

Canon General / Re: Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

« on: April 21, 2011, 04:24:01 AM »

mmm, Canon sold more DSLRs in 2010 than Sony and Nikon combined.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

1585

EOS Bodies / Re: Would a multi-MP-Sensor be technically feasable or is it purest Sci-Fi?

« on: April 20, 2011, 12:35:20 PM »

Its always possible that the next new generation of Digic Processors will support pixel binning.  Its one of those things that Canon and Nikon have so far not implemented.   Its just something that has not yet been deemed necessary for the relatively low pixel count cameras.  When we hit 40 or more MP, it might be needed.

But is it necessarily better or just a way to provide lesser MP photos with the benefit of better sensors?

It would be interesting to know how the ratio of the size of the pixel vs the area between pixels has changed over time.

If the gap-less microlenses over each pixel gave you 100% coverage of the sensor and no light was lost, what do you gain by binning multiple small pixels vs having larger ones?

Take the 40MP tech. and build a 10MP sensor of the same size. That'd rock - but it might not sell.

1586

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 20, 2011, 01:52:48 AM »

I have and it is not as sharp across the frame on either 50D or 5D2 as 100 macro or 70-200 2.8 noIS or 4 IS or a whole lot of lenses really.

Have you spent time tuning the micro-focus adjust parameters for this lens?

1587

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 20, 2011, 01:50:38 AM »

Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, at f/8 in the center, is actually pretty darn sharp.   

My copy of the 24-105mm f/4L IS is reasonably sharp.  It's not as sharp as my other lenses in that focal range (4 L-series primes and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), but it's certainly not soft.  The trade-off in terms of versatility is worth it, to me.

"My copy of .. reasonably sharp." Why do words like this remind me of the micro-focus adjust story earlier this year?

1588

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 20, 2011, 01:47:46 AM »

I love my EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The only bad things I can say about it are:
1. Barrel distortion at 24mm is quite pronounced but fixable in Lightroom.

The best way to fix the distortion at the 24mm end of the lens is to take it off and mount a 17-40/F4 (or 24 prime) instead.

1589

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon direct store drops 5D body only?

« on: April 19, 2011, 12:16:22 AM »

Was noticing today that Canon has dropped the 5d body only option from their direct store. Could this be a sign of something coming, or just reflective of stock issues due to the ongoing situation in Japan?

Usually (yes I've checked in recent weeks), the bodies will say "out of stock," then recently they said "n/a," now they've disappeared altogether. Refurbished and new.

Thoughts?

I think that this is a combination of things:
1) parts supply after earthquake has meant fewer bits to make repairs with
2) given the resource shortage, they're more likely to dedicate bits and pieces to newer rather than older

That it doesn't simply say "out of stock" is what I think to be a result of Canon weighing everything up and deciding that continuing this on is not worth their trouble.

1590

EOS Bodies / Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 12:06:29 AM »

If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well.

Uh, perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the factory where Nikon makes all of its pro-level DSLRs was seriously impacted by the earthquake earlier in the year. If that factory is responsible for the D800 then there could be a significant delay to it and other D? series cameras.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case and Canon knows it and is pouncing early because of it.