September 18, 2014, 10:13:59 AM

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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 157
1
Lenses / Re: Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?
« on: Today at 01:05:44 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

Your entitled to your own opinion, however it's just that, an opinion. I wasn't generalizing anything, and my assessment of the "necessity" of IS is not wrong in a general sense. Statistically and empirically, IS is essential on long lenses for any kind of hand-held use at what are often even very fast shutter speeds. Also statistically, IS is NOT essential for hand-held shots at wide and ultrawide focal lengths.

There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being essential. Usefulness is very often a matter of opinion, resulting from differences in personal style. I would be willing to bet that far more ultra wide angle lens users, if tested, would not find nearly as many reason to ask for IS to be added than those using longer focal lengths. I would be willing to bet that your insistence that IS is so useful as to effectively be essential and vehemently debate my post and pick apart words is a reaction a far, far less significant percentage of the wide angle lens using population is going to have.

My original post was simply offering a reasoning why Canon is less likely to decide to include IS in ultra wide angle lenses. It is NOT as necessary as at long focal lengths, where it is effectively essential for hand-holdability at shutter speeds that most would consider quite fast. It is very likely that ultra wide angle lenses are being used on tripods or some other kind of support, than hand-held in extremely dimly lit places at ultra low ISO settings. Inclusion of IS is also an additional cost, one which will be passed onto the end user, and NOT every user is willing to pay more money for a feature they may not find as necessary as others. I'm willing to bet the balance is tipped more heavily in favor of those who don't find IS useful there. If there was a very significant demand for IS in ultra ultra wide angle lenses like an 11-24mm, I think Canon would have included it.

Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with usefulness. It simply has to do with the likely reasons why Canon did not include IS in such an ultra wide angle lens designed for full frame sensors. If you find it useful, great! I'd recommend sending emails to Canon demanding they include IS in every single lens they make.

That would be "you're"   :)

2
Lenses / Re: Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?
« on: Today at 01:04:07 AM »
"IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths."

That is a self contained sentence that makes a fairly blatant claim which for you it might be true, for others, not so much; it is also a massive generalisation and I took exception to it because in at least one case, mine, it is not true (and I don't believe I am alone). Now you can get upset that everybody doesn't agree with you, that is your right, but I didn't crucify you, or twist or misrepresent your words, I just disagreed with them, and that is what a forum is about. Stop the persecution complex and do me the favour of "Please READ what I write, people."

3
I don't understand  everybody grizzling about the price. In 2002, yes 12 years ago, the 1Ds was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while. In 2004 the 1Ds MkII was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while. In 2007 the 1Ds MkIII was released at $7,999, and it commanded a premium for quite a while.

That is what pro photographers and keen hobbyists have been paying for well over ten years for Canon's top of the line 1 Series camera. There is so much pent up demand for the true 1Ds MkIII successor I suspect there will be unprecedented demand for this camera, if it is real, that they will trade at a premium and no deals will be had for a couple of years.

Personally, even though I am a 1Ds MkIII user and have been for years, I am more interested in the 1Dx MkII as I have no real desire to go over the mid 20's in MP and would prefer the higher fps. But, if it is a killer camera I could see me getting one of each.

4
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: Today at 12:37:19 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

5
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:13:53 PM »

Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc?  It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.

I played with it last couple days. Just like many mentioned, the compression of 200mm and f2 are insane.

My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014  :)

There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.

6
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:58:13 PM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

7
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:13:35 PM »
I have the MkI Canon IS, I recommend it highly and the IQ is stunning, the only real performance difference between the MkI and MkII is the use of the 2X TC, both take the 1.4X TC superbly, but the MkII takes the 2X TC very well too, it also has fractionally faster AF especially when using the TC's.

I have felt no strong desire to upgrade from my MkI, mainly because I rarely use TC's. If longer than 300 is going to be a regular requirement I would suggest saving a bit longer and try for a MkII, if you really just want 300 and the occasional 420mm f4 then the MkI and 1.4 TC are very very good, and I can't see them depreciating much in the mid to long term either, I could basically get what I bought mine for ten years ago.

8
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 03:19:50 PM »
The 17 TS-E when shifted makes an 11mm rectilinear panorama. So the front elements should be similar.

9
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:45:42 PM »
The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice.  The 45 and 90s don't have this.

Well, they sort of do.  But you have to remove four screws from the mount end, rotate the shift section, then put the screws back in.  It's a little easier to just push the lever and rotate on the L lenses.   ;)
But it goes much deeper than that, the 24 MkI, 45 and 90 can only have their tilt and shift axes either parallel or at 90ยบ to each other, and as Neuro points out is is a screwdriver job to do it; on the other hand the 17 and 24 MkII can have the tilt and shift axes set at any angle between them, this allows compounded movements the like of which could only be had with field cameras and similar prior to this.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:35:12 PM »
I would buy the wireless addon despite the expense... IF Canon got their act together on the software side.

While the iPhone app is decent...

-There is no Windows phone/Lumia app at all. (i.e. for Lumia 1020 - best photography smartphone that exists)
-The desktop PC version is an all around mess with very obvious spaghetti code
-There is no Windows 8 Touch app (i.e. for Surface and windows tablets) at all
-I heard the Android version needs work too, but I have no experience with it.

Either way, Canon's needs to spend some real money on software development before they get me to buy an addon like that.

You don't use the WFT's via the App, you use the WFT via several modes though I have found the best  to be the HTTP mode, it works on everything that runs a browser, it gives much greater control and just works.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:08:42 PM »
For me, I have no interest in WiFi for streaming images off to the internet. Most of my photography is done outdoors and very little of it is done in Wifi range of anything... probably a quarter of it is done outside cell phone range....

What I was interested in, was the ability to remote control the camera. That will be missed... and no WiFi SD card is going to give me those abilities.

My situation exactly, it's a pity that Canon don't get with the programme, WiFi isn't some new & unknown tech, it's been around for a long while now, Canon seems generally to have gone down the path of least resistance, add on at a reasonably large cost, pity.

I've tried a few work arounds, the only one that I absolutely recommend is the CamRanger, this system via my iPad Mini simply doesn't leave the bag, since buying the CamRanger I've just adapted it to pull those Images that are exceptionally hard to get any other way, great system, works great on the Canon 1Dx & 5DMK III also the 1DMK IV & 5DMK II, as far as I know works on just about anything.

http://camranger.com

The attached Image I'de tried on a number of occasions using different systems, monopod down low etc, but the vehicle scares the Wildlife so the shots are difficult.

With the attached Image I set the 1Dx + 300f/2.8 II on the RRS small Metal Tripod to get the Camera down Low, attached to the CamRanger, in the middle of the Track, drove off 100 meters behind some bush, monitored via my iPad Mini in the vehicle, adjusted Focus via the iPad Mini, shot the Image via the iPad mini/CamRanger as the Mum & Cubs approached the "strange looking" object in the middle of the path.

The Image isn't anything wonderful, but I just like it as all the Animals have that look of being intrigued, although Mum did have a constant frown & look of suspicion. Difficult to get this sort of Image from a Vehicle, not impossible, but the CamRanger opens up new avenues for Imaging that had been almost impossible before.

Edward,

Have you tried the WFT-E6? I ask because I really like the one on my 1Ds MkIII's and the newer versions have much more functionality.

If so how does the CamRanger compare?

12
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:50:22 PM »
I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.

It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus. Also if you can stitch you will get the fov of the 17 at much higher quality too.

I have the 17 and use it a lot, but I need the fov in one shot.

The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading. If you want to play on the cheap the 90 is the only other one I would recommend, the IQ is very high and for product work and it is very fine, it works well with extension tubes too.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »
Blaming the shell for no WiFi is simply a blatant attempt at excusing their crippling the camera. No wireless flash control alone should have ppl up in arms.
WiFi is now a basic feature & cost very little to incorporate.  :o ppl excusing is ridiculous. We ready have WiFi & NFC in every every thing from your phone, car, watches & rings. Heck even your house front door can be opened with NFC.

It does have wireless flash control, optical wireless flash control. It does not have radio wireless flash control.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:07:22 AM »


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

I think your still missing the point we are trying to make, though. It doesn't matter if they aren't "as recoverable" with the default metered settings. If that turns out to be a regular problem, then you have TONS of room to underexpose with a D810 or any other Exmor camera, preserve the highlights and ensure they have detail, and you'll still have tons of shadow recovery ability.

What you guys are talking about is just the default metered, tone-curved response in a RAW editor. The dynamic range of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with that. More dynamic range is more dynamic range. You can have highlights as richly colored and detailed as you want to by properly utilizing the greater DR of an Exmor, without sacrificing the shadows.

You can make all the arguments you want about how incapable the average user might be in regards to actually being able to extract the most performance out of a camera like the D810. I think that's just more misdirection, though. If you look at what people are doing with those cameras, they clearly know how to put that extra DR to good use, how to extract the most performance from them. Especially photographers who know what RAW is and are going to be using RAW (which I think is a much greater percentage of those buying cameras above the $2000 mark than those buying below).

Even for those who start out not knowing much about how to use a digital camera are still capable of learning, and with more capable hardware comes the greater ease of producing amazing works of photographic art. I for one would love to see novices creating photos with rich blacks, instead of photos riddled with vertical banding (a fairly common sight on 500px "Fresh".) (Which I know for some, such as Sporgon, intrudes upon their prized elite status as a "real" photographer, a status for which they would apparently happily give up having better hardware in their own hands if it meant keeping the non-photographer masses non-photographers...a reasoning I honestly cannot fathom.)

I'm not missing the point, and I don't consider Nikon users dumb. I do take issue with constant references to "this is x amount better" when there is limited experience of both, and when that limited experience of both includes the obvious falsehood that both must be exposed the same, I cringe.

I am not saying Canon has more "high end DR" or that it has as much as Exmor, I am saying anybody that is so unfamiliar with the kit as to not know the differences in optimal exposures for both isn't going to get optimal results. Sure it might be classified as meter compensation, I have no problem with that, some cameras allow you to calibrate  your meter; in the old film days we used to decide how far off the iso rating was to what we could actually shoot at, 1/3 stop was common for slide film.

15
After reading yet another hatefest aimed at DxOLabs just recently, I am a bit surprised about the criticism aimed at Roger Cicala and his latest test report. DxOLabs got slammed hard because they measured lens performance together with the camera, and go figure, Canon didn't look good. Now Roger measured lens performance alone, Canon again didn't look stellar, and people throw another tantrum.

The only type of test, however contrived, which would find common acceptance here, would be one that yields results saying "Canon is better, pictures shot with Canon gear are automatically better, and people using Canon are a smart, attractive bunch, unlike users of other equipment."

I hope you are not including me as a criticizer of Roger, several times I have written of my respect for him, his work, his results and conclusions.

I don't care what gear anybody uses, I use my selection because I felt it was the right thing for me to get, and I might point out that Roger is a 6D Canon system owner. I don't care how my gear "tests" I care how it works.

If your comment is directed in part at me I would also ask what is wrong in questioning the value in such a test, especially given that the tester himself has replied that he agrees it is of extremely limited, nay "pointless", value.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 157