March 03, 2015, 01:52:46 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224
Hi Jock, PBD.
Not trying to be contrary, but I have seen it worked that way more often than not here, also just to add some more to the discussion, the 1/ focal length calculation for hand held minimum shutter speed, given no IS to complicate things, and not withstanding some people saying we should be using 1/ twice focal length.
(for joe average, not some of you guys that hand hold better than a cheap tripod!)
300mm lens on full frame 1/300s. Correct?
300mm + 2x converter i.e. 600mm on FF 1/600s
As above 600mm on 1.6 crop? Equivalent FOV of 960mm are we ok to shoot at 1/600s or are we more likely to have camera shake?  :o

Edit Also the crop from the camera is a fixed physical fact, and surely exif really does mention the crop, not specifically in any lens calculation but it clearly lists camera make and model which determines crop!
Also many program's give us crop shooters the option to display lenses in crop or 35mm format, just saying.

Have a good day chaps.  :)

Cheers, Graham.

Not contrary at all, this is how useful discussions are had!

Ok, a lens has a focal length. A lens has an aperture. Both of those intrinsic values are independent of sensor size, indeed they are true even if the lens is not mounted to a camera, like binoculars or a spotting scope.

If we are going to start throwing 'equivalents' out there then one, why, and two, shouldn't we be all inclusive, why just arbitrarily pick focal length?

It is true that on a 1D MkIV a 300mm + 2xTC lens gives you the field of view of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, but it doesn't give you the subject magnification of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, nor the dof. It gives you the subject magnification of a 300mm + 2xTC on a FF camera. Few people ever point out the 300mm f2.8 + 2xTC on a 1.3 crop is equivalent to a 780mm f8, why not? Because it isn't relevant, who cares what the equivalent is unless you want to take the same shot from the same place with a different sized sensor. A 300mm f2.8 on a FF camera is exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera, it is a 300mm f2.8.

Now you ask about shutter speed, and that is a good point. Why, if a 300mm lens is just a 300mm lens on ff or crop would I need to use a faster shutter speed on the crop camera? Because of enlargement, the CoC for a crop camera is smaller because the output size is taken as a constant, if the CoC is smaller then any movement will be enlarged more, hence the need to use a faster shutterspeed. To be sure, if you take two pictures of a scene one with a ff and 300mm and the other with a crop and 300mm and made two prints such that the subjects were the same size on paper in both prints the shutter speeds could be the same, but what we do in real life is make two prints the same size, this means the subjects are bigger in the crop image print so any movement is enlarged more. Nothing to do with focal length, it is all to do with post capture enlargement.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M And EFM22mm Low Light and Portability?
« on: Today at 11:07:08 AM »
It works in low light, but remember f/2 on this kind of camera is really f3.2-3.4.  Still better than most crop lenses and certainly better than the kit.  At night with street lights or indoors in a dim restaurant you'll find the camera is often at 6400 even wide open at f/2.  This is like 12,800 iso on full frame or so.  So it's nice for posting FB photos, but don't expect super spectacular.  I'll post some examples later. In the day time the lens is just fine. though even stopped down to f/8, tons of purple fringing. Watch high contrast scenes

Not true, it is an f2 as far as light gathering goes, it gives greater dof than a ff camera taken from the same spot with a different lens to achieve the same framing, but that is kinda moot. It is a true 22mm f2.0.

That is true, iso has a crop factor, for the 1.6 crop it is around 1.3 stops, so if you want the same noise levels you need to shoot your crop camera 1.3 stops lower iso to match a comparable tech. But the truth is  nobody shooting an EOS-M in low light is serously thinking of making big prints with it. If you would print a 21" x 14" print with a ff at 12,800 iso then you would have the same noise in a 14" x 8" print from the M.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:22:17 PM »
Hi privatebydesign.
Isn't it 780 due to 1.3 crop sensor in 1D4?

Cheers, Graham.

Hi Valvebounce,

No, not really. The lens focal length is the lens focal length, cropping it doesn't give you a longer focal length.

Imagine this, I take a picture with a FF camera of a bird sitting on a fence in landscape format, the bird takes up around 30% of the image but the framing is really nice and the light is great, it is a really nice environmental portrait of the bird. So back at home editing the days shots I decide that because I used a 5D MkIII I have more than enough pixels to crop the frame to portrait orientation, the bird is now the main point of the image and occupies over 60% of the frame.

Did I use a 600mm lens? Of course not, I just cropped, well that is all a smaller sensor is doing, it is not capturing as much, it isn't extending anything.

Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:12:50 PM »
The question is, can I set up one camera with radio remote release to photograph me using the stick or string technique? I may have to push the radio remote with my toe...

If you have some RT flash system gear then yes, easily. I have set up my 1Ds MkIII and 600EX so it triggers my EOS-M whenever I take a shot with the 1Ds MkIII, the flashes only sync to the main camera but the triggering works great, the M will AF and either auto expose or shoot at whatever manual settings were set in it.

The mode is called Linked Shot, and is good fun.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:07:12 PM »
Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.

It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.

No it isn't unless you are only looking at the corners, the Canon is sharper in the center and it is a wash in the middle, and they are very close at f4 too which is a surprise as the Sigma should get noticeably better,

Of course the main difference is the Canon works very well on FF at every focal length, where it's true potential is realised

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:02:51 PM »
for the TSE 17mm I can get the proportions down pretty fast I dont mind the tripod at all, yes i saw the software correction but there is a draw back I also notice when I did some shots, if it was done with the TSE 17mm the big gaps will be corrected. Actually the software is mimicking the TSE Lens correction but being that wide angles dont shift like that there will be gaps. and Lee has a adapter filter for it, you guys could check it out, it's not cheep however but it's available on ebay. Ill see what goes when im done testing, if i do choose to get the TSE ill just keep what i got and get that instead. Thanks again for the replies.

The Fotodiox Wonderpana system is a much better filter solution for the 17TS-E than the Lee system.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM »
Hi, in balearic island. Albufera de Mallorca

1d4 300 2.8 is 2xIII

Nice shot, particularly if the crop isn't too heavy as that is a fast pan.

But a 300mm + 2xTC is 600mm not 780mm.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Purchase in St. Thomas
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:54:36 PM »
Tex there are three areas, both cruise ship docks, and main street, each have tow or three places to get a 7D MkII.

But I stick by my first answer, get the camera from B&H and enjoy the trip with your new camera.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:43:07 PM »
no disrespect about this lens im sure its pretty good, but from reading all the pointers im sure they are honest opinions but I never saw this kind of feed back when the 17-40 vs the 16-35 2.8 most people praised the 16-35 2.8 even thous landscape photogs used f7 -f22 not really f2.8. maybe i missed something but all i see is just marketing hype and it could be just a mind thing. the 17-40 has always bin a pretty good landscape lens in it's class for the price.

From an image quality perspective the 16-35mm f4 L IS has set a new benchmark for ultra wide performance, zoom or prime.

I hate over the top sentiment and hyperbole that normally flows from people who are trying to mitigate their buyers remorse, I am also not a first adopter. Indeed I owned the 16-35 f2.8 MkI since it came out and when I tested it against a MkII I didn't see enough of a performance increase to upgrade.

When I got the 16-35 f4 L IS I immediately tested it against another world class Canon ultrawide, the 17 TS-E prime, the 16-35 f4 L IS blows the 17 TS-E away for resolution detail and contrast, the only thing it doesn't do as well (apart from tilt and shift, but it does zoom!) is distortion, but lets be honest, distortion in a centered projection is very simple to remove.

The 16-35 f4 L IS is the best performing ultrawide zoom made by anybody anywhere at any price, it also outperforms most primes at the same focal lengths. Now the new 11-24 might go to 11 better, and it's performance is on a par with the 16-35 f4 L IS at 24mm, but even $3,000 doesn't buy you 'better' image quality.

Lighting / Re: Diffuser for Canon 600ex for event
« on: March 01, 2015, 04:56:01 PM »
I'd strongly recommend getting the flash off camera and into a white umbrella. You'd need an ST-E3-RT or YN-E3-RT to trigger your 600, or use the older flashes you have and trigger them how you did for the skateboarding.

If you have to have on camera bounce then take a look at the Rouge FlashBender kit, I have the large version and it works fine, but it is no umbrella........

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/4L Sample Images
« on: March 01, 2015, 03:49:53 PM »
I can't get over the relative size of the front element when compared to the 17TS-E, which is itself, no small thing!

I wonder it the crew over at Fotodiox will actually get their Wonderpana 145mm based filter system to work without vignetting at 11mm, it works fine on the 17TS-E even with full shift, but man that front element is big.

Thanks for the images Keith.

Abstract / Re: 7D2 HDR - Mustard Yellow!
« on: March 01, 2015, 02:04:44 PM »
There is a huge difference between saying "the 7D MkII has a number of issues" and an individual 7D MkII having a number of issues.

I don't see any evidence of the 7D MkII line having issues like the 1D MkIII, D600, 5D MkII, D800, Sony A7 etc etc, that are based on faulty design or manufacture that result in most if not all bodies suffering the same problems. There are many reportsof unhappy 7D MkII customers but when you drill them down many ownes don't know about simple processes like AFMA, for instance.

Now I am not saying East Winds particular camera is not a lemon, every production run of everything has a lemon or two, but that is quite different.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:58:19 PM »
Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?

Slightly less so, but nothing major. It's still very solidly constructed. The zoom ring has a nice, tight resistance to it. It also has the advantage of taking 77mm filters instead of 82mm like the f2.8 II.

In what way? I'd venture my 16-35 f4 is every bit as robust, indeed more so, than my old 16-35 f2.8 ever was. Any empirical evidence to back up your hunches? Because this tear down seems to have the opposite opinion.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Purchase in St. Thomas
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:05:05 AM »
Generally they match B&H if you push them, they say everything is 'duty free' but they just mean there is no sales tax, and most people don't pay sales tax on B&H purchases either. They try to do deals or bundles, ie cards and extra batteries and often have older models that you can get deals on.

Warranty is a mixed bag. Most times you get an International Warranty (purple card), which means you can get warranty service anywhere (Canon USA do work on International Warraty equipment, well they have for me), though sometimes it comes with a Canon Latin America Warranty card (brown card). St Thomas, as far as Canon are concerned, is not the USA it is Latin America.

It also depends a bit on what you are after, TS-E's etc forget it, 7D MkII's they should have plenty. I haven't been there for a little while and the other huge variable is the exchange rate fluctuations that are going on, I doubt it, but there may be a bargain or two around because of that variable.

Last thing, you have to haggle, hard, and play the various outlets off against each other, don't buy in the first shop you go in even if it is the best price, it will come down after you leave and come back and say the other place is throwing in a third battery and bigger card.

I know all this because for 12 years I lived next door to St Thomas in the BVI and it is where I bought $10,000's of Canon gear.

Personally I wouldn't bother, it is much more fun to get 'the Island tour' with the camera you already got from B&H without hassle, and stress free return policy, and you don't spend your excursion time battling sales people.

Lenses / Re: True reach of 100-400 L II
« on: February 28, 2015, 01:25:25 PM »
It is kind of funny the way this knowledge slips out, seemingly everybody talks about it then it goes away for a while, then it is reignited and the debate starts again.

Anyway, the worst 'not the actual focal length on the label' I know of is the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR, their top of the line 70-200, at portrait distances the 200 becomes a 130mm! Now that os something to complain about, thinking you have a 200mm lens and not getting the focal length of your 135mm lens. But again, at infinity it is pretty close to the 200, so what can you do..........

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224