Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 2.8 ll or 20-60 2.8 mark 1 ?

« on: May 11, 2013, 07:28:42 PM »

Focal lengths are listed when the lens is focused at infinity. Most lenses are not parfocal, that is they change focal length when focused and or zoomed, one of the many reasons high end movie lenses are so expensive is that they are parfocal.

So our EOS lenses are so cheap partly because they are not parfocal. Be glad you are not a Nikon owner, their 70-200 f2.8 is close to a 130mm at closest focus distance! Generally that is yet another metric where Canon outperforms Nikon.

17

Lenses / Re: What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?

« on: May 11, 2013, 11:38:45 AM »

This is an old thread, I know, but it has some misguided information I'd like to address.

First, "shift" is 100% doable without a T/S lens, that is it is easy to get the verticals vertical, but you need to have a lens that is wide enough and you need to crop. So a shifted 24mm lens gives you a cropped field of view of a 17mm lens. That is, set up a shot on a tripod with a 24mm lens shifted, take it off and put a 17mm lens on your camera and a crop will exactly match the 24 image. The only important bit, and the reason for converging verticals, keep the camera level.

Second, you can do lens corrections for off centered T/S images, having said that the 24 and 17 are very well corrected for CA and off center vignetting is comparatively easy to correct with a software filter. Anyway all you need to do to do true corrections is increase your canvas size to allow for the shift used, position the image in the larger canvas to allow for the shift used then apply corrections, then crop back to the image. If you are anal enough you could even make actual lens profiles in the free Adobe Lens Profiler.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 08:53:19 AM »

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:18:45 PM »

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

20

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:31:51 PM »

Guys, I didn't want to start a new thread but does anyone know how much slower the 85 1.2 i version as compared to version ii?

Much slower, on pre 2012 bodies the 85 1.2 MkI is really AF in name only.

21

Software & Accessories / Re: If buying last standalone CS6: Mac or Windows version for longevity?

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:13:00 PM »

As I have already said, I have done it and I wouldn't do it again. Of course there is a performance hit.

But you are missing my point. I have half a dozen HDD's with old OS's on them, I can plug any of them into either of my current Macs and boot in them. Even when CS6 no longer runs in the current version of OS?, whenever that might be, you will still be able to use your programs.

I still have a drive with Leopard and Rosetta on it that allows me to use any kind of legacy hardware, even an ancient $100 scanner. You are over thinking this.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji x100(s) to Supplement an SLR

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:57:50 PM »

I have been thinking the same thing, I was waiting for a 35mm L MkII, but the more I thought about it the more I realised I could get an X100s for less money and have a second, very useful, but smaller and good fun body effectively for free.

I haven't had a good play with the Fuji yet, but I am pretty sure that is the way I will go, I'd prefer a black one.

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: First photo pass to a concert! Lessons learned...

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:14:24 AM »

One more thing I have done several times and is a very good door opener. Print some cards, doesn't need to be anything fancy but with your email and preferably a blog on there. Take pictures of the crew, stagehands, lighting guys sound booths etc etc give them all a card and get your images up online somewhere.

24

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:03:25 AM »

Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.

Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.

I would strongly advise keeping what you can until you have owned the 70-200 for a while, then make a decision based on your actual images.

The one negative that has been leveled at the 70-200 is the harsh bokeh, your images often display very smooth blurring as an integral aspect of the image.

25

Software & Accessories / Re: If buying last standalone CS6: Mac or Windows version for longevity?

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:55:48 AM »

Even when, and that could be many years, your Suite is no longer supported on OS X Shiny Goat, you can still dual boot a Mac with whatever OS does work.

For an example just look at Rosetta, which will run just about any old Mac program or driver, on a brand new machine.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:06:12 AM »

As for the avatar, it says what needs to be said without having said it. YMMV.

It says, very clearly, you are a conflicted troll who can't live by your own perverse opinions.

27

Lenses / Re: How to shoot jewellery and NOT get reflections of the camera

« on: May 10, 2013, 09:48:00 AM »

"the second one though, the black line going all around the ring is the damn camera"

It can't be, it is a reflection of the camera and the scene around it, the edge of the table and studio etc, the angle of reflection can only equal the angle of incidence, the camera would need to be huge to take up that much "horizon". You can't have used a hole in white paper for that shot, if you had, as you have said, you can only get a dot, which is comparatively easy to remove in post.

28

Lenses / Re: How to shoot jewellery and NOT get reflections of the camera

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:59:28 AM »

polarizing filter and move the lights around.....

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that polarizing filter does not help with the reflection from metal surfaces.

You are not wrong. Polarising filters do not change reflections from metal surfaces.

29

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:52:11 PM »

...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

You have! 

30

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:35:45 PM »

This is the difference that I'm talking about. Maybe this can only be called "Depth Compression" or "Background Compression"...but to me, the relationship between the subject (the brick...or a Grebe...) and its background CHANGED...that is perspective, no? I guess one could say that only if the relative positions of elements change, do you have a change in perspective. I would be willing to agree with that, however I have a number of friends who are wedding photographers who use the term "perspective" to refer to both changes in relationship...both change in relative positions of near/far elements, as well as the change in blur and apparent depth between a subject and it's background. I'm willing to accept that the latter definition is not accepted. I can just call it background compression from now on.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.