October 01, 2014, 11:02:23 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 164
451
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:05:27 PM »

Well you have picked some good examples to make it difficult ;) Really is everything a 50mm,  a few look 100mm macro to my eyes.

Since we are in canon forum , are we looking at canon 1.4, 1.8. 1.2L and sigma 1.4 & 1.4 art... any nikons in there ?  have you compiled the exif date from each of the shots? we can look at afterwards

No more clues, just 50mm. The only additional info I have is which lens it was, I had each open in a browser window but closed them when nobody rose to the challenge, I might be able to find a few more details for some of them.

Obviously you are being trusted not to cheat :-)

P.S. Mackguyver, sorry for the diversion. For a little perspective I owned and used an FD 50 f1.2L for many years and simply loved it, when I moved to EOS I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the 1.2L and used the 1.4 in the mean time. When the 1.2 did eventually arrive I was not impressed, I tried to like it but didn't.

I am not a fast prime hater by any stretch of the imagination, the 85 f1.2 is peerless, but I feel too often wild claims are made that just can't be backed up. I have said many times that if you shoot more because your lens has a red ring then that alone is a good enough reason to buy it. But to claim some of the stuff in this thread from in line images really is gilding the lily, and truthfully doesn't help informed purchasing decisions.

452
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 18, 2014, 07:12:56 PM »
I'll have a shot at this , probably will be totally wrong but will be be fun :0

Can I ask, are all the shots your own ? or have you grabbed them form various sources for this exercise ?

Of course you can ask, not one of them is mine and they are all easily findable on the net, I wasn't sneaky or devious, I deliberately put in images from several lenses but I will say they are all the same focal length. I didn't use any of my images for several reasons, not least of which is I don't post process like many of them and I wanted to include a range of styles, subject matter, selective dof etc and as I have posted hundreds of images here I didn't want my test subjects, location, or post style to give anybody clues.

453
Software & Accessories / Re: Which gels to get and how many
« on: July 18, 2014, 03:56:24 PM »
That's easy :-)

If I was buying sheets or getting them custom cut then >90% of the time I use 1/2 CTO (colour temperature orange, Cinegel 3408) and CTS (colour temperature straw, Cinegel 3442), I like 1/2 stop gels because two of them make a full stop, seems obvious but makes for more flexibility. I use CTO and CTS interchangeably but sometimes just really like a CTS shot.

If I could only have one gel it would be a bucket of 1/2 cut CTO's.

I also have a lot of 1/4 CTO's which I rarely use by themselves but use to adjust other gels. I am happy to mix a CTS and 1/4 CTO.

About 5% of the time I use 1/2 CTB (colour temperature blue, Cinegel 3204), this is useful for cooling the flash which via post process WB gives some control over the ambient, that is you can make a blue, or cool, scene warmer whist keeping your subject "normal".

Since giving up film I have very rarely used a green (Cinegel 3304), though if you were bringing florescent ambient into your scene regularly then gelling your flash to green would be good, though if you are like me that would be rare enough to be covered by the swatch book and there are so many different fluorescent output colours now it is better to go B&W! This goes for the "specials" too, the bright greens, blues and reds for effects and backgrounds are easily covered by the swatchbook.

Like I say, if I was custom cutting them then the 1/2 CTO is far and away the most useful.

454
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:18:47 PM »
It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

I love that phrase!  Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here:  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=647.msg412040#msg412040

455
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:43:07 AM »
Here is a spectacular sunset I caught over NYC:
http://500px.com/photo/76837851/hollywood-squares-redux-by-sam-yee?from=user_library

Sorry but I cant figure out how to put up a link to my image.

Just wonderful!
Is that the 16-35 f/2.8 II or the new 16-35 f/4?

Thanks for the view and reply, I used the 16-35 f/2.8L II

Very dramatic looking image, but it looks like a composite to me, I don't have a problem with it if it is, just saying it doesn't look "right".

Here is the image and a crop of an anomaly, the "reflection" in the windows is a continuation of the clouds, not a reflection.

456
Software & Accessories / Re: Which gels to get and how many
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:05:36 AM »
Don't buy into any system until you know what you want.

Here is another thread where I illustrate what I use. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21290.msg407701#msg407701

$2.50 for over 100 is hard to beat! Plus there are colours you would never buy but are nice to have, plus the Cinegel swatchbook has ND filters in it too. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45184-REG/Rosco_950SBCNG0103_Cinegel_Swatchbook.html

457
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: HUMIDITY ALERT!
« on: July 18, 2014, 08:47:45 AM »
I have lived in very humid places for years and never worried about it, but you have to understand the causes to prevent any issues. The best way to prevent fungus is to use your gear, sunlight stops the problem. If you have to store stuff or use it intermittently then this is the most economical and fun solution I have come across.

http://dpexperience.com/2010/01/29/beating-lens-fungus/

458
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:53:54 PM »
Nicely done Fuhrtographer.

Thanks Click, here are a few more.



This image perfextly illustrates why I, and many other real estate photographers, gave up on HDR programs like Photomatix and Enfuse. When I have to do HDR now I only use PS 32bit. The colour shifts on the white church drive me mad.

I hope you don't mind but I did an edit like I used to have to, select the white boarding and then desaturate it to white, if you want some colour in it then just add a colour filter back in, all easily done in LR or ACR.

459
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 11:42:18 AM »
Um, the flash get disabled if it's running too hot, doesn't it?

Um, from a Canon flash user guide:

"Do not fire the modeling flash more than 10 consecutive times. If you fire the modeling flash 10 consecutive times, allow the Speedlite to rest for at least 10 min. to avoid overheating and damaging the flash head." Emphasis mine.

The 600 can do around 40 full power pops with a pack in around 2 mins before the screen glows red, the warning sign to slow down, then it locks.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=600ex%20rt%20overheating&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQOKCZ3FZBwo&ei=8-rHU4KrHca58gGtyoCwBg&usg=AFQjCNHkjXqtHEfuCIfi0WZtDfQsn4lOkA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.b2U

460
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:21:47 AM »
Wow, no one stating the blindingly obvious feature that canon should put in all their flashes ----come on now, how hard is it to put a freaking battery meter in there?  It would be so awesome to be setting up my lighting and turn the units on and know....ohhh it's got 3/4 power left, no need to change batteries, or wow, 1/4 left, better put some new ones in.  The 600 really really should have that!!!  so I won't hold my breath on a 400 series flash having such a simple feature --------- it really boggles my mind why it's not there.  Maybe I'm the only one that's bugged my this????

I'm not bugged by it. I have a very efficient battery management regime and I just don't have battery issues. I always have recharged Eneloops in the flash whenever it leaves home and I have a full second set also freshly topped up in the bag. I very rarely have to change batteries in the field, very rarely.

Maybe others fire their flashes much more than me but I don't even use battery packs, though if I did run into charge issues regularly that is what I'd want more than a level indicator.

461
Possible? Yes.
Affordable? Up to you

http://www.carrycasesplus.com/custom-foam-inserts/

462
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:19:33 PM »
perfect, i dont care about radio triggering from a flash(600ex-rt). all i need is a flash with radio and optical slave, user interface similar to 600ex, zoom head of upto 200mm( most of the 3rd party flashes competing 430ex seem to have it ) as it will help is reducing wastage on tele lenses. price should be below 20000inr(~350$). thats all i need from a new mid range flash from canon.

Which ones are they? The Phottix doesn't and neither does the YN-568.

Nissin Di700 has 24-200mm zoom head(although it lacks manual zoom and is significantly cheaper in India), also rumoured Metz Mecablitz 64 AF-1 is supposed to have a 24-200mm zoom head( I suspect it might cost more than 430ex). Also if the 440ex-rt did have a 24-200mm zoom head, imagine how the burn on the face of Nikon SB700 users.

here is a sample photo that I shot with a pair of Nissin Di700 and my friends Nikon D90+85mm macro lens. I would like to try Phottix for a change. Unluckily neither Yongnuo or Phottix have any presence in India. I can purchase Nissin, Canon and Metz speedlights only with decent after sales service.

I'd hardly call one third party flash that doesn't offer any manual zoom at all "most of the 3rd party flashes competing with the 430". Because of this I think you will find zooming to 200mm will be a 600 and up only "feature" for the foreseeable future, product differentiation and all that.

As for kicking sand in the eye of SB-700 owners, well I think the RT bit does that very well without the requested zoom range.

If the 4??-EX-RT came out tomorrow I might buy four in a year or so, but then again I'd probably just get more 600's.

463
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:01:51 PM »
perfect, i dont care about radio triggering from a flash(600ex-rt). all i need is a flash with radio and optical slave, user interface similar to 600ex, zoom head of upto 200mm( most of the 3rd party flashes competing 430ex seem to have it ) as it will help is reducing wastage on tele lenses. price should be below 20000inr(~350$). thats all i need from a new mid range flash from canon.

Which ones are they? The Phottix doesn't and neither does the YN-568.

464
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:54:51 PM »
Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.

Clearly you didn't look at my earlier link.

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

465
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:26:14 PM »
Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was "assuming similar correction for lens aberrations", it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.


Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 164