September 16, 2014, 02:04:41 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 156
496
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:35:18 PM »
You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions?  To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV.

Oh, ok.  Well then, the PowerShot SX600 HS has a 4.5-81mm (real) zoom range, meaning you can get the same FoV as the Olympus 75mm lens.  The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8.  Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot.  You can get it in the boring silver color of the Olympus lens, or a nice flashy red.  Enjoy!

 ::)

Neuro, that is just silly, a far fairer equivalent would be the Olympus with the 75mm f1.8 and the Canon ff with a 200-400 f4 IS 1.4, then we at least have near equivalence on dof too. I mean look at the size and cost of the Canon combo, it makes the Olympus seem even better value.

 ::)

497
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:43:47 PM »

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof."  That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.

If you consider f3.6 on ff to give you a shallow dof then we are, again, talking different languages. Personally I use f2.8 zooms as a minimum, but don't pretend they give me the dof control I often want, then I move to faster primes. Does the f2.2 lens in the iPhone give me narrow dof?

My first language is English, I understand that is not true of many people here, I understand the difference between equal and equivalent, you are conflating them, you are using equivalent for focal length and equal for aperture value within the same sentence, I think that is a basic misrepresentation and confusing, just like the Panasonic 600mm f2.8, it is clearly not true.


498
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:07:35 PM »
Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?

Why put words in my mouth? 

I didn't, I quoted you, repeatedly, "The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses.  In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. "

You are the one that mentioned aperture, it is only because you did so that I got involved, I don't give a damn about m4/3's. Not only did you mention aperture but directly contained within your comment is the fact that you assert the closest ff equivalent to an m4/3 f1.8 is f2, I don't know why you did that, but it is fallacious.

499
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:49:28 PM »
Gentlemen, please let us be tolerant of other people's opinions. We all know that different sizes of sensor require different lenses to achieve the same result. ::)
For some people the viewing angle is the most important criterion for comparison.
For others the DOF (shallower as best) is the most important.
Let's leave aside the unattainable to compare different things, as if they were equal goal. For my part, I like wider DOF, and so I prefer to APS-C. If I wanted the most reasonable DOF possible, I would choose full frame.

I am totally accepting of peoples differing viewpoints. I 100% agree the Olympus is smaller than a ff camera, I am not in the business of denial.

What I am not accepting of is the fallacious comment that the "closest ff equivalent is a 135 f2 or 200 f2", it is factually wrong. It is as wrong as saying a 30' sailboat is the closest equivalent of a 300' ferry because they both float, and, the 30' one is smaller; because my only idea of equivalent is the fact that they both float and being small is important to my (completely unrelated) point. Yes they do both float, but they are not equivalent, and they are certainly not the closest equivalent.

500
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:02:24 PM »
Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?

501
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 11:30:46 AM »
"You're the one who thinks that this is essential, as if making the exact same image at the widest aperture of both lenses across both formats is the necessary goal of a photographer."

Yet you are the one that introduced the term and concept of "closest ff equivalent".

But, whatever, you are clearly not interested in correcting your misstep and I have a wedding to process. Fortunately I live on a spherical earth, you continue to live and preach the benefits of a flat one where 1+1+1+1= the only 1 you want to talk about (we don't need to worry about the other 3), and size.

502
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:58:47 AM »
When "they" are talking about colour accuracy like that they are not talking about white balance, well they shouldn't be, they are talking about the relationship of colours to each other. That is where the Camera Calibration profiles in LR, PS and DPP come in, is the Landscape or the Portrait option more realistic when both use the same WB?

The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.

That is what they are talking about, specific camera profiles, or more probably an enhanced Bayer filter array and firmware that delivers more accurate colours in more lighting situations more often. Anything that saves processing time and is perceived as "better" will have a market in the studio environment.

This link gives a little background on that Camera Calibration panel. http://x-equals.com/blog/playing-with-color-camera-profiles/

503
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:52:12 AM »

"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..."   — Yes, that's what I meant.  I left out "fov" because that is usually understood.  At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively.  Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses.  It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6.  According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that.  It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

If you disregard common usage in photography, lenses across formats are never "equivalent".  Lenses can never be equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. because there are too many values, amounts, functions, meanings, etc. to consider.  Equivalence in one detail is accompanied by non-equivalence in another.

Of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is "equivalent" to a (nonexistent) 150/3.6 in FF if we are only concerned about DoF at widest aperture.

And of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is not "equivalent" to a 150/3.6 in FF because, among other things, a 75/1.8 exists for a current system, is really compact thanks to the small format, and it goes to f/1.8 if desired.

If that was all you meant then, as I said, the vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4 is, using your words "the closest ff equivalent", not the 200 f2, the zoom lens allows you to take exactly the same image across formats. You didn't say the 200 f2.8 either, another vastly smaller and cheaper option, or any one of the 70-300 f4 - 5.6's, which give a very close equivalent image.

The only person being dishonest is you. Manufacturers call a 75mm f1.8, a 75mm f1.8, because it is a 75mm f1.8, you are the one that introduced the phrase "the closest ff equivalent", they do often then say 150mm equivalent and in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent. The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, a change that doesn't take all into account is NOT equivalent. You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that. People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?

As for your "it goes to f1.8 if desired", well again, you are either being dishonest or obtuse, my amp dial goes to 11 and has a Dobly button  ;D . You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, even though you say you do, well done. My '87 Jimmy has four doors, it is equivalent to a Rolls Royce Phantom.

As a picture is, said to be, worth a thousand words, here are three I did a few years ago for a talk on camera sensors, even when enlarged and printed these images are indistinguishable.

504
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:48:09 AM »
I am not arguing, I am saying you are using the term equivalent incorrectly, my selective interpretation is in line with the accepted meaning of the word.


e·quiv·a·lent
iˈkwivələnt/
adjective
adjective: equivalent

    1.
    equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.
    "one unit is equivalent to one glass of wine"
    synonyms:   equal, identical, same; More


Also this is a very good link.

EQUIVALENCE

If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, then the lenses are only "equal in value, amount, and function" in one of the three metrics they affect when used to take a picture, ergo, they are not equivalent.

If you had said I can get the same fov with an Olympus 75mm and a ff 150mm then that would be the end of it, that is not what you said, you said you'd need a 135 f2 or 200 f2 for a ff equivalent, that is not true, why are you fighting so hard on a simple point about which you made an error?

An Olympus 75mm f1.8 is not equivalent to a ff 200 f2, it just isn't. It is equivalent to a ff 150mm f3.6.


505
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 11:12:38 PM »
One can't get the *same* images from different systems.

Yes you can, if you use equivalence.

That's not everyone's goal.

I never said it was.

That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents".

That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5.

Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs.

I never questioned that point of view, I own an EOS-M myself.

You keep saying I am only considering dof when talking about lens/system equivalence, I could turn that around and say you are only considering focal length/fov, I say that is totally invalid. DOF control and light gathering capabilities are the two most important aspects of "fast" lenses, that is not me being "totally stuck on the concept of 'depth of field equivalence'", it IS equivalence. That you are choosing to ignore two of the three metrics impacted by a sensor size change, and only talking about one, and the unrelated question of size, is your erroneous though process, not mine.

The two things, camera/lens size and image equivalence are completely unrelated, camera/lens size is an important factor in a system purchase and is a point of yours I have not disputed, but it has nothing to do with equivalence, that is, create the same image with different systems. You argue that many people just want a camera they can take at a smaller size, again, I haven't disputed that. However I would say that as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot, on those occasions a full understanding of equivalence, and the fact that "The closest full frame equivalents [to the m4/3 75 f1.8] are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2" is not true unless you ignore everything apart from focal length, is the only way you can work to get that image you imagine.

Finally, if you own a FF Canon camera and want something Olympus sized, the SLi isn't far off, http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,448 , put an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 on it (which both cost less money than the Olympus 75mm f1.8 ) and you have a couple of lenses you can use on both cameras for a minimal increase in size.

506
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 07:18:59 PM »
Different photographers have different needs.  Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs.  For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry.  And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal.  Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body.  The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses.  In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small.  APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8.  Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

Way to miss the point.  The 75/1.8 is small.  *small* as in not BIG.   The 70-200/4 is quite large by comparison.  I've used both of those this weekend and the size difference is considerable.

You're totally stuck on the concept of "depth of field equivalence".  As if that were the only thing that mattered and the only way to compare lenses.  It isn't.  Goodness, not every photographer shoots every lens at widest aperture for every subject.  Some don't do it for any subject.  As I said, different photographers have different needs.  Some prioritize greater dof.

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof."  That is simply wrong.  I mean, it couldn't be more wrong.  Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast.  An f/5.6 lens = not fast.  An f/1.8 lens = fast. 

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof.  Is it shallow enough for you?  Is it as shallow as a 200/2?  Or a 50/1.0?  Obviously not.  But it is shallow by any definition of the word.  A 50/2 give shallow dof.  An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof.  A 100/2.8 give shallow dof.  Why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof?   But it does, of course.  Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.  And shallow dof is not the sole measure of a lens.  For some lenses and for some subjects it is irrelevant.  But this lens clearly as it.  And again, different photographers have different needs.   Some prioritize *small* gear.  That is the POINT.

I wasn't missing your point, I was addressing an inaccurate comment contained within post.

If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison? Saying "The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses." is not true, to fail to consider all crop factors, iso, aperture, and focal length, when talking about an equivalent (the very word you used), you are not telling the truth.

If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster  and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.


507
EOS-M / Re: Yikes - stopped by my local camera store....
« on: June 01, 2014, 05:33:28 PM »
"Yea I know it is a boat load more money but....."

Enough said.........

508
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 12:28:08 PM »
Different photographers have different needs.  Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs.  For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry.  And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal.  Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body.  The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses.  In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small.  APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8.  Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

509
No, but they don't need to because the ST-E3-RT works as advertised on every camera every single time.

Every camera? Well, afaik I know the Canon original does have some issues with pre-2012 camera bodies.

As you have guessed, even as a vocal critic of the Yn I cannot help but mention that the missing Mac compatibility is known before purchase. Otherwise I'd like to make the case for Linux fw upgrade support :-)

No, not issues, AS ADVERTISED, actually it works better than as advertised, the sync speed is better for one.

510
Another bad thing about the YN, I am Apple only but need a PC to do FW updates.

Canon does support firmware updates for their st-e3 on Mac?

No, but they don't need to because the ST-E3-RT works as advertised on every camera every single time.

Though I had heard Canon have the capability to upgrade the flash firmware via the camera hot shoe, you load it onto a CF card and it can then be written to the flash via the camera. Not sure where I saw that snippet but I thought it was interesting.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 156