Messages

46

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Macro pics - FF or APS-C

« on: December 23, 2012, 08:04:58 AM »

I have debated the merits of upgrading to FF for a while now.  I think the pros outweigh the cons (other than cost) for the most part except possibly in one very important area for me, and that's macro shots.  Could someone help me to determine if my logic/research is correct?

I currently shoot with a 60D and the very good EF-S 60mm macro.  Generally for macro, you're not shooting wide open, or even close to it.  In general, I'm at f8 (range varies from f5.6-f11 most of the time) so that I get a somewhat decent depth of field.

If I were to switch to FF (either 6D or 5D3), I'd be using the 100mm macro instead (similar FOV to the 60mm macro on the 60D ~ 96mm).  To obtain a similar depth of field, would I not need a much smaller aperture?

For instance, I just used http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to come up with the following scenario:

If I were using my current setup (60D + 60mm macro), the following parameters:
f8, 6.3' distance to subject
Would yield the following depth of field:
1 ft

***I realize this is not a macro shot but I used it because "1 ft" is a nice round number with some "play" to it - an actual macro calculation would have resulted in a very small fraction of a foot making a comparison much harder.

Now, if I were to pick up say, a 5D3 and the 100mm macro, in order to achieve 1 ft of depth of field at a distance of 6.3', I'd need to shoot at roughly f14.3 (the online calculator says this would be .99 ft).

Here's the problem...  Diffraction/lens sharpness.  I'm fairly sure that even as good as the 100mm macro is (even the L), it can't possibly be as sharp at f14 as the 60mm macro is at f8, can it?

What about when I'm in a pinch and need to go to f11 with my 60mm macro on APS-C?  I'd need to go to over f20 to achieve a similar DOF with the 100mm on FF.

So, is my thinking/calculations correct in this case?  Or am I overlooking something?  Could the 100mm macro (L or not) be as good or better than the 60mm macro when obtaining a similar depth of field?  Is the smaller APS-C sensor the key here?  And finally, would I be even BETTER served (for macro) by going down to m4/3?

Thanks for any insight!
Jonathan

47

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:11:59 PM »

I didn't read all of the posts (sorry, don't have the time) but I always laugh when I see people say they've paid for a new camera body by the jobs they've gotten.  I honestly can't say I've EVER heard of a client sitting in front of a photographer saying "hey, are you shooting with the 5D2, or 5D3?  Oh, the 5D2?  I'm outta here.  If you had the 5D3, I'd give you my money."

48

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C

« on: October 10, 2012, 08:13:33 AM »

FF DSLR cost effective?  Even if the price gets down to the entry level APS-C cost now ($500), then APS-C would be around $100-150.  Same with lenses.

What about weight?  Let's assume that the weight of the cameras become equal (by the FF weighing less than they do today).  The weight of the glass won't be - and that's an issue for soccer moms/dads (a large portion of the market), especially when the crop factor is introduced for those tele shots.

Yes, FF is superior when it comes to results - but for the average person (which is who buys APS-C), it's not worth it.  Also, FF will NEVER drop to $500 - so this entire discussion is completely irrelevant.  Even if manufacturing costs get down low enough to support that price point, it ain't happening.  Costs are irrelevant when it comes to price.

To me, this discussion is time/thought/effort wasted.  Just like the discussions about the 7D2 being APS-H or FF.  Canon (and the marketing department) would have to be run by 4 year olds who practice skydiving without a parachute for the 7D2 to be anything other than APS-C.  Seriously.  Only a complete IDIOT would just throw away the brand loyalty they've built.  If you have ANY questions about brand loyalty - refer to the auto industry.  They revive old car names all the time for the built in brand recognition (Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Dart, even the Fiesta is back!).  Even the Ford Taurus (which was, let's be honest, a HORRIFIC car before the 1 year layoff - or was it 2?) came back simply because everyone has HEARD of a Taurus.  It was easier to polish up a turd (Taurus reputation) than to push for recognition of a new brand ("Five Hundred").  How did it come back?  The ripped off the "five hundred" label on a car and slapped on a "Taurus" label.  Why?  Because no one knew what a five hundred was and it wasn't selling all that great (other than to rental car companies).  Literally.  It was a five hundred one day, and a Taurus the next.  And sales went up.  THAT'S brand recognition for you - and it's apparently something that SOME photographers are completely ignorant about (understandable, they're not in marketing).

49

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A Quick Color & Noise Comparison: Canon EOS-1D X vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III

« on: September 22, 2012, 11:21:03 AM »

IMHO, there is a noticeable difference in lighting color - as evidenced by the reflection in the windshield.
One minute can make a huge difference during sunset

Completely agree.

50

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 1DC is IDENTICAL to 1DX other than firmware

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:12:31 PM »

No... it matters not what the cost of development is.  It matters the perceived value in the marketplace. 
Thats the only thing that matters.

Absolutely correct!  If I invent something that costs me 47 cents to invent, patent, manufacture, distribute, promote, and sell - but I manage to sell out all I can make at 100 trillion dollars - why is that wrong?

I'm ALL ABOUT the internet - but I fear it has QUICKLY and DRASTICALLY brought about a sense of IMMENSE entitlement in our society (stuff that used to cost money can now be DL'd for free from lots of pirate websites and thus APPROPRIATE value is a thing of the past).

If someone wants to shoot 4K, they need to cough up $6K.  If that pisses them off - beat sand to a competitor that's giving it away for free (or an upgrade fee).  Enough others will take their place that Canon won't miss them.  And should Canon fail, another company will step up and take their place and then people will be screaming about how they're bending people over too.

Get over your sense of entitlement.

51

Animal Kingdom / Re: SSSSSSSSSSSSSSShow me your snakessssssssssssssss

« on: September 18, 2012, 08:15:41 AM »

And a couple from a trip to Zoo Atlanta a few months ago.

Emerald Tree Boa


Green Tree Python


Reticulated Python

52

Animal Kingdom / Re: SSSSSSSSSSSSSSShow me your snakessssssssssssssss

« on: September 18, 2012, 08:11:43 AM »

Now this is MY kind of thread!    I'm a HUGE animal lover and my passion lies with reptiles, and more specifically with boa constrictors.  I've been keeping them for 12-ish years now and have been breeding them for 5.  Here are a few from the collection.  No particular order at all.



Sisters produced by me




















jb

53

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF-M 18-55 IS Lens Image

« on: July 21, 2012, 08:22:51 AM »

So it actually is an APS-C sensor in the M Mount?  And obviously IBIS won't be a feature.

54

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of Mirrorless Informaton [CR3]

« on: July 19, 2012, 02:04:54 PM »

I don't think it matters much what they release now. Just to get some future posts out of the way...

That body is too big or small.
The sensor is too big or small.
The MP count is too many or few.
The kit zoom lens is too big or slow.
The prime(s) are too big and/or slow.
The AF is too slow.
It costs too much!

AWESOME post!  But, you neglected to mention that although they're future posts, they won't be TOO far in the future.  All of those posts will take place PRIOR to any of the people posting them actually getting their hands on one and the system through the proper paces.  Posts like that are all vaguely reminiscent of an old saying about judging, books, and covers...

55

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 not so great afterall...it has its shortcomings too

« on: June 07, 2012, 08:18:36 AM »

exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.

HEY!  Making complete sense and being rational isn't allowed on public forums.  Cut that out now!

56

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: June 04, 2012, 08:06:51 AM »

I can't stand dpreview 

Just because you can't stand that site, doesn't mean there's not good info/posts there.  I can't stand politicians but occasionally they... okay... bad example.  But I think you know what I mean

1. Weather sealing. A lot of L glass needs a filter to complete the seal.

Says who?  Canon?  If Canon says it's weather sealed, shouldn't that mean it's weather sealed without a filter?  I'm not doubting you, just requesting a reference.

57

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: June 03, 2012, 01:27:03 PM »

I bookmarked this thread last year as a reference for myself and thought it may be useful here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=37394169

The initial post is very common-sense-like and often pretty funny.  Worth the read whether you agree or not

58

Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 03, 2012, 01:20:21 PM »

To me, I would only consider buying over renting when the rental fees exceed the loss I'd take by buying and reselling.

If you will only benefit from this lens on one occasion, it makes sense to rent.  However, if you're going to use it multiple times and incur multiple rental fees, why not buy?  Even if you break even buying, you still don't have to go through the steps of placing the order, being a little more freaked out than normal about damaging the lens, shipping it back, repeating that process over and over - and that's worth something in my book.  Of course, there's always the "hassle" of selling something too.

59

EOS Bodies / Re: This should be more than a rumour

« on: May 28, 2012, 08:42:42 AM »

In the future when something like this would be affordable, a thumbprint scan would make sense on both the body and lens.  It's fast, accurate, and won't require the user to stop what they're doing to enter the info like a pin number.  Just simply place the scanner on the camera where the user would normally place their thumb (or a finger) and it's good to go.

Too advanced?

60

EOS Bodies / Re: Let's see some great shots taken with old, cheap gear!

« on: May 23, 2012, 11:14:43 PM »

Taken back in my P&S days.  I know it's a Canon forum, but this was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 4500.  A 4mp camera.  This was back around 2003 or 2004 - before I knew ANYTHING about composition at all - I should never have cropped it like I did.