April 20, 2014, 10:15:31 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 76
421
Lenses / Re: WA lens advice 16-35 II or the TSE 17
« on: June 09, 2013, 05:05:27 PM »
Skip 16-35 II. Nothing special @ f2.8.  I'm thinking 14mm prime, since 95% of my landscape shots @ 16mm.

Thanks ... The 14mm prime crossed my mind too. But from what I've heard you can stitch the TSE's images quite well and make it a panoramic shot ... That said, I wouldn't mind a canon 14-24 which is as good as the 24-70 II.

Once you get used to TS-Es, you'll wish that all your lenses had those movements!  But it's manual and you'll have to have a different workflow to get the best out of it.  A lot of people have chimed in that it requires a bit more care because of its convex front element, but care should also be taken with water.  There are hinges and slots for the movements, and they are not sealed.

Shift is easy to do handheld, but controlling the DOF precisely to throw more of the frame in focus will require live view/tripod.  Exposure bracketing and post processing can simulate NDs.  Whereas filters put all the work up front, the TS-17 will require less work up front but more at the backend.  Yes, some filter setups are starting to come out for these lenses, but I'm not keen on carrying a bag of lenses and then another bag for the larger filters.  Some can't be simulated (i.e. polarizer) but some tilt movements can't be simulated in post either.  It's a trade off.

I see more of a difference between AF/MF rather than MF and tilt shift.  If you don't use the TS functions, then you'll essentially have an awesome non-weather resistant MF lens...

422
Lenses / Re: 17-55 internal dust removal
« on: June 09, 2013, 01:24:31 PM »
I've done it before, and it is easy.  There are youtube videos of it.  What it comes down to is prying off the label ring off the front element (sticks with adhesive, so using something like a toothpick), removing about 3 screws that hold the front element in place (noting where the indentations are so you can put it back together) and tipping it over and the front lens assembly slides out.  Clean and reverse.

423
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 09, 2013, 12:32:57 PM »

re. size/weight advantage of mirrorles vs. DSLRs: yes, tele-lenses and tele-zooms like a 70-200/2.8 L IS will be the same size and weight and their use will almost nullify the size/weight advantage of a compact FF-mirrorless.
BUT unless totally specialized in photography of certain sports or wildlife, most photographers will not use tele-zooms or long tele lenses ALL the time on their cameras. Actually, many photographers will never use such lenses. Probably 99% of all images are captured using focal lengths between 24 and 100 mm. These lenses especially wide-angle for a FF camera body with a short flange back distance could be considerably smaller than current EF-lenses. Point in case is the Leica M-system and its "surprisingly small" (fixed focal) lenses. And contrary to common belief, adding a ring-USM AF drive would mean very little additional weight and bulk, since movable lens mass is quite small in these lenses. IS would ideally be in-body IS. Viewfinder image on an EVF can be stabilized by purely electronic means. Using a few clever algorithms and ample procesing power, legacy EF (tele) lenses with IS would work in tandem with the in-body IS to give up to 5 or even 6 stops total stabilization effect. 

That would finally yield a really small and light kit for the many occasions when we want to go small and light without sacrificing anything in performance, speed, ergonomcis and IQ compared to a good but big DSLR. The only limitation would be available tele-range in native-mount. Only when we need more tele range will we then pack and carry a simple and cheap-to-build extension tube adapter without optical elements plus any existing EF-lens (tele/zooms). But only then. Not all the time.

This is what I am waiting for. My current 7D plus EF-S and EF lenses is my last DSLR-based system. I want and will "upgrade" as soon as I get a Canon EOS 5D-M with a mirrorless body only slightly larger than a Sony RX-1 - to accomodate a built in Hi-End EVF. With a new sensor with ultra-fast in-plane phase-AF of course and an image processing pipeline that at least fully matches the current Nikon D800. Along with in-body IS and built-in WiFi, GPS and EX-RT wireless flash radio commander ... these radio components can be had ridiculously cheap and small. Price? Clearly below a 5D III, since it is so much cheaper to make a mirrorlss body without all the hi-precision mechanical cr*p in it - mirror, sub-mirrors, large and expensive glass prism etc. And, Canon - please aslo do away with that mechanical shutter and start using fully electronic shutters with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s.

And put an "as large as possible" fully FF-capable lens mount up front. Along with a number of "as small as possible" FF pancake AF-lenses (think of the EF 40/2.8) between 20mm and 85mm [20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Make them AF-only. Forget about those manul focus rings and gears. I don't ever use 'em. That way, it will be smaller, lighter,  easier to fully weather-seal and lower cost. And for conven ience two hi-quality, ultra-compact "folding" zooms: a tiny 17-50/4 kit zoom and a 50-150/2.8 even smaller than the former Sigma 50-150/2.8. And the EF-adapter. That's all I need. :-)

It might happen... in 10 or 20 years.

424
I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.

Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?

The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.

The 24-70 II destroys any Canon EF 50mm prime at f/2.8 and smaller.

425
I sure wish some others would chime in with a response also if they can use outer points or no.

Here is an update - Bought the Sigma 50 to replace the 50L and it does the same thing with the outer points! The left side is a little worse as was the case the the 50L. But it consistently front focuses about a meter when over 15' away or so. And probably a foot front focus at 8' away or so. We also had another engagement shoot where I told my wife again to just use the center point so she did and every shot where she was over 15' away or so, the camera front focused like crazy! ... So I just shipped the 5D3 and the 50L to Canon on Wednesday. I sure hope they can resolve this because again, I put the Sigma 50 on the 6D and it works gloriously with the outer points! We have a few engagement shoots and 1 wedding scheduled during the time the camera will be at Canon so we will have to live with the 6D and 7D for a few shoots. Who knows, if they can't fix it, maybe 2 6D's would be better.

Sure wish some others with this combo would chime in to help out a bit on this!

Thanks!  Cody

I have the combination you're describing (5DIII/50L) and I can get consistent focus with the outer points (tried at f/1.2 and f/5.6).  I'm using the left most f/2.8 point, the center point and the right most f/2.8 point and they give similar accuracy.  I was shooting at objects inside at around 10 ft and outside at 20-30'.  I'm using spot focus with f/2.8 points only.  However, there is a big caveat.  The entire focus point box must be in an area of high contrast to get consistent focus.  If it is not, the focus can miss very badly (even with focus confirmation) especially with the outer points.  The central points have additional phase detect baselines which increase their accuracy.  I tried taking pictures of my daughter at around 10' where she was strongly backlit (without flash assist), and it missed badly because local contrast was poor.  I then tried shooting a colorful bag on the couch lit by the backlight next to her (similar distance) and it nailed it consistently with center and outer points.

Perhaps a flash's focus assist will help...

426
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 07, 2013, 11:49:47 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

One day soon Canon will finally be forced to come up with a super-compact (think Sony RX-1 size) hi-performance FF mirrorless body plus a couple of tiny but fully FF-capable pancake lenses with AF (think EF 40/2.8 size) and an adaptor for EF lenses. And if they manage to do so before somebody else does, I will buy it from Canon ... :-)

I'm not so sure it has to go that way.  A mirrorless might make the wider lenses smaller/lighter but f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses are never going to be pocketable.  For longer lenses (i.e. 70-200), I don't think it'd make much difference in weight/length at all.  Where I hope Canon goes is to first produce a mirrorless camera that has the same sensor distance that uses electronic shutters to boost flash sync speeds and to get rid of the mirror to push the FPS higher.  To make that happen, EVF need to get better/cheaper, AF needs to get better, and the overall cost to the consumer needs to be similar.

There is a reason why the RX-1 can not change lenses.  If people think the EOS-M options are too slow (to maintain compact size) or too large, then the prospects of a FF version being sucessful drop a lot.  Now, if they can shrink the electronics/parts of the 5DIII similarly to the T5i/SL1, then that'll be something. 

427
Lenses / Re: $1550 for a used 85L f1.2 II
« on: June 06, 2013, 09:40:53 PM »
I saw a post on CL - 85L f1.2 II selling for $1775.

Condition according to seller:
1. Like new  in term of funtionality and cosmetic. ( I did saw the pictures from seller, the lens looks new)
2. No dust, B&W filter is included
3. Date code UA(2012)
4. Comes with everything box, foams, etc....original receipt from best buy. Warranty is just expired
5. Reason for selling: seller wants 50L. 85L is little to tight.

I spoke to seller over the phone and we agreed @ $1550 cash.

Question: Would you go for it if all conditions above are true?

Thanks guys...I'll inspect and test out this lens this weekend. I'll keep everyone updated. Hope everything will go smoothly.

Another question: How do you identify refurb lens?

Not really a good way if the guy is clever, but refurbs come in a different box -- not the typical retail box that you are used to.  The refurb box is mostly white and doesn't have the typical product markings on it (i.e. generic).  You can also look for the warranty card -- new will be the 1 year that you're used to; refurbs have a piece of paper that detail the 90 days.

428
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III phenomenon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:59:34 PM »
I tend to remove the card to transfer files rather than using the camera/usb cable connection, so it happens a lot. 

So do I, I just swap in another card at the same time.  Since the 1D X has dual CF, I write RAW to both simultaneously.  I have three 32 GB 90 Mb/s cards, after a shoot I swap out the Slot 1 card with the one from the previous shoot, and the Slot 2 card stays in as a backup until it gets full.

Thanks for the idea!  I'll have to get a few more CF cards of the same capacity to make it work effectively. 

429
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:34:10 PM »
I think we will see full frame mirror less cameras within a year or 2 at most ... just my gut feeling.

Not in a compact format like the EOS-M you won't - maybe a full sized DSLR style mirrorless, but there would need to be another full range of EF lenses to make a EOS-M as a full frame because of the flange distance issues.

+1.  If the M is any indication, the transition from EF to EF mirrorless will take years.

430
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III phenomenon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:22:02 PM »
Happens with my 5D III too.  I tend to remove the card to transfer files rather than using the camera/usb cable connection, so it happens a lot.  So much so, that I've added that menu to my favorites to quickly change it back.

431
Lenses / Re: $1550 for a used 85L f1.2 II
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:03:08 PM »
Oh man it's sounding more and more like a drug deal going down than a lens purchase!   :P

LOL!  Couldn't agree more.  L-disease is progress nicely in this patient!

432
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:01:51 PM »
I didn't want to bring the 24-105L as it's redundant but I'll squeeze it into my carry-on. I might use it, I might not but everyone agree's I should take it.

Most everyone here agrees that 300mm is seldom used in these citys. So the 70-200 f/4L IS is the choice for me.

That makes this

-5D3
-17-40L
-50L
-70-200L F/4 IS
-24-105L
-600RT

Should I take one of my additional fast primes like the 24L II or the 135L? I could fit one more in my carry-on.

Honestly, I'd suggest bringing what you use regularly:  24L II, 50L, 135L and then add a 1.4x III if you want more reach.  You'll know exactly when to use each lens, and you'll have low light/shallow DOF capability across the range.  How often will you really need the UWA at 17mm instead of using the 24L II?  If you plan on using it indoors, renting a TS-E 17 for perspective corrections might be an option but that will require a tripod to do it well.  If you're not bring a tripod, is the 17mm really going to be used well to make it worth it?

433
Lenses / Re: $1550 for a used 85L f1.2 II
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:42:27 AM »
Yes.  I'd ask for the receipt anyway with name/address blacked out, etc.  If it just expired, Canon might give you a break anyway if you find something immediately.

434
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 07:59:32 AM »
If they wanted, Canon could sell M-pancakes at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake - with excellent IQ and "good enough for me" build quality - and still make tons of money. 

And for € 399 they could just as well have built an EF-M 11-22 IS with a constant f/4 aperture. All the difference would have been a slightly larger front element and a 62 filter thread instead of 55.

But lets wait what image quality the 11-22 will really deliver. And as long as there is no adequately performing EOS-M body, I am not interested anyways.  :P

And a 62mm front element would have retracted into the barrel how?  If they make the barrel wider and longer, then it has little advantage over EF-S/EF designs.  Canon favored compactness for this design, and I think it's right for the target market.  What would a constant f/4 do for you?  3 stops of IS will more than offset the decreased shutter speed, and if you need shallower DOF, then the lenses are a lot bigger (i.e. Tokina 11-16), and your better off using FF anyway.

435
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 05, 2013, 01:44:51 PM »
70-300L.  Slightly shorter and heavier but fatter, but the key is 100mm more range for a fractional stop.  Unless you know you won't go beyond 200mm, the 70-300L will be more versatile.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 76