July 23, 2014, 06:30:07 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 ... 85
Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:15:36 PM »
That does seem high, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of mine were taken wide open or at f/2.8 or larger (not at my computer to check it though).  I tend to use f/2.8 or larger for sports (more pictures per event due to capturing action sequences) and for single subject portraits especially under indoor available light (dim) situations.  When there are multiple subjects (f/4-f/8) or when doing a landscape or architecture shot (f/8-f/16) or macro, then the lens gets stopped down, but I tend to do these types of shots less often.

What this really means is that you have good glass.  Lower quality lenses tend to require stopping down more.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:50:47 AM »
This is an emotional argument... there is no place in it for common sense :)

I think a lot of people are having a hard time getting past what EVF's used to perform like... and many have no experience with a good one. If the only EVF that I had used was the one on my SX-50, I would be sitting in the "they are crappy and nowhere near ready for the DSLR market" camp, but my experience with the VF2 EVF from Olympus tells a diferent story. It is better than the optical viewfinder was on my Olympus E-510... but I still prefer the optical viewfinder on my Canon. The thing is, I have zero expectation that optical viewfinders will improve over the years while I would be shocked if EVF's didn't.. at some point the overall package will be better.

+1.  The EVFs will get there, but I'm hoping that they can do so with minimal power.  I'd hate getting only 100-200 pictures on a battery.

EOS-M / Re: 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:34:41 AM »
The quality of the M 18-55 IS is fine.  Sharpness, contrast, etc. are pretty good.  Not as compact or as fast as the 22mm, but it works well enough outside, where there is enough light.  My biggest nit with it is the small max aperture, but it is what it is -- a very good kit lens.  Picked mine up for $150.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Experiences Switching From Nikon
« on: September 26, 2013, 01:08:25 PM »
I am in the process of seriously considering jumping ship.  I don't have a significant investment in cameras or lenses so there are no significant legacy costs involved.  This is an advantage to me as I can look at the multiple choices with a pretty open mind.

What I truly don't understand is how photographers who DO have a significant investment in glass (and let's be honest, it does not take much to make our investment significant!!!) to consider dumping everything and switching sides.  Yikes.

That is one of the reasons I have been taking a few months to make my decision.  To me, what ever ship I jump on to and once I make my investment in good glass, that's the system I will stick with.

Do other photographers who do have significant kit jump ship often?  Right now canikon may have the "best"  but in a few years nicanon will come out with something "better" only to be followed by canikon.....  One could spend a lot of money jumping and rejumping ship when ever something "best" comes along.  I can't imagine that is cost effective.

I guess my rambling point is that just because canikon comes out with something "better" does not make my nicanon "bad".  The bottom line is:  Is my camera good enough for my purposes?

But then it is all about the gear and not the photographer.  LoL

Those that have the means use both systems and maintain both systems.

Lenses / Re: miniaturized WA lens tech, compared to 8-15L
« on: September 26, 2013, 10:24:53 AM »
Interesting -- needs a curved sensor though.

Did they seriously compare a crop of a crop from the 8-15L to a crop (sesnor resolution limited) of the new technology mated to a microscope?  Why didn't they use the microscope mated to the 8-15L?

Are you using a neck strap or a shoulder strap/holster system to carry the gear?  2 kg around the neck is a lot, but it's a lot easier with a strap system (i.e. BlackRapid).

The 70-200 II is the best choice for nature, people/pets and events, and yes, IS is almost a necessity especially if you want to use it for indoor events.  I often drop the shutter speed to 1/50 to 1/100 at 200mm to decrease the ISO.  Yes, modern cameras can get you higher ISOs, but the DR is compressed at higher ISOs and highlights are more easily blown.  Add bad lighting, and you want as much lattitude with the files as you can get.  There is a big difference between working with ISO 3200 and ISO 12800 files.  The 70-200 II also takes extenders well.  With the 1.4x, it's nearly a match against 70-300L and it is a stop faster.  With the 2x, it's a little worse than the 100-400L, which is pretty good performance.

The 70-300L is the best choice for travel.  It's compact (shorter but fatter than the 70-200L f/4 IS), which makes it easier to pack in bags (vertically), and it easier to carry when the lens is locked at 70mm.  You lose a fractional stop at the same focal lengths to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but outside, it's usually not an issue.  Servo AF is not as good as the 70-200 II's.

If I could only have 1 lens out of the group, it'd the be 70-200L II.  IQ is good and it focuses well.  Only negatives are weight and price.  I started with the 70-200 II and brought it everywhere.  Later, I picked up a used 70-300L specifically for travel (great as a zoo lens), but I still use the 70-200L II more because it is better for sports, portraits and indoor work.

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2L II soft touch.
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:16:48 PM »
I´m going to sell my 24-70 2.8II, as I don´t use it too much, and I have 3 options for the money.

Option 1)
24-105mm f/4L IS
17-40mm f/4L

Option 2)
24-105mm f/4L IS
Sigma 12-24mm II (had it on Nikon mount and it is a good lens)

Option 3)
85mm 1.2L

I´m amateur and I love my 50mm 1.2L and 135mm 2L (both are the reason for little use of 24-70) (i´m starting to use Sigma 35 1.4A).

Emotion tells me to take 85mm 1.2L. Rationality tells me to take the option 1 or 2...

What would you do?

Option 3.  You have the best mid-range zoom and you still favor the primes, so I can't see how the 24-105 will be used much at all. 

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:57:07 AM »
I am asking myself the same thing. So I asked.
Not too many answers though.

Those answers are fairly representative for those that have kept the 50L.  It is true that the 50L does not outresolve the other EF 50mm AF options by a large/significant margin (see 50mm shootout article by LensRentals).  The reviews use MF/LV focusing, which does not take into account AF performance, which was a big negative of the Canon 50 f/1.4 I used.  The 50 f/1.4 AF was inconsistent wide open to about f/2.8.  It was accurate at f/2.8 but if I was using it stopped down so much, I'd opt for a 2.8 zoom.  The 50L is much more consistent, which is why people that shoot wide open a lot tend to drift toward the 50L.  It also does better on better AF Canon bodies (i.e. 5D III).  Are images softer at 100% than the 35L and 85L wide open?  Yes, but no 50mm EF optic is going to do better wide open (f/1.2 or f/1.4).  Are the colors and bokeh better?  Yes, the images look like L images and the bokeh is a bit smoother.

Is it worth it?  For most people, then answer is no.  It should not be a user's first fast L prime, and definitely not a user's first L lens.  The 24L II, 35L and 85L II are all more forgiving than the 50L.  It is not a good landscape lens (there are plenty of cheaper and sharper options).  It is not a good detail lens (not a good performer at MFD if it has been AFMA'ed at typical portrait distances).  However, it is a good portrait lens.

Lenses / Re: 135L + 1.4x extender IQ question
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:12:19 AM »
Used it a couple times, but it's not as good as a 70-200L II, so I only use it if I can't bring the 70-200.  Not having IS is more of a hindrance than the hit on AF speed because most of my situations tend to be dim and inside.

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 01:58:39 PM »
I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most.  Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking.  What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?

Did you use your 17-40 much at 17 and/or wish that it was even wider?  If not very often, skip the 14mm focal length.

Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 20, 2013, 10:28:53 AM »
It's funny I was searching for that data just the other day.

There used to be two core reasons for f1.2 lenses, light gathering, at which they always made huge image quality compromises, and very narrow depth of field. With modern iso capabilities the light gathering aspect has become less important, but the ultra narrow dof is as important as ever. Canon have always delighted in their lens selection and the speciality lenses have always been a key component of their lens system. I don't see the f 1.2's going anywhere, interesting that they have come out with a $5,000 CN-E 35 T1.5 before an EF 35mm f1.4 MkII.

Is the CN-E the same optical formula as the 35L (with focus breathing removed) or is it better?

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 10:23:19 AM »
According to TDP, the 14 has about 6 deg greater HFOV.  In practice, it feels a lot wider than 16 than the 2mm indicate.  The 14 is better optically than the 16-35:  sharper and less distortion.  I never liked the 16-35 much wide open.  It's soft (compared the the 14L, TS-E 17), and the bokeh is nervous wide open.  If you intend to shoot indoors, then every mm counts.  If you're outside and can move, then the focal length difference isn't that significant and the 14's advantage is allowing you to get closer and "magnify" or stress foreground features more.  I tend to use the 16-35 when travelling light, but if I'm bringing more gear, the 16-35 stays home in favor of the 14 and the 17.

I use the fisheye (defished), 14, 17 and 24mm to shoot houses depending on the size of the space.  Outside, the 17 is useful for large buildings, but I prefer the 24 for landscapes (especially for stitching).  First evaluate your 16-35 and determine whether or not you need to go wider, and as danski0224 suggested, try the 14 before buying it.  The 14 is expensive (I got mine used at a good price) and does suffer from CA (although I've had better corner performance experience with the 14 compared to defishing, unlike privatebydesign), and you might find that 16mm is sufficent for you.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS M This Week? [CR1]
« on: September 20, 2013, 07:51:06 AM »
yep. I would consider 3k USD/€ fair value for a very compact, FF-sensored EOS-M with better sensor, better IQ, better AF, more features (e.g. WiFi, GPS, EX-RT-controller, fully articulated LCD],  4k "retina" EVF and better ergonomics - compared to D800 and 5D III. :-)

Let's see... More features than a D800 and a 5D III and costs less than a 5D III.  Sure, I'd like that too.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 IS (Ver 1) used or 70-300 F4-5.6 IS L New
« on: September 18, 2013, 08:58:01 AM »
70-300L works really well outdoors, but if you go that route, then you might want to supplement it with a 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 or 135L for portraiture/indoor usage.

When buying used, check the corner for equal sharpness (centering), IS on/off if has IS, clean glass, etc.  Shoot it open and stopped down.  Do the rings work well, etc.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Back button and focus points 5diii
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:37:27 AM »
I don't focus/recompose unless I have to (subject is beyond the outer points).  For stills, I enable spot focusing and use a single point.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 85