April 20, 2014, 05:46:02 AM

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 - Stephen Melvin

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15
The silent mode looks pretty nifty, too.

But yeah, the vastly improved AF is the thing that has me most excited. Down to EV -2! That's impressive.

Lenses / Re: Canon 28 135 or 24 105
« on: March 16, 2012, 03:14:02 PM »
Alright so I have a Canon 28 135 that came with my 50D kit. I never used it too much due to it not being wide enough. I just got a Canon 5D mark II with the 24 105 lens though which means it's a much more useful range. My question is this, which should I stick with? I've tried selling the 28 135 and nobody seems to want to buy it for more than $220 when it's like a $350 lens. I'm mainly planning to use the lens for weddings and portrait sessions and so my thought with the 24 105 is that yes I know it's a better lens than 28 135 but I don't want to keep it and then ALSO end up buying the original 24 70. For a walk around lens I kind of like the 28 135 better as it's lighter easier to work with and I pretty much know the 24 105 isn't going to have a wide enough aperture for most wedddings. I think that's what I'm ultimately going to end up with but before I sell the 24 105 for $850 today I thought I'd get some opinions on whether it's really worth keeping the 24 105. Thanks.

Nobody wants to pay more than $220 for the 28-135 because they know it's only a $200 add-on as a kit lens. If you sell it for more than that, you're making a profit. That, plus it's very common and very old.

It's a competent enough lens, but the 24-105 is significantly better. You might find yourself missing the extra stop of aperture at 105mm, the more modern IS, and the much wider 24mm focal length. Not to mention the superior performance.

I've owned both lenses, and it was a no-brainer to sell the 28-135 and keep the 24-105.

Lenses / Re: Ultra-Wide-Angle (UWA) wishlist
« on: March 16, 2012, 02:18:51 PM »
The Canon 10-22 is by far my favorite lens on my IR-converted 400D Digital Rebel. It has no hotspot whatsoever, and it's a stellar performer.

My camera was modified by Lifepixel, using the standard AF adjustment. It works perfectly, as do my other lenses. My other primary IR lens is the Tamron 18-200, of all things. It's not as good as the 10-22, but it performs reasonably well, and it has no hot spot, oddly enough.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Auto Focus Question
« on: March 16, 2012, 01:15:48 AM »
Thanks for the nice explanation!

You're welcome.

The great news with this sensor is all of the f/4 sensitive cross points. I think this AF unit is going to be one of the best ever marketed by anybody. The D800's sensor is nothing but f/5.6 AF points, other than that single f/8 center point.

I think the new AF sensor sounds like one of the best ever, from anyone. But I've also considered that there might be a large bit of marketing hype here about 'more accurate' f/4 sensors vs. 'less accurate' f/5.6 sensors. Nikon seems to do fine in the accuracy department, with 'just f/5.6 sensors'.  The underlying assumption is that the density of the pixels in the line sensors are equivalent, but what if that's not true?   

It is possible, but after the 1D Mk III AF debacle, I'll bet Canon has put everything into this AF unit. They know this is their last chance to prove themselves.

Consider: the prior 1-series bodies starting with the 1DIII have many f/2.8-f/5.6 crosses (two lines with different baselines), but the center AF point is f/4-f/8.  Does that mean the center point - the one where you most want accuracy - is actually less accurate because of the 1-stop narrower baselines?  Canon says it's not, that it has the same accuracy at f/4 as the other points at f/2.8, because they use a sensor line with twice the density of pixels to compensate for the narrower baseline.  So, what if Nikon's AF systems use higher-density sensor lines for relatively greater accuracy at f/5.6 compared to Canon's f/5.6 lines?  I have no evidence that this is the case, just tossing it up for consideration, given that Canon has already played this card.

Well with the new sensor, the "X" points are only active at f/2.8. I think it's fair to say that it's designed to have the most accuracy with these center points.

Regardless, it is fair to say that this AF system is Canon's best to date - and even though I'm getting a 1D X, I'm really glad they're using the same AF sensor in the 5DIII as well, especially after my experience with the 5DII's AF.

I am, too. Frankly, it's much more efficient to spread that over a few million 5D's than 100,000 1D's. I never understood why they felt the need to develop completely different AF units for so many camera lines. At worst, why not give the lower lines last year's AF from the higher lines?

Lenses / Re: advice on lens for evening events
« on: March 16, 2012, 01:08:51 AM »
hi, so Ive been asked to do a quinceaneara i will be paid for it. i currently have 60D body, with 60mm f2.8 macro,  18-135 f3.5 and 70-300 L and going to be getting the ex 580 II or EX 600 flashes soon. i have been looking at another lens to ad before this for this kind of events this just little incentive. what would be a good lens to get? i was looking at the ef 35mm f2 and ef 85mm 1.8  any suggestions?

For event photography, the first thing you need to do is upgrade your core lens. In this case, there is an excellent option in the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

You should also get a backup camera body. Perhaps you can borrow one for this event. My 40D's mirror failed at a wedding reception in Cancun. Fortunately, I had my trusty 20D with me, so I could keep shooting.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Auto Focus Question
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:56:26 AM »
what about the 16-35 f2.8L II doesnt it zoom backwards too? does that mean it in the same boat?

Well I said my hypothesis as to precisely why is a guess, but in any case, it is all about the location of the exit pupil.

That doesn't mean AF will be any less accurate with these lenses. The f/4 points are all cross-type, and they'll likely actually be looking close to the f/2.8 exit pupil. In any case, the 16-35 is going to have a lot of DOF most of the time.

I really wouldn't worry about this with any of the mentioned lenses. Unless I was one of the 24 people who owns the 1200 f/5.6L and saw that only 33 AF points work at all. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: What does Sony know that we don't know?
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:48:31 AM »
It seems to me that Sony may be done with FF cameras of their own. But even if they're not, recall that they put the same 24mp sensor in their cameras as Nikon did in the D3x, but the Nikon has much higher image quality.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Auto Focus Question
« on: March 16, 2012, 12:45:38 AM »
While reading through the manual today I found it odd that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is classified as group B which gives it only a single dual cross-type AF point.

Can anyone explain why this and other f/2.8 lenses are put into group B and even group C (no dual cross-type)?


It has to do with the exit pupil location of these lenses.

AF sensors are all about angles, not the quantity of light. F/5.6 sensitive AF sensors have a 10 degree offset (two sensors "looking" at opposite edges of the lens circle from the back) and f/2.8 sensitive AF sensors have a 20 degree offset. With lenses such as macro lenses, the exit pupil moves farther away as it focuses close, putting the edge of the circle outside the view of the AF sensors. The sensor is "blind" to the image, so the camera has to switch to an f/4 or f/5.6 AF sensor.

Same thing with the 24-70, which has an unconventional backward zoom, with 24mm extending the lens and 70mm making it shorter. At least, that's my hypothesis with this lens. ;)

I suspect the 24-70 Mk II will be able to utilize these double cross points.

The great news with this sensor is all of the f/4 sensitive cross points. I think this AF unit is going to be one of the best ever marketed by anybody. The D800's sensor is nothing but f/5.6 AF points, other than that single f/8 center point.

EOS Bodies / Re: Megapixel wars: Where do we go from here?
« on: March 15, 2012, 07:03:20 PM »
Oh, resolution has quite a way to go. The 35mm format will support between 100 and 200mp. Seriously.

I'm old enough to remember when new CD players were sold on the basis of "oversampling." "2x oversampling" and "4x oversampling" were common stickers on CD players. Why? Fidelity.

We're nowhere near the point where the sensors are oversampling. Just wait until we start seeing all of the aliasing from the D800E, and you'll see that there's plenty of room to go. We're still using low pass filters on our cameras because they need them. Even the D800.

We'll reach the limit when we no longer need the low pass filter because diffraction supplies all of the anti-aliasing we need. At f/1.4, that's over 100mp.

Speaking of the D800, the low light performance of that camera ought to put to rest the myth that more megapixels decrease low light capability. It's clearly a match for the Mk III in that department.

There is no real reason not to keep increasing the resolution of our cameras.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 15, 2012, 06:51:15 PM »

    • Autofocus in video.  I'm not a videographer, and I don't make movies.  But I'm a dad and I take pictures of my kids' sports.  I don't have the skill or desire to learn to try and manually focus 7 yr olds playing soccer.  Sure, I can buy a video camera, but then I have to lug extra equipment around, and still have inferior glass to what I already have for my DSLR

    You may find that the autofocus in video will leave a lot to desire, it's nowhere near the level of camcorders.

    Exactly. Accurate video AF of a 24 x 36mm sensor is much, much harder than with a tiny camcorder sensor, with its infinite depth of field. [/list]

    Just read the manual of the 5D III, 1/250 as fastest time for auto iso is bloody stupid. Still usless for sport and action. Might be of use for weddings but that its. Why are they doing this to us?

    Not so useful for weddings, either. It automatically sets the ISO to 400 if a flash is attached and turned on, and maxes out at ISO 1600 if the flash head is set for bounce photography.

    I honestly don't know when the Auto-ISO function would actually be useful; the limitations Canon's put on it seem entirely arbitrary.


    The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.

    You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.
    Please help me understand this.
    So what you're saying is; 5D3 would outperform the D800 big time if the lighting conditions were the same, right? Well I mean, it has to be 'big time' to justify the 22MP sensor vs. the 36MP, right?

    That is not what I said. Reread what I wrote. I only said that you cannot make that kind of judgment based on the IR pictures.

    The 5DIII  has longer exposure times at all ISO's compared to the Nikon , whenever I use high ISO it's hand held in poor lighting & the slowest shutter speed I can get away with so in the real world under poor lighting the D800 is going is going to deliver sharper pictures.
    The biggest plus point for the 5DIII seems to be smaller file sizes if you have an old computer & slightly faster frame rate.
    Big plus points for the D800  resolution & dynamic range & price.

    Both look to be great cameras but I'm amazed by the image quality of the D800 at base ISO which I use the most.

    The 5D III has longer exposure times because the lighting is different. Look at the reflections of the lights in the bottles; you can see that one of the lights is much dimmer in the 5D shots than it is in the D800 shots. The shadows bear this out, too.

    You cannot make any judgment about the relative ISO sensitivity of the two cameras based on these photographs.


    Canon lens prices seem to be well more expensive that their Nnikon counterparts if you just look at the newer models like the 70-200,, f/2.8 MK II, and the 24-105mm L.  The 200-400mm L with its built-in TC is going to make the $7500 of the nikon 200-400mm Zoom look like peanuts.

    The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is the same price or cheaper than the VR II Nikkor. (It's currently $100 cheaper.)

    The 24-105 f/4L IS USM is much cheaper than the 24-120 VR II Nikkor, and the Nikkor isn't as good. (The Canon is currently $200 cheaper at B&H.)

    The 24 f/1.4L II is $600 cheaper than the 24G Nikkor, and it's a better lens.

    So prices are getting pretty much the same.  However, Nikons reputation for service, and now their refusing to sell parts to small local dealers is user unfriendly to a extreme.

    No wonder Canon seems so confident about raising prices.  I'm going to give the 5D MK III a good trial, I think it will be the right one for me, but some of the features on the Nikon bodies look very nice.  If it weren't for the poor support and the unnecessary 36mp, I might be pretty convinced.

    Yeah, I'm with you. Also, in this area, Canons outnumber Nikons at least 10-to-1 in professional hands. I shoot a lot of events, and I almost never see Nikons. Last fashion show I shot, I saw one entry-level Nikon and one D300. Saw about a dozen 5D Mk II's plus various other Canons. I was a little surprised to seen any Nikons at all.

    My point being, we lend each other equipment from time to time. If I wanted a piece of Nikon gear, I'd have to rent or buy it.

    Well this is pretty much all I needed to see. Apparently I'm about to become a Nikon-shooter.

    The only thing I will really miss is my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I have heard that Nikon's version is equal in IQ.

    It is, but there are a couple of usability issues with the Nikkor vs the "L." First is the focus breathing issue. At minimum focusing distance, the Nikkor has the angle of view of a 135mm lens. The difference is very noticeable.

    The "L" behaves a bit more like a unit-focusing lens in this regard. Such dramatic focus breathing in a $2,500 lens is unacceptable to me.

    And the Nikkor's lens hood is very poorly designed. You cannot set your lens down on the hood, like you can with the Canon.

    I was briefly considering a move, too. Between the cost (nearly all of Nikon's professional lenses are more expensive than Canon's) and the issues with this lens and the 24G, in comparison to the equivalent "L's," quickly put that thinking to an end.

    Not to mention having to learn a completely different user interface, Nikon's poorer reputation for customer service, etc.

    Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15