Messages

1831

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 18, 2012, 11:11:05 AM »

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG.  The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down.  It is sharp wide open.  I'm in agreement with you on this one.

The 1.4 Canon is a good lens. The 50L though, is a Great lens.

Maybe I've never seen the famous focus shift because I can see the DOF with the EG-S screen on my 5Dc. It just works at all apertures and when I hit the DOF preview, It still perfectly in-focus where it landed. Its never been an problem on my copy stamped 2010.

The only downfall I see in the 50L is price and weight.

1832

Lenses / Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8

« on: July 18, 2012, 11:02:20 AM »

The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

1833

Site Information / Re: So stupid but still so funny :)

« on: July 17, 2012, 06:00:54 PM »

Lolz.

1834

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 04:13:22 PM »

All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).

Funny you. How about focus consistency (and a fix for the focus shift problem)?

The 50L also lack sharpness when shot wide open, at least if you compare it to the wide open sharpness of other L primes.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

Sorry to break your illusion, but all 50L's are suffering from focus shift, even yours.. And no, it is far from sharp enough at f/1.2.

35L, 85L and 135L kills it in terms of wide open sharpness.

Eat your heart out goodness! Never seen the shift! 50L forever.

1835

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:18:09 PM »

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

1836

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

« on: July 17, 2012, 12:47:19 PM »

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA!  sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now.  With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful.  I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds.  An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark.  This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide.  I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

I've already done it. Works fine for me.

1837

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:54:02 AM »

You know I was thinking, since I've become such a 50mm junkie, just because I might get the macro lens, to have 4 of the lenses.  However, I don't think I have the wallet to buy the f/1.0L!  I saw a copy on ebay for $4999!

At one time I was considering buy a Canon 7 With the dream machine 50mm F/0.95 off evil bay. Its so awesome.

1838

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:51:23 AM »

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.

I respect your opinion. Yes, I have pushed the 7D Hard. Its not an issue for me but you may not like the IQ and that's understandable.

As for sensor tech, I'd be shooting MF Film if DSLRs weren't around. If MF format wasnt around, I'd be shooting Large format. If Large format wasn't around, I'd be a painter.

1839

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:32:11 AM »

7,748 and counting... (based on 5/1/1991 release of Kodak DCS 100).

You may have missed the entry level part.

Well the DCS WAS ENTRY LEVEL. (The only level infact)

1840

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:25:41 AM »

50mm 1.2 > 50mm 1.4 > 50mm 1.8 

$1499 > $369 > $119   

Fastest > Faster > Fast 

1841

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:17:28 AM »

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

Henri Cartier bressons documentary work was done with a limited DR but that didn't stop him right? He delivered some great work that many admire which I am one of. Being grounded in this, So what if nikons have a tiny edge in DR? Give me a camera and I'll get something out of it.

Now Lens selection has more weight to me than any body ever will. Canon has a better prime selection, so I shoot canon. Pretty straight forward.

1842

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:28:40 AM »

Canon sensors would be fine if there weren't suffering from banding.

Just make a simple test.

Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)

apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
see what happens.

detail in 5D mark3 will just collapse and they want 3.600 euros for that? they won't gonna get it!

like someone said above, 5D 3 over 5D 2 is not as much as revolutionary as D800 over D700.

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

1843

Lenses / Re: New Lends

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:26:12 AM »

If you want to dabble in canon primes, there is alot of choices. I'd get these first to see if you want to invest in primes.

28mm F/1.8
50mm F/1.4
100mm f/2

If you like these primes then great, no need to upgrade but if you dont, There is the L versions of this setup

24/35mm 1.4L's
50mm 1.2L
135mm f/2L

I own three awesome primes and haven't seen a need for any new glass since. Just awesome.

1844

Portrait / Re: What did I do wrong?

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:22:19 AM »

Too shallow DOF. I'd probably Use F/2.8.

1845

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:20:15 AM »

50mm 1.2 > 50mm 1.4 > 50mm 1.8