July 29, 2014, 03:39:35 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 43
451
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Explaining Canon's "Pro Level AF"
« on: February 13, 2012, 04:45:00 PM »
Not to hijack this but I'm curious about this point. How much light are we actually losing in the viewfinder due to this setup?


Very little.  Consider - the whole main mirror is not semi-transparent, only certain areas allow some light to pass through vs. being reflected.  Yet, when you look at an evenly illuminated white wall or clear blue sky, you don't see light and dark areas corresponding to the parts of the main mirror that pass light.  So, probably less than 2-3% of the total light, and only in select areas, is 'lost'.


Thanks for clarifying this. I was under the impression that the entire mirror was semi-transparent and that this were the explanation why the viewfinders of modern AF cameras are noticeably darker than old 35mm cameras from the pre-EOS times. And they seem to be smaller, even on full frame. 2-3% light loss and and limitation of the semi-transparency to small areas doesn't really explain this.



I found this comparison here:

http://snapsort.com/learn/viewfinder-size

Interesting that the 1DsIII viewfinder is so much bigger. Is this true? And why is this?

452
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Explaining Canon's "Pro Level AF"
« on: February 13, 2012, 04:36:15 PM »
Not to hijack this but I'm curious about this point. How much light are we actually losing in the viewfinder due to this setup?

Very little.  Consider - the whole main mirror is not semi-transparent, only certain areas allow some light to pass through vs. being reflected.  Yet, when you look at an evenly illuminated white wall or clear blue sky, you don't see light and dark areas corresponding to the parts of the main mirror that pass light.  So, probably less than 2-3% of the total light, and only in select areas, is 'lost'.

Thanks for clarifying this. I was under the impression that the entire mirror was semi-transparent and that this were the explanation why the viewfinders of modern AF cameras are noticeably darker than old 35mm cameras from the pre-EOS times. And they seem to be smaller, even on full frame. 2-3% light loss and and limitation of the semi-transparency to small areas doesn't really explain this.

 

453
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Explaining Canon's "Pro Level AF"
« on: February 13, 2012, 03:35:33 PM »

 
  • Size of the secondary mirror. Light for AF passes through the semi-transparent part of the main mirror (most is reflected up to the viewfinder), then is reflected off the secondary mirror down to the AF sensor. There is limited space behind the main mirror, based on the necessary geometry (i.e. the main mirror has to be at a 45° angle to the incoming light, and the secondary mirror has to be behind the main mirror and at an angle of 90° to the main mirror, so it's length is limited by the distance between the main mirror and the image sensor).
  • Distortion. With many lenses, the edges of the frame are subject to distortion (barrel/pincushion), and that reduces the accuracy of phase detect AF.

Not to hijack this but I'm curious about this point. How much light are we actually losing in the viewfinder due to this setup? I'm still wondering if anyone has ever tried to change the mirror to a non-transparent one and customize, e.g., a 5DII to be better suited for full-time manual focus - while maintaining the camera's ability to meter correctly.[/list]

454
Lenses / Re: 24-105mm vs 17-40mm on crop
« on: February 13, 2012, 09:05:57 AM »
I currently own the 18-200mm, 18-55mm IS II, and the 50mm 1.8.
The body I'm using is a 450D, but I plan to upgrade to a 60D or wait for the 70D
My question is, which one would complement my current set of lenses the most?
I chose these 2 because they were in my budget, and obviously, I wanted L......

I shoot events, sports, streets, presentations, trips, etc.


It's a matter of taste and your specific needs. If you ask me: neither of them. And this is one of the reasons I did not buy a 7D and went full-frame instead. f/4 on crop doesn't leave enough options for shallow DOF in my book. So with a crop camera I would have wanted the 24-70 for the zoom and the rest primes (kind of where I'm going anyway but that's a different story). So the savings in the end are marginal. I've never used the 17-40 and it doesn't appeal to me. I have the 24-105. It's pretty good and the range is useful but I'm not thrilled about the f/4 and don't like IS.

I'd go find a 24-70 while they're still available. It's roughly the equivalent of 35-100 and at 2.8 should be quite versatile even on crop.

455
I'm glad someone else finally came back to the Lenovo W-series laptops. Bought primarily for tethered shooting, mine has a 1920x1080 higher-gamut screen. No. I don't have color science-based comparison for this unit (I have a w520) but I can see colors on this screen that my last laptop and other current units won't show. I plan to calibrate it.

I posted again because some of the mentions about Lenovo laptop suitability referenced older units or an  inappropriate series of machine. The W-series has CUDA core discrete graphics cards. The W also allows a small SSD on its internal PCI slot on which the user loads the OS and the key programs. Then you still have your "normal" HD for lots of storage and scratch disk. I swapped the supplied 500 for a Hitachi 750. These little SSDs are called "mSATA" drives. Look it up. Great combination. There are 4 RAM slots that allow up to 16Gig.

The screen is wonderful.

jonathan7007


Thanks for posting this. I have to look into those. I just looked at Mac Book pros again and also at the Dell XPS series. Somebody recently mentioned to me that part of the problem with the decreasing effective resolution is that most mass market screens are now geared towards "high def" TV so a lot of the stuff that used to be available is going away. Plus the Mac Books are just to big I find. The 13" might be ok but then their screens are horrid I find.

456
EOS Bodies / Re: The Price of Full Frame
« on: February 10, 2012, 04:04:58 PM »
Just read the rumour about the 5 Series split. I was wondering, with the D800 announced and priced ($3-$3,5k body) and Canon bound to respond within this same spec and price range (it seems for both), where does this leave average photographers - whether enthusiast or pure amateur/hobbyist.

I am almost certain there are more casual (even pro's) photographers out there that are PRICE sensitive rather than SPEC sensitive.  In the film days, full frame cameras were truly available in all shapes, sizes and prices. 

Being a 60D user, I regularly contemplate my upgrade path. The 7D is a very specific cam - well sealed & sports level AF. And FF appears to be that next step in IQ, low noise and DOF control everyone raves about.

What I would like to see is a rebel FF body - Call it a 6D or whatever:
- 1DX Sensor - this will give Canon another body to get volumes up on the sensor
- Upcoming 70D body and Movie features - another re-use
- Current 7D AF - paid off tech

Priced at at under $2k body only.  I can then either use F4 "L" zooms or 3rd Party lenses, with a non-L primes for low light (seeing that the new 24-70 is another price shocker).

Outside of 7D users, I guess most APS-C users are also not too heavily invested in glass, and if so, I suppose some of that is crop body specific in any case. So moving to full frame is not really "switching systems" for most APS-C users. So from where I am sitting a low cost FF body might just steal some other brand customer to Canon also.

Yes the 5D mark II will be available soon second hand, but Canon doesn't make any money from that.

Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?


What about the price trend? Sure, cameras that are on par with what used to be very affordable 35mm film bodies and matching lenses are still expensive. And even that is relative. When the Canon A-1 came out (and I would say that is a fair comparison to, say, a 5DII) it was about $600 with the FD 50 1.4. In today's money that is about $2000.

And good digital SLRs that match that kind of quality are still relatively new. I never jumped onto the DSLR wagon because I could not see myself spending 6 or $7000 on a full frame camera when they were first available. And I simply never wanted a crop camera for a number of reasons. Now prices have actually come down and people who want the digital equivalent of an A1 or whatever can have that (and then some of course). Sure, it was nice when amateurs could actually get a used simple SLR and essentially get the same outcome as from a much more expensive pro model (lenses and skill set aside).

Eventually you may get "full frame" in cheaper and smaller cameras. But that may take a while - simply for marketing reasons. Once Fuji or Samsung or any of those guys come out with an affordable 35mm sensor camera (range finder or SLR) with exchangeable lenses things might change. At the moment you only get this at the 2000+ level - which, again, is quite an improvement of where things were 5 years ago or so.

As far as the cravings: not sure. Depends on where things are going. AF points, higher ISO etc will personally not phase me since I have little use for, especially while the gizillion of AF points are still being located around the center. Higher resolution? Sure, why not - though I'm still unclear of what you can do with it other then crop more. Printing technology is still stuck in the 8MP range somewhere unless you print really big. So it's kind of pointless.

457
Lighting / Re: I Need a Flash
« on: February 10, 2012, 02:51:56 PM »
A few options here without giving up future compatibly within wireless and E-TTL and High Speed Sync:

a) just get a used 580EXII once you can afford it
b) look for the previous model (580EX or maybe even 550EX)
c) same as above for the 430EX series - it's a good flash for most uses, can later serve as a slave; only difference: can't be a Master and the buttons are not as nice as on the 580. I find the exposures actually to be a little more consistent than on my 580.
d) almost exactly the same functionality as the 580EXII but a little cheaper: Metz 58-AF2.

The Metz even has a few little features that are better while maintaining all key important elements (ETTL, HSS, Master and Slave option, etc), e.g the charge confirm beep and that it can be put in a special "group" as the master other than group A. The reason why I decided to buy a 580 instead (even though I've otherwise been a long-time Metz user): the build quality of the Canon appears a little better - but I'm still thinking about adding one of those. Some people don't like the menu - but then again the Canon menu is not very lovable either, is it?

 

458
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:58:41 PM »

And Canon has a fast, reliable, dual CF-slot, full frame camera, it is the 1D X. Get that, save up, get a used one 1Ds?

I bought a 1Ds3 as a tactical purchase until the 1DX is a reasonable price. A cracking buy - better IQ than a 5D2, better AF than a 7D, low noise up to its max of iso3200.

It is my walkabout camera now - very good it has proved to be!!

Here is a candid of a young lady I met in a cafe,

natural light, iso3200, f/5.6, 1/60, 70-200II@168


That's what I would do if I had the money right now. Frankly, I'm still not clear what might be attractive about the 1Dx over the 1DsIII. And yes, if I was now where I was 18 months ago when I was starting all over from scratch when going digital I would have a very close look at the D800e. No anti-aliasing filter in combination with higher resolution seems pretty interesting. Again, in general I'm quite happy with my 5DII and I see the appeal of the 1DsIII of course. But I'm just saying. A different filter and sensor approach seems to be the way to go. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that also part of the reason why the Leica M9 produces such stunning sharp results?

459
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L vs. 135 L in terms of focal length
« on: February 09, 2012, 08:56:19 AM »
What I find to be a good starting point with that is to go to flickr and search for samples or even groups that show the results from specific lens/camera combos. Sure, that can be a little misleading since the results of the higher grade lenses/cameras may be slightly skewed since people who spend that much money on their gear are probably a little more serious and picky about their results - and might well be able to produce equally good results with "lesser" gear (and a lot do by the way). But to get a general sense of what portraits look like with a 135L vs one of the 85mm lenses it's a good starting point I think. And then you could go rent them for a weekend and see for yourself.

I think both focal lengths are obviously very nice for portraits and it comes down to style and taste what you prefer - or want to buy first ;-)

I personally am perfectly happy with my 135L, and any of the 85mm lenses are somewhat lower on my list of things I'd like to get over time. Many people will probably feel the exact opposite.

460
Lenses / Re: Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II
« on: February 08, 2012, 05:02:24 PM »
How about: i plan to buy it when the price comes down a bit, and IS isn't really necessary for this type of lens.

That is fine, and looking at the polls you will be one of the 6% who don't need IS.

I'm always happy to be the 1%   :D

461
Lenses / Re: Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II
« on: February 08, 2012, 11:10:53 AM »
To add one more more option if I may:

I pass because given that it has more glass but is lighter is an indicator that it is yet another hunk of plastic that I'm not willing to shell out $2000 for. I'll try to pick up the original version while it's still available or keep my flimsy 24-105.

462
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced
« on: February 07, 2012, 08:54:51 PM »
You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...

Amen to that.
How much fun would it be if the guts of a GX1 were put into the F1n body with an EF mount. Yeh I know it's as likely as me getting my youth back....

I've got my FD glass on a 500D at the moment with confirm manual focus, works pretty well you should try that. Only thing I've found is that the 200 f2.8 is very diffucult to use hand held, used to be able to but combined with crop factor I really need IS nowadays

Ah well, we can dream, can't we? I want my 5DII sensor in a F1n or AE-1p body. Or alternatively a way to convert my 5DII to full-time manual focus with an AE1-p viewfinder and made-in-Germany Zeiss lenses...

The problem is that a majority of folks don't even understand what we are after with this - and what has been lost. I really should put a darkroom in the basement...


463
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced
« on: February 07, 2012, 04:29:32 PM »
canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.

What do you mean lost?  Do you mean they aren't making everything that you want them to make?

Let's be honest, the old school canon people obviously care more about straight photography and not much about video.  If canon only catered to people like you then they would be lost.  Let's look at other companies that decided to not progress with the market's demands:

Every single US automaker - people have been buying big trucks for years, so let's keep doing that and screw these babyman eco battery cars...

RIM - touch phones are toys...

Kodak - digital will never catch on...

Borders - people only want paper books...

The list can go on.


I'm sorry to say it, but video is the future.  I want photography first, and it seems like you do also, but we are not the majority.  And who cares if they incorporate video into their amazing dslrs, and who cares if they make lenses that work great for video and stills?

People saying canon is lost, and they are just screwing everyone don't really know what they are talking about.  They might be screwing a few people, but if they just made stuff that you wanted they wouldnt even stay in the dslr business.


You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...

464
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced
« on: February 07, 2012, 09:54:41 AM »
Global marketplaces call for global manufacturing and distribution. Would alleviate some of these yen problems the Japanese have been suffering through for god knows how many years.

They will figure out when actual demand for this lens is much lower than the pent up demand would otherwise predict that they don't know how to price a lens for a pro market.

Is it just me (and I am mad, so I'll be the first to admit I'm being emotional, but this emotion has been building for years, believe me) or is this company completely out of step? Can't deliver lenses announced over a year and a half ago. Can't get regular releases on their cameras. Can't price lens upgrades at less than an ~80% premium over their replacement's price. No answer to the Nikon 800D. Odd lens upgrades. Blaming woes on the Yen. Who wouldn't be fed up?



For those who are wondering about this new pricing, it is due to the very weak USD and Euro against the strong Japanese Yen in recent years.
The price of this new 24-70L II is actually almost the same as the current 24-70L in Yen on the website of Canon Japan (current 24-70L is 220,000 yen and new 24-70L II is 230,000 yen). The prices of many Canon products are based on Yen. Back in 2002 when Canon released the current 24-70L, 1 USD was 125 yen but today 1 USD is worth only 75 yen.


I'm pro trade and for open markets. BUT - there are certain things that I don't want quite yet from China. I want my cameras from Japan or Germany. I want my guitars made in America. And in comparison to what my friends in Europa are paying for their cameras we're still looking good here.
What I find more disappointing is the obvious fact that they are asking for a premium on what is obviously a lens that has even more plastic in it. I miss the feel and precision of my FD lenses...


465
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced
« on: February 07, 2012, 09:27:50 AM »
This is very disappointing. And now my window of opportunity is starting to close down on getting an original 24-70. And with the ridiculous price tag I don't see prices for the original go down. In fact, I see a potential that prices may go up once people realize what we might be looking at here: yet another cheapened plastic lens build to increase profit margins.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 43