Home Science 101
Understanding the Canon Speedlite
Understanding the Canon Speedlite
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.
What is the thing marked as "Ggi 1"?... So, anyway - what ever they'll do I hope it'll be better mechanically.
An optical element Ggi1 includes a medium that has a refractive index distribution. This optical element satisfies conditions of:
|θF(pmax)−θgF(pmin)|≧0.02, |ΔθgFgi(p1)|≧0.0272, Δθgdgi(p1)|≧0.0250, and |θgFgi(pmaxgi)−θgFgi(pmingi)|≦0.1.
Even if it's not mechanically better, it'll be mathematically better.
(Translation: Ggi1 is what the marketing department calls subwavelength structure coating.)
And there are some actual improvements coming with the modern era that are quite useful. Others not so much in my book - but can't be avoided. AF and IS are two of them.
In some ways, AF is almost a necessity. Not on the 5DII, but on the 7D - the 'advanced' transmissive LCD means the focusing screen is not user-replaceable (although it is on the 'even-more-advanced' 60D), and like the stock focusing screens in all current cameras, it's microetched to make it brighter (for happier users of 'slow' consumer lenses). The unfortunate consequence is that in the viewfinder, you don't see the true DoF of lenses faster than f/2.8 - and seeing the DoF of f/2.8 when shooting at f/1.2 or f/1.4 makes it much more difficult to achieve accurate manual focus. Ahhh progress...
Added cost makes perfect sense as a justification for not wanting IS. I think the IS system is no more likely to break than other components in a lens, and while it's true that one more set of components is another set potential failure points, the same is true of autofocus, automatic apertures, etc. IS in a lens, especially in a telephoto lens, helps. I shot film in the days before autofocus lenses, too. It doesn't mean I want to give up AF, any more than I'd want to give up other tecnhological conveniences of the modern era.
I don't own (yet) the 135 but it's in many ways very similar to my 200 2.8LII which I bought instead of a 70-200 zoom. I actually consider the fact that these lenses don't have IS a significant plus.
I'm curious as to why?
For example, involuntary motion in a posing subject can be stopped by a 1/30-1/60 shutter speed, but the 135L requires twice that (and the 200/2.8 three times that) to avoid camera shake - thus, IS would potentially be a significant benefit.
In lens pairs where there are IS and non-IS versions available, the IS version is less than 10% heavier, and there's no negative impact on IQ (with the exception of the original 70-200/2.8L IS). In fact, for the current versions of lens pairs with and without IS, the lenses with IS (70-200/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, and 100L IS) offer better IQ than the non-IS versions.
So, the only downside to IS that I can see is the higher cost of the lens.
Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).
f/1.4 is still plenty thin, and IS would just add cost, mass, and would be something else to break. Subject motion dominates anyway
It's quite hard to justify $700 for 50/1.4 if it's just a minor upgrade of the old model. For that price, it'd better be a lot better (doubtful), have something more (like IS) or be significantly more compact (very unlikely). Of course the lottery winners among us might go for that even if they just added red "L" ring to it and nothing more.
I am just about to purchase the 5DII, as currently I use a 550d but I want to move into the professional arena and move into full frame with better ISO handling. Waiting for the III doesnt seem like an option now that there are delays so I'm going to go for it and get the II.
Lens wise I have the 50 1.4 which I love but sometimes the length comes up short in clubs when I just cant get any nearer the bands for instance. I also take photos of interiors in restaurants/bars but I need something a little wider to capture some of these small rooms.
Budget wise I'm trying to work out whether it is worth just going for the L lens and biting the bullet with regards to cost as these will take me through many years, but I just dont know for sure which ones are best for what I need! Would the 34mm 1.4 be wide enough in say a 20-30ft room where I want to get the whole scene in? Or should I go for the 24mm? Same issue with the other end...is the difference between the 50mm to 85mm enough or should I push to 135mm? It's hard as I have no camera shops nearby which have these lenses so I'm trying to work out what is best!
Thanks in advance for any help!
Just a quick question. Is the image quality out of a 135mm f2 significantly better than the 70-200 f4l is? I have the latter and am not sure whether it makes sense to get the 135 mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4 Sigma.
To me, for what I use my flashes for, what I would like to see are universal canon rechargeable batteries for the flashes... Use the outdated BP-511's we all have from our older cameras and have several laying around, and make the flashes compatible with those batteries, or even the new batteries for the 7D/5D mII. It would encourage the purchase of more of THEIR BATTERIES, be rechargeable, and encourage their branding than plunking $10-15 on a new pack of AA's every few shoots... That would be a change I would upgrade my flashes for.
Wifi and Bluetooth have been problematic in the past for quick time critical information flow - flash sync speed.
Though the frequencies themselves might be used at low powers.
Other options are multiband radio's like you get in mobile phones to work in many locations - or mayebe even plug-in radio card's for different regions.
But if they licenced PW technology then the camera could have a PW transmitter fitted and the flash could be the receiver - or vis versa in mew bodies or with the new ST-E2.
Canon have always said that they would not want to produce a piece of kit that could not be used all over the world. The issue with radio triggered flash is that the frequencies used in the USA and Europe are very different - US Pocket Wizards are illegal in the UK and most of Europe which would make this wonderful idea very tricky to actually implement.
For the record, I hope that it is true but the technical and regulatory difficulties mean that it could just be wishful thinking.
A new and much better version of the ST-E2 is more likely, sadly...