Messages

511

Contests / Re: Blue Crane Digital Giveaway!

« on: May 27, 2011, 05:11:45 PM »

Home Science 101

Understanding the Canon Speedlite

512

Canon General / Re: Patent - EF 50 f/1.4

« on: May 26, 2011, 02:55:28 PM »

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.)

Ah! Makes sense. So in other words: we may be looking at the same 50 1.4 we enjoyed since the 70s with different coating - and hopefully better mechanical qualities.

I would love that and be willing to trade in mine for a premium.

513

Lenses / Re: EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

« on: May 26, 2011, 08:49:25 AM »

I don't get it. What would be attractive about this? Yes, I know that you can get away with f/4 in a lot of standard situations (still have my 24-105). And yes, IS kind of works as long as objects are static. But in a wide-angle zoom? And then another lens that is only f/4 but probably more expensive and bigger than the current 17-40?

Nah, I'll keep saving for the 16-35 or some wide angle prime.

514

Canon General / Re: Patent - EF 50 f/1.4

« on: May 25, 2011, 09:45:11 AM »

Any experts who are able to explain what the potential differences may be? To me this looks like the same design Canon had for the last 40 years - which I think is great by the way.

What is the thing marked as "Ggi 1"? And could it be that the lens element in the back is bigger?

So, anyway - what ever they'll do I hope it'll be better mechanically.

515

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame

« on: May 13, 2011, 02:25:26 PM »

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...

Exactly what I figured. I was actually tempted to get one of the MF 50mm lenses for my 5DII. Yes, the viewfinder is relatively bright and big. Does it compare to my 20-year-old A series cameras? Oh, heavens no. And as you describe it's not just the about changing the screen to some kind of split prism. So, AF has become more or less a necessity with those cameras. Still, I don't like that. But I fully understand that the vast majority of people wouldn't want a manual focus 5DII equivalent. And with current technology in use it doesn't seem you can have fully functional AF and MF at the same time.

516

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame

« on: May 13, 2011, 01:08:27 PM »

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.

Again, point taken. I grudgingly accepted that there is no way to avoid AF these days - at least in digital. So you are right, there are plenty of things that will break anyway. I only recently retired my FD system because the hassle and expense around film these days had just become ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I really like my 5DII and my lenses. 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.

517

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame

« on: May 13, 2011, 12:01:16 PM »

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.

I see your point and it totally depends on expectations and style. To me IS is just added cost and something that will eventually break. I've come to terms with the fact that stuff won't last as long as it used to - and that camera bodies are pretty much "disposable" parts now. I'm not quite willing to accept yet, however, that lenses are moving in the same direction. Given how expensive that stuff is I want something that is rugged and lasts for decades. Well, I'm probably dreaming given that AF already seems to have put an end to that. But since there is really no way around AF these days I at least try to avoid IS especially since I see no use for it. I was ok with shooting 200 or 500 mm with film without any of such gizmos. Now that we can boost ISO to ridiculous levels it's even less of an issue.

518

Lenses / +1

« on: May 13, 2011, 11:48:26 AM »

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

exactly.

519

Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2011, 09:31:46 AM »

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 think it is very compact as is. I wouldn't actually mind if it was slightly bigger without getting into the 50L territory. No, I did not win the lottery ;-) But I actually think and have said before that the current model is "too cheap". Again, I don't need an update as far as the optics go. They have served me well over the last 25 years or so. I'd like to see any extra cost go directly towards a very rugged barrel with inner focusing. IS doesn't make sense. I don't like it in general and certainly not on this lens.

What I don't get are the "complaints" that I see on the web lately where people think that the lens isn't "sharp enough" or doesn't have enough contrast etc. It still is one of Canon's best lenses I think. Even wide open it is very very good and more than useful. It's a shame that the EF version lives in this silly little plastic housing with the front element moving in and out and exposed to damaging the motor drive.

520

Lenses / Re: buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

« on: May 13, 2011, 09:22:20 AM »

Hi guys,

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!

Zoe

Hi Zoe,

If I understand you correctly your main focus would be live band photography - including those wide angle shots?

You already have the 50 1.4 which is excellent for that. Depending on budget I would maybe start with adding either the longer focal range or the wide angle range first. I'm really a prime person but I'm going to mention the 24-70 2.8L and the 16-35 2.8L zooms - which in my book are the only zooms worth owning, especially given your purpose. So you could do one of those and then add the 135L or even the 200 2.8L. I personally don't see any good reasons to own the very expensive 70-200 2.8L

And anything IS will not help you with what you're trying to achieve.

The 35L is certainly a great lens but I also find it to be the most boring focal range there is. The 24L would cover what you are describing but it's very much a one-trick-pony and it's a lot of money for that in my opinion.

521

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm on full frame

« on: May 13, 2011, 09:06:39 AM »

Hi,

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.

Cheers,

I think it depends on what you want to use it for. I personally would always prefer a fast prime over a zoom but there are obviously a lot of reasons to own and use either - or both. You already have an excellent all purpose zoom. The 135L will do things that your zoom can't do - or at least not that well. I wouldn't be overly concerned with "image quality" as that can get rather scientific and mostly irrelevant given how good really all those Canon lenses are.

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.

522

Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2011, 08:53:32 AM »

A new 50 1.4. would truly be good news. I wouldn't even want them to change the optical design. I like it as is. Just more sturdy and with internal focusing and I'll be happy to trade mine in. In other words: I'd be more than happy to shell out $600 or $700 on an EF version of my old FD 50 1.4 lenses...

523

Software & Accessories / Re: Radio in New Canon Flashes? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2011, 12:58:16 PM »

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.

Why? I'm perfectly happy with the universal AA batteries which I can buy at any gas station or convenience store anywhere in the world. And I don't have any BP whatever just lying around. I invested in a few batteries for my 5DII and wouldn't want to contribute to their early demise by using them in my flashes. I mean, really, we are looking here at the problems resulting from lacking international standards (radio frequencies) and you are advocating a proprietary battery solution for flashes as a replacement for what works everywhere and is cheap? And for more power there are already external battery packs.

And why $10-15 for AA per shoot? What's wrong with rechargeable AAs? 

524

Software & Accessories / Re: Radio in New Canon Flashes? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2011, 12:52:12 PM »

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.

I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not they license/buy PW technology. Even the Pocket Wizards come in different versions for different regions. And even then there there may be countries where it's technically illegal to sell and/or use them.

In any case I don't see how Canon would sell a flash with a built in wireless thingy in the US when they'd have to tell their customers that they could be in trouble when traveling to Paris or Melbourne with it. Maybe they could make it "multiband" like with cell phones? Seems like too much hassle for a camera company that wants to sell one version of a product world wide.

If it was just about putting in a few parts for 50 cents somebody would have done it already. For everything else we can thank our FCCs and their counterparts in the world for overregulating very basic local use of radio frequencies.

525

Software & Accessories / Re: Radio in New Canon Flashes? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2011, 09:18:45 AM »

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...

I agree. Given the quirky legal and regulatory issues around the world built in radio wireless systems seem pretty unlikely. As a musician I've been through this general problem a few times already. You buy wireless instrument transmitters or microphones and then you can't legally use them everywhere. And a few months later some regulatory body sells the frequency to some cell phone provider or new digital TV service and you end up with a rack full of electronic junk.

Maybe not as convenient but better to keep wireless systems separate from cameras and flashes. Updating the IR wireless system would still be a plus (more and all groups on the ST-E2, more individual control, other ratios method, better receivers in more places, etc)