July 24, 2014, 09:45:51 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 - DigitalDivide

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:28:33 PM »
But you are right, I'll give the C41 a try for my 4x5, I'll buy a box of Ektar as well as a Portra 160 to compare. My fear is with Kodak on the bad slope, these films will likely disappear as well.

symmar22, if you wouldn't mind posting your experiences with the above it seems there are at least a few here who would be interested.  :)

I understand your view on Fuji chomes, it is a very subjective thing and everyone has their own favorites.  One of the great things about film is the ability to match a particular formula to your subject.  I suppose it must be possible to do something similar for digital with post-processing, but I'm just starting out and haven't tried messing with any of my shots yet.

As films gradually get phased out the number of options will decrease, and that will be a shame.  I'm actually rather pleased to see how many choices are still available for MF, as I have decided to stick to that format for my film shots.  Digital does what I need it to do for 35mm and will become my workhorse, and I'll break out the MF equipment when I feel like doing something different.

I've had a Bronica ETRSi for a long time, and it has now been joined by a mint GS-1 and a decent Pentax 67.  I'd like to add a nice rangefinder option and perhaps a TLR at some point.  The crazy Fuji GX680 appeals too, as does the oddball Noblex.  So many cameras, so little time... ;D

32
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise
« on: November 15, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »
Now the EPP (for the 4x5) and the E100G for small format has gone, there's not much left for me. I can deal with the Velvia 50, but it's a bit over-saturated for my taste.

Have you tried Provia 100F?  B&H has it in 4x5 sheets.  I've used it in 35mm format and find it to be a good landscape and general purpose film.  Definitely less saturated than Velvia.  I haven't seen Velvia in sheet form recently, can you still get it?

33
I am totally convinced that everyone on this forum is incapable of understanding humor/sarcasm.  I would suggest going out sometime.  The social experience is invaluable.

On the contrary, I'm sure most of us understand sarcasm just fine, and many even embrace it :D  Reading minds, and inferring the precise intent of a written post, eludes me, however.  Had I assumed you were being sarcastic when in fact you were not, you might quite rightly have taken offense.  I generally find it better to take statements at face value unless I have good reason to do otherwise.  On the rare occasions on which I am forced to leave my basement, that is... ::)

34
Answer:  Because none of our cameras have the sensor of the D800.  We will never have a camera as good as the D800.

You really think so?  That would imply Canon has decided their current range of sensors is perfect and no improvement is possible or necessary.  That seems highly unlikely to me.  Canon's sensors were way ahead of anything Nikon had for years, so you could have said the same thing about Nikon until their recent models came out.

Nikon may have leapfrogged Canon for now and caught them napping, but I doubt the Canon execs are saying, Oh well, they beat us - time to throw in the towel and give up our multi-million dollar business.  The apparent sightings of a high MP Canon in the field, supposedly sporting advanced new sensor technology, would seem to bear that out.

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise
« on: November 12, 2012, 12:42:04 PM »
I too hope that film will continue to be available for many years to come.  I only just made the switch to digital early this year with my "serious" camera (although I've had digital PS cameras for a while).  So the experience of film is still very fresh in my mind.  I must really miss it apparently, since I've bought two antique film cameras in the last few months.  Both are 6x7 medium format, which in my opinion represents the pinicle of (relatively) portable film cameras, and they are so cheap now that even most professionals have moved over to digital.

My family also has very recent experience of my slide shows, something I think digital has yet to fully replace.  With an old but decent projector I can display huge high resolution images in my living room, whereas with digital I am currently limited to a 27 inch monitor which cost several times the slide projector's price yet is tiny by comparison.  Affordable digital projectors just don't have the required resolution from what I've seen.  My teenage daughter is unusual therefore in having seen film in action, and indeed has used it herself extensively.  Although she now has a T3i, she is still interested in film and is planning to take one of the few darkroom photography classes still available.

I waited this long to make the switch partly because it took me a while to accept that digital was really a viable replacement for film in terms of IQ and resolution, and partly because I didn't want a crop body; the 5DII price finally dropped to the point where I considered it affordable.  I'm very happy with the 5DII and will continue to use it as my main camera, but I also plan to haul out one of the film cameras from time to time when I feel like doing something different.  Especially with large medium format cameras, photography becomes a slower and more reflective art for me.  Rather than pointing the camera at anything that catches my eye, I have to really think about the image I'm trying to capture.  I know there is nothing stopping me from doing this with my DSLR too, but the film setups inherently impose more discipline.  This makes them unsuited to sports and wildlife subjects, but I think of it as an advantage for landscapes.

Film is still readily available even in 120 roll format, although the range of choices is shrinking.  At any sign of that changing I will likely order a large bulk shipment and freeze it for my future needs.  But my hope is that it will remain available to those who appreciate its qualities.  I expect the price will climb as the volume drops, and the most likely outcome to me is that high quality film will continue while any cheap stuff that remains (Wallmart film as sandymandy mentioned) will be discontinued.  Low-end digital is so inexpensive now that there really is no need even for the cheapest disposable cams, and film will be produced in low quantities to satisy conoseurs and weirdos like me... :D


36
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 27, 2012, 02:19:43 PM »
A new 400 f/4 would seem to me to be a replacement for the largely unloved 400 f/4 DO, which sells for a little over $6K in the US.  It would make sense to price it at somewhat more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but not too much more or they might lose sales to the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC.

The 400 would likely appeal to those who need the reach, don't like the IQ of the old DO model, and can't afford the 400 f/2.8.  Those who need the flexibility of a zoom and built in TC would go for the 200-400, but for ultimate IQ the 400 f/4 will most likely deliver in the way that the other recent big white updates have.

This would mean there is still a need for a 400 f/5.6 replacement, finally with IS.  If they could deliver that for under $2K I would think it would be a big seller.  Currently there is a huge gap between relatively affordable prosumer teles like the 300 f/4 and the cheapest serious pro models.  The aging 100-400L and 400 f/5.6 are the only options if you need more than 300mm, unless you slap a 1.4xTC on the 300 (as I do).  A 400 f/5.6 with the latet IS and high IQ would be a nice option, especially if used on APS-C for more reach.

37
Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?
« on: September 26, 2012, 02:44:39 PM »
What about KEH?  I have had only positive experiences both buying and selling used gear with them.  Their buyers visit cities around the US from time to time, so it may be worth checking if they will be coming to your area anytime soon.

I attended one of these sessions, and they surprised me by offering more than I expected for the items I brought - more even than their automated website valuation tool quoted.  Of course they have to make a profit so they will turn around and sell for more than they paid me, but I was very happy with their valuation.  They pay in cash on the spot, so there is zero risk and you always have the option to say no if you think you can do better elsewhere.

The gear I sold was all old Bronica MF stuff in very good condition, mostly ETRSi E or EII lenses that I was upgrading to the PE series for those that know this manufacturer.  I'm not sure how their valuations for recent Canon equipment would stack up against CL or fleaBay, but if they set up shop close by it certainly is convenient.

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark II eyepiece
« on: September 24, 2012, 12:01:35 AM »
They have a fix!

The EP-EX15-II will reduce magnification, and provide a longer relief, and (help) keep your nose off the screen.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/547886-REG/Canon_3069B001_EP_EX15_II_Eyepiece_Extender.html


Thanks, that looks pretty useful.  I do wear glasses, and I'm also constantly having to clean nose prints off my display so I can review my shots. :P  It is even cheap enough (at least by Canon's recent standards) to buy it and risk finding that I hate it.  But of course it is now showing out of stock on B&H... ::)

39
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mk II
« on: September 17, 2012, 06:39:11 PM »
(apologies for the cross-post)

The 5D c was "the original entry-level full-frame camera"

The 5DII was the upgrade of the original entry-level FF camera, to which they added movie mode almost as an afterthought & turned the cinematography world on its head.

The 5DIII is clearly *not* an entry-level FF camera; it's very much a professional camera that sits in the lineup with cameras like the 1DIV.  It's got professional AF, professional construction & sealing (which is why it doesn't have built-in wi-fi & gps; the signals won't go through the all-metal body).  And a professional price...

But the 5DII is still selling like crazy several months after the 5DIII was released, because you can get a brand one now from reputable shops for a little over half the price of a mk3 (or a guaranteed refurb for ~$200 less than that, putting it comfortably under half the cost of its "replacement").

As noted here the other day, the 5DII just hit four years old.  The supply contracts on some of the components are probably running out soon, which means that some of the parts needed to make it won't be available anymore (or at least not in the prices & volumes that they're used to).  This would require redesigning circuits (& possibly firmware) to use newer components that replace the discontinued ones.  I'm sure Fukushima didn't help the supply contract situation much either.  The end result is that they have a near-obsolete camera (from a manufacturing perspective) that is still selling like crazy, which is not really a situation they've been in before in recent memory.

So they would be braindead not to replace the "just under $2K" full-frame position in their lineup with something in the segment that will continue capitalizing on the demand for an FF camera in this price range. 

And it'll appeal to a wider audience than the 5DII it replaces.  It's smaller, lighter, takes the SD cards that the cameras that a lot of people upgrading to it have, and has better low-light performance & better AF (which is why I'm getting one).

I think it's clear by now that the 6D is *not* in fact a reaction to the D600; if it was they surely would have put at least 7D-grade AF and the LCD viewfinder overlay screen in there.

The 6D is the replacement for the 2012 5DII.


I strongly agree with this view.  The 6D seems very much aligned with what the 5DII was when it came out - a class leading landscape and low light camera with great IQ but lacking the FPS and AF required for sports and action.

While it is hard to argue that the original $2700 cost made the 5DII an entry-level camera, it was most likely not possible to build anything FF worth having for much less.  Buyers would have expected semi-pro construction at that price point.  The 6D is much closer to what I would consider an entry-level price, certainly in Japanese Yen, although the weak dollar means it is not as attractive to hobbyists as it might be.  It looks to have been designed specifically to appeal to Rebel users moving up to FF.

The 5DIII by contrast is a great all-round performer, with excellent IQ and AF.  It is an altogether different beast, only lacking some high-end professional features and the bulletproof build quality of the 1DX.

I strongly suspect that Canon's main motivation for designing the 6D is to continue to sell to the 5DII crowd with a camera they can build for a lot less money.  The 5DII was probably not designed with such high volume sales in mind, and in any case advances over the last 4 years may reduce the manufacturing costs significantly.  Pros and serious amateurs now have the 5DIII as an upgrade option, whereas in the past you had to go to a very pricey 1D series if you wanted to move up.  Canon also needed a replacement for a long in the tooth model; add to that the need to cut costs because of the exchange rates and it makes perfect sense.

40
It seems odd that that canon does not have a camera that can focus at F8 I was thinking this probably wont last long as they just redesigned there 2x extender I am sure that cost them a bit in R@D and doubt they would do that if they where not going to have a camera that would work with it in the future.

The 2x TC still works with faster lenses such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, 300mm f/2.8 L and 400mm f/2.8 L.  Having said that, it does seem like a step backwards to launch a new top of the line pro camera that can't do f/8 when the previous models could.  I would guess they felt they had to release the 1DX as it was in time for the Olympics, but it is still not clear if they will be able to add this capability to the cameras they have already sold.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Revolutionary digital camera?
« on: September 12, 2012, 06:42:50 PM »
Seems like you are asking Canon to make a digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000.  Its a nice idea, but I doubt there is really a market for such a camera.

42
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Lens case for 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: September 10, 2012, 06:14:49 PM »
I only use the Canon supplied case to store the lens at home when I am not using it.  When out shooting I have been using a Tamrac UltraPro 7, a messenger style bag designed for a DSLR and two lenses plus accessories.  It has room for my 24-105mm f/4 L plus the 70-200 along with my 5D2, and I can also squeeze a 1.4x III TC and a 25mm extension tube in there without things getting too crowded.  This setup gives me a lot of flexibility for basic travel photography with minimal bulk and weight.  (I have a bigger bag for more serious photographic trips.)

I like the messenger style; it is compact for the capacity offered and it doesn't look that much like a typical camera bag so it attracts less attention.  I also find it keeps the weight closer to the body, which limits shoulder and back strain (helpful with the 70-200, which is a bit of a beast).  The Tamrac also has a rear pocket which unzips and becomes a sleeve, allowing it to slide down over the handle of roll-aboard luggage.  This works great for air travel!

The only thing I am not sure about is whether the 5D2 will still fit if I add a grip, something I want to do soon.  I am finding it awkward to shoot in the vertical orientation with the 70-200 or the 300 f/4 L, especially with the TC attached.  Is the grip too big for bags of this design?

BTW, I took a peek at the Lens Exchange design on the Lowepro website, and I love the concept!  I can see this being very handy for travel also.

43
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400
« on: September 08, 2012, 01:08:00 PM »
I can use my feet, go back a bit shoot the same framing (by moving back) and get more OOF blur with the TC (200 +TC)  that without (200 without TC) for the same framing ... does this explain my position?


It does explain your position, but unfortunately this is also incorrect :).  Let's assume you are 20 feet from your subject and you are shooting your 200mm wide open for maximum DOF.  At f/2.8 you'll get about 6 inches of DOF.

Now you attach your 2x TC and back up 20 feet to get a 40 foot subject distance for the same framing.  You now have a 400mm f/5.6 lens because of the effect of the TC.  DOF in this case would be double - about 12 inches.  So you actually get a shallower DOF without the TC by staying closer to your subject.

Like many amateurs, I found the whole subject of DOF confusing.  I shot for many years with cheap consumer lenses where it was rarely an issue, but in the last few years I have upgraded to some higher quality glass and I started to notice instances where the DOF was shallower than I anticipated, sometimes enough so to compromise my shot.  To get a better feel for the behavior of my lenses I downloaded a couple of DOF calculator apps for my smartphone, and I fiddle with them from time to time - for example, when I happen to be thinking about a certain shooting situation and I want to know what f stop would work best.  It is also easy to compare the DOF of various lens and TC combinations this way.  There are plenty of examples of DOF calculators on the web as well, such as http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html.

When the DOF with TC question came up recently, I Googled it and found a lot of very helpful information online which has improved my knowledge of the subject considerably.  DOF is not particularly hard to understand, but there are a lot of misconceptions about what it really means.  It is dependent not only on the fundamental properties of the lens but also on the interaction between the physiology of the human eye and the size of the final image that is being viewed, and it is essential to understand the Circle of Confusion to grasp how it works.  I found the tutorials on the Luminous Landscape website to be invaluable in this regard.

44
Lenses / Re: 135mm + 1.4 extender _VS_ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkI
« on: September 04, 2012, 12:03:43 PM »
I may be in minority here, but I like shooting Portraits with TC's since the depth of field is reduced by the TC's multiplier... e.g. if the DoF of the 135mm is 1.4 inches for a given length, you can slap on a 1.4x TC and reduce the DoF to 1 inch (1.4/1.4=1) and melt the background even more. This assumes similar framing.


I don't think this is correct. If you put a 1.4 TC on a 135mm f/2 lens it will behave exactly like a 189mm lens at f/2.8 (135mm x 1.4 = 189mm).  To get the same framing you will need to stand 1.4 times as far away from your subject.  So for example, if the subject distance is 100 inches with the 135mm at f/2.8, you will get a DOF of about 2.2 inches on FF.  Adding the 1.4 TC means you need to step backwards to 140 inches from your subject to get the same framing.  The DOF at 140 inches with a 189 mm f/2.8 lens is - 2.2 inches. :)

But...with the 135mm lens you still have the option of shooting wide open at f/2.0.  At 100 inches you'll now get a DOF of 1.6 inches, considerably narrower than you were able to get using the TC with the same framing.

I used the DOF calculator at http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html for these calculations.

45
Lenses / Re: 135mm + 1.4 extender _VS_ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkI
« on: September 04, 2012, 11:27:29 AM »
Did you consider the 70-200L f/4 IS?  It is an extremely sharp lens with very good IQ, and it has the IS to make up for the narrower max aperture.  Of course if you are trying to freeze motion IS will not help, but you did say you don't plan on using this lens to shoot birds or sports.  In that case the only disadvantage I see is the inability to get paper-thin DOF.

On the plus side, the f/4 lens is much lighter and more compact than any of the 70-200L f/2.8 lenses, and is much less expensive than the mark II.  If you could manage without it you could get the non-IS version of the f/4 for about the same price as the 200 f/2.8.  I have no experience with the non-IS version, but I understand it is slightly less sharp than the IS model.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5