Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 20, 2012, 07:16:18 AM »

If you preffer a retro-like look for your cameras there is the Fuji X100

Now that's ugly. There are modern cameras that aren't retro or ugly, some of them even Japanese.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder! For some reason I like the Nikon fe2 and the bessa 4's. The leica r8 is also pretty funky.
I'd have bought the fuji xpro but I'm not confident in the lens range nor the af. When I get chance I will rent one, but I get the feeling it's not the type of camera aimed at taking pictures of kids flying about.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 20, 2012, 07:13:11 AM »

Canon already had an EF-M so it is possible for them to use EOS-M or similar.

I would love for it to look more retro but that wouldn't stop me buying it. As mentiond above, image quality and compatability with EOS lenses will be the primary factors. I would love for it to be full frame but it seems far more likely to be aps-c. Focussing speed and accuracy will be important also. I don't pretend to believe my needs will mimic everyones but it would be nice to see the camera deliver solid IQ, even in relatively low light.
I guess it depends where canon pitch it, probably initially towards the middle of the consumer price band maybe with another later model towards the higher end. If its full frame (remembering cost savings from the lack of a prism) they could pitch it around $1600 and I'd love one. Coupled to a 24-105 f4 is it would make a great family camera without as much bulk as a 5d3 adds to that equation. As much as their is a huge consumer market, there are also quite a few pros with nice glass collections that they would like to use on a mirrorless canon and get corresponding solid results. If canon can build one or two cameras that can deliver to both groups or one each, they would have a lot of happy folks out here.
What really sucks is I am likely to be well out of cellphone range when the announcement comes lol.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: ROUND TWO - Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: February 03, 2012, 02:27:09 PM »

I do like a lot of his older work, this I am not a fan of. I agree with the OP that not stating that a picture is a composite or whatever is not that far away from an outright lie and is wrong in of itself. This picture seems considerably more suspect than the first picture with respect to it being an unmolested picture.
I don't find the colour as suspect (although it is fugly) as I do the composition, it just doesn't present itself as a single image. It feels like a chop shop job of 3 different images.
So why does it matter. As I said, I like his work, I've been visiting his galleries on and off for years. He used to take great pride in stating the shot details with every image next to the print, camera, film, lens, exposure etc. Quietly switching to composite images etc and not outright stating it (when you made such a point of stating it before, like queens early no synth album stickers) is cheap.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 31, 2012, 06:39:57 AM »

Nothing hugely complicated about this shot to debunk. Its shot with a long lens just after moon rise or just before moonset when the moon appars largest (a deathstar sized moon has nearly shocked me off the bike a few times), the size of the moon is just exaggerated by the atmospheric conditions and the tree.
Not sure you would need to double expose, you just need to position yourself right. Re 800mm 2.8, likely a 400 2.8 with an offbrand tc?
Replicating this shot wouldn't be insanely difficult, just very time consuming. Peter has the time, money and skills to do it, he also usually gets access whereever h wants to go. His ego may be large format but he does have some skills and does plan a lot.
The relatively high brightness of the moon also helps keep the shutter speed and iso vaguely sane.

5

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 16, 2011, 09:01:28 AM »

The 1 / focal length guide applies to 35mm equivalent focal length, so for crop sensor it does get that bit worse.

Why would that be true?   Not questioning your personal experience but what's the technical reason for that.  Possibly because with a crop-body you're standing further away for the same framing, so the angle of view is less, and vibrations due to hand shake would then cross a greater angle.  Ok, true assuming same framing which is the case 99% of the time.

It's roughly true in my experience but not specifically due to it being a cropped sensor (as far as I can tell), more that cropped sensors see higher pixel densities (a 5d2 would be about 8mp as a crop with the same density but a 7d would be around 45-47mp as a full frame). In digital medium format, as sensors mp counts have increased drastically that requirement for better technique to avoid blur has increased along with it. I find with the same 50mm lense I need 1/60 on the 5d2 but 1/90 on a 7d for a high keeper rate, However 1/60 is about right for my 50mm on my rz67. If 1/fl holds true on a 6x7 like it does on 35mm it should also hold true for apsc. I guess if canon made a 45mp full frame sensor (sony probably have a 45mp apsc in the works ;-) ) it would probably need better technique or a faster shutter speed. By 'better technique' I refer to methods such as a tripod, IS, holding breath etc, I'm being clumsy with the wording, been awake too long, I mean just taking steps to avoid operator induced blur.
I found (as many did) the 7d to be more demanding than the 10d, 20d or 40d in that respect.

6

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:49:08 AM »

With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture?  I assume it would be less then 1/400.  Maybe 1/200 with the current IS?  Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?

I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?

I believe it has a 2 stop IS system, therefore 1/100 @ 400mm assuming you don't need faster to stop subject motion and that the IS is a full 2 stops at 400mm.

Should the new one have a 4 stop system that would drop to 1/25 roughly. Its not an exact science with IS. As you say its more a 'good percentage of keepers' thing rather than guaranteed crystal shots.

7

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 15, 2011, 11:45:00 PM »

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.

Very true, it would only potentially be at the 100mm end, but that's something like a 23 degree fov. I guess its just to improve overall iq and reduce normal vignetting wide open.

8

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 15, 2011, 07:13:31 AM »

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.

Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed.

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!

9

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 14, 2011, 10:37:38 PM »

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

50mm f1/1.4

Leica 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M 46mm
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM 77mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM 58mm
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T 58mm
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF 52mm
Sony 50mm f/1.4 55mm

100mm 2.8 macro lenses

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM 58mm
Sony 100mm f/2.8 55mm
Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D 55mm
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS  67mm

There is quite a bit of difference between lenses! The same differences occur with 300 2.8 lenses although it is tougher to get all the info as they are usually drop in filters. However, after looking at patents it is often the case that lenses are not actually the exact ratings advertised. Sometimes a f2.8 is a 2.9 or a 3.0, sometimes a 50mm is a 47 mm etc. Just as happens with motorcycle engines some rounding / wishful thinking / marketing occurs. Until canon release the lens (fingers crossed!) we won't know for sure. They could have increased the front element size just as sigma did with their 50mm, they could just be moving the filter thread further out to reduce the impact of using filters. Canon increased the front element size and filter size on their L versions of the  100 2.8 macro and the 70-300 over the non L versions. Both lenses improved image quality. Again, I do not design lenses but it seems like a modest increase does help! It is also not a huge increase, we arent talking 105mm screw in filters here so the costs arent insane. It would be a pita to have to carry an additional set of cpl and different rings for the nd grad system.

I just wish they would hurry up and release it!

10

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 14, 2011, 08:34:34 AM »

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.

PASSION. :|

The more you carry it the easier it gets. Handholding mf gear got me used to it (alongside rugby and american football at college) but the 100-400 is a midweight lens. You may be lucky enough to get your hands on a 300 or 400 2.8, they are heavy :-) Just get plenty of practice and maybe do a bit of training and you'll not notice the weight and will be able to focus totally on the pictures.

Re the 100-400 II, I agree with most of the comments, price would require stellar optics, weather sealing, 4 stop is, and even then its close to the siggy in price. As much as I like siggy is canon can come in around 2400 street (after the 9 month ish price drop) I'll have one. There have been so many rumors about this lens though!

The 70-300L is great, but if its going to be 5.6 I want at least 400mm out of it. A 150-450 5.6 would be awesome, maybe even 500 at the long end. That would be worth 3-4k anyday!

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark II Firmware 2.1.1 Sighting

« on: November 11, 2011, 08:05:09 AM »

4k video anyone ;-) It will probably fix a few misspelt menu options in Latvian and or Aluet. It would be awesome to see something big but the .1.1 tends to suggest minor tweaks, anything major would likely have demanded a .2.0

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Make Your 5D Mark II Infrared

« on: November 09, 2011, 07:48:29 AM »

Re IR film there are a few points to remember when considering it as an alternative.

1- all the normal downsides of film, like no instant feedback, continual expense over a one off investment.
2- my experience was that it had to be loaded and unloaded in total darkness, not just subdued light under a jacket style like 120, but darkroom conditions which at best slows you down in the field.
3- as it is sensitive to light outside the camera it comes in metal canisters (may be different these days?). Travelling with it via air is a monumental PITA and the average TSA agent (understandably) becomes very interested in you. 20 small mental containers which cannot be opened containing 'special' camera film. At best its rubber glove time. No disrespect to TSA agents, it would pique my interest if I had their job and didn't know about IR film.
4- not all film cameras can take IR film. You need ones with a solid back plate (no cutout as some seem to have) and very importantly a manual sprocket counter. Many cameras used an IR sprocket counter which basically is like wedging an LED torch inside a camera with the film.

Converting an apsc or compact / bridge camera sounds like a good start, especially as they can usually be resold fairly easily without loosing a fortune.

All that being said, film is an option and can produce awesome results, just wanted to ensure anyone considering it knew the more common issues with it :-)

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting in manual

« on: October 01, 2011, 03:41:35 AM »

Good question!

When do I shoot manual and why:

1- Sunset portraits using flash. When using flash in this instance you are not just working with a single exposure, you are working with two factors. A burst from a flash gun (not in high speed sync / pulse mode) is very quick, like 1/10000th of a second quick (ballpark) so the foreground is exposed very quickly as soon as the first shutter curtain has cleared the sensor / film. The aperture and flash power sets how well exposed the foreground is. The shutter speed and aperture define the exposure of the background. So basically I tend to start around 1/2 flash power, f6.7 and adjust the shutter speed, aperture and flash power to get the right balance. Use an increasing flash and aperture to keep the shutter speed under the sync. Perhaps its just how I learn. I can also do it with a combination of a negative exposure compensation and a positive flash compensation but you have to be confident of your metering (i.e. switching a focal point from a brides white dress to a grooms black tux can fool the camera in certain metering modes). Check out / google 'dragging the shutter' for a better explanation!
2- Where I know the camera will be confused by varying levels of background brightness but where the actual target is pretty much constant. Shooting windsurfers is an example, the background is pretty variable between white caps reflecting huge sun and blue ocean. Meter for the surfer and chimp, I find I get less variance this way than any metering mode.
3- Shots where I know I want to override the cameras opinion of the 'perfect exposure'. The camera is very good at getting it right for a given 'right'. Sometimes it is easier to simply work in manual rather than trying to use compensation which is usually restricted to a certain number of stops.
4- Sometimes if I know I am in a difficult situation I just revert to manual, it might just be a mentality thing, I am comfortable using it and I think I can dial it in quicker than I can correct the cameras best guess sometimes.

As others have said a basic understanding of how metering works and when a camera is likely to make a mistake is very useful. There is another factor, some of us came to photography a decade or two ago, prior to digital being a mainstream budget proposition and many of us were not rich. We often started with cameras where manual was the only option. In medium format manual is par for the course unless you sacrifice that awesome waist level finder for a  prism finder (yes there are exceptions) which is akin to putting budget tyres on a Ferrari. Basically some of us are more comfortable falling back on manual because we know it well. That is not to say it is the best for everyone or that you need to be able to use it to be a good photographer. It is useful to be able to use it. FWIW I use AV mode the most often with manual in second place and the occasional but rare jump to shutter priority. Don't be afraid to try it, electrons on a memory card are free. At the end of the day photography is about getting the interpretation of a scene out of your head and onto the memory card. Exactly how you get there is up to you, IF you find P or Av the quicker to work with, if you are getting the results then go for it! It's worthwhile looking around to learn potentially better techniques, but don't beat yourself up if they dont work for you.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Will canon bother ramping up production on the 5d2

« on: May 25, 2011, 09:31:24 PM »

Canon does not have your best interest in mind. They are simply out to make money off you.

Lets know when you find a company that doesn't want to make as much profit as possible.  Nikon?, Sony?, Panasonic?, maybe Apple or Google?

The huge investment required to produce a major new model is made because it will return a profit.  So you are right, companies do not just produce new models or upgrades on a whim, there is a plan to make money by doing it.

Exactly so. It's a vaguely symbiotic relationship but as Microsoft show quite often we are not valued customers so much as cash piñatas to be firmly beaten every few months.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III

« on: May 25, 2011, 09:26:08 PM »

what I really dont want to see
- frickin novelty junk for the noobs like movable screens, lie down or stand on a chair or shoot blind, those screens are camera killers if you have to use your camera in any kind of weather.
- HDR pano sweep junk functions.
- a high speed fps. nikon make a general use camera, the d700, its pretty fast and has a decent resolution, canon make two specialized cameras, the 5d is a way better landscape cam and the 7d a better (but not by far) action cam. Lets keep it that way and not turn a 5d3 into a generalized camera.

Noobs? The 5DII revolutionized the video DSLR market. A swivel screen makes perfect sense, even for stills. Live view is much better for manual focus. Lie down? Stand on a chair? Shoot blind? Why be such an elitist snob when you can just choose to not use these functions?

And if Digic V can handle a higher FPS, then bring it on. Why would you not want more FPS? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Not when Nikon's competing FF does 8 FPS gripped, and is already a year old.

I swear, some photogs come off like they want their hobby to have more barriers to entry. It's bizarre. There are compacts out there that warn you of someone blinking during a group portrait, no need to zoom and pan to check. A buried menu function that turns on a handy beep code for this would be cool for those of us who think $3,000 should buy similar features as a $200 P&S. I want 3, 5, and 7 frame automatic in-camera HDR. I want pano-stitching. I want a crop option on my FF. I want a 300 page owners manual. For people like you, I will concede that all these goodies come "off" by default. You never need to know they are there. You can just grind your teeth and agonize over the sight of "noobs" running around with a camera that you wish only you could own and operate. 

Nothing to do with barriers or short manuals. The screen would compromise the weatherproofing and the strength of the body. I need my camera to work in the rain. The 5d2 and 7D and 1 series have no issues with rain. Pros have been making great pictures for years without a swivel screen?

It may be your hobby, its my job, so yes I take it a little more seriously than somebody playing at it.

I have no issues with them increasing the use for video, but don't compromise its main purpose, as a stills camera. If the function really doesn't compromise the camera than fine, otherwise leave it in the cheap compacts. And you need a function to tell you if someone blinked? Theres a few VERY easy ways to ensure nobody blinks. Many videographers are also using external monitors with their dslrs to aid in focussing and framing which are considerably better than the rear lcd screen.

HDR?  Check out Peter Lik.  nd grads   Sure better bracketing would be good. I've never understood why nikon do it and canon don't, but why bother having the camera mess about with stitching panos and tonemapping HDR's, just have them capture the info and do it on a pc that can make a better job of it? I've seen some of the sony auto pans and they just aren't sharp. It sounds good but it doesn't deliver. Seriously, why not leave the processing to the several thousand dollar pc with great software?

I thought I explained the whole lower fps, perhaps you were drowning in your own vitriol. Sure if they can do it, it MAY not hurt. I just don't want them merging the 5d and 7d lines. Nikon have a general use camera in that price point, canon have two specialized cameras. Part of what attracted me to the 5d2 was that its sensor was a world apart from the d700's. I would not like to see them compromise that. Canon make video cameras, canon make film cameras. The 5d2 did a great job at stepping between the two but it is primarily a stills camera. If canon compromise its stills ability then its time to switch to nikon.

 

- wider af 'area'. Why bother having 'outer points' when they are so close to the center?

As I ]pointed out previously (closer to the beginning of this long-ish thread), there are technical reasons that the spacing of the AF points is so close to the center.  The AF points on the 1DsIII cover the same extent (altough on the 1DsIII they are more densely packed and more sensitive and accurate).  The 1D series (APS-H) does have a relatively wider spread of AF points than either the FF or APS-C cameras.

- the DP button switchable to a MLU button, who the hell uses DP???

I, for one, use the DoF Preview button - both for DoF preview and to activate modeling flash.  When I'm going to use MLU, I'm on a tripod, and there are several other settings that go along with that - timer/remote trigger, fixed ISO 100, etc., so rather than a button for MLU and still having to use the quick display to set the others, it's easiest to just set up a Custom Mode (C# on the mode dial) for tripod shooting. 

- number of af points. 3-9 is enough as long as they work well like the centerpoint on the 5d2.

I agree that 9 is probably enough for most situations.  Three is not enough, no way.  Having a denser array means better AI Servo performance for moving subjects.  Personally, I like the approach of 'invisible' AF points in the 5DII (although a better solution would be to make them selectable via a C.Fn for those who want to select them.  On the 7D, though, I only use the center point or a point on the edge, not the middle ones - and I'd rather not have to skip over them.

Re DP. Direct Print not DOF. I find myself taking mlu on and off a lot. I just find it amusing that canon (despite being begged for years) do not even make it an option to change the DP to an MLU button. It cannot be that difficult to do.

Re Outer points, I didn't see your post but I presume its due in part to the size of the AF chip? I think I remember canon saying something about that and it further increasing the body size. Personally I believe it was a cost and marketing decision.