April 18, 2014, 03:05:19 PM

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 - fegari

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 08:05:26 PM »
My advice to you is to better spend that money in the highest quality possible polarizers for each of your lenses.

-You get the extra protection AND the advantages of a polarizer
-You avoid vigneting in case you had an UV and wanted to add a polarizer on top
-Or avoid the hassle to remove the UV when adding the polarizer
-A helluva lot more useful than a UV
-Looks cooler  8)
-Remember to always use the lens hoods as well

Coupled to a 5dIII or the like, you won´t even need to remove them in low light situations if you do not want to.

I used to have a few UV´s (BW high quality) and those I could not sell are gathering dust. The polarizers get to go outside each and every single time. To me UVs are kinda useless. I have a B+W pol for each of my lenses, I´ll advice strongly on the XS-Pro series that have front threads, are as thin as the slims but contrary to those  so you can put the lens cap of a filter holder.

Canon General / Re: Just For Fun!
« on: July 14, 2013, 07:01:49 AM »
18. People complaining the next camera has "too many megapixels that they/nobody needs and will take too much HDD space" because they can perfectly print 4x5 size prints with their 10 year old 8 MPixel DSLR...

This has been going since the 10Mpixel DSLRs started to appear, probably even before

So I though to put my money were my mouth is  :P

I field shot of the Zeiss 100MP + 2xIII. I would have never gotten it with the bear zeiss, the bugs would fly away as soon as you approach just that much. Here the added working distance saved the day. Very acceptable details and sharpness. Handheld.

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2014, Other EF Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:05:40 PM »
A 14-24  and a 100-400 with the same level of quality of the recent mark II zooms and even the Nikon people will start jumping ship!

IMHO Canon would lock the top spot in glass quality for all the focals. I would prefer primes but those zooms may make more sense commercially. Maybe a 35 1.4 to counter Sigma as well

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Where to but Canon DSLRs in Iceland?
« on: July 03, 2013, 03:39:34 PM »

Can anyone please advice where to buy Canon DSLRs in Iceland? new or used, I don't care.

Additionally would need to be a physical store, preferably.

Thanks for the feedbakc!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 03:47:12 PM »
Looks like a very promising APS-C, clearly to me the baseline of future cameras to come and probably the first signs of a highly capable (pro level)  mirrorless not that far into the future, accounting for the obvious improvements there will be to this tech wrt AF speed and framerate.

Which makes me wonder...while not performing AF function, what are those extra 20M pixels doing??? seems like an awful lot of sensor real state to waste isn't it? What if those pixels are actually put to contribute to IQ when the picture is grabbed? how about some interpolation / oversampling to tremendously improve high ISO performance....

Just wondering and dreaming...  ::)

Software & Accessories / Markins plate for 7D
« on: July 01, 2013, 05:46:09 PM »

Does any one know if the markins plate P53U (for the 5D III) would fit a Canon 7D? at least to take a few pictures, not for a permanent solution....to ensure a minimun of support should I use a 7D as backup camera and need to use it for some tripod shots?

thanks for the help

Lenses / Re: Teleconverters/Extenders, Canon or Kenko?
« on: July 01, 2013, 02:30:43 PM »
Good advices in this post.

I personally have zero hesitations bying third party lenses but when it comes to a TC, I don't even considered non canons.

Not only the compatibility issues there may be butt from all I've ever read about it no 3rd party has better optical quality (maybe the 1.4 could  matched apparently). Additionally with the AF speed penalty you take with a TC, almost certainly the Canon's will slow the least.

Get the canon's .=)

(I have 1.4II and 2xIII)

Lenses / Re: Nifty 50 or Shorty 40?
« on: June 30, 2013, 12:41:16 PM »
Find a good condition Canon FL or FD 55mm f/1.2 and get the EdMika conversion kit (eBay).  You'll have an incredible, inexpensive, fast lens that you won't want to take off your camera body.

A Canon FD 55 1.2 SSC in good shape plus the mika conversion will amount to close to 500 USD and you have the probability of hitting the mirror in infinity. I have that combo, it does produce a particular look but wide open it is only good for portraiture (lots of aberrations that give a certain surreal look).

In your place and with hindsight experience of buying a bunch of lenses I would advice strongly to save a bit and get the very best first rate lens that you can afford later on. It is not worth spending some cash just because you have a couple hundred dollars to spare and coincidentally the 40 2.8 or the 50 1.8 are in that price range.

My advice to you would definitively be to save a bit and get yourself the Sigma 35 1.4 which used can be a very attractive proposition.  The 6D deserves first rate lenses and the 35 1.4 (a top tier 35mm, sharpest of all) will serve you handsomely in moderately wide landscape, general and even portraiture. Not to mention super fast 1.4 aperture that will do wonders in low light with the sigma....

Now, if you really need to chose now between the 40 and the 50 I´d give the 40 a try.

Good luck with the choice!

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom Help?
« on: June 30, 2013, 08:42:01 AM »
I really, really recommend you get the Luminous Landscape LR Tutorials (video, not book). Not only they explain every detail of it but it is very entertaining. You don´t see a snapshot of a screen for hours while a voice off explains why the mouse is here or there but these are very professional videos where you see M. Reichmann and Shewe  discussions.

It´s hours of video, give it a try, here the LR4 (very detailed) + the LR5 (which is just a minor improvement to LR4, thus the LR4 tutorial being the core of it)


I find it almost impossible to manually focus a lens without tethering it, so doing a really good and valid comparison would be difficult, since the plane of focus can be just a hair different and give the impression that something was wrong.  A flat target might overcome the issue, merely because its so difficult to use manual focus on a 3 dimensional target and focus at the exact same sopt.

That's true and that's what happened with the bus pic when had to reframe and change a bit the angle in order to fit the 2x pic. Comparing that pic is tricky casue the in focus zones do not fall exactly in the same spots and I've realized now they do not have teh same ISO.

However I was more careful  with the second set (the little airport trucks) so the same ange, ISO and focus point was maintained very very closelly.

Hi Fegarix

I've looked at your images again and came to the same conclusion. Please take a look at your image of the bus. I have no doubt that the left hand image (labeled as a bare ZE 2/100 MP) is much sharper.

I do see some noise present on the LHS of your most recent comparison. (Look at the edge of the monitor bezel.) This looks very like the signature of a slightly over-sharpened image. I can't tell which has more detail.

That speckle will certainly be reduced when the extender is applied - but this does not automatically mean that there is more information present in the resulting image. For example - if an image was 2x larger but the spot size was 4x larger, it would appear far smoother but actually contain far less information.

I understand that the 2x would give you twice the effective distance at the same image scale. The problem with this is that image scale is largely irrelevant. Once again, the important thing is to maximise the amount of information present in the image after capturing and processing it to the same scale. Since the extender clearly blurs the image (quite a lot by my observation), it really can't be helping you.

(For what it's worth, do I own a ZE 2/100 MP and a 1.4 III tc. In the interests of science I'll do an experiment or two tomorrow. I'm not expecting magic though... some matches are really not made in heaven.)

Regards, NJ

Well I still don't see that, we'll need a third opinion  :P

All images have exactly the same sharpening in lightroom (55, 0.8, 35, 5 masking). Zero noise reduction.

Something to keep in mind though: the bus image was taken from slightly different angle as I had to reframe to fit the 2x pic. This means the DoF area does not fall exactly in the same place. In that same bus pic, take a look at the bottom left corner, I see clearly that the in focus zone is sharper than the corresponding in focus zone of the bare Zeiss. Additionally I think the TC actually reduced the magenta cast of the bare Zeiss and the blacks are blacker. Slight, but for some reason clear to me.

The 2x certianly reduces contrast but compensates in resolution vs pulling the non TC pic to the same magnification. I still believe in overall the TC wins if you want to reach 1:1 magnification, that's all.

I have the 1.4x II as well but being only 40% more my feeling was the bare zeiss will be better when upsampling to the same level so went directly to the 2x IIIl.

I'll hope you can post your findings with the 1.4x, for the time being I think I need a few hours of sleep  :=)

Sorry - I really don't see any benefit here.

It's pretty clear from your examples that the 200x images from the Zeiss lens are dramatically better than the 100x images from the Zeiss + 2x converter. In all honesty, I am not surprised.

In addition to wrecking the image sharpness, the tc also costs you two stops of light. It drives the lens closer to diffraction (if not completely off the cliff) and adds copious dollops of CA to a lens that's almost entirely free of it.

In what way can this possibly be better?

To you, which one is the one with the TC and did you see the original files in flickr? cause I really see the opposite in my screen. The loss of 2 stops is not a terrible penalty for a lens that starts at f/2 and is sSO good as the Zeiss, and diffraction cliffs cannot be seen in the posted TC examples. Remember the purpose here is get into 1:1 teritory not to compete below 1:2 magnifications. You loose a bit of contrast but to me the Zeiss+2xIII at 100% resolves better than the normal zeiss blown to 200% with a lot less apparent noise. That TC is a handy feature to me.

And for what is worth, with the TC you get twice the working distance for the same 1:2 magnification
A tighter crop of the same pics, different area. Left normal at 200%, right with the 2xIII at 100%.
In all, I think adding the TC is a very nice compromise.

Test par Fegarix, sur Flickr

And below, even more convincing when zomming the pic without TC to 400% and the pic with the 2xIII to 200%. Again, same pic as before. Here I see a significant difference in favor of the TC. Click to see the original full screen in flickr:

test 400x par Fegarix, sur Flickr

Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: June 29, 2013, 06:16:53 PM »
I have but problems with this software...it is the first time in my life I cannot use a software, maybe I've really dumbed down with age but since I have it (a year ago or more) I have not been able to adjust a lens ONCE.

Just installed the version 1.9 today and thought to give it a go. Hadn't used it since the first day  I got it and besides not wrking It managed to block my 5D3 and had to reset it to factory parameters.

Anyway, today with my shiny new super tripod (previous one was a pain in the ass, thought that was the culprit) still won't work.

First shot, first AFMA change (+1) and the thing just loops and loops asking me to change it to +1 which I had already done...no way to get out of it but unplugging the camera. Have little patience now for this Reikan so I'm going to give the Dot-tune method a try tomorrow, which is free!

Lenses / Ever wondered what will a Zeiss 100MP do with a Canon 2xIII?
« on: June 29, 2013, 05:55:24 PM »
Out of boredom this afternoon I decided to clean a bit my lenses. At some point all were lying on a table and theZeiss 100 Makro-Planar was laying besides the Canon 2XIII extender so....thought of matching them. And match they do! Well, kinda because the extender will not let focusing beyong 10m but's that more than enough for macro or portraits (and up to 5m if you put the 1.4x II though I did not bother to take pics with it)

Below a copuple of comparisons of the same pic taken with the Zeiss alone and with the extender. Both pics are taken at minimun focus distance, this means the Zeiss "only" subjct is magnified 1:2 (as per the lens design, obviously) and the extender subject fills 1:1. This is important, the normal zeiss pic is shown zoomed 2:1 to match the extender pic

Pics taken on tripod, aperture priority, liveview mode, cable release. As I had a crappy light in my house I decided to shoot ISO 800 with a Canon 5D III. This proved to be an interesting choice when looking at the effect of noise. I'm no lens test expert so there may be flaws in this test, don't hesitate to pint them out.

(you may want to click to go to the flicker pic at 100% otherwise the differences are lost at this sizes)

The Original Field of view for each pic
The "A" in PANAM is about 2mm wide. The coin is a 20 cents of €

Original shots II par Fegarix, sur Flickr

To the left the Zeiss only at 200%, to the right the Extender pic at 100%

Zeiss 100MP and 2x comparison f4 (cropped) II par Fegarix, sur Flickr

The Original Field of view for each pic
(The "I" in Colombia is about 1mm wide)

Original shots par Fegarix, sur Flickr

To the left the Zeiss only at 200%, to the right the Extender pic at 100%

Zeiss 100MP and 2x comparison f4 (cropped) par Fegarix, sur Flickr

My personal conclusion
a) IF your subject does not FILL your frame with teh Zeiss alone, by all means use the Canon Extender!!!!  Even for the Zeiss 100MP which is THAT freaking good at any aperture and holds well zooming in however blowing up the Zeiss "only" will cause artifacts and dramatically increase the apparent noise so to me the extender pic gives you more margin to work under those conditions.

b) keeping the Zeiss alone pic at 1:1 and reducing the extender pic to 1:2: the Zeiss alone clearly wins, but your subject does not fill the frame....

c) I'm impressed, did not expect those results.

d) Really happy I got myself a Zeiss 200mm Makro-Planar f/4   :D :D :D

A couple of Notes
- When using the extender the camera reads the natural Zeiss aperture range, starting at f/2. In reality you are shooting two stops above it so a extender pic at f/2 = f/4. This is easily seen in the shutter speeds. This also means when shooting at f/22 you get ridiculous small aperture of f/44. Did not bother to try it, probably crappy IQ
-The selections you saw were matched to trying and get the (roughly) same DoF (remember the to calculate double the aperture number in the extender pic to have an idea of the real one)

-have a bunch of other apertures tests in case you're courious!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6