Messages

46

Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 600 f/4L IS II Has Arrived

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:53:12 PM »

"Hand holdable"? I bet hand holding these babies gets old real quick Even if lighter than the previous generation, they're still heavy. I have the old 400/2.8 IS and it sees much less use than I'd like to because it's difficult to carry around (and transport on airplanes). Granted, it's a bit heavier than the newer ones, but still, unless you have an assistant carrying gear for you, don't count on taking the superteles too far from the car. That's why I'm seriously looking forward to a 400/5.6 IS, if it ever gets released.

47

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat

« on: May 20, 2012, 01:22:32 PM »

For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice

This reminds me of a quote from a famous scientist:

I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
― Richard P. Feynman

48

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Solar eclipse questions...???

« on: May 19, 2012, 04:59:05 AM »

In addition to what PeterJ said, note that this eclipse on May 20 is annular, not total. It makes a huge difference, as the sun will never be completely covered. The eclipse in Australia later this year will be total.

Shooting the annular eclipse will be good practice for the Venus transit on June 5!

49

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 60Da in Stock at B&H

« on: May 03, 2012, 05:18:41 AM »

Ok if I were just a casual astrophotographer and trying to get shots of the stars and Milky Way would a 5D Mark III or 5D Mark II serve me just as well with a full frame sensor?

The 5Ds would serve you better. The advantages of the 60Da are (primarily) that it lets through more of the H-alpha radiation at 656.3 nm that is important when shooting nebulae, its lower weight (compared to 5D) and articulated screen. For stars and the Milky Way, the bigger sensor wins (unless you're specifically interested in capturing the HII regions and nebulae of the Milky Way, which can produce spectacular images).

An no, the IR filter is not removed, it is simply replaced by a filter that cuts off at a slightly longer red wavelength. The difference to 60D should be minimal for regular photography.

50

Lenses / Re: waiting for a new 100-400mm lens

« on: April 30, 2012, 12:03:23 AM »

....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel.  It just looks dumpy...but it works.

That's a negative?  So...you'd prefer a 'cooler' looking hood to one that's designed for optimal optical parformance?

Isn't a tulip design, cool looking or not, always the optimal for optical performance?

51

Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame

« on: April 29, 2012, 11:49:30 PM »

The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing.

Depends on expectations of course, but I think 50/1.4 on FF coming from APS-C will be anything but disappointing.

Perhaps you mean that a single prime will be a bit limiting? I agree, a wide and a short tele would be the perfect addition. That said, some photographers swear by the 50...

52

Lenses / Lenses to shoot the Milky Way: Go with the EF 15/2.8 FE

« on: April 29, 2012, 11:45:23 PM »

I'd definitely go with the EF 15/2.8 fisheye if you can find it, it is much cheaper and lighter than the EF 14/2.8L II (I have both), similar IQ, and better suited for the milky way, IMO. Great for northern lights, too. The f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 is important. Of course, it is a fisheye so special purpose, but the EF 14/2.8 is also extremely wide and about as special I would say. Most important is to find as dark skies as possible however, and from your travel plan it seems you can get away from artificial lights, which is great. But you said you're going in the middle of the summer, meaning the night will be short, so you'll have to make sure to get the stars during the darkest hour.

53

Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame

« on: April 29, 2012, 11:32:07 PM »

For the wide to normal range you seem interested in, non-L glass on FF gives you more artistic freedom than L-glass on APS-C. E.g., your 50/1.4 on FF would be like a 31/0.9 on APS-C, and conversely, the 50/1.4 on APS-C would be like a 80/2.2 on FF. I'd suggest going FF + consider the superb 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 non-L macro, and a wider non-L prime of your choice. I would hesitate to only get the 24-105/4L kit for the FF since the EF-S 17-55/2.8 would serve you almost as well on the 50D.

54

EOS Bodies / Re: canon recalls shipment of 5d iii

« on: April 13, 2012, 04:33:39 AM »

No I mean call up some of the stores in question and they will tell you just what the posters here do.

If you have called up a store and personally confirmed that 5D3's are being recalled (or held), I would believe you. But I don't necessarily believe what 3 newly registered posters claim within 10 min of each other, nor a rumour labelled as [CR1].

The simplest answer is not that the OP was part of some vast paranoid conspiracy but that the OPs were telling what they legitimately were told by certain dealers.

You have a pretty low threshold for "Vast paranoid conspiracy" Anyway, I was just saying that "I am not a troll" is not a very convincing argument, surely you must agree with that.

55

EOS Bodies / Re: canon recalls shipment of 5d iii

« on: April 13, 2012, 01:18:17 AM »

But why would someone make such a silly thing up and go to trouble to make multiple accounts? Come on.

I don't know.... human nature? The internets are full of them.

And it's been proven true now anyway.

Like in [CR1], you mean?

56

EOS Bodies / Re: canon recalls shipment of 5d iii

« on: April 12, 2012, 02:17:07 PM »

This isn't some troll post.

That's not a very convincing, you know. It's like saying "I am not lying".

57

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 10, 2012, 07:18:21 AM »

I don't think everyone is realizing how much of a serious problem this is turning out to be (at least for nighttime landscape photographers).

I don't think it is. Please see my earlier reply to you (#38).

58

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkii vignetting in the corner problem. Can someone help me?

« on: April 08, 2012, 04:45:34 PM »

And the bottom line of this thread is that Canon should not be making $2400 long zoom lenses that accept threaded filters, but cause additional vignetting, especially since the old version of the lens didn't.

I wholeheartedly agree, although my last copy of the older version had this same problem, too (hence my reason for finally parting with it).
What I found, though, was that it didn't matter whether a filter was on there or not.

I don't understand. How can a filter cause additional vignetting if it's not mounted on the lens?

And, the lens hood only affected it when it wasn't aligned right

That's good, because it means the lens hood is doing its job well when correctly mounted.

59

Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 1.4 vs Canon 85 1.2L

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:48:55 PM »

I would go for the siggy but i have heard of focussing issues dont know if there is any truth to them though.

Somehow this reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch about two bored commercial airline pilots on a transatlantic flight. To kill some time, the captain broadcasts over the intercom:
- Hello, this is your Captain speaking. There is absolutely no cause for alarm.

Sorry for the slightly tangential post, but I hope you see the connection to your statement about the Sigma AF!

Find the sketch on youtube:

Monty Python Airplane Pilots	Small | Large

60

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:35:10 PM »

Maybe I've been taught the wrong way, but I've regularly used the camera's metering system for astrophotography.  By ramping up to a high ISO (say 3200), and performing a short exposure, you can then calculate back out to an equivalent exposure at 100 ISO using a bulb.  But if your initial "base" (for calculating) exposure is wrong, your 3-hour equivalent will be shot, and no one likes to waste three hours under a night sky.

It sounds like a good way, but from what you describe it seems you are using the test exposures to compute the longer exposure time, not the camera metering system. Thus you would not be affected by this "light leak".

It's funny how when the 60Da was surprisingly released last week, people were complaining about the lack of Canon leaks.  There is really no way to please everyone