Messages

1696

EOS Bodies / Re: Very few EOS 1 bodies sold - wonder why!!

« on: June 02, 2011, 11:07:12 AM »

I might as well throw in my 2 cents being in the professional circle... There are different groups of "professional" photographers... The people who has been in the market for years and has a want/need for large cameras such as the 1Ds and can justify it on a daily basis, and professionals who are happy where they are and while they would love to have the accounts and budget to afford the best, they have to make due with what they got.  I personally fall in the second range where I'm not making the $$ i could in other areas and if I had this and that, however at this stage in the game, my wife would kill me if I plunked down $4000-7000 down on a 1d or 1ds... However the 7D/5D are more in my budget so I make due.  Believe it or not, the groups of people who can afford the 1d series cameras are small which high potential profit margins... Newspaper agencies, advertising agencies, top tier photographers, etc... and to be honest, like the rich who can afford high end cars, they are built better so they typically last longer and owners hang on to them longer than people who buy fords or hyundais or kias... You buy a 1d series and while it costs a lot more, they are built like tanks, have excellent ergonomics and to be honest, unless you need the latest and greatest... There are several pro's getting along just fine with older 1d series cameras because they dont NEED to upgrade as quickly unless they wear out their camera or are going broke.  Typically if you can afford the 1d cameras you usually have a large enough investment in canon and likewise with nikons D3/4 series cameras and their investment in Nikons that I dont see much of a flux in that top tier.  However it is the mid range pro's 7Ds,5Ds,D300's,D700's where you see all the movement and why these cameras sell so quickly vs the top cameras. 

If Canon really wanted the 1D's to fly off the shelves they would market them to the mid range to amateur photographers and price accordingly, however they dont.  They know what market share they are going after with that range and they are comfortable marketing to those photographers. 

Lastly, dont forget the economy right now... few people can justify spending that money on such an expensive camera... Even agencies are tightening their belts and holding off upgrades, so I wouldn't start getting paranoid just yet. 

1697

Contests / Re: Update: Blue Crane Digital Giveaway!

« on: June 01, 2011, 05:39:28 PM »

Ah what the heck.  Keep in mind this was shot with a 6 inch opening of a door thanks to our wonderful secret service trying to close my view. =)

Great videos from the DSLR

1698

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 11:35:22 AM »

In my opinion anyone who is a serious professional videographer wont use a DSLR and will use a video camera from a professional range. I know you get the enhanced depth of field, with the EF system, but by the time you have bought the extra equipment like a shoulder harness and all the other stuff that makes a DSLR like a pro video camera you are spending nearly double what a pro video camera would cost. Not forgetting it has serious flaws like zooming etc

all I read there was: "I'm not a videographer, I really have no idea about that market"

* "professional videographer" and "zooming" should never be in the same sentence

* "a pro video camera" comparable to a DSLR starts at $5K (without lenses)

* you've been out of the planet for the last two ryears, right?

* you know black swan had a scene shot with DSLRs? and that George Lucas' Red Tails also used DSLRs? and both of them in situations where the existence of cameras like the sony F3 or FS100 (or the Sony CineAlta F35, which was the main camera in Red Tails) is irrelevant (Black Swan used the DSLRs to shoot in the underground, without permits; in Red Tails, DSLRs were put inside the cabins of WW2 planes; in both cases, the size of a DSLR was deemed more important than the ergonomics of a real videocamera)

the rest of your post, though, is pretty sensible (e.g. the 50D vs 60D vs 7D part, but also the bit about a dedicated videocamera being more likely than a video-centric DSLR); it's just that the beginning cried for a "duty calls" post:
http://xkcd.com/386/

+1... dont forget scenes shots in the TV show "house" and even a few scenes in avatar if i'm not mistaken.  There is always a place for compact video cameras.  It's not of the quality of a "red" camera, but for what it is, it's not a shabby performer.  In the end I'd rather have that option in my bag rather than differ all video related jobs to someone else and lose money and a potential client.

1699

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: June 01, 2011, 10:14:05 AM »

okay, now I understand, this is what I get :

24-105 with :

[105mm * f/4 *  3 meters ]


 from subject  will give the same OOF as :

24-70 with :

[60mm * f/2.8 * 2 meters]

* So if I want the DOF more shallow , get closer to the subject but like neuro had said I won't get the whole image, maybe just nose or something else.

I've said it on my comment before that I know that f/4 can't beat f/2.8 in making OOF background. I want to know can f/4 make okay OOF background too so the subject can still be distinguished.

FYI, previously I compare the OOF with my old 18-55 f/3.5-5.6.  With f/4 I still get decent OOF background (it is on my t2i. I believe I'll get shallower DOF on FF body). Then I found someone said that 24-105 produce spikey bokeh but all your images shared is good for me. So 24-105 isn't always produce it.

wow, thx again for the OOF background information

That's what I figured your question was regarding... the answer is yes, you can get decent OOF background if you need it.  The "Spikey" bokeh is purely subjective and if you like what you have seen photo wise, then you wont be disappointed.  Good luck with your purchase and feel free to let us know if and when you make your purchase and start shooting pictures with your new lens(es)

1700

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 04:46:07 PM »

Sorry Neuro but focal length does not affect DoF it's yet another myth which has been perpetuated, nor does subject distance.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

Magnification affects DoF which is why Macro has such a thin DoF & aperture, circles of confusion are not really anything to do with the sensor size, again that comes down to magnification, you need more to fill the frame on a FF camera.

In optics, a circle of confusion is an optical spot caused by a cone of light rays from a lens not coming to a perfect focus when imaging a point source. It is also known as disk of confusion, circle of indistinctness, blur circle, or blur spot.

While to a degree I agree with you and the link regarding focal length to the extent that yes, you take the 400mm and take the wide angle and zoom in tight to the same crop and perspective of the 400mm, all things being equal, if the lenses are good, the OOF should be the same, however as you can see with the full image, it is easier for the layman to physically see the OOF on the 400mm and it's harder for most people to conceptualize that if they get very close and crop to the same size, it will be the same. 

I do have to disagree about the subject to background not making a difference... macro you have a razor thin focal plane because you are focusing inches away from the lens.  I shoot daily studio small product photography for a local company and at f8, at a distance of 12-18 inches, I only get a focal plane of about an inch, inch and a half.  I dont dare go to F11-16 on the 50D because of the lens sweet spot and wider apertures will give me less than an inch focal plane.  Distance of subject to foreground/background has EVERYTHING to do with bokeh.  Why do you think the iphone has like 4-5 depth of field calculators... just so people can get focal plane info in a pinch while out in the field shooting. 

1701

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 04:22:33 PM »

As always I agree with Neuro's analysis however yes, the 24-70 will give MORE, no much, but more OOF than the 24-105.  In a typical portrait, in practice an F4 will typically get most of the face if not all in focus... 2.8 you may get the nearest eye in focus with the second eye slightly OOF.  Wider you go the more OOF you get.  I think the original poster realizes if he wants and fully cares about bokeh, he wants and will need to get into fast primes... Also rememeber F4 to F2.8 is 1 stop, but on the same hand, it's only 1 stop.  Will the 24-105 give you pleasing OOF WHEN you shoot in a situation to get good OOF? yes.  I would even go as far as saying when applicable, the OOF area is as pleasing as the 24-70 when shot in situations where the OOF areas are similar.  This once again falls into the situation of knowing what equipment you are using and being comfortable with your equipment when you need to.  I would still recommend going to a camera store and testing the lenses out there... As long as the store is under the impression they're going to make a sale, i'm sure they will allow you as much time with the equipment as possible until you make your mind up.  Then go home and buy online for cheaper, haha.   

1702

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 31, 2011, 10:30:37 AM »

The 24-105 is more than capable of producing very nice images with nice bokeh.  Some of the main complaints of the 24-105 are slight distortion at the 24 and pincussion at 150, however as I said, for most everyone, unless you shoot architecture and doing a lot of "photo stitching" then, that really isn't that big of a deal for 99% of everyday shots.  The 24-70 is/was a very nice lens, but image quality, doing side by side shots in my studio for commercial work, when I tested them, I didn't see any appreciative difference between the 2 lenses to justify the extra weight and strain I would have to go through to use it and hand hold it (with my 2 camrea system).  Dont fret about purchasing either lens. 

Regarding the 15-85 suggestion... There are a few reasons to choose the L over this lens and a few visa versa... first of all, in favor of the L (either one) is fully weather sealed and construction.  The L's are built like a tank.  Secondly, while I dont care one way or the other, but the constant F2.8/4 aperture throughout the range.  On the 15-85 it's 5.6 at the 85 range vs on the 24-105, at the 85 range it's still F4.  At the 105 range the L lens is a hair sharper all around.  Lastly, it can work on any canon EF camera (crop or non-crop).  If at any time you upgrade/borrow/whatever another camera you can be 100% sure you can still use your gear.   

Now with that said, the cheaper lens is still less weight, easier to hold, not as high profile, sharper in the corners at wide angle and compared to the two, should your 15-85 break you wouldn't be as much out of pocket as the 24-105 or the 24-70 for that matter.  Keep in mind, Canon has and is using a 3 tier system on lenses... a cheap consumer lens, 15-55, a mid-range semipro lens, 15-85, and then pro series 24-105 or even the 17-55.  They have this symmetry throughout the lens line up from the 50mm's, to 70-300's etc... They even do that for the cameras... rebels, xxd, xd.  There's no knock on however uses the inexpensive versions however they are seen to be more of a jumping off tool or a reason to upgrade tool to get your feet wet and then start longing to upgrade. 

1703

Lenses / Re: Bokeh comparison 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

« on: May 30, 2011, 11:24:25 PM »

I think this conversation has ventured a bit off topic from the original question at hand... is the 24-105 a good compromise to the 24-70... A few years ago I had the same question and so i borrowed 2 lenses for a wedding (a night time wedding) and they were the 24-70 and 24-105.  I put the 2 lenses from CPS in a series of tests (on how I shoot) and I went in knowing I was using flash as the wedding so low light wasn't a huge dealbreaker for me.  While I wasn't thrilled that either lens extended while zooming (the 70 hid the zoom inside the hood while the 105 was visible) at the end of the day, I packed the 24-105 with me to the wedding and to go alongside my 17-40 for wides.  Images quality, to me, came out to be a wash.  I know the photozone people says it has some pincushioning, however in my tests, it really wasn't anything to lose sleep over.  I didn't end up buying either because budget wise I couldn't justify it, however I do plan on being first in line with the 5D mark III comes out and that will also force me to buy the 24-105 as a standard lens, oh shucks... The 24-70 is a great lens, but at the end of the days its all on how you shoot.  Go to your camera store and test them out.  PS... bokeh is affected by so many factors including image capture size, proximity of lens to subject to background, aperture, magnification and MM of the focal length, etc... If bokeh is your main concern, there's so many other ways in pulling it off than just pure aperture

1704

Canada / Re: COPYRIGHT in Canada

« on: May 26, 2011, 11:07:52 AM »

FMI, those of you worrying about copyrights... how many of you actually have gone to your countries respective copyright website and registered your images?  I'm not 100% in canada, however in the US you can go to the US Copyright website, pay $40-45 for a 30 minute window of time to upload your photos to their website.  You fill out your personal and professional information, and submit them... I a few months you get a certificate saying they are copyrighted under your name.  In court, it's hard to prove you were the person who fired the shutter on the camera unless you have witness's and or have other supporting documents but having the copyright certificate, that goes a long way in proving your case.  Lastly, http://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/  for a yearly fee you can put an invisible digital watermark on your photos... you can post your images on your website with no visible watermark to degrade your images, and depending on your level of purchase, they will scan the internet for their watermarks so if someone takes your image and puts it on their website, you will know about it.  If you get a big enough company to do it, you can make bank.  =)  NAPP tested this service by taking a photo with the invisible watermark, having the photo published in a book, scanned the photo from the book in a scanner, and open it in photoshop and photoshop still found a trace of the watermark.  I haven't tested this myself, but NAPP is very credible and I would trust them so if that is 100% true, this is an incredible technology. 

1705

Canada / Re: COPYRIGHT in Canada

« on: May 26, 2011, 10:39:04 AM »

Copyright is such a finicky issue.  I shoot product photography for a local company where I live and it is understood that while I am the photographer, they own copyrights with the photos and I cannot resell the photos.  NOW... It is also understood if i have a photo I shoot that I like I can put it in my portfolio, put in on my website, promotionals, etc... The advertising manager does the same thing with her personal portfolio where when she uses my photographs in her layouts and catalogs, etc... For her it's a reflection of her layout/graphic design skills and for me, it's a reflection of my photography skills... We just cant profit off the photos any more than whats in our paycheck. 

With just about all my other jobs, I have written into my contracts I own copyrights... On weddings, portraits, architecture, etc... Now also the rough rule of thumb of "if you alter the photo 5% then the photo is yours" is also sketchy but used in everyday life, SO, if you shoot a photo for a client, they like it, buy it, and then you turn it into fine art, clip things out, do post production to the photo, etc... Then as long as you keep your nose clean and it's not perfectly recognizable, then it is what it is. 

1706

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

« on: May 26, 2011, 10:24:58 AM »

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it.  I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...

Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...

The day they announce this lens is the day I put my 17-40 up on craigslist and put my order in for this one.  The irony with the price inflation over the last year, the price I paid 2-3 years ago for it new is $150 cheaper than current retail rates so I could make up my entire investment on this lens and then some on the used market.  =)  It's not often you need shallow DOF (F 2.8 ) for wide angle because bokeh is diminished in wide angles due to the wider angle and lower focus scale making the relation between  the subject matter and infinity a lot closer than mid range or telephoto.  If I need that tad bit of speed, I will throw in my 430 and give me my extra light.

Now what I want and need is that a lens that is sharp, sharp, and sharp.  Corner sharpness doesn't have to be exceptional, acceptable even on full frame, and an IS that does a good 4 stop correction.  I shoot a lot of architecture  and commercial real estate in which I go into a lot of empty warehouses or foreclosed buildings and have to take pictures quickly with what I'm given as I'm paid by the job, not the hour, so If i spend a day or an hour, I still get the same pay.  If I can handhold close to a second and get sharp photos, I'll buy 2 of them. 

1707

Canon General / Re: Patent - EF 300 f/4L IS II

« on: May 25, 2011, 10:19:48 AM »

Is it just me or the Fno's not quite what they are claiming to be?  This lens, for instance is 4.14 but advertised as F4... similar with the 35mm patent and 24mm patent?  The 50mm appears to be 1.3 but advertised as F1.4.  With these minor differences, when the cameras metering system calculates the exposure on what the lens SHOULD be letting through, (especially since the lenses are wide open when they are metering and focusing and not stopped down) then it seems to me some of the lenses would be a hair darker and lighter than you would expect once you shoot the scene. 

1708

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

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:20:22 PM »

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least).  But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving.  Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length).  But that's not going to help if your subject is moving.  Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that.  Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).

But isn't 4 stops IS better than one stop natural light? Going from an F4 with no IS to an F4 with modern, 4-stop IS makes it better than an older 2.8, right?

It is better for static low light situations with no motion of the subject matter (architecture, commercial, etc) however if you have subject motion, you get 1 stop faster shutter... It's not much, however if you have subject motion,  and F4 wont cut it, odds are 2.8 wont be perfect either, a fast prime would be... It's about knowing what conditions you are going into before choosing your gear. 

1709

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 24, 2011, 01:52:03 PM »

I'm glad they got it to work well with your canon lenses... Regarding the AF board... a year/year and a half ago or so I sent in my 7d and 17-40 in to be cleaned through CPS and asked for them to double check focus to make 100% I was getting the sharpest images with the lens, might as well... When they came back, the camera was notated that it was within specs however they said there was an issue with the computer chip with the 17-40 and they replaced it/fixed it for free.  I dont recall bad focus before i sent it in, i just wanted to double check it, however it is fixed and i haven't had problems since.  Regarding the computer chips goes, (AF chips), computer techs treat electricals with gloves and sterile environments, however we, as photographers, aren't nearly as protective of our lenses (especially the electrical contacts) nearly as much.  That being said, I'm 100% confident the contacts are protected to an extent to account for this.

Your 50mm 1.8... is that a metal mount or a plastic mount?  I've heard of the AF motor frying.... the 50 1.4 is infamous for that (for people who shoot constantly with that lens)... and that lens is almost 3x the price of the 1.8.  So... given that, with this lens I wouldn't be as concerned as I would if it happened to my 17-40 or 70-200, etc...

Lastly, I wouldn't lose sleep over the turning off your camera when changing lenses, etc... I dont do that, but then that could account to my 17-40mm never mind.. haha.  But then again I haven't had problems since so who knows.  Use your best judgement.  If you're in a dry climate with a lot of static electricity, then by all means... if you're in a moist climate, then maybe not so much... You know denver better than I do but keep us updated as you see fit.  Keep in touch with your ventures. 

1710

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

« on: May 24, 2011, 01:26:32 PM »

My wife would kill me but I'd be in line to sell my 17-40 and upgrade... =)