Messages

106

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:35:23 AM »

The thing I noticed between the my 1dsII and the 5DII & III is, the 1DsII has less DR and in a sense makes the photo seem crisper since the image is natively more contrasty.

Oh yes, that's a good point.  The camera with greater dynamic range will present a less contrasty image.  The camera with less dynamic range will present an image that looks crisper overall.  But greater dynamic range is usually preferred as you can always add contrast.

107

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:28:10 AM »

Here are two 100% crops...
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper.  Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp.  The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp.  If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even less sharp.  Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

Both look extremely good — very, very similar.  If I had to choose, the 5DIII photo looks slightly more natural to me.  Extra sharpness in 100% crops can look overly digital and is not necessarily welcome.

108

Canon General / Re: 5d mark iii vs 1dx when you are 50% wedding 50% sports

« on: February 05, 2013, 11:33:00 PM »

For weddings, I much prefer the size & weight of the 5DIII to the 1DX.  If I shot sports professionally, I would probably go for the 1DX.

109

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS for $549 at Adorama

« on: February 02, 2013, 04:10:08 PM »

I have this lens and adore it.  I shall count the ways:

• Sharp as all get out:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that --> went punch for punch with the 24L
• Internal focusing -- nothing telescoping in or out that crap can get into.
• Other than lacking the WS gasket at the lens mount, this lens has the same build quality as the 100L macro. It's no 70-200 F/2.8 IS II, but it's very, very nice.
• F/2.8 plus 3-4 stops of IS absolutely beats F/1.4 to me.  I am not shooting moving targets nearly so much as poorly lit things.
• Small, light, unassuming.

Love love love this lens.  A steal at this price.

I agree 100%.  It is a delight.  Photographers can have very different needs, and sometimes one photographer doesn't see the point or value of a piece of gear that another photographer absolutely loves.  Also, some photographers don't see any value in compact sized high-quality gear, whereas others prize it.  I think there is value in both 1.4 lenses and 2.8 lenses, and don't always feel the need for the maximum aperture lens (which necessarily brings with it much greater size & weight).  I didn't want to buy the original 28/2.8 with it's old style noisy autofocus.  So the new small high-quality primes are a dream come true.  I'm very glad that Canon is updating & upgrading their little primes and meeting the needs of more photographers.  Let's hope they update the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 too.

110

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 02, 2013, 03:53:01 PM »

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

I never heard of it either.  And I'm not sure why the addition of IS would change the filter size so much. 

Filter size is not a significant factor in my purchase decision.  I think the 24-70 II is pretty fantastic just the way it is, even without the IS, so I'm not bothered if this story is true.

111

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS for $549 at Adorama

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:54:29 AM »

why would i pay anything for a 28mm prime when it's only F2.8? I guess it's nice to have IS, and this potentially could be a tad bit sharper, but really, there is nothing appealing about this lens at all to me, least of all the price.

There is nothing appealing to me about the 800mm lens, but that doesn't mean it's not a fine lens and worth over $13,000 to someone else.  This Canon 28mm is a wonderful lens for stills and video.  If you check out the list of features, it is more than a plain 28mm.  It is improved in every way over the old 28/2.8.  And it is delightfully compact, which is one of the virtues of it being only f/2.8.  It is likely that relatively few photographers will need this lens, but for the ones that do, it is very welcome. 

112

Lighting / Re: When do _you_ use a bare bulb diffusor?

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:40:21 PM »

I crack up laughing when i see these being used outside, pointed straight up!

You can laugh, but as a "bare bulb" it does send light in all directions, even when pointed straight up.  Pointing it straight up outdoors works fine if the intention is to give the subject a tiny bit of extra light in the eyes, perhaps a catchlight in the pupils, but without subjecting them to a flash pointed directly at their eyes (which would likely cause them to blink more).  Of course, it won't work well for farther subjects.

113

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:39:53 PM »

It would be interesting to hear your stories why you choose Canon.

My first Canon SLR was the Elan 7 film camera back in 2000 or 2001, I think.  At the time, Canon seemed to offer a better selection of lenses, better ergonomics and better autofocus.

114

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D kit with 24-105 F4L for $2499 at Amazon

« on: January 25, 2013, 07:44:20 PM »

Someone's bound to post that the 35 f2 isn't good enough for full frame.
Take a look at this, shot by us on the 35 f2 on a 5D mk1 before we got the 1.4

http://www.buildingpanoramics.com/superzoom/selby%20abbey/selbyabbey.html

Those look great, but are they stitched from several frames?  They don't seem to have the standard 3:2 aspect ratio.  They also look wider than 35mm.

115

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D kit with 24-105 F4L for $2499 at Amazon

« on: January 25, 2013, 07:38:09 PM »

For storm chasing, is weather sealing going to be a high priority?  If so, that would rule out most or all of the 35mm lenses.  I don't think any of these are weather sealed:  Canon 35/2, Canon 35/2 IS, Canon 35/1.4L or Sigma 35/1.4.  I don't think the Zeiss and Samyang 35's are weather sealed either, but they are manual focus so maybe they are less affected by rain.

116

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 25, 2013, 06:01:17 PM »

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

Oh my goodness, the bokeh of the 100L macro lens is exceptionally good at portrait distances.  Canon must have had its top bokeh wizards working overtime on this lens, building in every last bit of bokeh magic that could be packed into a 100/2.8 lens.  For bokeh, it stands out as one of Canon's best.

117

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?

« on: January 24, 2013, 08:50:16 PM »

5D2 > 6D better VF

Is that true?  Does anyone else feel that the 5D2 viewfinder is better than that of the 6D?  If the 5D2 viewfinder is better, what exactly is better about it?  I have a 5D2 but not a 6D and haven't had a chance to handle a 6D.  Thanks in advance.

In my experience the 5D2 viewfinder is slightly darker, not that big of a deal in broad daylight. But you'll definitely notice the 6D's viewfinder is brighter in low light situations. I can't see the difference between 98% or 97%, it feels just the same.

Thanks!  Slightly brighter in low light would be better for me.

118

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?

« on: January 24, 2013, 08:40:38 PM »

5D2 > 6D better VF

Is that true?  Does anyone else feel that the 5D2 viewfinder is better than that of the 6D?  If the 5D2 viewfinder is better, what exactly is better about it?  I have a 5D2 but not a 6D and haven't had a chance to handle a 6D.  Thanks in advance.

119

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Multiple exposure seemed so simple, main subject too transparent

« on: January 22, 2013, 03:29:21 PM »

After Canon has learned from 5d3/d800 that obviously few people are willing to switch to the competition, their only thought seems to be to upsell to the 5d3, and that's why they removed a lot of firmware features that could be implemented for zero cost....

Well, it is a business, not a photographers' aid society.  Photographers upsell too, as do countless other businesses, not just Canon.  I doubt that anything can be implemented in a camera for truly "zero" cost.  Any feature has to be be designed, built (or coded), tested and evaluated, refined, tested and evaluated again, added to the production process, added to the product manual, added to the product marketing, supported for the life of the product, etc.  Add up the worker-hours needed to do that, the opportunity cost of having them diverted from other work, the cost of the facilities where everything gets done, and the wages and benefits of all of the people who do it, and there is nothing in a camera that truly has zero cost.

120

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 vs 6D AF in low light

« on: January 20, 2013, 09:29:27 PM »

Zlatko can you express what you mean by "low light" in terms that can be correlated to the results of others', as well as the published specifications for AF sensitivity?  short version:  What   does "low light" mean to you in terms of EV(100)?

Sure, looking at recent photos in Photo Mechanic, I would say that typical "low light" photos were in the range of EV 1.2 to EV 4.0.  These would be interior scenes at night, photographed without flash and without an AF assist light.  Those EV numbers correlate to these exposures:
EV 1.2 = ISO 3200, f/1.2, 1/50th
EV 4.0 = ISO 800, f/1.6, 1/50th