Messages

121

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 20, 2013, 06:28:47 PM »

It is clear that the 35L is on the camera ~90% of the time we see his camera, and when he runs out of space on his disk and fumbles...he is switching between 35L and the 135L bodies.

Yes, if you look at his photo stream on Flickr, the 35L gets a very large share of the photos, probably more than any other lens.  It's a great focal length, with a very natural perspective, and good in all kinds of light.  He also uses the 24-70/2.8L II quite a lot, as well as the 24L, 50L, 85L, 135L and 70-200/2.8L II.  On rare occasions, he has used the 100/2.8L macro, 70-200/4L and the 300/4L.  He has also used the Fuji X100 when around TV cameras, apparently for its quiet shutter, but this may be when he was still using the 5DII which lacked a quiet shutter mode.  The 5DIII has a wonderful quiet shutter mode, so I'm guessing the X100 is no longer needed.

122

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 19, 2013, 05:13:59 PM »

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

If he went down to f1.2 the background would be putty with zero possibility of seeing the flag etc... This is not an exercise in how to get the most bokeh...but to document the president with some national symbols in the background...With even f/7+ it is blurry but i guess he wanted the prez to stand out while still being able to get a sense of the flag and the background.

Any L lens portrait prime such as 85 or 50L or even cheapo non-L portrait primes wide open would have had the same issue...even stopped down to f/4. If he has to stop down, might as well use the best he has...after all he is photographing the president.

I agree.  F/7.1 is an excellent choice here.  Every aperture is useful.  Which is right depends on how you want to draw the picture.

123

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

« on: January 19, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »

Most of my photography with the 5D3 is in low light and I find the focusing to be excellent, at least as good as any other camera I've used in the past 10 years.  And most Canon flashes have a built-in autofocus assist light, so I don't know why anyone would need a laser assist.

When shooting low key portraits, models don't like it to be dazzled by the assist flash.

I was responding to the statement that the 5D3's ability to focus in low light is atrocious.  On the contrary, I've found it to be excellent in low light, and that is without any autofocus assist light.  However, an autofocus assist light can be used if needed.  It is not an "assist flash" and doesn't "dazzle".  To clarify, it is the red AF assist light available on most Canon flashes and on the ST-E2.  The red AF assist light can be used for AF assist only, with no flash being emitted.  The flash is on, but set to not fire.  It's not ideal, and it's usually not necessary, but it's available if needed.

124

Lenses / Re: Fast lens for indoor use

« on: January 17, 2013, 08:57:21 PM »

Looking for a fast lens, mainly for indoor(with low light) use. It will be used in family events, indoor parties at night and its usage will range from single to group portraits. Most of the time I will have external flash attached. Right now I take my 24-70 f2.8L in such events but I am looking for something lightweight and fast.

Based on your specific requirements, I think:

Canon 24/1.4 is too wide for single portraits
Canon 24/2.8 IS is too wide for single portraits and not fast
Canon 28/1.8 is good but not sharp in corners
Canon 28/2 has buzzy old autofocus
Canon 28/2.8 IS is not a fast lens but works well with flash
Canon 35/2 has buzzy old autofocus
Canon 35/2 IS (the new one) seems to offer the best combination of focal length, aperture, size, weight & image quality
Canon 35/1.4 is excellent but big & heavy
Sigma 35/1.4 is excellent but big & heavy
Canon 40/2.8 is not a fast lens but works well with flash
50mm are not wide enough for some group portraits

125

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:43:04 AM »

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798.  That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L.  And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that).  Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price.  The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.

... as opposed to what happens now: Canon releases IS lenses at exactly the price of the 20 year-old lenses that they replace, and forums are full of praise for Canon's wonderful cheap lenses and how much they love foregoing profit to keep customers happy?

What I meant to say is that I don't agree with the complaints about "outrageous" pricing.  The new, improved lenses come with a higher price, which is to be expected.  Nothing wrong with that.  I wouldn't be surprised if a new 135/1.8L IS were offered at the same price as the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8.

126

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:10:18 AM »

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared  to 50/1,4.

I haven't rejected any of the test sites.  I discussed all of them (several times).  Photozone is the only one that supports your view that the 50/1.4 offers better resolution overall.  The others show the the better resolution depends on the aperture and the part of the frame.  As someone mentioned above, perhaps Photozone is testing at a closer distance than the other sites (?).

127

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 17, 2013, 02:51:10 AM »

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4  at F-1,4

You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thanks for that link.  Yes, the second copy is better than the first.  TDP shows that at f/1.4 and at f/2, the 50/1.2 lens is better at center and worse at corners.  In that aperture range, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens as the center is more important than the corners.  Strangely, the SLRGear blur charts show the 50/1.4 to be much worse in the corners at f/1.4.

128

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 16, 2013, 04:44:26 PM »

a99 + 135 f/1.8.
Full frame, 135mm f/1.8, Image Stabilised, 24 million lovely Exmor pixels, 14 bits of DR at ISO50, 10fps, beautiful Zeiss glass. What more could you want?

Nice lens, but look at the price of that Sony lens: $1,798.  That is twice the price of the current Canon 135/2L.  And it doesn't actually have image stabilization (you have to buy a Sony camera for that).  Imagine how people will complain if Canon introduces a new 135mm lens at the Sony's price.  The forums would be abuzz with new accusations of "greed" and how Canon keeps "screwing" their customers.

129

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D is amazing... Review and image samples coming soon...:)

« on: January 16, 2013, 02:30:26 PM »

6D should be considered as 1point AF camera

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  I've used the outer points on Canon's xxD cameras going back 10 years.  They do work, but not as well.  They are not cross type, so they are limited in direction and accuracy.  It doesn't mean they don't work at all.  They work, but they don't offer the latest, best, most accurate AF.  Yes, cross-type points are much better.

130

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

« on: January 16, 2013, 12:58:29 PM »

The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof.

... and smaller and lighter is still a reason too (for me).

131

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii - another superlative

« on: January 16, 2013, 12:02:16 PM »

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off  200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

"bad move"
"another pro will take your business"

Those statements are way too broad, in my opinion.  It all depends.  Depends on the style, subject matter and business.  What may be true for one photographer may be irrelevant for another.  We don't all need the same gear.  He is stating his view, which may be completely correct for his style and subject matter, etc. 

132

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: January 15, 2013, 10:13:14 PM »

I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

Same here.  Three years of heavy shooting with this camera.  Zero photos rejected due to this "horrible" problem.  The 5DII has been good.

I should add, by way of maintaining objectivity and putting things in perspective: I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to misfocusing by the less than stellar AF system of the 5DII?  Hundreds at least, likely thousands.

Again, same here.  AF could have been better.

133

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: January 15, 2013, 05:58:22 PM »

For example, here are two factors that go into selecting equipment for space - 1) resistance to radiation (gamma rays, alpha particles, heavy ions in solar wind, tolerance to accumlate dose, etc.)

Some cameras don't survive the radiation.  According to NASA:

"The cameras that come back are evaluated for damage. Depending on the condition the camera may fly again. The space environment (both inside the vehicle and on spacewalks) is tough on the electronic cameras. The radiation damages pixels on the sensor. Sometimes the damage is so great that the camera does not fly again."

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space

134

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 15, 2013, 11:37:05 AM »

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes!  You've got the right idea.  A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus! 

Thanks for the photo samples!

well that makes things not  better.
In the middle  at F-1.0 you can achieve something  who looks like  little bit of sharpness but  other parts of the picture is not at all sharp.

The lens provides the images  a particular character, and it does very well in the display cabinet.

I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.

135

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon

« on: January 15, 2013, 01:05:48 AM »

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.

I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally.  Lower price, smaller size & weight.  The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires?  I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.