March 05, 2015, 07:21:35 AM

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 - GuyF

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22
256
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame Sharper Than Crop?
« on: October 20, 2012, 07:24:50 AM »
I suspect it may simply come down to the size of the photosites on a crop sensor. They tend to be smaller than those on full-frame sensor and thus the laws of physics and diffraction come in to play sooner on a crop sensor.

For a fuller and more in-depth answer just hang on, I see our friend Neuro on the horizon with his usual top-notch explanations for the witchcraft that is optical physics.

Pah! Just as I type this, there he comes!

I have a question also. Diffraction. I have read about it, and there are several places that warns against closing the lens too much (some say you should not go to F22, but stay at F16 due to diffraction. Does anyone have a practical example on how this would alter a picture, besides a theoretical argument? Otherwise, when shooting landscape for instance, why would one not go minimum aperture all the time, given that you control the other factors?


Whilst it was only speculation on my part, check out the examples here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Also the table near the top of the page here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx gives values for apertures where diffraction might start to creep in. Note that they say it may not be visible depending on what size and how you view the image.

257
EOS Bodies / Re: Iconic photographs
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:34:08 PM »
Ray - yeah the limited edition is pretty expensive. I thought about splashing out on it but then decided against it. Looks a whopper though - much larger than the already-large "standard" edition plus it's signed and you get a print with it too.

Enough internet - must go and take a look at my new purchase!  :D

258
EOS Bodies / Re: Iconic photographs
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:56:00 PM »
Did these shots become "iconic" straight away or did they only become iconic after a period of time, allowing themselves to sink into the collective consciousness?

Give it 50yrs and all the newsworthy shots of today will become just as iconic and our grandchildren will say, "hey they only had 20mp 2-D cameras back then but they still managed to get great shots!".

A great shot is a great shot whenever, wherever and however it was taken. Speaking of which I just picked up my copy Steve McCurry's book "The Iconic Photographs" a couple of hours ago and haven't had a chance to look through it yet.

259
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame Sharper Than Crop?
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:45:22 PM »
I suspect it may simply come down to the size of the photosites on a crop sensor. They tend to be smaller than those on full-frame sensor and thus the laws of physics and diffraction come in to play sooner on a crop sensor.

For a fuller and more in-depth answer just hang on, I see our friend Neuro on the horizon with his usual top-notch explanations for the witchcraft that is optical physics.

Pah! Just as I type this, there he comes!

260
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 16, 2012, 01:58:38 PM »
All shots: 40D and 300mm f2.8 IS mk1.

During a falconry display there were 3 or 4 gulls mobbing the eagle which didn't seem to get too stressed. The shot kinda makes it look like a well-trained stunt team  ;D

The shot of the cygnet was just dumb luck - hey look ma! I can wheelie!

261
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: October 15, 2012, 01:40:34 PM »
Very nice. Makes me begin to think a 300mm 2.8 IS and Kenko 2x TC doesn't cut it  :(

263
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores
« on: October 12, 2012, 05:11:50 AM »
DXOMark is all very well but not everything that can be measured matters and not everything that matters can be measured (to quote some patent office clerk).

The question should really be - how many would trade their DSLR with all their bells and whistles and go back to shooting film or slide?

264
Lenses / Re: Canon 300 2.8 (is)
« on: September 29, 2012, 10:20:49 AM »
Hmmm, tricky. What sort of distance and wildlife are you shooting? If the wildlife is quite static then a monopod would help you lots. However if the subject moves alot and is erratic then a monopod might be more of a hinderance. Of course shooting at a high shutter speed and having a ball-head on the monopod should help.

So depending on the subject the 300 non-IS and extenders plus a monopod should give good results. I have the mk1 IS and it is probably the sharpest lens I know of. Using a Kenko 1.4x converter doesn't appear to degrade sharpness at all.

If you can save for a mk1 or 2 with IS then I'd go for that - the IS is a big plus. I haven't tried the mk2 IS but imagine it's even better than my mk1.

Hope that helps.

265
Lenses / Re: 85 mm Lens
« on: September 26, 2012, 01:26:31 PM »
Buy.

The.

Sigma.

266
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 01:52:09 PM »
So Canon and Nikon are developing almost the same products together.

Yes.  It's a phantom company call Cankon ;)

Cankon is a dumb name for a joint venture. Surely they'd take the first part of Nikon and the second part of Canon and call the company Nik.... oh, bugger.

267
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2012, 05:17:32 AM »
Some call me visionary...or just a good guesser  ;D:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8347.msg165227#msg165227

268
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 22, 2012, 07:29:05 AM »
Some shots from an airshow last week.

269
Welcome to a capitalist society.

Here's how it works: get hold of some capital and do something so that it increases.

Want me to run over that one more time?

Every manufacturer on the planet probably does the same as Canon with some of their products. A while back a Sony repair engineer told me two of their TV models were identical apart from the more expensive one had the flag for Teletext enabled in it's firmware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext). Change the flag and charge £99 more.

The Rolls Royce Ghost uses the BMW 7-series chassis. The Aston Martin Cygnet is a re-badged Toyota IQ. The Sony 300mm f2.8 looks remarkably similar to the Canon 300mm f2.8  :o etc.

Canon are not unique.

270
Lenses / Re: missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?
« on: September 19, 2012, 01:40:06 PM »
I don't have experience with a lens of 3.6 kG
How is it to work handheld with a lens of this weight?

The obvious answer is, it depends on your strength and what you are shooting. Last Saturday I used a 5D3, 300mm f2.8 IS and 1.4x converter all afternoon at an airshow. The combined weight is about 3.6kg and my arms got a bit tired towards the end but not as bad as I thought they might (I'm not the strongest of people). The main problem was trying to hold steading in very high winds. Certainly if I got something heavier, a monopod would be essential. The thing is, you'll never be able to judge until you try - a couple of minutes in a shop is nothing like wielding a heavy lens for hours  :o

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22