July 25, 2014, 07:24:57 PM

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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39
226
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:55:31 AM »

Jun 2  IMG_0473-IMG_0474 by ecka84, on Flickr


Sunsets create shadows.

Where are the shadows in this?

Oh, I forgot, it has been HDR'd to death.


Why? To me it looks more natural than the original image. I can't speak for the rest of the population, but I can see much more than my camera (in term of dynamic range) and it is not my fault :). There are shadows, but they are not black, because this is how I saw it.

227
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 05, 2013, 04:30:51 AM »

228
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 04, 2013, 12:41:25 PM »
I agree with @ecka... IS (nowadays) is more of a feature for amateur video more so than still photos.  I wouldn't take serious landscape or architectural photos hand holding my camera at 1/15s, although just having that ability helps.
There a lot of churches, buildings will not allow either tripod or monopod. therefore you have to hand hold the camera. You will want IS in that situation.

You don't really need a tripod for mirrorless cameras with small lenses. Half-decent gorillapod should be OK.
I would like to see you use a gorillapod inside Ventican or Versaille

:) me too.
However, that's not my point. There is a bigger chance to use gorillapod in such places, than tripod. Don't you agree?

229
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:33:03 AM »
I agree with @ecka... IS (nowadays) is more of a feature for amateur video more so than still photos.  I wouldn't take serious landscape or architectural photos hand holding my camera at 1/15s, although just having that ability helps.
There a lot of churches, buildings will not allow either tripod or monopod. therefore you have to hand hold the camera. You will want IS in that situation.

You don't really need a tripod for mirrorless cameras with small lenses. Half-decent gorillapod should be OK.

230
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 03, 2013, 12:06:18 PM »
Did anyone else raise an eyebrow at the "IS" in that lens name?

I didn't think people really needed to handhold 1-second exposures at 11mm, but I suppose the technology does help sell lenses to novices.

Not really. IS would be nice for video.

My concern for the new lenses are size and weight.
More pancake lenses!

Yes. EF-M 11mm f/4 STM pancake would be great.

231
Lenses / Re: Portrait lens setup -what should I get next?
« on: June 02, 2013, 02:36:24 PM »
..... That's especially true on a crop body - an f/2.8 lens on APS-C is equivalent to f/4.5 on FF......

The optical effects of a lens happen before it hits the sensor, so sensor size has nothing to do with DOF. Subject distance however does have an effect, with a 50mm on ff you would be closer to the subject to get the same shot.


Wrong.
The right way of comparing APS-C and FF DoF is to keep the same distance and framing. When using the same focal length, sensor size has everything to do with subject distance you will want to shoot it from. While at the same distance crop needs a wider lens with a wider aperture to match the FF. Try FF+135/2 vs APS-C+85/1.2 ;)

232
Lenses / Re: Portrait lens setup -what should I get next?
« on: June 02, 2013, 02:13:09 PM »
The whole "buying-FF-lenses-now-and-maybe-upgrading-to-FF-later" thing seems pointless. 24-70/2.8 on FF is equivalent to 15-44/1.8 on crop, which suggests that you need a whole range of primes on APS-C to match a FF with just two f/2.8 zooms (like 24-70 and 70-200). While 5D3 +24-105/4 can easily replace your 50D+17-70/2.8-4.5 , 50D + 24-70/2.8 and even 50D + 35/2.
I would sell 50D, 17-70, 35/2 and buy 5D3, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.8.

233
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 15 vs Canon 14
« on: June 01, 2013, 01:46:22 PM »
For me it is Zeiss 15/2.8 vs TS-E 17L.

234
5D3, period!

235
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Thoughts on Zeiss Canon 5 lens kit?
« on: May 31, 2013, 06:42:28 PM »
I'd choose the best  :)
15/2.8
25/2 or 21/2.8
55/1.4
100/2
135/2

236
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice needed: performance of 6D
« on: May 30, 2013, 07:13:48 AM »
5D3 is much better for tracking, shoots 6fps and clearing buffer to CF card is faster than SD. My 6D with Transcend 64GB Class10 UHS-1 shoots 15 RAW images at 4.5fps before slowing down to 1fps. The buffer clears pretty fast and for shooting 10 frames series there should be no problem. However, 5D3 is a better tool for action.

237
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 100 f/2 vs. Canon 85 f/1.2 II vs. Canon 135 f/2
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:07:38 AM »
I was going to recommend the 135L, but the Zeiss is a great piece of glass.  100mm also is also closer to your 35mm.  As somebody else pointed out, the gap between 35 and 135 is a big one.

+1
Every 2x in focal length results in 4x FoV. You can fit four 70mm lens frames inside one 35mm lens frame (shot from the same distance) and almost sixteen 135mm lens frames inside one 35mm lens frame.

238
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 28, 2013, 10:41:32 AM »
Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.

Actually, yes.  The 17-40L on FF is a soft mess in the corners, especially wide open, and has major barrel distortion at the wide end (3.6%, although the 24-105L at 24mm has even more distortion).  The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).

For fair comparison we should use 17-40L at f/5.6-7.1 vs 10-22USM wide open. I've noticed before that 17-40L has soft FF corners at wide angle and stopping it down doesn't help much. For that reason I never bothered to try it myself. However, lots of angry worshipers argued that it's perfect at f/5.6+. I still don't believe them. Perhaps my definition of perfection is different :). Can you confirm that?

239
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 28, 2013, 09:53:02 AM »
Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.

I disagree, sort of...  For wide angle and normal lens designs, the smaller image circle means less glass is needed - for an equivalent level of build quality, an EF-S lens will cost less to produce than a corresponding EF lens.  I say 'sort of' because the reality is that production costs are only one factor (and not the most important one) in determining lens pricing - Canon would likely charge the sameand keep the difference as profit...

Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both lenses priced similarly.

240
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 28, 2013, 07:35:14 AM »
To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.

Well, if there was an equivalent EF-S lens for every EF lens and just as good, then they would be just as expensive (or even more). For example, 24-105L beats the EF-S 17-55/2.8 in every way - build, DoF, IQ, focal range, while both are similar in size, weight and price. Take a look at EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, the EF-S equivalent would be 17-85/2.2-3.5 IS USM, I doubt that it would be any smaller, better or cheaper. Actually, I'd prefer 6D+28-135/3.5-5.6 over 60D+17-55/2.8. So, I call this myth busted :)

It's busted as long as you're talking about comparing the EF-S lens on APS-C with the EF lens on FF.  But for example, when both are used on the same APS-C body, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 delivers better IQ than the EF 24-105/4L, and (IMO) the former is a more useful focal range (24mm is 'normal' on APS-C meaning no wide angle therefore the 24-105 is not a 'general purpose zoom' covering wide to short tele).

Personally, I'd prefer the 60D+17-55 over the 6D+28-135 any day.  But I'd take 6D+24-105 over both.

Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39