Messages

196

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mki or 60d (landscapes)

« on: September 09, 2012, 11:33:30 AM »

You can get a clean 5D, in really nice shape, for not a whole lot of cash.

Here's the way I see it:  Its a cost effective way to get FF imaging.  The 12mp images it makes are very good.

If you're the kind of landscape photographer that shoots long scenes with medium telephotos (mountains, waterfalls, etc) the 60 might be better.   But if you like wide angles, you can't beat a FF sensor.

My old XTi (400D) was capable of very nice imagery even at its "puny" 10mp output.  You'll not be under-gunned with output on a 5D, unless you're really printing very large.  In that case, the 60D isn't gonna cut the mustard either.

197

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern on the 5D Mark III

« on: September 07, 2012, 09:21:35 PM »

I know they had problems with the dual processors ... there's a long explanation on the website.  Maybe they've overcome things.

198

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me

« on: September 07, 2012, 06:44:41 PM »

I never liked kodachromeod th, Why did it get so much rave?  I never understoat.

Kodachrome could be harsh in a lot of instances.  It had outrageous detail in the shadows, tended to burn highlights easily, more easily than any other transparency film.  But... if you could control the lighting, or you were shooting in good conditions... to me at least, it yielded results were pretty outstanding.  The ultra fine grain of the 25 and even 64 variety was superior, and even the 200 speed had an interesting quality.  You either loved it, and dealt with its shortcomings, or you hated it.  I shot an awful lot of birds and scenery with Kodachrome 200, some of that in 120 size (talk about to die for these days!).   You want to see something?  Project a well exposed Kodachrome 120 size slide on a screen, one taken say... with a Hasselbled and 150 Sonnar.  We just dont have that sort of thing at our disposal today.

Then there were the dye transfer prints from Kodachrome.   Total manipulation.  It was the silver based way of getting HDR prints.  Done right, dye transfer prints were superior in all respects to anything else out there.

And on that note of wistful history... I'm due a bourbon, just because.

199

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me

« on: September 06, 2012, 09:45:07 PM »

The marketing term for megapixels is "measured-in quality".

The master of this is the venerable Sear-Roebuck Company.  The 5.2gallon Craftsman shop vac clearly isn't as good, or pricey as the 5.9 gallon model. 

~~

In the old days, there was clear distinction of cameras, as there is today, by feature set.  Its just that the features were different.

Back in the 90's we had the EOS-1 varient, the EOS-3, the EOS-5, and the EOS-7's... not in that order, and the Rebel line up. 

The IQ was more or less the same thru the whole line - as the FILM and LENSES were the same.  You got, back then, metering, FPS, other features, viewfinder coverage, flash manipulation, that sort of thing... and yes, build quality.

Today, IQ is part of the feature set.

I've still got a pair of EOS-5's, and they seem like Rebel lineup as far as build quality goes... even below that really.  My Rebel XTi was built nicer, felt better, sturdier.  But they work! 

200

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list

« on: September 05, 2012, 09:45:27 PM »

I've got what I think it ok.

For Hasselblad:
500c/m
553el/x
SWC 38mm
60mm
80mm
2x Mutar
250mm
and 350mm

For Leica:
M4-2
M4-p
M6ttl
28 summicron asph
35 summicron asph
50 summicron
90 summicron apo asph

and for Canon
two EOS-5's
5dmkII
20/2.8
28/1.8
28/2.8
50/1.4
100/2.8 macro usm
300/4.0
1.4x

I think soon, as soon as my clutch is better... a 16-35/2.8 USM

And pie in the sky (after an M9) a 300/2.8

201

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list

« on: September 05, 2012, 09:41:48 PM »

Oh M9 or M10 definitely.

I owned a 50/.095 for a few years.  I was converted to M by Marty Forscher.

The lens is soft at .095, better at 2.0 and ok, but not great by 5.6

It uses the outer bayonet on Canon RF cameras.  No such thing on Leica M's. 
I had one, it fit and focused on the M3 I had at the time.  It brought up the right frame.

It also blocked the viewfinder... who major bigtime!

I shot jazz ensembles, with 2475 recording, wide open... with that lens in the late 70's and early 80's.

202

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Regrets -- Your One Missed Picture?

« on: September 04, 2012, 11:25:56 PM »

I regret... well...

Once upon a time, I traveled to the Florida keys to take some pictures of whatever we could.

Sunrise... and on Big Pine key there was an estuary.  You'd think it was the west side of things, but since the road is heading west at that point, it was actually on the east side of things.  Great sunup.  Oh man, to die for, big round sun, and hoards of wading birds, and roosting birds.   I was shooting a Nikon F2 with a 400/5.6, and my buddy was shooting a Bronica S2a with a 150 Nikkor on it.

I told him to wait... I was fiddling, trying to make sure the film was advancing... trying to set up a "Leitz Tiltall" tripod in the semi-mud that we crawled in on, so as not to disturb the birds.  Almost ready...

KERRRRAAAAACK!

That S2a went off like an explosion.  Those Bronicas were focal plane cameras... loud as hell.  No sneaking up on anything with those.  He got the shot, I got skunked.  Ended up begrudgingly taking a few sunrise pictures, and made sure he got to walk a lot in Key West, carrying that Godawful heavy Bronica, while I had a nice 24/2.8 on my F2.

Dunno if that counts as a missed shot, but... there ya go, from 1977.

203

EOS Bodies / Re: will we see a entry level FF camera from canon at photokina?

« on: September 04, 2012, 02:12:42 AM »

Canon is very tight lipped.... they are not know for uncontrolled leaks.  A few happen... but they have at times totally bewildered the photo trade as well.   I attended dinners, as Canon's guest, back in the 70's and 80's, for product rollouts that we had ZERO clue on.  Other items, my rep would say, "we're gonna have a new (whatever) out in the fall... maybe Photokina, maybe PMA", and that was that.

Didn't they knock one out of the park with the Rebel/300D ?  That was a leakproof milestone for Canon.

So, ya just can't tell.... ya gotta wait.

204

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: help-bizarre happening with 1DX and canon 50mm/f1.2L

« on: September 03, 2012, 10:22:55 PM »

If you see the whole frame of the cameraman... you'll also see, nothing specular in that shot.  No evidence of sun coming thru onto anything, so I'm guessing.... its not a flare. 

Just doesn't look like flare either.  Have a look at the full frame of that image.... I dunno....(still considering things)

205

EOS Bodies / Re: What will be the standard high ISO levels 6 to 8 years from now?

« on: September 01, 2012, 09:00:06 AM »

Spoiled we are, indeed......

We've got ten stops (or more) of digital ISO range, and we're not satisfied.

What happened to the days of "choose between Panatomic-X through Tri-X", with the odd roll of 2475 thrown in at an amazingly granular ISO of about 1000 (or maybe 1600 pushed a bit).   Rating Pan-X at ISO 12-16 was not uncommon to get some decent shadow detail.  So, jumping through hoops we had 8 stops of ISO.  Normally, we'd be at ISOs (or back then ASAs) of 32, 125, and 400 - thats it.

Sensors will improve.  Six years ago todays sensors could not be imagined.  They tricked the actual sensors, the tricked the optical component of the sensors (microlenses), and tricked the firmware, and will no doubt trick and tweak and evolve and invent improved technology as time marches on.

206

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM focus problem...

« on: August 31, 2012, 11:25:50 PM »

That link shows a ton of socce photographs.  All shot with the 50/1.4?

At those distances, the 50's focus inconsistency is minimal.

When you get intimate with things... seated portraits for instance, the inconsistency and dof work against each other.

207

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM focus problem...

« on: August 31, 2012, 10:45:08 PM »

The 50 has a Focus shift!

I've noticed that, but its minimal.   In fact, in inconsistency of focus is much greater than the focus shift.

I've played with two copies of the 50/1.4, and I'm happy with the lens I've got.  Both were the same.  Mild focus shift, not too bad, always away as you stop down.  I've been told.. not sure though, that this is due to the placement of the aperture blades in the optical path, not being exactly - EXACTLY - where they should be.  Supposed to be a not uncommon "fault" with fast lenses using (more or less) Gauss designs.  I know the Leica 50 Noctilux suffers from focus shift, and the rangefinders must be re-adjusted if you plan on shooting mainly wide open.  You match a body to a lens, and to aperture wider than f/2.0 with Leica M's.  Focus shift is not uncommon.

The main problem I've seen, is focus inconstancy with the EF 50/1.4USM.  Mount the lens on a camera, camera on tripod.  Shoot at a newpaper at more or less 2 meters.  Shift the lens to infinity before focusing.  Shift the lens to closest focus before focusing.  Do that about three sets of images.  Shoot at f/2.0 and you'll see what I mean.  The lens, the mechanism is just... inconsistent.   

I like the lens.  I just know that close distance at very wide... say wider than 2.8 is gonna be an issue.  At farther distance, say, stage distances - when shooting a band - its fine at f/2.0 for sharp images in the center.  Shoot it at f/1.4 and the whole affair gets a little low contrast.  All 50/1.4 lenses do that... the Canon is no exception, nor is it the oddball.   If you want a sharp lens wide open at f/1.4 shoot a 50 Summilux 1.4 from Leica.  Those do amazingly well.

208

Canon General / Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?

« on: August 30, 2012, 11:48:30 PM »

Nope. 

I look back... a long time ago... one Nikkormat FT2 and a 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor.  Thats it. 

I think my eye was much better back then.  I went from having to use my brain for exposure and focus and composition... composition...  to what we have.

Pssst... one reason I love my M Leicas is that they force me to think, slow down, be deliberate, and see.

Today, I often feel like my photography is more reportage than creativity.   Maybe my muse is gone, I dunno.  I can shoot a wedding, a convention, and not miss a shot.  But there's no spark...

Sometimes I just grab a lens, turn everything to manual, and try to recapture it all, but todays cameras dont lend themselves to manual shooting as well as those from years past.

209

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses

« on: August 29, 2012, 08:23:46 PM »

MY 50/1.4 is very old... from the EOS-5 days - mid 90's era.

Never had a focusing issue - the key there is to not stress the part of the lens that carries the glass, the part that moves in-out as it focuses.  The hood on - all the time - does that, so mine still does ok.

The focusing repeatability on the 9 focus point cameras.... is so-so.    At f/1.4 its hit and miss.  I've tried others, and they're the same.  You can set up the tests, shoot checkerboards, do all the jumping thru hoops... its hit or miss.  At close distances, say under 10 feet or so, avoid shooting at less than f/2.8 if you can.   Now that really sucks for me.  I'm used to shooting Leica, and with my M4's or M6TTL - you focus on an eye, and the eye is in focus, assuming nobody moved.  I love shallow DOF, and rarely shoot a Leica stopped down much at all.

Which leads to.... some hardware is better suited than others for certain purposes.  You want to shoot close and wide open at f/1.4 or f/2.0 all the time... and have corner to corner sharp (which the Canon 50/1.4 doesn't do until about f/4.5 or so), then you choose the equipment that will do it best.

There will be an M9 in my bag very soon.  Can't sell all the film Leicas, but... gotta keep one, maybe the M4-2 since I'll get the least for it. 

210

Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!

« on: August 28, 2012, 09:41:15 PM »

Leica M4P, 28 Summicron Asph., HP5 and or CN400. 

(I cant wait to get an M9.... )