August 20, 2014, 02:55:01 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 - studio1972

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 06:09:19 AM »
Honest question.  I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration?  How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce?  What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?


An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.

Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn't :)


Remember the canon lenses are much older designs. Canon's more recent lens designs are much sharper, like the 100mm macro L.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 05:26:38 AM »
He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.

..No.
Me, neither, but if they release a 24mm, as is rumored, then I might consider it.  It would have to blow away the TS-E 24mm, though.

If you shoot 55mm all day long (think fashion or advertising pros) and do huge enlargements (think fashion or advertising pros again), I think this lens would probably be worthwhile.  For the rest of us, no.

I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.

3
This is a lens for more-money-than-sense enthusiasts rather than pros. It was a smart move to give it the OTT price tag as for those types of people the high cost actually makes the lens even more desirable.

4
You are aware that buying from some places will incur extra customs, handling and VAT charges? This often more than cancels out any saving.

5
DOF is subjective?  Hmm.  If my DOF is 8 feet in a photo, that is, 8 real-life feet out in the field, how in the world does that ever change after I take the photo??  8 feet is 8 feet isn't it? 

Actually, I wouldn't even need to take the photo.  The DOF is still 8 feet.  :)

Are you suggesting that by being subjective, it could be 8 feet, or 6 feet, or 10 feet, or 7.23838383 feet?  How silly.

It seems you think that based on your equipment, there's a 'slice' of the photo that's in perfect focus, say 3.8 feet in front of where you focused, and 4.2 feet behind it, then WHAM like magic at 4.3 feet behind the focal plane, everything gets blurry.  That's not how it works.

Light from the plane of focus (which is best approximated by a plane in the geometric sense - 2D and infinitely thin) is focused on the image sensor (we're ignoring field curvature, of course).  Everything outside that plane, even a few millimeters, is blurry...and the further from the focal plane, the blurrier it gets. That's optical physics.  Whether it looks blurry to you depends on viewing size and distance and your visual acuity.

Tell me - how do you know your hypothetical shot has that 'real' 8 foot DoF?  Did you use a DoF calculator?  That calculator determines the 8 foot DoF based on an assumed specific print size and viewing distance (commonly 8x10" viewed at 1 foot).  Change those assumptions, you change the calculated DoF.

This is very correct. Before one can calculate DoF, one must first define what "in focus' actually means. A 300 pixel wide web image will have much more DoF than a 20MP version of the same original shot.

In answer to the original question, full frame sensors do generally allow more control over DoF than crop sensors, this is really to do with the lenses, as a 50mm 1.4 lens will have less DoF than a 35mm 1.4 lens (which is designed to do a similar field of view on a crop sensor based camera, all other things being equal.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Anti-Aliasing Filter
« on: February 11, 2013, 06:30:31 PM »
The question is, why is the 5D III so superior to the 6D in this area? Is it processing power or something else?

Thanks,
Drew

The 5D3 sensor is precisely 3 x the horizontal resolution of 1080p video, so all they have to do is combine each nine pixels into 1.

7
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo st-e2?
« on: February 06, 2013, 07:05:39 PM »
Here's a review you might find helpful (comparison with Canon version with pros and cons). It doesn't work with the 5DC but is fine on the 5D2.

http://sarahmcdonnell.co.uk/photo-gear/yongnuo-st-e2-speedlite-transmitter-review/

8
White balance a bit cold I think.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 04:30:09 AM »
It's pretty simple.

Canon add an early adopter premium at launch, this reduces gradually until around a year afterwards. Incidentally, by this time, they have also worked out any quality problems/firmware glitches with the camera.

So, if you can wait a year before buying your camera, you will get a better product at a much reduced price.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D2 for a day after 5D3 for 6 months
« on: December 19, 2012, 05:30:21 PM »
Regarding switching between servo and one-shot, what is the appeal or benefit of the one-shot mode, and the switch between the two settings ?
I have always set my bodies to servo, and when the subject is motionless it seems to work fine.
Thanks

It allows the shot to be recomposed after focussing

11
Lenses / Re: leica 1600mm
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:17:58 AM »
Wow, but let's face it. Him buying that is similar to most of us lot buying a coffee! It won't even have caused a bump in his financial statements. Wonder what he uses it for?!

Novelty's probably worn off and he just hasn't got round to eBaying it yet.

12
Canon General / Re: Why you should take your camera to family Weddings
« on: October 25, 2012, 12:32:14 PM »
Just got back from my daughter's wedding in Brooklyn and so glad I took my camera! She told me she wanted me to just relax and enjoy the fun, but I took the camera and got shots of the family events and pre-ceremony, when the paid photographer wasn't there. In addition, I got the shots of her coming down the aisle, which he missed completely. Said his card filled up (persnally I always change cards immediately before the ceremony). He had a 5d2 and a 5dc, so I'm not sure why he didn't switch to camera 2, perhaps it was too tight due to a telephoto lens.

Personally, I would say the number 1 reason for missing that shot, is a relative stepping out into the aisle to get the shot with their iPhone/point n shoot/cheap dslr and standing right in your view.

Of course their camera is usually totally incapable of getting a decent shot in that situation, but by their selfish actions they block your chance to get a really great shot for the bride and groom.

I think this happens much more often than the pro messing things up and a relative saving the day with their snaps.

13
I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!


I wouldn't say the 18-55 is garbage. It's quite sharp and has IS, obviously a bit slow, but good for the price.

Here's one I took with that lens:




Thank you so much for your kind reply! That shot looks absolutely gorgeous, and now I'm torn again between the two sets  :-X


Just to clarify, I'm not saying the 18-55 is the equal of the 17-55, far from it. But as somebody else mentioned, it almost comes free with the camera, and it's a reliable, sharp lens for most situations. I sometimes use a 550D plus this lens as my spare body + lens set for weddings. I tend to shoot with it wide open and it's plenty sharp that way, so the amount of aperture blades isn't really a factor for me at least.

14
I think the 18-135 is the better lens. It's the new version that has the STM that allows for silent auto focusing during video. Also it covers a nice range without having to change lens. As a newbie its better to use one lens so you get used to it and learn. Then as u get better upgrade or buy new leses. The 18-55 and that other plastic thing are pure garbage. Most kit lenses for aps-c cameras are!


I wouldn't say the 18-55 is garbage. It's quite sharp and has IS, obviously a bit slow, but good for the price.

Here's one I took with that lens:


15
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 05:37:51 AM »
I currently own a T2i as well and do lots of wildlife shooting, so I did quite a lot of research, my advise don't get a 5dm2 as the autofocus is just shitty, no improvement over the t2i, so depending on your budget i'd say go for a 5d mark iii, or IF you don't mind waiting another half a year or longer wait for the 7d mark ii to be released. Another option would be to get a 7D, but it has the same sensor as the t2i which wouldn't be much of an improvement than the obvious AF and FPS.

The 5D2 AF is far superior to the T2i.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5