March 05, 2015, 03:22:36 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced
« on: February 09, 2011, 07:00:58 PM »
They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.

Depth of field remains the same. Angle of view changes because of the crop.

A 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF is a 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF, no matter if you put it on a 1Ds or an HV40. A lens is a lens is a lens. Depth-of-field is controlled by optics. Angle of view is the ONLY thing that changes between imaging formats. The difference is that on a FF sensor, more objects are now in view in the frame that are closer and farther away (blurrier objects appear in the frame), creating a higher contrast between the blurriest objects and the sharpest objects, which appears to create a shallower DOF when the DOF never changed.

Actually you're both wrong. If the 2 images were viewed at 100% on screen then the DOF would be the same, as stated, assuming the pixel density is the same. However, if the images were printed or scaled to the same size, say 12 x 8, then the DOF would be less on the cropped image as the lack of focus would be amplified by zooming into the image. DOF is very dependant on the medium on which the image is displayed.

Lenses / Re: New L Primes
« on: January 25, 2011, 07:36:20 PM »
Guys get real. The 50L 1.2 was released on 2006, Its very unlikely to be updated.

Now for the 35L and 135L, its about time.

yes.  the 135 was excellent when it was first released, but compared to the new 70-200 f/2.8 L II you can tell it's getting long in the tooth.  when a supposedly excellent prime lens falls behind a zoom lens, no matter how excellent a zoom lens, it's a signal that it's time to start reworking the prime lens.

a 135 f/2 L IS would be awesome, but I'd take a new 135 f/2 without IS on it

Just wondering where you think it falls short? I think the 135 is pretty amazing TBH, sharp and with superb bokeh. I could see the advantage in an IS version, but that's about it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds3 Changes on Canon USA Website
« on: January 16, 2011, 08:23:02 AM »
The 5D and 5DII don't do 5fps so I can't see why anybody would expect the 5DIII to do so?

Lenses / Re: 5D MKii lens
« on: January 11, 2011, 06:21:02 AM »
Not sure what Hallor has against the 24-70. I find it to be a great combo with the 5DII, even in low light. Would definitely recommend it as a standard zoom for this camera. The second lens I would recommend is a 135mm f/2 which is a great low light option. I would also get a tripod so you can use longer shutter speeds if required. If you are doing video you will need a video tripod as well, and sound recording equipment as well of course. You may also want to look into getting something like an HMC151 as a proper video camera if you are shooting live events, the 5D is not very well suited for that as the record time is limited and the ergonomics are tricky.

BTW, eBay is definitely an option, I got my 135mm f/2 from there and it was excellent and cost around half of a new one.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 07, 2011, 06:47:52 AM »
The money Canon spends on developing and implementing video specific features is presumably more than offset by the extra sales canon makes to people who want them. This is not a very difficult concept to understand.

Just look at the pricing of the 5DII vs the D700, the 5DII isn't any more expensive than the canon despite having the video feature. If they scrapped this feature the camera wouldn't be cheaper, in fact the price may well go up!

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: January 04, 2011, 05:03:59 AM »
Don't know about the rest of you people, but I'd really LOVE to have the option of buying a cutting edge FF DSLR without video capability, if the price difference is at least 500 dollars. I don't see the point in a video capable DSLR with virtually non-existent autofocus. If Canon released two versions of a 5D mark III (one with video, and a cheaper one without), they'd really make me a happy customer. I know some of you want to say GO BUY A NIKON D700, but that camera's outdated, not enough pixels on a FF body. The only thing still holding me back from buying a 5D Mark II is curiosity - I'd love to see what Nikon churns out in the coming months... And then see what Canon throws back at them ))) My 50D works just fine for me right now.

Getting rid of the video capability wouldn't save any money, the few video specific components in the camera are very cheap. That's why the 5DII costs about the same as a D700. I can't see Canon ever introducing a new DSLR without video now.

EOS Bodies / Re: all 18MP bodies
« on: January 03, 2011, 02:07:45 PM »
Personally, I have found SDHC cards to be much more robust than CF, where the pins inside the camera can be easily bent, requiring the camera to be sent to the manufacturer to repair. It is a fallacy to think that bigger = tougher.

I would love a 5D Mk III with 2 SD slots instead of a single CF slot.

Lenses / Re: 70-300L & More
« on: December 07, 2010, 07:59:45 AM »
Very dissapointing re:50mm.

i see myself buying a 24mm f.14 Nikkor, 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in the near future. There are a lot of pros who don't shoot sports, and Canon is neglecting them.

They do make a 50mm 1.2 though, and the 35mm and 24mm canon primes are not too shoddy either.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 3 review
« on: November 15, 2010, 08:44:48 AM »
Thanks for the info on the low light noise reduction ability. It's a great product but my only complaint is the import function is extremely confusing (at least I thought so) after one gets used to the one in Lightroom 2.

Aperture long ago left a bad taste in my mouth so, feeling like a bug-ridden resource hog. That was the first version though but I'd moved to Lightroom not long after.

Yes, I agree with you on fact that the import did take a little while to get used to, but trust me, it is MUCH easier to have a real folder with all of your photos instead of having a single 2 gig Aperture Library avatar.

That's a strange reason to not like Aperture. The Aperture library is just a special type of folder (called a package) that you right click and select 'show package contents' to open. It isn't a single huge file.

Lenses / Re: Are L lenses becoming the standard.
« on: November 06, 2010, 02:06:17 PM »
Well, I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it, it's just that Canon themselves describe the L series as "conceived as professional tools". I would rather them be designing a lens that will help me earn a living than nice to have type lenses. For example, a 24-70 2.8 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS would be a lot more useful than this 70-300. Was there actually anything wrong with the old 70-300 anyway, the new one isn't even any faster?

Lenses / Re: Are L lenses becoming the standard.
« on: November 06, 2010, 10:21:41 AM »
I have to say that I don't know any pros  using the 100 - 400mm IS L.  Most commercial portrait & wedding work stops at 200mm, I'm unusual in having a 300mm f/2.8, most times a longer lens is needed it's so rare that it's off to the hire guys.  At the other end wildlife & sports, they all seem to be using the big white primes.  I've yet to see a press line up of big lenses where one guy has brought his 100 - 400mm it just doesn't happen.

That's exactly what I mean. These compact (relatively) lenses with wide zoom ranges appeal to hobbyists who can't justify the cost of faster lenses, but they are not suitable for pros. I have never seen a pro using a 70-300 or 100-400 lens but loads of hobbyists seem to have them. As for the 400 5.6, Canon also make a 400 f/2.8 and If I was making my living from images in that range I would buy the 2.8 as it would soon pay for itself.

Lenses / Are L lenses becoming the standard.
« on: November 05, 2010, 07:52:39 PM »
It seems like Canon are slowly moving towards phasing out non L lenses (EF, not EF-S). The new 70-300 seems to me to not actually be a professional lens, it's far too slow! It seems to be aimed at amateurs with cash and is a straight replacement to the previous version which wasn't an L lens. The Macro 100mm L lens is another example, although this might be useful to some pros. Are we going to end up where L doesn't really mean anything anymore?

EOS Bodies / Re: What does canon do for Sony NEX-VG10 ?
« on: October 04, 2010, 05:25:55 AM »
Full frame would have the same benefits for video as for stills. I.e. greater control of DoF, better compatibility with EF lenses, superior low light performance. Also, it makes total sense to go full frame for cannon, unlike Panasonic who only had 4/3 chips in the parts bin and who don't have a range of full frame lenses to flog.

EOS Bodies / Some questions about the M9
« on: September 27, 2010, 05:07:40 AM »
I thought that was a really interesting article, but as somebody who's never used a Leica it left me with a question in my mind:

Am I right in thinking that you focus the camera by judging the distance and setting the focus ring to whatever number you judged the distance to be?

If that's the case, how can you get a portrait sharp on the eyes when using these very fast prime lenses? It seems a shame there is no live view function as that would allow some kind of through the lens feedback at least.

I can understand that you might get quite good at this with practice, but when the depth of field is just a few mm surely there is no chance?

Lenses / Re: 24-70 Please R.I.P.
« on: September 21, 2010, 02:36:22 PM »
Considering that 105mm / 2.8 = 27.5mm, why did Tamron have to make the front element 82mm ?

I thought the only reason Canon made the EF 24-105mm front element's size 77mm is to allow L glass owners to use the same filters, and collect $200 for passing through 'oversized front element' square.

The maximum aperture size is not the sole decider of the width of the lens, this is why zoom lenses are larger than primes with a similar maximum aperture.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6