Messages

181

Canon General / Re: Lets Play Chess

« on: July 21, 2011, 09:44:03 AM »

How cool is that?

182

Lenses / Re: 14-24L & 24-70L II Talked About Again

« on: July 12, 2011, 10:38:12 PM »

14-24 2.8 is a lens that sounds good on paper, but you'll get a heavy beast with an exposed front element, no filters, flare, and much lower IQ than the 14 2.8 prime. Better off with 14 2.8 and other primes or the 16-35 2.8 as a mate.

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4 and 50 1.2

183

Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]

« on: May 14, 2011, 11:18:50 AM »

If the new 50 1.4 is really good I'll get one because it's useful for portraits on both crop and FF and it'll be handy for low light. I have the 1.8: it's not very good at 1.8, the AF is pretty bad, the construction is toy-like, Manual Focus is finicky, so I don't use it much. The current 1.4 is not sufficiently attractive, but a solid v.2 would be attractive even at $700.

184

EOS Bodies / Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2011, 09:30:51 PM »

So, to not must have a crop as second body for better reach FF must currently have 46MP. They absolutely must fix this because I don't always want to carry a second body.

I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.

Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?

Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National  Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses?

Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP?  I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensive

Since the only drawback of more pixels is file size and possibly frame rate, which both may be addressed in different ways, there is no reason to not fix this very severe problem.

Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?

Yes, I'm talking about cropping myself.

The author of the article unfortunately don't know what he is talking about. 

High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities).  7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.

5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D, it will take you 30seconds with google to find the evidence.

185

EOS Bodies / Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

« on: April 17, 2011, 06:12:56 PM »

I doubt this is all there is to a 5DIII. Not enough in those specs to tempt me to upgrade.

186

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]

« on: April 17, 2011, 02:54:24 PM »

Damn it, I wanted to buy it this summer, but now I'll have to wait for the announcement and the delays - _ - I hate being well informed.

The rumors of updated supertele lenses (300/2.8 II, 400/2.8 II, 500/4 II and 600/4 II) showed up here in the first half of 2009.  The 300/400 lenses were announced in August 2010, with availablilty 'in December'.  They are still not available, and there is currently no estimate of when they will actually be available.

I've seen a few comments on here like, "I didn't buy x because of the rumor and now it's been months and I still don't see the new x," or "I sold my 24-70 f/2.8L because the version with IS was about to be released according to the rumors."  There are comments like that last one from 2009.

The moral: if you want/need a currently available lens, buy it now.  Don't wait based on a rumor.

True,  Rumors of the 35 1.4 II coming soon started about three years ago.

187

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]

« on: April 17, 2011, 01:16:35 PM »

I hope it's not much bigger and heavier.
I'll get one, preferably with a 5DIII at the same time

188

Canon General / Re: Ultrafast wide angles

« on: April 16, 2011, 04:39:49 PM »

Soon as the sun sets or you go inside, that extra stop makes all of the difference in the world. The 17-40 is a great lens, though. I had one and sold it after getting the 16-35mm. And I can guarantee if Canon or Nikon came out with a 2.0 or 1.8 16-35 at three or even four times the price, there's be plenty of people in line to buy it since even 2.8 can come up short.

Canon has the 24 1.4, and the 35 1.4 for low light work. Both awesome lenses. a 16-35 2.0 would be enormous and heavy. I'd pass on that zoom and go for the primes anyway, and they'd still have a full stop advantage.

189

Canon General / Re: Ultrafast wide angles

« on: April 16, 2011, 04:33:24 PM »

The DOF is determined by aperture, focal length, and focal distance.

...and circle of confusion, which is why sensor size has an effect on DoF.  At the same aperture, focal length, and focal distance, a FF sensor will have deeper DoF than a 1.6x crop sensor.

Yes, but the same aperture, focal distance, and equivalent focal length will yield a shallower DOP with a FF sensor.  Big distinction, since in your example would yield two different pictures in composition.

Exactly ... Photographers compose a photograph. In order to get the same photograph on the 5DII and the 7D, you either need to change the focal length or the focal distance (get closer with the 5DII).

The following all give the same sized subject in the frame of the camera:

5DII, 80mm, f1.4, 10 feet away   DOF = 0.39 feet

7D,   80mm, f1.4, 16 feet away    DOF = 0.64 feet

7D,   50mm, f1.4 10 feet away     DOF = 0.65 feet

In all cases the 5DII gives about 1.3 stops equivalent shallower depth of field for the same composition and f stop in comparison to APS-C. The important consideration is that no matter what gear is in his hands, a photographer seeks to compose a certain shot. With a crop camera he either has to move backwards (increasing DOF in the process), or use a shorter focal length (also increasing DOF in the process).

190

Canon General / Re: Ultrafast wide angles

« on: April 16, 2011, 11:38:52 AM »

"At 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF, and you get twice the light of f/4.  "

...

The DOF is determined by aperture, focal length, and focal distance.

If you frame the same shot with two lenses of different focal lengths, using the same aperture you will observe the same DOF. In order to frame the same shot using a 40mm vs a 20 mm lens, you need to stand half as far away, the shots will have the same DOF, but very different looks of course.

Ex. This is an extreme example, but using a 5dmkII, both of these will make the main subject about the same size in the frame, and yield about the same DOF:

40mm lens at f 1.4 with focal distance 10 feet yields DOF = 1.61 feet
and a 20mm lens at f 1.4 with focal distance 5 feet yields DOF = 1.64 feet

see . http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html (make sure to click calculate)

191

Canon General / Re: Camera Gear Costs More Right Now

« on: April 16, 2011, 12:03:34 AM »

Honestly this was brought up in another forum, but the American dollar has taken a beating as well. Bodies are cheaper here in Canada then they are in the United States, but lenses are cheaper in the United States then in Canada.

I just don't like the attitude of some people, some people even asked if the equipment would be contaminated with Radiation!

Lenses and bodies are cheaper in the states, if when the dollar is at par.

192

Canon General / Re: Camera Gear Costs More Right Now

« on: April 15, 2011, 06:10:57 PM »

So they're making more profit but more money isn't going to Canon?

 

Price gouging is rampant.

Before this all happened I was going to pick up an 85/1.8, was $419, now $599+.  Big box retailers (BestBuy, etc.), followed closely by Canon direct have become the cheapest option for anything they have in stock.

Still $419 at B&H and $414 at Adorama

193

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]

« on: April 08, 2011, 03:56:33 PM »

I'm all for 24 MP 5DIII with 7FPS
Add better AF, reduced moire, improved high ISO, AF during video, pixel binning with crop options and I'd be a happy camper.

194

Software & Accessories / Re: Video, Flash, NAB & More

« on: April 02, 2011, 01:15:10 PM »

"I apparently have to remind a few folks that Canon Rumors does not think new camera stuff is more important than the tragedy in Japan. I wish the country the best recovery possible."

No reminder is necessary. Keep up the good work!

The sooner that all Japanese companies are up and running full-speed, the more resources they will have to rebuild. It is definitely not disrespectful or inconsiderate to maintain the interest and excitement for Japanese products, like the awesome Canon line-up, alive amongst the enthusiasts.

No one is minimizing the tragedy by expressing interest and desire for Canon products.

195

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]

« on: March 29, 2011, 11:19:49 AM »

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect.  While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears.  It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately.  Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option.  If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.