July 24, 2014, 04:54:01 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 38
436
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2012, 11:43:43 AM »
An APS-C mirrorless will get interesting when they have a 20mm pancake, and some other small lenses.

437
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2012, 08:56:08 AM »
We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image.  We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8.  That's rather disappointing.  It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).



I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues


Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.


Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.


Ok.

Yes I see that. The older APS-C sensors seem to perform worse. Might have to do with sensor design. Better microlenses? Different AA filter? There seems to be a lot of factors that affect the final measurement.

438
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 11, 2012, 03:42:40 PM »
We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image.  We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8.  That's rather disappointing.  It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).


I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues


Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.


Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

439
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 10, 2012, 06:54:50 PM »
We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image.  We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8.  That's rather disappointing.  It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

The center of the sensor does not see the large angle of incidence that is seen in the corners, and even the corners only see this large angle of incidence for perhaps 1/3 or less of the light. The center should be relatively unaffected even down to f 1.2.

Besides if that was the whole story then we would not see a big difference in bokeh between f 2.8 and f1.4. But we do. In fact there's a very noticeable difference in bokeh between f 1.8 and f 1.4.

This doesn't add up.

440
Lenses / Re: Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: July 08, 2012, 06:44:15 PM »
It's good that the new one doesn't have IS.  That allows me to spend the money I would have spent on it elsewhere.

At $2300 it should come with IS ...

... and a Butler.

441
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2012, 10:20:14 AM »
Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.

I agree and this isn't the first time briansquibb and I have bumped heads over this matter, so I'll leave and going to get some shuteye.

But regarding the matter I think it's great that there are even rumors of Canon re-working the 50mm lineup, with IS or not.

Agreed. I'd like a lightweight AF 50mm that's sharp wide open!

442
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 07, 2012, 10:08:32 AM »
Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.

443
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Successors [CR1]
« on: June 28, 2012, 06:34:17 PM »
APSH 7DII sounds good to me

444
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware officially announced
« on: June 28, 2012, 01:07:59 PM »
And no video crop modes - on the 7D v2, on the 5DIII or on the T4i.

Canon,  you're supposed to be going forwards, not backwards.  I want flexible video crop modes in all resolutions, preferably with smooth transitions rather than steps accessed through the menus.

+1000 on video crop mode. It works really well on the T3i, and I expected that feature to become standard on all models. It's inexplicable why they withheld this!

Same with AF in video. The T4i can use the new STM for video focus, but the 5DIII cannot. Go figure  :o

445
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:46:01 AM »
This could be my poor-man's nature/wildlife lens.
The 70-200 2.8 II with 2x converter is ok, but a little slow focus and soft at 5.6. Better at f8.

446
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 17, 2012, 12:44:49 AM »
Thank you sarangiman, cheers.

Good god ... you guys can go on forever analysing one photo ...

... there are a ton of reviews on both of these lenses, much more in depth than this one photo taken at different settings can ever provide.

Go to photozone.de for a starter.

It's no secret that the Nikon is sharper than the Canon. But it also flares more easily, it's heavier, more expensive and it doesn't go to 35 mm. The Canon is cheaper, lighter and more versatile.

Pick your weapon and get to work.

Otherwise you'll have to wait for the Canon to see how it performs.

447
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:44:04 AM »
Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down. It's the lens I use the most, and I frequently use it as a walk around, even more than my 24-105.

I also find that a cp is not really needed for blue skies on the UW lens, they usually turn out quite blue without it. Maybe to get rid of reflections, but mostly use the CP on the 24-105, and occasionally on the 70-200.

I'll wait and see on the 14-24. I'm a little concerned about size, weight and price, and will it really deliver that much more than my very convenient, and pretty damn good 16-35 ? By the time it's released there might be an improved samyang 14 2.8 with a chip and no mustache for $500  :o

448
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 15, 2012, 12:59:09 PM »
I'm coming around to wanting one of these, although mental blocks include:

Likely huge price
No front filters
Likely big and heavy (whereas 16-35 II is not a bad weight and size, and takes filters)

Must wait and see.

449
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i Review With Video Samples
« on: June 15, 2012, 12:55:37 PM »
The AF seemed to hunt - i.e. go beyond point of focus then backtrack. That wasn't very nice. AF is better with the STM lenses, and silent. I've seen it in action and it is pretty nice.

However the GH2, NEX 7 and E-M5 all offer better image quality and auto-focus in video mode than Canon's offering. I'd avoid the 650D unless you have a massive collection of Canon glass and are using it for stills with the odd video snapshot, which I suspect most people who buy this camera are going to do... For the rest of us, especially filmmakers, it is a disappointment and the 5D Mark III is not that much better apart from the fixed moire. $15,000 is a big step up from the 650D for Cinema EOS line, why can't we have more affordable large sensor video options from Canon?

Eventually Canon will provide a compelling option, but affordable large sensor video is in it's infancy.

The best value right now is probably the Sony FS700 (or the FS100). Not cheap, but reviews are good. And you can use all of your Canon EF lenses with an adaptor.

450
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i Review With Video Samples
« on: June 15, 2012, 12:27:08 PM »
I was interested in this camera ...

... but obvious moire! No Go for me.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 38