September 02, 2014, 08:03:56 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 - ahsanford

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57
1
EOS Bodies / Sony to unveil a 50 MP new A7 body at Photokina?
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:08:16 PM »
http://www.slrlounge.com/sony-announce-new-50mp-high-resolution-a7x-photokina/

Take this rumor with a grain of salt, but that would make a heck of a splash...

- A

2
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:33:12 PM »
24*1.6=38.4 mm. This is very near 40mm, which is a nice standard focal length for a 'standard' prime. Case in point:



Agree, but then why did Canon choose a 22mm pancake for EOS-M?  Anything from 35-50mm FF is fine with me, but Canon is frustratingly inconsistent on this.   :P

- A

3
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:14:09 AM »
According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lens

Quote
24mm F2.8 is a lens that rumor is flowing well recently, but it seems to be EF-S lens instead of EF apparently. The rumor, it is said that this lens become a pancake, but it is where you want to pay attention how to be degree smaller and lighter.

(via CW)

Good link, thank you!

I must say that 24mm for crop is odd.  24mm is a common FF focal length, but not a common Canon crop focal length.  An EF-S 22mm (like with the EF-M) version would give a 35.2mm focal length that would make more sense. 

But an EF-S offering makes sense as this is the only mount that doesn't have a pancake option right now.  It's a pity it won't be EF, though, as I am a 5D3 shooter and would love a wide pancake option with autofocusing.

- A

4
This is very helpful.  I'm still using the 17-40 but hope to migrate to the 16-35 f/4 shortly.  I've been in the process of trying to figure out the Lee holder/CPL/UWA conundrum.  Next step:  order the 105 ring and the B&W CPL.  Thanks.
Before you pull the trigger on the 105 CPL, you should consider the wonderpana system:
http://www.wonderpana.com/

I haven't used it, but it's basically a Lee-style system with much larger filters so that the vignetting problem is a non-issue for UWA focal lengths.  If you want to stack stuff and have a CPL at 16mm, this is the system you should look into.

That said, I love my Lee setup.  It's well built and has industry standard sizing so I am not married to first party 4x6 filters or CPLs.  And it's flexible and powerful.  I can double my ND grads on harsh sunlight, stack an ND grad with a 10 stop ND, and now with a front ring the CPL is an independent consideration if I need to manage the sky (only for longer FL) or reflections (at any FL).  The only time I need to juggle/think is between 16-20mm, and that's fine by me.

- A

The wonderpana system works well, but it is much more expensive than the more common Lee system. A friend of mine uses this system (Nikon 14mm). He told me that the filters are from great quality.

I have not seen a comprehensive review that states that the quality of the Wonderpana system is better.  But in common sense, it logically should cost more -- it's much larger and therefore requires larger filter elements.

Personally, I would stay with Lee unless you must must must have the ability to stack three things at 14-16mm on FF.  In my limited experience, that doesn't come up that often.  Staying with Lee keeps you in the landscapers-standard 4x4 / 4x6 ecosystem, where there will be many more filter options -- both in design/style and price levels.

- A


5
Hi There, Im new to the Filter world and just wondering if you could help me.

I see your test and wonder why Im getting this issue on my shot, I've just used the big stopper and .9grad on some shots down the beach and even at 19mm and F8 on my 16-35 F4 ( 5diii ) i seem to have darker corners graduating into my shot. At 16 very bad, I have the wide angle adaptor and only the two filters in. Ive spoken to the Suppliers today and they say its the lens. but its brand new and doesn't do this in normal shots,

Thanks and I appreciate anyones feedback - is the F4 lens different to the 2.8 some how and can this effect it? am  Doing something wrong?

That should not be happening.  Since we have the same lens, the only things I can think of are:

  • You might be shooting with a standard Lee ring and not a WA (wide angle) Lee ring.  The WA rings tuck the entire apparatus closer to the lens to minimize the risk of vignetting.  See this video for what I am talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVPVBR3CKRk -- I believe you have to have the WA ring for shooting wider than 24mm on a FF rig.

  • You said you have two filters in, but that isn't what matters -- how many slots are in your holder? A three slot holder will vignette more than than a two slot holder, and so on.  Think about it for a sec and it should make sense: the more something of width/diameter X gets pushed away from the front lens element, the more likely it will creep into the field of view.

  • Do you already have a filter on your lens before you screw in your Lee ring?  That will stack the thickness and you will see vignetting kick in 'sooner' as you go from long to wide on the focal length.  In WA lenses, you really need to screw the ring on to the naked lens to avoid/minimize vignetting.

  • Are you using the Lee system holder, or do you have another company's holder?  Lee isn't the only one that works, but the data I gave was for their 'Foundation' holder from the 100mm system.  Other holders may have slightly different thickness and location to the front element of the lens, which may affect your results.

That's the best I can think of.

- A

6
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:55:58 AM »
I've wondered this too - from my personal experience, the strength of mirrorless (smaller size, simpler design) is also its weakness. Cameras continue to get smaller and smaller (have you seen the Pentax Q??) and yet, the size of the human hand has not changed in hundreds of years.

For me, mirrorless (my EOS-M) is fine for snapshots and for times that I want a little more control than my phone camera, but had not thought ahead to bring my DSLR. (My EOS-M is almost always with me). I personally have not handled a Sony a7 but it looks like that's the minimum size I'd need in order to consider a mirrorless full time. I don't know how comfortable I'd be with its dial placement but it looks awkward. Manufacturers have tried things like putting controls onto the touch screen, but that's similarly awkward. With my SLR I can make every adjustment I need to and not take my eye off the viewfinder. For mirrorless to seriously compete with DSLRs it needs to have this level of control. Smaller, lighter, thinner, etc are not inherently good things, they come with tradeoffs.

I've taken some sample shots with an A7 in a Sony store, and the grip isn't terrible.  I'd liken holding it and shooting with it to a Rebel-sized crop camera, which is not bad at all.  I did not like the knob and dial placements, but who ever does on a first use?  Overall, I found the experience to be cramped but functional.

But the bottom line is that I generally shoot with lenses that are not tiny, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, etc.  So the size sell is lost a bit on me, see here:  http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.294,487.392,ha,t

Now if I was shooting street or was some travel photojournalist, I'd slap a single prime on his camera and go.  That's where these mirrorless rigs (including rangefinders) would be terrific. 

- A

7
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 27, 2014, 01:30:08 PM »
I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.

Agree, but have you tried handling an A7?  I'll take my 5D3's phenomenal grip/handling over that boxy little thing any day.

For me, it's a personal preference issue, but I actually wonder how handholdable in low light these mirrorless rigs really are.  Throw technology out for a second -- forget about high ISO performance and IS technology -- but I'd love to see a 'keeper rate' study where a common lens (let's say a Sigma art lens) used on a mirrorless rig and an SLR with a solid, chunky grip is used to take shots at 1/60 second, then 1/30, then 1/15, then 1/8, etc. 

I'm not being a mirrorless naysayer here (I admit that mirrorless is in all of our futures eventually), I'm sincerely curious from a scientific/ergonomic perspective.  How important is grip size to holding the camera steady?  Does a FF grip deliver a stop of 'grip IS' or is it just a comfort and muscle strain nice-to-have?

- A

8
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:54:11 AM »
I think a 24mm pancake would be a perfect walk around lens for a rebel. An SL1 with a 24mm pancake would be a mirrorless killer.

My 6D is a mirrorless killer with the 40STM!  Mirrorless killer as long as we aren't including the A7 series!  I'd still take my 6D over the A7/A7r, but the A7s could easily earn a spot in my camera bag for night work.

Here's a size comparison.

For some reason, that link artificially lined up the A7 incorrectly.  I've taken the liberty of lining up all the cameras to the LCD 'face' and skipped any VF / eyecup differences.  See attached.

Mirrorless FF -- with standard FL lenses -- has the opportunity to have a quite thin and tiny setup.  But pancakes on SLRs (in the FL they are offered) almost level the playing field if small size is your goal.

- A

9
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:27:28 PM »
Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t

Thanks, I bookmarked that site, very handy!

Yeah, I've used that site a few times.  It makes we want mirrorless less and it makes me want smaller lenses more.   :D

- A

10
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:30:51 AM »
Why would it be f/2.8?  The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either.  A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.

24mm & 28mm f2.8 IS is very good small prime, but the price is around 4 times to 40mm pancake.

The non-L IS refresh lenses (24/28/35) and the pancakes are different animals.   Similar sharpness and similar max aperture, but the non-L IS lenses get you some very nice things:

  • Much faster focusing -- USM vs. STM is no contest
  • IS is lovely for low-light handheld work
  • Higher build quality.  The 24/28/35 lenses feel like the 100L macro for 'solidness', precision, lack of rattle or play with the rings, etc.  The pancake is certainly nicer than the nifty fifty 50 F/1.8, but it's not as well put together as the 24/28/35 lenses.  In short, there is much more to build quality than if the ring is metal -- I'd compare these very lenses to make that point.
  • Internal focusing -- does not change length while focusing.  The pancake extends out depending on focus distance.
  • For two of the three FL (24 and 28), you get a 58mm filter ring, which is probably is the a common diameter for folks stepping up from their crop kit lenses.  The pancake has a 52mm ring which is fairly uncommon for DSLR owners to have in their bag these days.
  • Full-time mechanical manual focusing -- the pancake has focus by wire
  • Proper bayonet hoods are offered -- the pancake has a screw-in hood that some do not like.
  • Greater max magnification (0.23-0.24x vs. 0.18x)
  • Has a distance scale -- the pancake does not

In short, the non-L IS refresh lenses are (nearly) fully featured lenses with the bells and whistles photographers count on.  The pancake is a stripped down photography tool that takes sharp pictures but can limit the photographer for the reasons listed above. 

I've also heard in some reviews that the pancake is specifically for more wide-open-end applications (where it is truly remarkable), and that the lens gets softer (I presume from diffraction) more quickly when you stop down past F/8, F/11 or so than a conventional lens might.  Bryan Carnathan from TDP also spoke of a small focus shift with the pancake, but still gave it his highest 'star' rating, given the value.

The pancake is still a stellar value and takes remarkably sharp pictures, but understand that at that price, you don't get everything.  Many features you may / may not care about will be missing.  In full disclosure, I own the 40 pancake and the 28 F/2.8 IS and the 28 gets used easily 10x more for the reasons above.  The 40 is relegated to ultralight walkaround detail when I may / may not need my camera.  Glad to have it, but I rarely need it.

- A

11
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 03:15:01 PM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.

Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?

Size size size.  It makes your rig so small you don't mind leaving the bag behind and just slinging your camera around your neck all day.  Or it's such a small item that it's a no brainer to throw it in your bag as another FL option.

There's also a side argument (that some would refute) that the smaller your entire rig is, the more likely you'll bring it at all to take pictures.

But it will never 'compete' head to head at a feature level with larger lenses that offer IS, USM, weather-sealing, mechanical manual focusing, etc.

So I see pancakes as a nice option to reduce size when you don't need all those features -- leisure, walkaround, and street come to mind for lenses like these.

- A


12
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 03:04:07 PM »
I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF

I think we'd like a 20mm prime of any sort in FF.  Canon hasn't made a new once since 1992.

- A

13
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 03:02:34 PM »
Yay, more pancakes!  I'd love to have another.  :D

+1. 

FF users have had the 40 pancake and EOS-M users have had the 35mm FF equiv pancake for a while now.  But crop SLR users were SOL for an autofocusing pancake in a standard / wide FL (64mm equiv with the 40 on a crop is way too long for a walkaround lens for me).  So an EF 24mm pancake would never leave my 2nd body, which is an old T1i.  That would be my 'pocket' small camera setup.

Now what would get me really excited would be to see a USM pancake.  That would be gold.  On my 5D3, too often I choose my ancient 50 F/1.4 over the 40mm pancake -- but for focusing speed reasons, not for max aperture reasons.  Even the old hunty AF of that 50 prime is faster to target than the STM nonsense on the current pancake.

- A

14
Pricewatch Deals / Re: 70D refurbs now available *and* on sale
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:55:48 PM »

Huh.  Didn't know that the 70D was already sold as a refurb.  Thanks.

- A

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:13:36 PM »
canon, like nikon, is an old world power in decline so off course they fear mirrorless because it means having to compete and start over in a world where their lens systems count for nothing or need to rely on adapters nobody wants.

So I don't expect to see anything exciting from canon or nikon until their APS-C sales are so bad that they are forced to evolve. This will be a fantastic chance to break free from mount lock in and I can't wait for it.

Having borrowed an A7s for some 4K video work, I have to say sony has all the right stuff. They are a huge company with huge technical muscle which moves twice as fast as nikon or canon. I'd love to see them outright buy nikon for the optics division. that would be a monster of a company.

Sony are great at churning out products and they are great at component level horsepower (i.e. sensors).  But I am not at all convinced that they understand the needs of photographers as well as Canon and Nikon.

Their pipeline has developed countless technological hits, industry firsts, etc. but I have yet to hear of professionals dropping their current company because Sony has nailed a camera top-to-bottom.  I hear folks rave about the form factor and the sensor and that's about it.  I have yet to hear someone rave about their controls, ergonomics, feel, etc.  When that happens, then Nikon and Canon should worry.

I'd go a step further and state if professionals were offered a choice of any camera they'd want and all lenses were available natively in all mounts (so eliminate the I'm staying with Canon/Nikon b/c I have all this glass), most will still choose Canon and Nikon over Sony at this stage.

- A

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57