July 31, 2014, 12:31:17 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 53
61
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 06:53:22 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

Crap, that technically should change my vote.  I am answer #1 above, but the pancake is an exception. 

- A

Should change mine as well (I voted as close to the actual as I could).  I have the same exceptions as Neuro, plus my TSE 24 (version 1) and my Rokinon 14mm.  Haven't yet figured out filters for those.  And sometimes it's too much work to replace the clear if I am swapping my CPL on and off lenses doing landscape shots.

Ah that's right, I forgot about my Samyang 14mm. No filter possible  :P


Again:  Don't change your votes if your exception-to-the-rule lens doesn't allow direct front filter use without the use of added adapter / outrigger hardware.


So UWA lenses like the Nikon 14-24, Samyang 14mm, T/S-E 17mm, Fisheye, etc. should be dropped from your mind when you answer.  Same goes for lenses you only use with square / 4x4 / 4x6 filters. 

I am asking in this poll: when you are using a lens that could take a UV/Haze/Clear or CPL directly on the front of the lens, do you?

I called out the pancake as my one exception as it indeed does take front filters but I simply don't care enough to protect that little guy.  Any time I need CPL use, I just switch to a 28 or 50 prime.

- A

62
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:44:16 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

Crap, that technically should change my vote.  I am answer #1 above, but the pancake is an exception. 

- A

63
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:50:00 PM »

I emailed Canon Professional Services (CPS-USA) and they replied that they had notified the responsible party to update the registration and CPS site, but had no ETA.  DxO has listed 8/14 for their correction module - if Adobe keeps their schedule, their next update will also be in August, with a release candidate coming sooner.  We won't know if the profile will be in the release until the RC appears.  I would expect ptlens to have the first profile, DxO next, then Adobe, which is usually the order they seem to release correction profiles.

Super helpful, thanks. 

Once in a blue moon with standard FLs, if I shoot near the wide open end and I don't crop, I actually prefer the vignetting sometimes and choose to keep it in the shot rather than take the default correction.  That's a simple call to make in ACR (and in the other processing suites, I'd imagine).

But with wide angles, I'd imagine distortion is the key thing to control, and that's a fairly difficult animal to manage by eye yourself.  What do you do?  Do you trust the profiles?  Do you tweak things yourself?  Do you use something specialized like the standalone DXO perspective tool?

Just curious -- I haven't shot UWA in a few years and was curious what the best practices are.

- A

64
Lenses / 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:31:58 PM »
All,

I just got the new 16-35 F/4L IS, and I had two questions:

  • When I tried to register it with Canon, there was no option for this lens (or the new EF-S 10-18 IS lens either) under UWA zooms.  I checked to see if it was misfiled, but I can't find it.  I'll assume Canon just hasn't updated their website yet.  From past lens release experience, how long does this usually take?
  • Is there any estimate on the lead time for an ACR update with lens correction profiles included for this lens? I notice there was an update in June but this lens was not included.

Thanks!

- A

65
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:25:51 PM »

And I thought a fresh poll on this might be fun:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21788.0

- A

66
Software & Accessories / To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:23:18 PM »
All,

just curious, what's your preference on using the front filter threads on your current lenses?

For the sake of this poll, let's assume that:

  • We are not talking about landscape / square / ND grad sort of hardware as that confounds the question a bit.  If you have a lens you only use that hardware with, please discard it from consideration with your answer.  We're looking for general shooting here.
  • We are only talking about lenses that natively allow front filtering without special hardware or a third party solution. So I am not talking about superteles with rear-filtering, UWA lenses with outrigger attachments, etc.

Please note that I am not trying to stoke the ongoing sometimes well-behaved / sometimes not well-behaved debate on this [cough] polarizing topic.  I am just looking to establish a baseline on filter practices this forum uses. 

Thanks!

- A

67
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:43:38 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

For me, that means not buying one at all, as I have at least one (maybe 2) surplus 77mm F-Pro MRC UV filters.  One came from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which surprisingly for a telezoom lens does have additional vignetting with an F-Pro mount, so I replaced it with a 77mm XS-Pro.

Disclaimer:  my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm.

Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner.  But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?

- A

68
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:25:27 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

- A

69
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 09, 2014, 11:42:15 AM »

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens.  I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang.  Much appreciated.

- A
I don't think you'll regret it - I'm having a lot of fun with it!  My latest is trying photos of my cats (they are somewhat willing subjects) in very low light to try out the IS, which works very well.

Yeah...  I got this lens for landscape work, but what did I do when my rental arrived?  I insisted upon a cow-in-the-pasture UWA closeup. 

I am a child.

- A

70
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 08, 2014, 06:52:23 PM »

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens.  I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang.  Much appreciated.

- A

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:56:03 PM »

I'd thought we'd start the week looking forward to something.  What features / performance levels would get you excited about the 7D2? 

I want a positive statement from you about what would legitimately fire you up to own a 7D2.   No snarky "APS-C is not for me so I'll say 'A 50 MP FF sensor', ha ha" stuff.  Seriously, what would get you excited when the 7D2 announcement comes?

- A

Disclaimer:  I'm not trying poke fun at Ivan's original thread so much as build some excitement around a release.  Mondays need positive thoughts because they are, in fact, Mondays.

...A 50MP APS-C sensor... Seriously, the pixel density on that would be amazing.

I was going to say "No requests for APS-H" but then I knew everyone would ask for it. 

We forum dwellers do not like to color within the lines, do we?   :P

- A

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:42:51 PM »
I'm much more inclined to believe Canon will do to the 7DII pricing what they did to the 5DIII pricing- add on $1000 bucks to the price of the predecessor.

$2499 at start.

They raised the 5-series price substantially, which left a gap to be filled by the 6D.  With what will Canon fill the $1500 gap between the $1K 70D and your proposed 250% higher-priced 7D?  There may be quite a few 7D owners who would upgrade to a 7DII...but there's a far larger customer base of Rebel/xxxD and xxD owners that Canon would like to see upgrade, and a >$1800 7DII will preclude most of that.

$1699 at launch.

Neuro, you're right on the key question -- is this the step-up body for the Rebel masses, or is this the super high end crop tool sports/wildlife people want?

If it's the former, I think they'll nerf the camera from getting all of the 5D3's hand-me-down upgrades from the 1Dx (perhaps have a nicer-but-not-1DX/5D3-nicer AF system) and keep the price low like you said.

But if it's the latter, it could be a "crop 5D3" with the great 1DX/5D3 AF system and a higher burst rate.  That camera will be north of $2k.

- A

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:37:07 PM »
A sub-$2000 7DII doesn't sound realistic to me. Cheaper than the 6D? Why would they do that? Those 2 cameras seem targeted at quite different users. 6D is the entry-level full frame for people who want to get their feet wet; 7D is the top-of-the-line crop body for people who want to shoot quick action and have some built in reach. I'm much more inclined to believe Canon will do to the 7DII pricing what they did to the 5DIII pricing- add on $1000 bucks to the price of the predecessor.

$2499 at start.

Agree.  Reasonable guess assuming solid specs are announced.

Some folks can't wrap their heads around how a crop could ever cost more than a relatively contemporary FF camera.  But consider the delta in cost between the 6D and 5D3.  Think about what features drive that difference:

  • 5D3's much more comprehensive AF system, taken from the 1DX
  • 5D3 can perform shots at 1/8000 shutter speed
  • 5D3 has a 100% viewfinder
  • 5D3 has +1.5 fps

And, just for the sake of argument, let's say the entire difference in price between the 5D3 and 6D -- some $1500 -- was due to just those feature differences above. 

Now ask yourself, really crudely:  how many of the above categories -- AF system, max shutter speed, VF coverage and burst rate -- will the 7D2 fall on the 5D3 side versus the 6D side?  My money on the 7D2 will be that all four of those will be on the high end, i.e. the on the +$1500 camera side of things.

Now replace 5D3 with 7D2, and replace 6D with 70D and re-run the value proposition.  Looks like the 7D2 would represent a comprehensive upgrade over the 70D. Then it's easy to see the 7D2's asking price climbing to new heights.

Granted, the math doesn't work exactly work that way (and a $1500 delta in the crop world is a bit crazy), but surely you get my point.  Not all the cost/value of the body is in the sensor.  AF systems, burst rate, etc. differentiate the product lines and provide value to shooters.  They, in turn, want that and will pony up the bucks for it. 

So I could easily see the 7D2 price eclipse the 6D price, eclipse $2k, etc.

- A

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 06:55:38 PM »
Yup.  I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty.  I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

HA!  I knew you people were out there.   :D


Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums.  It's just that the 5D is better.  I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality.  That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

But I think you realize the madness of Canon were they to offer it.  Even if they could pull off a 'crop 5D3' with the same IQ, to do so would damage their FF body sales and the sale of their superteles.  People could simply do more (on the long end) with less gear.  Canon probably does not want that.   :P

Further, I'm not sure a crop sensor can actually beat a relatively contemporary FF sensor like the 5D3 or 6D. 

So the question becomes, how close does the 7D2 IQ have to be to that of the 6D or 5D3 to have you opt for that instead of FF?

- A

75
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:14:03 PM »

I hate to do this, but I might start sounding like a microFourThirds fanboy at this point. The arguments for choosing crop over full frame are similar to those thrown by MFT to APS-C. For a given "reach", the crop sensor is just better optimised. On full frame you'd need silly big (and expensive) lenses. Even if people could afford them, they wouldn't want to carry it! Why not ever smaller? I have to say the Nikon 1 with native 70-300 lens sounds like an interesting reach combination, but I'm not sold on its overall performance.


Forget fanboyism -- this is a debate that has raged for ages.  How much do you want to spend / lug around versus how nice you want your shots to come out is an ancient debate in these forums.

And you're not alone in wanting to have a specific sweet spot of sensor size / gear size / cost to IQ.  Heck, APS-H guys are like the folks who used to sleep in bed with their Amiga computers after they were discontinued.  Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds. :D

I just think the argument has sublimed above basic forum back and forth and become one of those religiously held beliefs we won't ever sway on, like to use / not use UV filters, the value of IS on wide angle lenses, etc.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 53