September 20, 2014, 02:30:01 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 61
61
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

62
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

63
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

64
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

65
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

66
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

67
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


68
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

69
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

70
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

71
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

72
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:09:11 PM »
Alternative theory: Mirrorless will evolve into something that looks very different from today's cameras. All cameras today are based on the idea that the photographer holds it close to his face with the viewfinder to his eye. Even cameras without viewfinders are based on that model, which is why they are so clunky to use. They ask you to take a design that was meant to be held close to the face to keep steady and then hold it away from your face, making it hard to compose, hold it steady and operate the controls.

Ergonomically, a smart phone is actually better to use than a camera without a viewfinder. It's small, light, fits naturally in one hand and is a lot easier to balance. Plus, you can hold it in one hand and use a finger to touch the focus point without shaking it.

I'm thinking that an innovative camera designer ought to be look at how people hold and use their smart phones and start designing cameras to take advantage of the smart phone model. Of course, I'm guessing that for the near future, that would pretty much preclude the idea of large sensors and large or long lenses.

Now you're thinking.  We're wrestling with an awkward porthole to frame shots through when stepping back from the camera to frame up is certainly preferable.  Right now on a smartphone or tablet, this is great for framing but not for holding / adjusting / taking the shot.  The ergonomics need to evolve there.

- A

73
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:06:41 PM »
LOL, that seems to negate the biggest advantages of mirrorless!...

I had somewhat the same reaction. What's the point? Once you put a viewfinder on a mirrorless (and I wouldn't want one without a viewfinder) they start looking a whole lot like a DSLR.

To answer the question: It might be the future, if...electronic viewfinders can improve to the point where they are actually better than optical viewfinders. But they have to be better, not just equal or comparable.

I think that when and if mirrorless cameras replace DSLRs, they are likely to look very much like DSLRs because the basic form factor (a box with a viewfinder to look directly through to see the subject) has evolved into the easiest to use format for cameras available. Stepping backwards to the old view camera model where the photographer looks at a screen on the back of the camera may be fine for subjects that don't move much, but just isn't very convenient for accurate and quick composing of photographs.

My guess is that the transition will be gradual and if I were placing bets, I'd bet we are at least two to three generations away from a 5D Mirrorless.

Current mirrorless EVFs have some advantages over an OVF:

  • If your eyes can process all this input, your eyeball is effectively seeing LiveView, so you are getting a true read of the shot, true DOF, a live histo, etc.
  • An EVF can amplify low light, right?  OVFs can't do that.

But the current tech has limitations -- LiveView all the time is a huge battery drain, there is some lag (i.e. 'we don't shoot many stills of moving things with LiveView'), resolution is still fairly limited compared to the fidelity your native eye can process through an OVF, etc.

A future EVF could be something special, though:

  • Modularity could lead to EVF standard mounts and interchangeability with other systems -- more options for comfort or control.
  • Electronic can be made modular (many EVFs are modular) and therefore removable.  You could imagine a cord like an off-camera flash being used to have camera in place X and your eyeball and shutter release in place Y.
  • No reason why you couldn't have a massive or tiny EVF based on the screen size, so you could pick that as well.
  • A wireless off-camera EVF (without lag!) would also be terrific.
  • Imagine control of the camera through that EVF.  In a multiple camera shoot, you could pipe different cameras' view into one EVF for the best shot and tweak things all from one vantage point.
  • We could go on and on here...

- A

74
Pricewatch Deals / 70D refurbs now available *and* on sale
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:16:52 PM »

75
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 11:55:25 AM »

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion.  Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much? 

- A

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 61