September 02, 2014, 06:31:31 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 81
121
Yes I agree 10GB is not much ... but it's more than what Dropbox give you! After pestering my friends and camera uploading like a maniac I have around 7GB. But some of that is used up by work. So I'll take this fresh 10GB of free space, thank you very much! Might come in handy.

122
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:47:16 AM »
The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4  (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles. 

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want:  create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable.  I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed.  The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light.  M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound.  There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses.  If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji).  Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

I think the EF-M 22mm lens is one of the best value for money lenses you can get. Essentially we are getting it for free or another way to look at it is you get a 35mm FOV lens with a camera attached to it! That's how I saw it. It's not a perfect camera but it is APS-C and spits out 18MP RAW files. That's good enough for for me at that price. 35mm prime - covered.

For all other serious stuff I use the FF (or both!).

123
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:04:36 PM »
I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99  (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years.  I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new.  Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot.  The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market.  Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji.  The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM?  Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

124
There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it.

That all sounds like eml58's brother in law.

How does a CC server being down stop your local program working? Adobe have said even if your computer is not connected to the internet CC will run fine for three months without online verification. If you tell them you won't be able to go online for longer they can extend that to 6 months off line, server issues are a red herring.

If the lease fee goes up to a level you are not prepared to pay, don't pay it, use something else. We'd all like a Ferrari but more of us can afford a Toyota, we'd like to eat steak and lobster but can't afford that either, same for businesses. As for we'd all happily pay the $10, well that clearly isn't the case with all the bitching and moaning going on.

So your real argument is, I don't like the price they might charge in the future! Well you could say that about health insurance and gas prices, or any number of other things that are sold to us by corporations.

I probably should have done my homework before writing that comment. It seems they do allow up to 30 days offline usage before the application tries to verify the license. If you're an annual subscriber it's 99 days in offline mode.

It also states that you still have access to your files even if you cancel.

OK, seems like a solid deal now that I've had a chance to think about it and look up my questions. Sign me up for some steak and lobster!

125
For me, it is based on economics.  I got PS CS6 and LR at a huge discount through an offer through TDP for 325 in 2012.  The cost is a sunk cost because it was before CC.  After CC came out, I upgrade to LR5 for 70.  I'm not a heavy PS user, and CS6 is good enough for me.  I was happy with LR4 but got LR5 as a Christmas present.  I don't foresee getting another LR upgrade unless I replace my 5DIII with a future camera that is not supported with the current software.

My fear is that they will charge 9.99 (or worse 19.99) for LR/PS when all I need is LR, especially if LR is no longer sold as a stand-alone program.  That will result in a higher cost to me than buying yearly LR upgrades.

A steady revenue  is good for the company but not necessary good for the consumer.  It potentially leads the company to be less innovative and rest on their laurels.  PS is mature enough for me that I only feed the need to upgrade every 4 or 5 years (when I build a new computer).  LR is mature enough but they get you on new camera/lens profiles.

You could convert your future files to DNG and they would work just fine on your old versions. One extra step in the workflow though.

126
There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed.

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it. 

127
EOS Bodies / Re: Do what?
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:03:21 PM »
a lens that gives 15 P-MP on a 24 MP sensor may very well need a 200MP sensor to be fully resolved, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly doesn't "waste" 9 million sensor pixels.

No, those 9 MP don't 'go away'.  They still take up space on your digital storage media, time to process, etc., even if they don't add anything to the information content of the image.  It's called 'empty resolution' for a reason.

What you wright is total nonsense, for anyone who like real, natural, virtually-analog capture.
It is total nonsense for anyone who wants rugged data that doesn't depend on luck of alignment of pixels and subject transients, and survives geometrical processing like CA, distortion, and perspective correction, rotation, and arbitrary resampling in practically lossless manner.

 ??? Huh?? You've lost me there. Are you just throwing random photographic words together?

128
I almost signed up for CC until I saw what happened to Pye @ SLR Lounge.  :(

Nope. Sorry Adobe, that's unacceptable.

129
Looks like either Fotga or Meike.

Hmm, now I'm leaning to a new one I found.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DB9TPAI/?tag=sterlingbymus-20

Yeah, originally I think Surapon posted about those Opteka ones but they were difficult to find on ebay. Looks like they've sorted out their stock issues. I'd go for these, it has one extra 21mm tube.

I have the Fotga 10mm & 16mm set that cost about $45. They're quite well made but feel light. They supported a FD 50mm f/1.4 plus FD-EOS M adaptor just fine. If you're using the EF adaptor you can support the weight better by using it's tripod foot instead of the EOS M.

130
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 03:25:43 AM »
A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

DSLR Basics Tutorial | Xrite Color Checker Passport | Camera Custom White Balance

Cheers! I'll check it out!

Also, thanks for the link to luminous landscape, that just saved me a whole lot of time mucking about with google search!

131
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:53:59 AM »
A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

132
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 26, 2014, 02:56:44 AM »
It's perverse how many times a day I check this forum and now I am looking at other peoples perversions!

And when I'm not on CR forum I'm drooling over gear or dreaming about what gear I don't need.

Everytime I look at a clock it's taunting me - 10:22am, 16:35pm, 17:40pm ... Damn it I'm missing golden hour!!

I get very anxious when I'm "wasting good light" and get annoyed at people who get in my way of shooting it! (Which is ALWAYS during work!) damn you work! I have things to shoot!

The most exciting thing to look forward to next month are the reviews for the 16-35 f/4L. (And my girlfriend's birthday but whatever!)

And today, I ... I ... I watched a Jared Polin video! Forgive me for I have sinned!! Fro DOES NOT KNOW photo!!!

133

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm.  The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique.  This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

134
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

135
with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

I love this logic - so you want to pay MORE money for LESS range, a bulkier and heavier lens without IS (which is apparently useless anyway)?  :o

Yeah, I mean like who would ever buy a wide angle lens with IS? Deja-vu ... Didn't we do this when the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS were announced? Remind me what 18mm is on a crop?  ::)

They scoffed at the notion then but it seems to be selling quite well so it can't be all that useless, can it?

Oh .... and hands up who here would love to have the little EF-M 11-22mm lens? On many peoples wish list, and why is that? Super small compact UWA lens with IS? Oh yes please!  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 81