July 28, 2014, 01:17:32 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 23
196
Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 02:10:18 PM »
Having actually researched lens design here are some realistic dream lenses that would be top notch quality wise, supertelephoto level quality:


EF f/2.0 Zooms

19-35mm f/2.0L

This lens would be an ultra fast ultra wide angle lens, while it couldn't go to the widest super wide levels, it would serve most people's wide angle needs while providing excellent aperture and excellent quality. Note the lack of IS which would be too difficult to design in.

95mm filter thread.

35-70mm f/2.0L IS

This lens would be a normal zoom, without the added wide angle we're accustomed to. The most difficult part of designing a normal zoom is the wide angle, so by getting rid of that you can essentially create substantially more extreme lens designs.

85mm filter thread.

70-150mm f/2.0L  IS 1.4x

This lens would be a larger and faster version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, leveraging the built in 1.4x telecovnerter system to make up for the added reach.

82mm filter thread.


EF f/2.8 Zooms

35-105mm f/2.8L IS

Again by eliminating the wide angle we can get more extreme lens designs, as I mentioned this would be supertelephoto quality. This would be an excellent portrait lens.

85mm filter thread.


EF Primes

35mm f/1.6L  IS

Make it much sharper than the 35mm f/1.4, lose a third of a stop, add IS. This lens would be large.

77mm filter thread.

45mm & 60mm f/1.4L

The design of a 50mm fast prime is very challenging, and nobody has ever made a 50mm that has supertelephoto level resolution wide open, or even come close. You must move up or down the focal range to get better results, so these would be the answer.

72mm filter thread.

135mm f/1.8L IS

This is an existing Zeiss design, slap IS on it and tweak it to reduce purple fringing and it would be a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS L, make it a miniature supertelephoto in appearance with full supertelephoto quality.

77mm filter thread.

197
Canon General / Re: Is canon going to come back?
« on: December 02, 2012, 07:07:24 PM »
So i´m in the market for a full frame camera right now. I only have FF lenses for EF mount, so switching would at least mean the loss of a lens or two (money reasons).
Right now canon is far behind others. Or lets just say it: Nikon.

The d800 is 2300€ the 5d3 is 2900€ and the Nikon just is the superior camera. If you downsize the image even high iso is awesome, af is good etc. It´s just a really good body and much more in the price range of a 6d.

I want to stick with canon but if they are going to make their first competitive body in like 5 years i really have to consider switching....

The d800 is in no way shape or form the clear superior camera. I compared every aspect of each camera while consulting for a well known photography equipment testing website:

5D3 has 0.5 stops more ISO which is a huge difference, half of that is from being under rated ISO wise (meaning when both are shooting at 800 ISO the 5D3 is ACTUALLY shooting at 1000 effective ISO) and the other half is due to better response to noise reduction algorithms.

5D3 has 50% more FPS (though only without the grip)

5D3 has better autofocus (though this will be hotly debated, and they are close)

5D3 has SRAW

D800 has crop mode.

D800 has better dynamic range, which evens out at normal ISO, and the 5D3 actually has better dynamic range at high ISO

D800 has more accurate color (although it's worth nothing Canon has more traditionally "pleasing" color out of the box as a result of it's inaccurate color, before editing)


Both have 100% identical indistinguishable resolution. What defines the resolution, quite frankly, is the optics more than the sensor. This has been proven by numerous sources, zoom lenses tend to be limited to just over 21 megapixels across 90% of their imaging area off the center axis, and there is no meaningful difference between a zoom lens image captured with the D800 or 5 Mark III in resolution, even when upscaling 5D Mark III images to 36 megapixels and comparing with the same zoom lens.

Prime lenses will sometimes but infrequently show a difference in resolution, but only the best prime lenses in the world (EXcluding the vast majority of Zeiss lenses even due to lacking resolution). And ONLY images with primes between f/4.0 and f/8.0 will show any difference in resolution, and then only at lower ISO (you can read more about how ISO affects resolution negatively elsewhere, or simply look at the lensrentals tests)

So in effect there is only a marginal difference in system resolution (and it's nowhere near 36 megapixels vs 22.3, more like around 22.3 vs 27 max)

My personal conclusion is simply put that the Nikon D800 slightly edges out the Canon in a studio or landscape setting (and Nikon's lenses back this up) and Canon's 5D Mark III slightly edges out the Nikon in documentary usage. (and Canon's lenses back this up).

Overall I've found both cameras to be more similar than they are different, and there is little compelling reason to go with either unless you really need something oddly specific. Nikon's lenses and grips are expensive so the price for a typical full kit is practically identical.

Here are a few very compelling lenses to go with either manufacturer:

D800 +  14-24mm 2.8 + 35mm 1.4 AF-S + 50mm 1.4 AF-S + 105mm & 135mm DC lenses + 28-300mm FX compact superzoom


(product, studio and full frame compact superzoom)

5D Mark III + 35mm f/2.0 IS + 50mm 1.2 + 85mm 1.2 + 24-70mm 2.8 Mk II + 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II IS + 24-105mm f/4.0 IS + 200mm f/2.0 IS + 200-400mm f/4.0 IS TC + 24-70mm f/4.0 IS

(reportage, wedding and portrait, and super low light photography)

198
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?
« on: November 23, 2012, 04:13:41 AM »
An interesting thought came to me before I went to bed. Below you'll find an assumption that came suddenly to my head, so please don't take it too seriously.

So... Let's assume there are two cameras with similar color tones reproduction abilities, but with different possible lightness level capturing ability. For example:
- sensor of camera A has 12 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish
- sensor of camera B has 10 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish

Having a flat scene (i.e. low DR scene) on a shot we'll push an image with, say, 8 DR to be captured with both sensors. And then both images will be edited in post to retrieve lacking contrast. So we need to add:
- 4 stops for 12-stop camera
- 2 stops for 10-stop camera

So my point is: with lower DR camera we'll have lower tone delta (difference of the initial color tone in the scene with reproduced tone by the sensor) when processing the low DR shot made using lower DR sensor. That happens because of decreased amount of modifications made to the file to achieve required result.

What do you guys think about that?

Yeah it doesn't work like that at all, whatsoever. The range of dynamic range is not determined by the camera, but by the data format.

both Canon CR2 and Nikon NEF files have 14 bit depth, or 14 stops.

When you measure a CAMERA'S dynamic range that has nothing to do with how much data it can record from maximum through minimum, that is going to be 14 stops either way. It has to do with taking those 14 stops you start with and subtracting the NOISE floor. So you take your original 14 stops and subtract how many stops are going to be noise, such as say 4.5 and you get a 9.5 stop camera.

Having more dynamic range is never bad because it means there is less noise from the get go. The tone delta is always identical.

dynamic range is not how many shades you have on your color space
it is related to real-world things: how much brighter can one object be than another, while the camera still captures them both correctly at the same time

Face palm. No. No. No.

Raw images are captured in bits by intensity at the photo site. The simplest version would be a 1 bit photo site that either registers full of photons or empty.

So with a simple 2 bit system we can have:

00 = 0-100 photons in a pixel
01 = 100-200 photons in a pixel
10 = 200-400 photons in a pixel
11 = 200-infinity photons in a pixel

Then for different ISO settungs we multiply or divide the photons to produce different exposures.

This gives us 2 stops of dynamic range from 100 photons to 400 (or multiples of that). A stop is a doubling of light so 2x2=4.

This is how cameras work. A cameras dynamic range rating is essentially the theoretical dynamic range minus how ever many stops in the shadows are unreadable information. So in our 2 stop example if photons from 0-200 ISO were too noisy to determine what is supposed to be there then our theoretical camera has 1 stop of DR. You can think of noise as a random number generator that's added to the photon count. So out count of 0-400+ would have a number from 0-100 randomly added or subtracted from it. This is the noise you see when you put fill light to max. Anyways if a ranom number from 0-100 is added or subtracted it is mathematically impossible to determine how many photons were in our pixel in the 1st stop. Literally all you'd see is something resembling TV static if you tried to make a picture from it.

So cameras with more dynamic range have the static come in at a lower stop.

<---- is an engineer.


199
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?
« on: November 22, 2012, 11:52:19 AM »
An interesting thought came to me before I went to bed. Below you'll find an assumption that came suddenly to my head, so please don't take it too seriously.

So... Let's assume there are two cameras with similar color tones reproduction abilities, but with different possible lightness level capturing ability. For example:
- sensor of camera A has 12 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish
- sensor of camera B has 10 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish

Having a flat scene (i.e. low DR scene) on a shot we'll push an image with, say, 8 DR to be captured with both sensors. And then both images will be edited in post to retrieve lacking contrast. So we need to add:
- 4 stops for 12-stop camera
- 2 stops for 10-stop camera

So my point is: with lower DR camera we'll have lower tone delta (difference of the initial color tone in the scene with reproduced tone by the sensor) when processing the low DR shot made using lower DR sensor. That happens because of decreased amount of modifications made to the file to achieve required result.

What do you guys think about that?

Yeah it doesn't work like that at all, whatsoever. The range of dynamic range is not determined by the camera, but by the data format.

both Canon CR2 and Nikon NEF files have 14 bit depth, or 14 stops.

When you measure a CAMERA'S dynamic range that has nothing to do with how much data it can record from maximum through minimum, that is going to be 14 stops either way. It has to do with taking those 14 stops you start with and subtracting the NOISE floor. So you take your original 14 stops and subtract how many stops are going to be noise, such as say 4.5 and you get a 9.5 stop camera.

Having more dynamic range is never bad because it means there is less noise from the get go. The tone delta is always identical.

200
Lenses / Re: What will determine if I buy the 35mm f/2 & the 24-70mm IS f4
« on: November 20, 2012, 05:02:05 PM »
With the same money of the 24-70 F4L, I could buy a Used 24-105L and 100mm Macro L.

That says enough about my thoughts on that lens.

Then you'd have to also buy a 50mm 1.4, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4. and 85mm 1.8, if the quality is good enough.

201
Lenses / What will determine if I buy the 35mm f/2 & the 24-70mm IS f4
« on: November 20, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »
Image quality. If they deliver stunning quality then they are a guaranteed purchase, if not then it's a no go.

So far I've been disappointed with the 24 & 28mm IS, while they have better quality than the lenses they replace by far, the way people say they have L image quality is misleading. They have the most entry level L quality and their L counterparts primes are much better.

The 24-70mm IS F4 looks to be a real winner though, it should have the highest IQ for any normal image stabilized zoom and the macro is a nice bonus.

Image quality is the single most important factor above all else for me. Does anyone else feel the same?

202
Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.
« on: November 18, 2012, 01:13:59 AM »
I will buy it if it has JAW DROPPING sharpness. Otherwise it's a dud.

203
I understand this is a Canon Forum but please try to be unbiased.

I am just starting off and looking to take still photography only, video is not part of the equation.  At this point I'm interested in taking street level and portrait photography sometime in low-light without a flash. 

I have spent 50+ hours reviewing the Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800 but just cant seem to make up my mind.  If you were able to start over and were comparing the two cameras what system would you prefer and why?    My budget is around 5k including lenses.

Here are the two options I've been considering...

1) Canon 5D3 and Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2) Nikon D800 and Nikon Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G ED AF-S

Thanks in advance,
Young Grasshopper

I have spent 200+ hours studying both cameras and speaking to canon and nikon reps directly as well as consulting FOR a few few review websites on the two cameras. If you want low light.The 5D Mark III has 1/2 of a stop better ISO than the D800. 1/4 comes from having more uniform gausian noise that's easier for noise reduction filters to remove, and 1/4  comes from the fact that the 5D3's ISO settings are actually shooting at a higher effective ISO with a lower stated number than the D800 due to a different calibration. (reviews rate the files at a particular iso as having the same amount of noise).

Canon also has much better low light lenes with f/1.2 lenses which Nikon does not have and image stabilized fast primes, which means you can shoot with a 35mm f/2.0 IS lens at 0.5 seconds exposure time and get tack sharp images 100% of the time.

With that said for a portrait camera I'm not sure the 24-70mm is the best setup. You want a longer lens for that like the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II  but I'm not sure exactly what situations you're trying to describe as your primary subjects.

Either way the Canon 5D3 with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II will be much better than the D800 with the AF-S 24-70mm. If that's the focal length you want that is hands down the way to go.

204
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 07, 2012, 10:56:23 PM »
The inclusion of an image stabilization system in a lens DOES often lead to reduced image quality, BUT not all lenses that are poor quality have image stabilization and not all lenses that are of good quality lack image stabilization. For proof look at any lens that comes in IS and NON-IS format released in the SAME technological cycle. Tamron, Canon, Nikon, Sigma etc al have had lenses that meet that criteria and the IS version has worse IQ.

Adding image stabilization is like making a rocket that can land on the moon then deciding to make it go to mars afterwards, it's going to be harder than just making a rocket that goes to the moon, but that doesn't mean you can't achieve IQ perfection with IS, you certainly can, it's just harder.

205
Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:17:11 PM »
The purpose of this lens is for those who want to trade quality for zoom range. It is higher quality than the 24-105mm It's the highest image quality f/4.0 full frame normal zoom you can buy period.

It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed and so they are trying to get some of their money back by releasing some offshoot products. This lens is probably a scaled down version of the monster 95mm filter thread prototype of the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS we heard about.

The fast primes with IS are the other offshoots.

It's an interesting setup actually.

206
Lenses / Re: Post your wishlist for to-be-released lenses
« on: November 05, 2012, 09:46:15 PM »
Reasonable requests in order of desire:

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (H)IS L $3000

Canon 135mm f/1.8 (H)IS L $2000 (apochromatic optics, literally just copy the new Zeiss 135mm 2.0 APO and add 1/3rd of a stop with image stabilization please)

Canon 35mm 1.4 II L (weather sealed finally please!) $1400

Canon 50mm 1.4 L $1000 (best image quality of any 50mm lens)

Stuff I dream of:

Canon 50mm 1.8 H(IS) L  with 24mm TS-E image quality $1400


If Canon released these lenses today I would fill all the holes in my kit instantly.

Are you listening Canon?

207
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:49:52 PM »
This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.

208
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:10:25 AM »
For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS.  To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.

I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.

Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.

So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.

209
Your results are not consistent with what others have posted. In fact the OLD version of the lens is 15% sharper than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on full frame. @ 70mm vs 55mm. So this lens should blow the 17-55mm out of the water, which it does, even when both are on crop @ 55mm as posted on the other link.

Either you are doing the test wrong or something is seriously wrong with one of your lenses.

It's also worth mentioning that a "like for like" comparison between crop and full frame is:

45mm f/2.8 crop = 70mm f/4.5 full frame

210
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Soon-To-Be-Released Tamron 70-200 2.8?
« on: October 20, 2012, 01:10:11 PM »
     How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II?  I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
     Thanks.

You can expect half the price, half the quality.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 23