April 17, 2014, 01:30:04 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 22
EOS Bodies / Re: Who is waiting for Canon Mirrorless?
« on: May 27, 2012, 07:25:28 PM »
I currently shoot with a T2i and 5D3 and want something even smaller than the T2i as a "mini DSLR". The sony NEX would be perfect if it were compatible with my EF lenses.

Canon needs to release a sony nex clone which is EF compatible, with an APS-C sensor.

Lenses / Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 27, 2012, 06:42:25 AM »
I just thought I'd see what everyone wanted to see replaced most in Canon's lineup. Feel free to post your top requests for lenses that need replacement. I'll start:

Rank - Lens Name - What Needs Fixing

#1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)
#2 - 50mm 1.4 - sharpness, Modern USM (Badly needs updating, Nikon's is far ahead)
#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)
#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)
#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

Feel free to list your own top 5

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II chromatic aberration
« on: May 27, 2012, 04:24:58 AM »
What you're seeing is purple fringing. The lens has no lateral chromatic abberation, but all long lenses suffer from purple fringing except for the Canon supertelephoto lenses and Leica APO lenses. If the lens corrected for purple fringing it would cost $11,000, and weight 3 times as much and be a cousin of the 200-400mm f/4.0 IS TC that's coming out.

Just correct it with DXO mark or lightroom.

On an related note, I would pay $10,000 for a 200-400mm f/4.0 TC with a wider focal length and faster aperture, say a 70-200mm f/2.0 IS TC :)

Part of what you're complaining seems to me to be about low contrast, the situation you're shooting in doesn't have very good contrast so it won't show detail. The other issue is your images don't seem to be perfectly in focus. Have you tried micro adjusting your lenses? The focus should really be better than that.

Lenses / Re: 5D MKIII w 70-200 2.8II using a 1.4x vs 2x extender
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:05:23 PM »
Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender?  Thanks!

cropping with the 1.4x Mk III extender shows almost no diffeence compared to using the 2x extender (there is a very slight benefit though).

Considering you get faster AF and higher quality on the wide end I preffer the 1.4x mk III

Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:40:15 AM »
I was at Samy's Camera Los Angeles today (5/9) and the canon rep there said that he has heard it may be by the end of June. But, I've read other places they are expecting it sometime in July.  He did say that he has seen prints and it is a really sharp lens and the reason for the $900 price increase has to do with the cost of the materials and special lens elements.... (ok!?)

Either way, I can't wait.

Actually the reason for the $900 price increase is that Canon prices their products fairly consistently in Yen. The new lens costs the exact same as the old lens did in yen (adjusted for inflation) down to a few tenths of a percent. The $900 is the effect of the exchange rate. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/14
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:37:00 AM »
You get to redesign the 50mm f/1.4 from the ground up. What do you leave in? What do you leave out? What improvements do you make and features do you add? And what's your realistic price point, given all of these features and the population you're targeting?

I'd like to see a 50mm 1.4 L that is fully APO corrected (no purple fringing) with much better IQ than the current version.

Shneider already makes a similar lens with a slower aperture and it would not be difficult to create this design. I'd be willing to pay $1000 at launch and $800 a few years down the line. IS would also be nice :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mark iii noise at 1600
« on: May 12, 2012, 02:45:24 PM »
Looks like you're using the camera without any noise reduction whatsoever and auto light optimizer on. Just change the settings on your camera, the images should be extremely clean at ISO 1600.

FD lenses have about half the image quality of modern EF lenses yet they retain most of their value on the used market.

I would recommend just selling your lenses on eBay and buying mid level DSLR with mid level lenses and using it in manual mode, it would be much better than what you're proposing.

I'm debating the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L -vs- the 17mm TS-E f/4 L. What I'm looking for is the least possible distortion, but I'm also willing to spend a lot of time in post editing. I don't need it perfect SOOC. But I also don't want to spend 30 minutes on each and every image.

Tell me something I can do with the the 17mm TS-E, that I can't do with the 14mm + software.

If you've got any 17mm TS-E images showing results unique to that lense, it would be super appreciated.

This questions frequently comes up and is rarely answered properly.

The simple answer is that the 17mm TS-E allows you to reduce the depth of field so that it looks like you're shooting with the equivalent of a 17mm f/0.35 lens. Yes that's 0.35 - 3 stops faster than f/1.4. In other words it allows 5 stops shallower DOF than a f/2.8 lens.

Furthermore if you're shooting a situation which requires very slow apertures it allows you to maintain fast apertures with the same depth of field. The net effect is that when you're shooting at f/16 with the 14mm you'll be shooting at f/5.6 with the 17mm TS-e, which lets you use the sweet spot of the lens and reduce diffraction. The end result is up to 70% more resolution. Finally the distortion effects of a tilt shift lens are higher quality than what you can do in post processing by a noticable margin.  You also can do a lot of special effects, AND to top it all off the 17mm TS-E is compatible with telecovnerters which means you get both a 17mm 24mm and 35mm lens.


Q: what can tilt shift lenses do that post production cannot?

A: They can appear to have 5 times faster aperture, twice the resolution, can do special effects and you get 3 top quality lenses when combined with telecoverters.

I purchased the 5d3 a month ago and love it but sometimes the images can be soft and the focus system tricky. I was curious how dpreview can still say that the noise is even better controlled than the 5d3. Basically they do not say in anyway the 5d3 is better except the focus system and fps but really thats not much. Any thoughts?

The images are absolutaly not soft in any way shape or form. The 5D3 is sharper than the 5D2 due to a better AA filter. This info has been confirmed by Canon.

Here's a comparison between the 5D3 and 5D2, the 5D3 is clearly sharper (5D2 on botton).

The noise of the D800, at least at high ISO is not better than the 5D3. Here is a comparison between the 5D3 and D800 both at camera 6400 ISO, but at difference shutter speeds to acheive the same exposure (due to an error in the third party lens reporting the wrong aperture the D800 is shot at less then f/5.6 while the 5D3 at f/8.0, also there is an iso sensetivity difference that I'll cover later) when both are adjusted to the same percentage of noise and rendered at 36 megapixels .

(click link to view full size)


The 5D3 is on top, it clearly shows more detail.

Here is what the 18% gray card looks like (same image sharpened 500% to show detail):

The 5D3 has a finer more uniform grain of noise than the D800, which as a result means the 5D3 responds better to noise reduction, this finer more uniform grain noise has been confirmed as an intentional design decision by Canon reps, which along with an upgraded jpg processing engine deliver the cleanest possible out of camera images you'll find.

On top of all this the 5D3's ISO is actually under rated by an very substantial  margin compared to the D800. At ISO 6400 the D800 is actually at ISO 4200 while the 5D3 is actually at ISO 5200. That's a 24% difference which is extreme to say the least. This is why the review is saying that the noise is less well controlled, because because before noise reduction the cameras perform similarly, yet have ISO rated differently.

Hopefully that helps clear things up.

I really hope they:

1. change the way AF point illumination works, allows you to see the AF point.

2. change the way servo AF point illumination works so you can see the AF point you're using.

3. Allow you to set the upper right most button on the back to zoom like before so you can use it with one hand.

4. Allow you to disable the limits of auto ISO

5. Allow you to use flash with AEB at least in manual mode.

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4
« on: May 07, 2012, 05:15:06 AM »
I am about to buy a 85mm, and the 1.2 is out of the question due to the price, and also out of the question are the manual focus only lenses. The Photozone.de rates the Canon very highly, and the Sigma low, while the digital picture gives the Sigma a high score. Buying the Canon is much cheaper.

Has anyone tried both these lenses, and which would you go for?

My use will mainly be portrait on a 5D II.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer:) I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site.

The lab tests, specifically MTF tests have a lot to do with the real world, they don't tell the whole picture but they are fairly good. The best indication I've found is simply looking at the-digital-picture.com samples. The person running that site seems to have a huge budget and is willing to buy multiple copies of a lens. I have never been dissatisfied with their tests and the visual comparisons are the ultimate word in testing.

Other websites with lower budgets I've found have inaccuracies about 10%-20% of the time whether that be due to technique or getting a bad copy, which is why it's worth checking multiple reviews, especially for third party lenses. For a third party lens I check at least 3 review websites before I come to any conclusion.

I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

You could assume photozone thinks so. Realistically all 85mm lenses are very good. However, the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 just happen to be epic.

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had?

The Canon 85mm 1.2L has a unique corkscrew focus instead of a lever focus which is very very slow. It's supposed to be for shooting models who know how to pose and stand still.

The Sigma 1.4 focuses as fast as the Canon 1.8 but sufferes from calibration issues, if you can microadjust it properly it can do action just fine.

I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

That lens has much better focus speed.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

You have to correct the raw file in DXO and then you can edit it freely. I don't have any experience using any other method.

Hope that helps.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70L vs primes (24L, 35L etc)
« on: May 07, 2012, 04:54:03 AM »
Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.

According to photozone's tests, the 24mm prime does quite a lot better than the 24-70 at 24 (quite a bit sharper, less distortion). Normal to wide zooms tend to struggle a bit at their wide end.

They have nearly identical boarder performance (within 5%) and other websites show they have nearly identical mid frame performance. The 24mm L II is quite a bit sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L in the very center but over the most of the image area they are about even it seems.


I am considering to to buy 5d3 but there is one thing that I am not sure of. Is 5d3 pixel count good enough to print large size prints? When I say large size i mean something along the size of 4 by 2 feet. As you probably guessed i am between d800 and 5d3.
I am not sure what else comes to play when printing large size prints but I believe ISO has to do with it. Can somebody give me some guidelines when it comes to that.


Thank you!

The D800 has absolutely no resolution advantage over the 5D Mark III when using zooms and low end primes this has been proven by many sources ranging from DXO to lensrentals to many minor reviews. The D800 only has a resolution when shooting with the best primes and only between f/4.0-f/8.0. That advantage is also at absolute best only an 11% increase in linear resolution, despite having more than 60% more megapixels.

The reason why both cameras will show such similar resolution is that most lenses cannot outresolve the 5D Mark III and when they do it's not by much. Canon has actually stated that it did not push the megapixels of the 5D Mark III because the lenses cannot handle it.

If you want more resolution 20 something megapixels you need to shoot with a medium format camera and with a medium format lens, the d800 is not a replacement for a medium format camera.

If you don't beleive me here's a comparison between the 5D Mark III resized to 36 megapixels and the D800 at 3350 LP/PH, this is shot with the same Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro, and heavily sharpened to show any difference, there is none.

Many lenses acheived more than 3400 lp/ph in the center but will show no difference slightly off center across over 85% of the image area such as the famed Zeiss 21mm. That's why to see any real difference you need a prime that acheives over 3400 lp/ph near the mid-frame and edges, which means you need a truely stelar lens - most primes do not acheive those numbers, you'll want lenses like the Nikon 85mm G, 24mm PC-E, 60mm Macro and the super telephotos on your D800 if you want more resolution than a 5D Mark III.

If you don't plan on shooting under carefully controlled circumstances with carefully selected lenses it will make no difference to you if you chose the 5D3 or D800. Either way a medium format will blow both cameras out othe water with nearly twice the resolution.

A 4 fott wide print with the 5D Mark III should be fine though.

If you're curious here's what the difference will look like if you use a high quality prime from the D800 to the 5D Mark III, the images are randomized, 5D Mark III images are resized to 36 megapixels versus D800 images.


Hope that helps.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 22