September 30, 2014, 04:42:43 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 - PavelR

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Canon General / Re: Single point auto focus
« on: January 04, 2013, 08:20:54 AM »
1D4 - single point (not central and enabled only cross type) without any expansion - all the time - on static and moving subjects.
(Automatic restore of AF point selection on camera orientation change helps a lot.)

32
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 18, 2012, 09:28:18 AM »
Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...

Everyone can say my lens is SUPER sharp at bla-bla-bla....it's difficult to debate when there no hard facts included.
I do not need to convince anybody to use any lens, I'm only saying what I found out and what I use the most...
You can try yourself and if you do not see the difference, you will be happy - carrying less weight and keep zoom versatility...
BTW: http://the-digital-picture.com/ database of the lenses is pretty good - I usually compare the IQ here before buying lens and than my test shots confirm almost all the time match the conclusion I did online. (DB is correct at least for Canon and Sigma, some Nikkor lenses I own are better than seen there...)

33
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:40:10 AM »
I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp
Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm?

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70?
Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...

34
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:42:15 PM »
I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp
Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

35
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:04:57 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes
Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

36
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 17, 2012, 03:24:32 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

37
Lenses / Re: 50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
« on: December 12, 2012, 09:55:21 AM »
Having FF with 35L, 50 1.5 and 135L, I'm thinking in:
1) selling the 50mm 1.4 and buy the 50L
2) buying the Sigma 85 1.4
3) buying 85L (more difficult due to the money involved)

Anyone had a similar debate?
Having 1.3x with the same lenses and question some time ago.
I owned 85/1.8 and upgraded to S 85/1.4.  (C1.8 = too much violet fringing and inconsistent AF)

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Memory Cards--What is the absolute best?
« on: December 11, 2012, 05:45:23 AM »
Is there any card with better parameters than Lexar 1000x 128GB?
(http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar-professional-1000x-compactflash-card?category=77)

39
Canon General / Re: Is it worth it...for me?
« on: December 02, 2012, 09:17:02 AM »
Don't worry about whether someone else will notice differences in the finished results - better equipment is more enjoyable to use (some of us like the actual process of *using* a camera) and if you find a camera and/or lens more enjoyable to use you will likely end up taking better photos anyway.

If you don't know someone with a FF camera, do what I did and rent one (ditto lenses you're interested in); doing so isn't exactly free, but you may end up saving money (or not!); and there's no substitute for hands-on experience.

One last thing - if you like portraits with blurred background, consider going longer (esp. if you end up FF); 135L is not only fantastic in its own right, but considerably less expensive than 50L or 85L.  Or try a good zoom such as Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS (or a 70-200 2.8 - needn't be Canon).  If you want 85, consider the Sigma.

Have fun!
+4 ;-)
enjoying, longer FL, 135/2, 85/1.4

40
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:29:45 PM »
Thank you, brad-man and infared, for the information.

41
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: November 27, 2012, 11:44:28 AM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up).  In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?
I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

42
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: November 27, 2012, 09:49:41 AM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

43
Lenses / Re: Focal Distance: furthest possible maintaining blurred BG
« on: November 25, 2012, 06:43:05 PM »
Another example: shooting straight en face with 50/2.8 both eyes are sharp pretty the same, but shot with 300/2.8 = it is easy to say which eye was focused on.
Sure it is, if you are shooting at the same distance - in that case, if the face fills the 300mm frame, it's only a small portion of the 50mm shot, and if it fills the 50mm frame then your 300mm shot is only showing the eyes (or would be, if you weren't closer than the MFD of the lens). But if you're 6 times further away at 300mm compared to 50mm, so the framing is the same, then the DoF is the same

It always has and always will be difficult to convince people that what they think they see is not in fact true (even with explanations and examples).
Through the filter of our own misconceptions, everyone else's statements are part of the blurry background.
I meant the same framing, of course.

My opinion was determined by looking on my photos, thus your simplified theories are not able to reverse my mind.

44
Lenses / Re: Focal Distance: furthest possible maintaining blurred BG
« on: November 25, 2012, 06:11:22 PM »
If you crop just the tower from both images, and view them at the same size on the screen, they will look identical.  That means the blur is identical. 

Examples from http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html.

100mm f/4:


28mm f/4:


The car to the right of the subject has more blur with the 100mm lens than with the 28mm lens, right? 

 

Wrong. Same blur. That's the case even in your extreme example.

I'm not saying it looks the same, the tower and car do look more blurred with the longer focal lengths. Like I said, it's good illusion.
Thx for the link - there is deep explanation we all agree with (I suppose).
And our different view on the last posts is nicely summed up by paragraph:
---
This is true when we speak of the absolute blur. The absolute blur is given by the blur disk diameter of a point in the background, such as the highlight reflections off the cars in the street. However, when we speak of the relative blur we must relate the blur disk size to the "image magnification" of the background. And that magnification is larger with the 100-mm lens too. As a matter of fact, the relative blur of the backgrounds is identical.
---

45
Lenses / Re: Focal Distance: furthest possible maintaining blurred BG
« on: November 25, 2012, 05:30:32 PM »
Exactly.  Your eyes are being fooled. The blur is the same. That it doesn't look that way is an illusion. But...it's a good illusion.
I think that we need to define "background blur" now, because it does not look like the same COC at 200mm and 400mm.
And what about my extreme examples in the previous post? Do you still call it: "my eyes are fooled"?

Background blur is already well defined, you are not using it in its common context. As I said, the towers are both blurred exactly the same, below is an image where I have made the tower the same size from the 200 and 400 shots, they are exactly the same.

 You are not referring to how blurred an object is, you are referring to how big objects at different distances are in relation to each other. That is perspective, not depth of field. For a same sized subject and aperture a longer lens shot from further away will give you a bigger apparent background object, hence the illusion of it being more blurred.
You did the operation which affects DOF - you changed magnification - look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6