March 04, 2015, 12:14:41 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 - dr croubie

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 94
Lenses / Re: New lens or body?
« on: July 06, 2011, 09:18:07 PM »
what's an xsi in real numbers? 450D?
ok, it's an older body, and *only* 12 MP. But for what it does, it's great.
you've already got the 'good' kit lens in that it's the IS version.
the 70-300nonL is good for its price (but i personally hated it at 300mm and got the L).

so going from 18-55 to 24-70 you will:
a) future-proof yourself for fullframe.
b) get a big difference in IQ.
c) gain 750g to your kit.
d) lose IS, lose 18-24mm (which will hurt on a crop-body)
e) gain a few stops of light, gain 55-70mm range.

going from 70-300 to 70-200 2.8 i:
a) lose the 200-300mm range.
b) maybe you've got a good copy, maybe i had a bad copy, but i wouldn't miss the 200-300 range because it was too soft to use.
c) if the deal comes with the extender, then you gain the 200-400 f5.6 range instead.
d) go a bit up in IQ in the 70-200 range, and gain 1-2 stops.
e) gain 680g in weight
f) Lose IS? you didn't mention if it was the IS or non-IS version.

going from 450D to 550/600/60/7D, depending on model:
a) definitely gain 50% more MP
b) maybe better AF system
c) maybe bendy screen
d) maybe more FPS
e) definitely video

So, if you upgrade the wide lens, you still have to swap to the 18-55 for the widest shots, or get a 10-22 and stick with APS-C. If you can put up with swapping lenses for a while (up to a year or two?) then upgrade to 5D3, go that.
If you're always going to be 7D or less, ie APS-C, then you'll definitely want to pair a 24-70 with a 10-22 (or equivalent 3rd-party). Or consider another option, 17-55 2.8 or 15-85 (choose between these on zoom range vs low-light only, hardly any IQ diff).

If you upgrade the zoom lens, and go the 70-200 + extender, take it out in the field if you can first (or rent one?), see how many shots you miss because you were too busy putting the extender on to get that extra reach. if it's the non-IS, see how much that affects your shooting style. see how much better the photos are wide-open at f/2.8. Also consider the 100-400 as AJ said, or a bit cheaper now is the 70-300L, better IQ than a 70-200+tc (how much better depends which flavour 70-200), no changing TCs, if you can put up with the f/5.6 for extra reach or convenience.

if you go the body option, one thing to think about:
the xxxD models are upgraded every year on the dot. they'll take the latest sensor whatever it is. if the 7D2 comes out soon, and at least 6 months before the 650D, then the 650D will get that sensor.
(it might not, but it has happened every time until now. even the 400d got the sensor *before* the 40d, the 50d sensor went to the 500d 6 months later, and the 7d sensor went to 550d 6 months later).
you can wait on a body, but every time there'll be something new or cheaper just around the corner to wait for. bodies degrade in price a bit more than good glass does too. if you're buying a used 70-200 2.8 nonIS, then factor in that if you ever need to sell it, and treat it well, you can probably get back almost what you paid for it. not so with a body.

hmmm, i came here thinking that the obvious answer was to go the 24-70, but i'm not so sure now.
i think the biggest question you need to answer first, is are you going to be definitely going FF at some point. the 5D2 will always be a good camera, regardless of if/when the 5D3 comes out. my bet is the 5D3 will be 50% more than 5D2's price now on release, a used 5D2 will hold its value for a while until 5D3 stocks are ubiquitous, i might even consider one at that point. upgrading the wide makes no sense if you're staying with APS-C, or get an APS-C wide (17-55, 15-85). So my money's actually on going the long-upgrade (also consider the 100-400 or the 70-300L), then if you ever go FF you'll have to get a wide-angle FF lens at that point too...

and i didn't give any good arguement as to why not to upgrade the body. my feeling is that the new models are coming out *soon*. but 12 MP is more than enough unless you're doing enlargements, or plan to crop out smaller bits when your lens can't reach far enough (i do sometimes). I'd stick with 450 until 7d2 or 5d3 some out, then maybe even a 2nd-hand 7d or 5d2 will be very attractive once the price has settled, a newer model doesn't make the old model any worse than it is now...

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm L 5.6 .. So what's changed in 19 years?
« on: July 06, 2011, 08:36:35 PM »
...and don't forget that sensor shift has problems with overheating, but we've heard that story before...

also, don't forget The Third Option, if only canon would make something like that.
but they won't, because then people would buy the 70-200 nonIS and the converter for less than the price of the 70-200IS (if it worked as good, that is). I'd even buy one for all my old MF primes, if it worked half as good as a canon IS, just for framing...

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm L 5.6 .. So what's changed in 19 years?
« on: July 06, 2011, 10:31:30 AM »
cause nobody who has tested the "IS" in other lenses do not have any interest in non-is lenses

google translate issues aside, i can definitely agree.
a 250 f/3.5 MF prime i've got is just hand-holdable focussable, despite its soviet-stiffness in the ring. add a 2x tele for 500 f/7 and i can barely frame and focus, lack of a tripod ring and gimball head doesn't help. I could maybe put up with 400 f/5.6 without IS, but it'd have to be some damn sweet IQ to make up for the annoyance.

(and if i add my two 2x teles for 1000mm f14, just breathing on the lens to focus will shoot the framing off, so not very useful even in studio work, but it sure looks impressive with all my extension tubes)

Software & Accessories / Re: Filters - Screw on or not ?
« on: July 06, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »
I'm another screw-in user, and i've got the whole range of step up
21-37-52-58-62-72-82 and back down again, for everything from pinhole, lensbaby, niftyfifty, efs15-85 to 250mm f/3.5 Medium Format.
I've only got 2 CPLs, 72 & 58mm to match my efs 15-85 and 70-300nonL at the time (which i've since sold), with all the rings i can use them on any lens, and the rings cost less combined than the 58mm CPL did.

I've checked for size, but haven't bought the ring yet, that i can mount the 72mm CPL via a step ring on my 70-300L with the hood on, but i've also confirmed that i have to screw the step-ring onto the lens *after* putting the hood on, and will have to unscrew it before removing the hood to reverse it for the bag.

sometimes, it does get annoying the time it takes to screw/unscrew filters, last time i was at a zoo i just left the CPL on the whole time, didn't even take it off to go inside, just put up with the loss of light for a few shots (which were only memories, not portraits for enlargement).
but then, i've never used the cokin, can't comment on the time it takes for them, but probably just as long or worse. i'd be heading for cpl (i know you said you don't use them though) and ND in screw-in plus rings, the cokin-for-grad-nd arguement makes a bit of sense, i'll keep in mind i'll have to buy into that system if i ever want to go for them...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 05:59:50 AM »
Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)

nothing yet, i'm too lazy to make my own, but i did find this. The camera on the back in one of the pic looks like a film camera, that looks like a matchbox already compared to the lens...

and as for the general idea of ef/s lenses on an EVIL, for anyone who doesn't know, the flange distance of an EOS camera is 44.0mm. So if you want to mount that lens on any camera, it has to be 44.0mm from the film/sensor. Any further and it won't focus to infinity. Any closer would work, but you lose macro capability, you can focus beyond infinity, and i think the lens' inbuilt distance-information would be off.
So to make a compact camera which is by definition at least 44mm thick (closer to 50 at least i'd think) doesn't make sense.

So definitely they'd need a new lens mount, something closer to the ~20mm of the u4/3 and NEX would be more like it.
And canon won't be stupid, they'll make an adapter so you can mount your ef/s lenses on any EVIL they make, so that you can use them with full autofocus and IS. Making a tilt/shift adapter would be nice too, but probably not possible to keep AF and IS, you'd be lucky to get diaphragm-linkage.

I doubt canon would make one for any other brand though, so no Leica M adapter. But just wait a month or two and then buy one off ebay from china...

And the upside of a shorter flange distance is that wide-angles get easier to make. Even with a Full Frame sensor, it is a lot easier to make a 15mm lens with a flange distance of 20mm than 44mm. I don't think they'll try a FF EVIL just yet, but even on APS-C we could get sweet lenses down to 5-10mm prime a lot lighter and cheaper than efs...

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-270 f/3.2-5.6 IS Coming Soon?
« on: July 05, 2011, 10:57:52 PM »
Is there any chance they could make it the quality of their new 70-300 IS L lens?

they tried that, it's called the 28-300L, and it's €2500, 10% above the 70-200/2.8ii, the cheapest of the lower half of the canon range (next price up is the 200f2 at €5500).

looking at the review, it's got a lot of compromises, the 'barrel' distortion at 28mm is high enough that i'd be tempted to call it 'beachball' distortion, the vignetting on FF is 1 stop or worse everywhere except 50mm and f8, in the text they talk about loss of contrast, and the MTF are nowhere near what i'd call L-quality on their own.
But to put all of those features, especially the 10x focal length range, and making it faster than f/5.6, that's what you have to put up with, it's the best they could do to keep it within the realms of affordable.
Even making the same design down to 18mm, the vignetting and barrel distortion on the wide end would be horrible. but making it efs-only would take out a hunk of extra glass, lighter, saving money there to make it 18mm wide might keep the price the same. (but who would buy a €2500 efs lens? people with that money either love their 7D to death, or would be on a 5d or 1d)

comparing to the tamron 18-270, they've got slightly less barrelling at wide, and a slightly bit better vignetting (everything's under 1-stop except 18mm wide open). for the MTF, it's a bit hard to compare FF to APS-C, but the graph-shapes look about the same rough shape, the tamron only a little bit behind. But the CA, eesh, unless you want to take pictures that look like a kaleidoscope, that's enough to put me off.

in short, the only people who would buy a super-zoom type lens like this would be:
- beginners moving up from 'superzoom' or 'bridge' whatever you call them, dslr shaped but smaller and one lens. the IQ you'd get from these would (probably) be better, the manual features would be enough to make pics better if you knew what you were doing.
- size/weight constrained people who absolutely *can't* take more than 1 lens, or can't swap it for any reason (ie, you're covering the paris-dakar rally in a sandstorm).
- people who don't know any better, and think higher number means better.
- personally, i'd go the 70-300L and 24-70L with change left for filters rather than the 28-300L, again, unless i was travelling light through the desert and couldn't change lenses.

meanwhile, it's probably too late for your salmon bbq (sounds interesting though). my decision would go on focal length, if you wanted wide or zoom. my 70-300L has hardly been off my 7D body since i bought it, it's getting to the point where i'm taking very cropped landscapes with it and finding good excuses for making 'artistic' crops instead of swapping to my wide lens.

anyway, back to the OP, just based on gut feeling, canon's version of an 18-270 would have to be as good or better than a tamron equivalent, it's almost definitely going to be more expensive (how much does the 'canon' nameplate add on?), but there's no way it'll even come close to the 28-300L, which itself is no stunner either. it'll keep the mass-market, facebook-uploaders, 4*6 printers, and compact-upgraders happy though...

EOS Bodies / Re: Which Canon 60D Kit Lens? (Plus 550D)
« on: July 05, 2011, 09:38:44 PM »
Add another vote here for the 15-85 IS USM.
furthermore, if you're only going video and not photography, save the money from the 60D and get a 600D (ie, 600d + 15-85 > 60d + 17-85). Actually, for a starter who won't do sports and birds, i'd recommend that for photography too.
Or also the 17-55 f2.8 is a bit more again, but that decision is pure 'extra light' vs 'extra length'.

If you need faster lenses for video you could also get some used M42 mount lenses. I got my 35mm + adapter for less than 20€ from ebay. I'm sure you can get a 35mm + 50mm + 85mm for about the price of a EF 50 1.8 II. They will have better build quality including better manual focus rings for video.

i'm also an MF-prime fan, especially M42. But not all of them are good, and the good ones aren't cheap. SMC Takumar are one of the best non-zeiss you can get, the 50mm f1.8 and f2 should be less than $50 shipped. But go up to the 50/1.4 and you're well over the price of a niftyfifty (which has AF).

on the fast wide end there's nothing cheap, 28/1.8 are dime-a-dozen from a heap of different companies, but watch out for the quality of some unkown-names.
faster than that: zeiss 35/2.4 flektogon go for $200 and up, and takumar 35/2, nikon 35/2 & 28/2, OM 35/2, MIR 24N&M 35/2 all go for upwards of $100-150. (trust me, i search on ebay every week for something cheap in this range). still cheaper than the ef 35/2 and better IQ than a fast sigma prime though.

85 f2 look for a Jupiter9 soviet built, again lucky to get one under $100, otherwise spring for the EF 85/1.8 (or a mamiya 645 80 f1.9 MF for maybe the same price).

i suppose it depends what you call 'fast', if you expand it to f/2.8, then you can get a lot more range and a lot cheaper. but i'd spring for the 18-55 f/2.8 and not bother with the primes in that case...

also, forgot to say, and i don't think anyone's mentioned yet, if you're interested in video: Microphone.
even if it's an old crappy thing, just the act of getting the microphone away from the body will get rid of any AF motor or IS sounds, external mics can have a wind-sock put on too. Doesn't have to be a classy Hot-shoe Rode or Sennheiser, although they are better. Try pick up and old sm58 from a music hire-shop, they take beatings for years and live to tell about it. (kinda depends what you're filming though, more directional is probably more versatile)

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm L 5.6 .. So what's changed in 19 years?
« on: July 05, 2011, 09:00:36 PM »
They canned the original 200 f1.8 becuse of ROHS concerns, nothing in the glass, but the manufacturing process made some nasty by-products. They couldn't change the composition/manufacturing process easily, so they came up with the 200 f2.

That hasn't happened with the 400 f5.6, so i'd be very doubtful that they've changed the composition of any glass. There were no ultra-special elements like the 200/1.8, and they wouldn't just change any pieces of glass without putting a II after it. Maybe they could have quietly changed a coating for a bit better performance, or more likely for a cost saving.

There's no IS to update to a better design. The USM is possible to have been changed to a slightly better/quieter/faster design, or at least they might have made it cheaper to make.

But companies like canon will take any excuse to put a II behind the name of any lens. It's good marketing if people think their lens has been designed last year rather than 5, 10, 20 years ago (case in point, the efs55-250 ii, whether this is a recent phenomenon is debatable). If they just quietly updated everything without telling, people would keep their old stuff, and yell that their R&D dept does nothing.

So my money's on absolutely nothing having changed, bar a slightly cheaper process for some minor parts...


it seems i have only 2 options in 135mm range lens
135mm f/2L USM or 135mm f/2.8 soft focus.

is there any better lens than both? (no zooms)
zeiss or sigma or canon?

If you're looking at Zeiss, you obviously don't care much about AF, so have you considered other older versions? (i'll guess you're doing portraits with liveview MF?)

the zeiss sonnar 180 f2.8 has a reputation of one of the sharpest lenses they ever made, with a very smooth bokeh. but then you'll need a bigger studio to pull your camera a few more meters from the subject. was made in pentaconsix and m42 mounts afaik, maybe other rarer versions, €1-200ish on ebay.

the biometar 120/2.8 is almost as good, it'll beat most other MF 120-135 f2.8 flavours, but not sure how it compares to any newer AF versions like the EF SoftFocus. a lot cheaper around €100ish.

but if you can afford it, or if your work depends on it, the EF 135 f2 is the one to get...

Lenses / Re: Patents: Diffractive Optic 2.0x & 1.8x Teleconverters
« on: July 03, 2011, 09:17:43 PM »
i really really do not understand what is the advantage of DO in a tiny little converter?

I thought DO is dead since 70-300 DO 3.5-5.6 lens.

ditto, shaving 100g off a 325g converter is a big % by itself, but nothing when you add on a 5kg lens on the other end.

maybe if they can make the tc pair well with some not-the-best lenses, it could actually correct some CA from the original lens? (ie, lens+tc gives better images than lens by itself, rather than worse as is normally the case). (if this is even possible). (would make the most sense for built-in TCs)

and it's not dead besides the 70-300DO and the 400f4DO, there were other patents here a few months ago for some wide-prime-DO lenses (which do make more sense in a reverse-tele Wide Lens). but for us consumers it may as well be dead until they make it, true.

and some specs for those interested:
400 f5.6 - ~1.2kg - €1200
400 f4 DO - ~2kg - €6k
400 f2.8 ii - ~3.9kg - €10k

70-300 - 600g - €480
70-300DO - 720g - €1300
70-300L - 1050g - €1350

so you can't really tell how well the DO helps with weight and price because there's no direct comparison, the prime is bang in between the faster/slower versions, but it's definitely the shortest. (and the 400 f2.8 i was a lot cheaper than 10k, i think less than the f4 DO if anyone can confirm?)

same with the zoom, it's a bit heavier than the plain, and well below the L in weight, but the price is almost the same as the L for a lot lower IQ. it is a lot shorter than both though (in retracted at least).

the D300 and D300S compete (poorly) against the 7D.

in all areas except one major, the d300s takes 2 cards (i think 1xCF and 1xSD. but still, any backup is better than none).
and the nikon has (allegedly) better (flash) metering and more AF points (how well they work, no idea).
otherwise, the 7d wins on MP, (just) on FPS, and 1080p video...

all beautiful, if there's probably only one reason i'd set foot in the us again it'd be to go to there (and sequoia national park).

is this thread meant to be for before/after shot comparisons since exxon stuffed up again?

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM
« on: July 02, 2011, 08:47:21 PM »

great, make me feel even worse that i never got into SiChuan (or YunNan?).
oh well, whenever i make it to southern China i'll be bringing a lot of gear in the hope of getting some shots even half as good as that...

CaNikon don't synchronise releases so there's always the inevitable leap-frogging

yes, but i'm putting my money on that, if the D4 comes first, the 1Ds4 will be announced within the week. happened last time with the D3-1Ds3.

and bring on the d300s replacement, then canon can announce the 7d2, which i'm buying on release, gotta ditch my 7d, the dead pixels are back again...

Canon General / Re: Live view focus
« on: July 01, 2011, 10:31:35 PM »
The closest thing is the Sony A55 and its limititation of just a vew minutes before it overheats.

but the reason it overheats is because it's got sensor shift IS, no? ie, the sensor moves around to correct shake, so it's not bolted to anything, so there's no heat transfer to any other part of the body. if canon or nikon (who do IS/VR in the lens) bring in a pellicle mirror, then you get the best of both worlds, the sensor would be bolted to the body and wouldn't overheat as quick, and you'd get fast AF.
(and that's my best prediction of new features if any new 'video' bodies come out)

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 94