Messages

61

Lenses / Re: Ultimate giclée lens?

« on: January 28, 2013, 10:15:03 PM »

So how ultimate is 'Ultimate'? And how macro is 'Macro'? And how budget is your budget?

Nikon made a lovely lens a few years back, and 80mm f/1.1 (or 1.0?) macro lens, for 1:1 reproduction of things like Postage Stamps and such. I'm pretty sure it can't focus to infinity and needs a bellows, but it sells second-hand for $2k for a reason...

62

Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!

« on: January 28, 2013, 10:10:56 PM »

Anyone else using the Canon EF 40mm pancake? Seems like the 50/1,4 is the most popular gal' in the class for street photos.

I've been using my 40mm pancake on my EOS 3 more and more lately. It's the eye-control that does it for me, more than once i've been lining up a shot, see something move in the background, straight away it's refocused on that and i've got a much better shot. Mostly with B+W film, last roll was Ilford 125, sometimes it's T-Max 100 or 400 or BW400CN.

My other new favourite toy is a (Cosina) Voigtlander Bessa L. TTL Light meter, fully manual, L39 screw-mount. No viewfinder at all, just guess and shoot, perfect for 'shooting from the hip' (also a lot more subtle that way). I've only amassed 1 lens so far (besides SLR lenses I can use via adapter), is the 21mm f/4.0 Color Skopar. Absolutely amazing lens, second only to the Zeiss ZM Biogon, ZE Distagon, or Leica Super Angulon, except the Skopar cost me $200, they're $500 new, compare that to the Zeiss or Leicas. Came with a viewfinder too.

It's also a great tiny/featherweight hiking/landscape camera with a roll of Velvia 50.

(I also almost got a Bessa R3A and Ultron 40/1.7, but the bidding went too high for me. One day i'll get the R3A and put on a 90 or 135mm, for candid street portraits).

63

Sports / Re: It's just not cricket

« on: January 28, 2013, 05:49:08 PM »

Apologies for the focus but there simply wasn't time to wait for correct focus while this was going on...

... if you don't follow cricket, this photo is meaningless to you.

Ah man, I remember back in the days of AB and Boony and Gatting and all the classics, when channel 9 would actually follow the streakers around with the camera and Bill&Tony would be laughing at them and cracking jokes...
Until a few years later when it got all business-like and they went to an ad-break to discourage streakers, took all the fun out of the game.

64

Canon General / Re: Curious Distraction: Explain your username, avatar picture, etc...

« on: January 25, 2013, 04:05:50 PM »

I've used my name for various things in the past, mostly on forums but also online games as my avatar username. Not only that, I have registered 'croubie industries' as a business and used it when I subcontracted myself out for various engineering jobs (in a sort of "Vandalay Industries" way, if you don't know what that is then you're too young. Go rent some Seinfeld DVDs).

But the truth of where it came from? Me and a mate, back in high school (so at least 12-14 years ago), were around at his place late one night sampling some 'herbs' that he'd grown in his garden. We started just babbling crap, made up words that sounded cool, and I particularly liked the sound of 'croubie', we even tried to get it to catch on as a slang word for the herbs, it caught on with a few friends (particularly good when discussing nefarious activities around people we shouldn't, like parents).
Then I got a subcontracting job and needed a business name. Well, I didn't need one, but using my actual name sounded less 'business-like', so I made up 'croubie industries' as a sort of 'vandalay industries', but also having a dig at my bosses (who didn't know my other made-up meaning for the words).
13 years later and it's still around, even if it doesn't have the herbal double-meaning anymore (we all grew out of it, as most kids do).
Meanwhile, the global-octopus of croubie industries has stretched into many areas: photography & accessories, hifi/pa/guitar speakers and amps, computers & parts, and I can't think of what else. It's amazing what you can get when you ring up suppliers and say you're from a business (rather than some poor uni student), trade prices and free samples and all the rest.

"And you want to be my latex salesman."

65

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear

« on: January 24, 2013, 05:07:39 AM »

Reminds me of when I went on a 5-day Scout Hike when i was 14 or so. They always recommend you carry 20% of your body weight or so, that that should have been 15kg at the time. Not only did I not have the lightest tent and sleeping bag, my bag was 23kg because I deemed that I couldn't live without a home-made sound system strapped to my backpack, powered by a few 6V lantern batteries, a whole heap of cassettes to listen to, plus a bottle of vodka and 2L of Coke to mix it with. With all that booze i never noticed the extra weight...

Anyway, the one lens that I haven't been hiking with yet is my big boy and my Hasselbladski...

66

Lenses / Re: Question regarding constant aperture lenses.

« on: January 23, 2013, 08:10:04 PM »

Wide-to-tele zoom lenses like the EF24-70mm f/2.8L achieve their constant aperture differently than either the wide-to-wide or tele-to-tele designs; in this case the iris diaphragm is "cammed" so that it changes its size as the lens is zoomed. You can see this if you look through the lens off the camera while you're zooming it. If the diaphragm was not cammed, the 24-70/2.8L would be revealed as a variable-aperture zoom with a maximum aperture larger than f/2.8 at all focal lengths under 70mm.

So this is the thing that I've always wondered, is why do they do that?
Sigma and/or Tamron have f/2.8-f/4.0 vari-aperture zooms in the 24-100 ranges, which is basically them taking a f/4 constant aperture lens and removing the f/4 restriction on the wide end so that it comes out at f/2.8.

So if we take the EF 24-70 f/2.8, Chuck's just said that we could take away that cam and make it something like a 24-70 f/2.0-2.8.
Well, why don't they?
Is it just the 'prestige' that constant-aperture is better than variable? (even though it only really affects you if you're shooting wide-open in M or using flash). (and if you've got a f/2.0-2.8 vari-aperture zoom and using M or flash, you can just set the aperture to f/2.8, when you zoom out it will stay at f/2.
Would the IQ suffer that badly? (given how well the 24-70 II performs, I don't think it would do that much worse at 24mm f/2.0).
Do they want to protect sales of the 24mm f/1.4 L? ([/cynical]).
The only real downside I can see is vignetting at the widest end, it's already 1.8 stops at 24mm f/2.8, at f/2.0 it might be as bad as the 15-85 @ 15mm. But jam it on a low-noise body like 5D3 or 1DX or even 6D, and you can use PIC in DPP and fix it right up.
I know it'll never happen, but it would be a nice thought...

67

Lenses / Re: Step-up Ring, Filter...

« on: January 23, 2013, 03:38:35 PM »

Pick the largest lens diameter you have and buy filters for that size.

Yes, but within reason, sometimes it's better to have a few intermediate sizes. If I use my largest filter on my smallest lens, it just looks kinda stupid...

68

Lenses / Re: Step-up Ring, Filter...

« on: January 23, 2013, 05:52:11 AM »

Larger Filters on Smaller lenses with a Step Up ring, you're never going to have a problem, except if you want to use a hood. Sometimes you can get the hood on and *then* mount the filter, sometimes you can't even do that. But if you don't want a hood, there's no problem at all. (I'd recommend getting another lenscap, $2 on ebay, the size of your filter, so that you don't have to unscrew everything to put the original lenscap on).

Putting Smaller filters on Larger lenses with a Step Down ring is also possible, but not recommended, because you get worse vignetting. Only if you're putting an EF lens on an EF-S body, then maybe it's ok, but it's up for experimentation.

69

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Up to what ISO are you willing to set?

« on: January 22, 2013, 11:01:20 PM »

I shoot my 7D at 800 for good shots where I can accept maybe a little motion blur, 1600 where i'd rather have noise than motion blur (noise is easier to get rid of), and 3200 or even higher if it's only going to be a 6x9cm print or 1200x800 web-view.

My EOS 3 I shoot up to 800, which is either BW400CN or TMAX400 pushed a stop, or occasionally when I'm shooting Provia 400 and cross processing, then I set the light-meter to 800 to not blow out the highlights.

And my Pentacon6/Kiev60/Kiev88/Mamiya645AF I shoot Ilford Delta P3200, have shot at 3200 and 4000, and frankly i get better results (less grain than noise) than on my 7D at the same speeds, reducing those huge negatives masks a lot of the grain out. It's hard to compare when my fastest MF lenses are f/2.8, but i'll take my EF 85/1.8 at iso800 on my 7D over the Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 at iso3200 on MF (it's also 3kg lighter that way).

70

Canon General / Re: Patent: Large Back Illuminated Sensor

« on: January 21, 2013, 03:47:00 PM »

Im not smart. Whats the difference if we had such a sensor technology already used today? Please tell me in easy to understand words.

Sensors have pixels. (well, photosites, but pixels is easier to type).
Pixels are little squares on a piece of silicon.
Between these pixels are little wires so all the colours can come off the chip.
So pixels don't take up the entire size of the chip.
But in 'backside' illumination, pixels take up the entire one side of the chip.
The wiring is on the other side of the chip.
So, no wiring between pixels means more space for pixels, means bigger pixels.
Bigger pixels means more DR at low-ISO, and less noise at higher-ISO (with everything else the same, in Sony' Exmore's case it's not the same, they're also much better because other bits of the circuit are also better, and why Sonikon have way better DR at low ISO than canon).

And yes, it's only in P&S for now, the smaller the sensor the more difference this technology makes. But it will make *some* difference at FF, and it's the way of the future (just don't hold your breath).

71

Lenses / Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on full frame: it's actually quite good!

« on: January 20, 2013, 05:50:38 PM »

Nice tests.
just as an FYI, the Sigma 8-16mm also works as a FF 15-16mm (although granted, a lot slower than the tokina f/5.6 and it doesn't take filters). 15mm on FF is not as wide as 8mm or even 11mm on APS-C, but it's good to know these 3rd-party UWA can be used on FF in a pinch...

72

Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR

« on: January 18, 2013, 09:16:35 PM »

For me, paddling and photography are a way of life.... now if I could only figure out a way to get paid to do this.....

there's always money to be had from tourists, paddle them up a stream and back and give them a photo of them in that pose, could be worth some scratch...

73

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon: not responsible for typos?

« on: January 18, 2013, 12:12:21 AM »

Reminds me of when I looked through T+C of some things sometimes.
Normally they say "errors and omissions excepted" (meaning that if they stuff up something in the T+Cs then what they "really meant" is what counts, not what they wrote).
Except I have also read "errors and omissions accepted". Which means if they stuff up in the T+Cs then they'll accept it as their own fault. But given how that's an "error", using 'accept' instead of 'except', I wonder if they could argue that that error is also excepted (even though they wrote accepted).

Man, sometimes it's fun to play English against people who didn't pass High School.

74

Lenses / Re: My greatest wish: the cheap-fast glass!

« on: January 17, 2013, 05:30:40 AM »

Well, there's always the Cyclop 85mm f/1.5, you can get them for $2-400 (or the Helios version with aperture blades goes for $6-800, but lens elements are identical).

It's a highly 'specialised' lens, shall we say, people call it 'swirly' bokeh which is actually extreme astigmatism and vignetted bokeh (which is the 'opposite' of the way a lensbaby makes its bokeh, which looks more like bad coma).
Anyway, samples on flickr here.

Or my sample, EOS 3, Ilford Delta Pro iso100, handheld indoors, and I was so drunk I don't remember even using the lens that day:

75

Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L

« on: January 17, 2013, 05:21:14 AM »

Going on a tangent - someone mentioned on the forums a 135mm(?) lens with an aperture made from liquid(?) that would darken under electric current creating a soft edged hole and excellent bokeh.

Could anyone remind the lens' manufacturer & model?

That would be this one.
(although I'm not sure about the 'darkening under current', i'm not sure how the Sony works.
The 'darkening under current' thingy was actually a Canon Patent (that will probably never make it into a lens)