March 03, 2015, 06:12:32 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 150
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 23, 2015, 07:03:45 PM »
I think it is entirely personal choice. Primes don't meant having to zoom with your feet: you don't have to carry just one prime.

My personal choice is to use a few lightweight primes. My reasons are high IQ across the frame, light weight, bright viewfinder and easy balance on the camera. If I'm travelling light I'll have a couple of Lowepro cases on a belt with a couple of lenses.

Primes also mean that you use a proper hood for the focal length, which for me, as I'm often shooting across or into the sun, is beneficial. The 24-70 f2.8 mark one had a very clever system of a long hood and the longest focal length is the shortest physical length; thus the hood matches the focal length. However on all other standard or wide zooms this isn't the case. On my 24-105L I have a Hoya rubber hood which you can squash in for 24 mil and pull out for 105. This is a major improvement over the standard, wide angle hood. The 24-70 f2.8 II is an 82 mm filter and I don't think anyone makes one like that for this lens, so for me that is an issue.

Also because I'm mainly producing stitched images I don't use an ultra wide angle lens. 28 mil is as wide as I go, so I don't really have a vast range requirement. I suppose in summary, if we are talking about landscape photography where you are trying to resolve tiny detail that is a long way away, a 'standard' range on FF, if you want to make every pixel count at all the focal lengths of a zoom,( not just the one focal length and aperture combination where it may be excellent)  you have to go for the 24-70 f2.8 II. As this is a heavy lump, and you cannot hood it properly at mid to longest length, I prefer a few high quality, light primes, and the 24-105L as a fall back position.

Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: January 22, 2015, 02:19:04 PM »
Probably a bit cheeky putting the 40 pancake in this thread, but I think it has made a nice job here at f3.5

Ivy growing over a wall in front of the ruined Byland Abbey, England. This is straight out of the camera using the 'landscape' picture style and increased contrast.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 21, 2015, 04:19:41 PM »
Robin Hood's Bay on the North East coast of England, originally a tiny little fishing village basically built up a cleft in the cliff face, now mostly holiday homes.

Strange how the place got its name; the legend of Robin Hood jumps about a bit geographically. This bay is quite a way from Barnsdale and Sherwood Forests.

5DII + little 40 pancake.

Don like so many things it's easy to tell the left from the right but it gets muddy in the middle.  N G is in business and they aren't saints but I appreciate that they are at least trying to keep photos out that have been seriously doctored because they'd self destruct if they didn't.  Guess we've strayed off topic! ;)

Here's a shot that it is not edited, it's illuminated by prism light.  Unnatural for sure but not edited and it's OK by N G standards.


Nice one Jack, and definitely 'ethical'  ;)

Lenses / Re: Fast lenses at a crossroads?
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:45:49 PM »
An f/2.8 aperture on an 11 mm lens would be fantastic - if you could get reasonably sharp corners. At 11 mil you don't need small aperture for dof; I think f/2.8 on 11 mil would give everything from about 1 metre to infinity in focus at f/2.8.

The trouble is that it's not feasible to do this as the lens would have to be far too expensive, if indeed it were possible at all. Here's a link to the Tokina on TDP and this is on APS  !


Also a lot of modern lens tech has to go into making a fast lens sharp, even in the middle, even stopped down. 'Fast' doesn't automatically mean good, in fact, uncorrected 'fast' means bad. It is easier to make a slower lens with smaller diameter lenses sharper than a faster one with larger elements. Just off the top of my head a good example of this is the Voightlander 40mm pancake, f/2, compared with the Canon 40 mm pancake at f/2.8. The Canon is the sharper lens, even more so across the frame.

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:26:35 PM »

Focus has no bearing on the image quality -

Quote of the month !

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Says it all
« on: January 21, 2015, 09:40:37 AM »
From my local professional dealership.

Both described as "mint -", which means basically brand new.

Shows how much the Market cares about another stop or so of DR. Says it all really. Personally I'd be annoyed if my chosen brand of asset was depreciating so much faster than its other equal.

Incidentally it is very rare for them to get a used 5DIII in. This is only the second I have ever seen them get.

Lenses / Re: TS-E Depth of Field newbie question
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:45:28 AM »
Picked one up on eBay. Waiting for delivery.
While shopping, found this commentary. Thought it was interesting.

24 and 17mm T/S aren't useful.

The lens does two things that are practically unrelated, and both of which are borderline useless in the extreme wideangle. Firstly, the shift mechanism allows perspective correction. This was a critical part of photography in the days of large format, and I used this lens to get the same benefit on film when I started out with Canon. However, if you are working digitally, it is far easier and cheaper to correct perspective while editing. Second, It allows tilting of the plane of focus, which allows near/far compositions to simultaneously be in focus when simply stopping down doesn't do enough (or isn't desired for other reasons such as stopping subject motion, etc.) However, these extreme wide angles, with small apertures even wide-open, have extreme DOF already and it'd be a rare photograph that needed more DOF than a normal lens could accomplish at 24mm (or even more so, 17mm). On the other hand this ability would be very attractive at 45-90mm. (A related trick is to tilt focus in the opposite direction of your composition to minimize DOF. But again at 17 and 24mm, I'm sorry but nothing gets very defocused anyway.) As far as other details of the lens go: the construction is the very best Canon makes, comperable to the 70-200Ls or better. The image quality unfortunately suffers as you shift off-center, as the lens resolution falls off as with every lens. (There is also extreme cos^4 vignetting, though that can be fixed in your editing software.)

What the guy says is true - if you gloss over certain things. Yes, 24 and especially 17 have great dof anyway, especially if you stop down, but beware of 'hyper focal' distance with digital, especially for distant landscapes: your horizon will be soft. A lens such as the 24 is at its best fully open, you can achieve dof with this wider aperture with all the benefits this brings: resolution and light gathering.

Correcting extreme perspective in post: OK for small prints, not so good if you are producing A3 or A 2 size prints. Your computer program has to make a lot up.

Again on the new  24 IQ remains superb with  6 degrees ( which is a lot ), only falling off a little at the full 12 degrees ( shift).

You can see that here:

For many people he is correct in saying the longer focal lengths offer more benefit. However try telling that to someone who shoots in extremely confined circumstances, room interiors or outside of cathedrals in built up areas for instance.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS sharpness
« on: January 19, 2015, 07:59:46 AM »
(although I did get it refurbished so I'd think/hope that Canon tuned it up before reselling it)...

Fat chance !  :)

The amount of variability in the assembly of these lenses ( and indeed other L lenses) is alarming.

My 24-70 f4 now has a bad de-centring issue - it's very soft on the far right. Whether it was like this before or I've knocked it I don't know, but in future I'm going to perform the test that PBD demonstrated in a thread last year as soon as I get the lens.

Lenses / Re: new TS-e lenses ?
« on: January 18, 2015, 09:23:11 AM »
If I remember correctly the source stated that these two new lenses would not be the same configuration in construction as the new 24 and 17 TS-E lenses.

IIRC, the rumor was the updated 45/90 would be like the 17/24 – L lenses, ability to change orientation between tilt and shift on the fly, etc.

Found the info that I remembered and is was CR. It states the source as saying the design will be different. Hopefully this will still include orientation change though.

Lenses / Re: new TS-e lenses ?
« on: January 18, 2015, 09:07:55 AM »
Someday, you should get an update for the 45mm and 90mm tilt shift. However, there is not specific rumor about it.

There has been a rumour about TS-E 45 and 90 replacements actually, can't remember how long ago, but I probably saw it here on CR.

If I remember correctly the source stated that these two new lenses would not be the same configuration in construction as the new 24 and 17 TS-E lenses.

I'm tentatively considering the 24. However I would definitely purchase a 45 - 55 ish TS-E if the quality upgrade was as good as the 24 and 17.

Wedding Photography / Re: Bride, Overcast, Cold, Natural Light
« on: January 16, 2015, 02:41:39 PM »
I really like the second shot; the 50 has given a bokeh that almost looks like a slow shutter + zoom effect. Emphasises the bride.

Just a word of caution. Posting images like that shot on the 50 / 1.4 wide open at f1.4 will make you unpopular with the must-have 50/1.2 or Sigma 1.4 brigade  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:46:53 PM »

I agree; the method is flawed, all the pics should be at the same f-stop.

I thought the whole idea is that the guy is trying to show equivalence between the format sizes - so the actual aperture opening has to be the same diameter - the f stop will be different on the different focal lengths to achieve this.

Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:05:48 PM »
Besides, if us lumpen proletariat took your advice and all went full frame, ...

Then sooner or later there would be no more APS-C cameras in production. FF would become much cheaper. FF Rebel class would materialize and bring a lot of joy for everyone. As simple as that.

And wildlife and sports shooters who enjoyed longer reach without having to shell out for the equivalent reach on full frame are hosed. So now you have a "cheap" full frame body...and have to spend twice as much on lenses. :P

No. Why? :) 50+mp FF can capture everything that 20mp APS-C can (and more, 2.5x more), with the same lens.

But never at the same speed, same price etc. CR is made up of people who are a far cry from your run of the mill dslr shooter. The majority do not want FF: they don't want the size, dof,  longer focal length, cost, lens size/ cost etc etc.

My daughter returned recently from Iceland where she had her 1100D and 55-250 STM, and she has some superb images of Puffins, including some in flight. The last thing she wants is a FF camera for all the reasons given above.

The same though crossed my mind with ATM's comment about being held back by APS. He must shoot some very niche stuff.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF Lens Technology Video
« on: January 14, 2015, 04:52:22 PM »
Was an interesting point that they are still having to use ground & polished aspherical elements on larger diameter lenses where moulded cannot be accurate enough - at least with current technology. There is no doubt that moulded elements are getting better as time goes one. Witness the Canon 35 f/2 IS, the 24 f/1.4 and many of the recent Sigma lenses. To the best of my knowledge, moderate size lenses that use G & P asphericals are: 24-70 f/2.8 II, 35L, 85L, 16-35 f2.8 II. Even the 50 f1.2 L uses moulded.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 150