April 17, 2014, 05:49:57 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 [2] 3 4 ... 96
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:48:50 AM »
Hvalstrand Bad (bath) by the Oslo fjord, an early March morning.
5DIII, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100

That's a nice example for f1.4 being used in landscape photography ! 1/1000 of a second at ISO 100 when the sun's gone down. Love it !

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:05:20 AM »
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

There are polarization effect filters for post-processing, but they cannot properly replicate the effects of having a CPL on your lens at capture.  Similarly, adding spherical aberration in post will not correct for poor bokeh in the captured image. 

I'll just point out that I didn't mention polarization or bokeh, so I'll take your dalliance off topic as an indication that I was on the money but you can't admit it :)

Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong...

Comments like the above are mainly about bashing Canon, made by people who have an inadequate grasp of the concepts behind lens design (and in one case, the inability to distinguish a lens from a camera). 

No. The problem that we're seeing here is something called "confirmation bias", where people find any reason at all to support the idea that the Canon 50/1.2L is better. The "in one case" comment is simply someone's inability to move on, which is a rather sad reflection of said person.

Confirmation bias:
".. is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

Personally I'd love for the Canon 50/1.4 to be better than the Sigma 50/1.4 Art because then I wouldn't need to carry around the Sigma lens, but I simply can't justify that thinking given the results that have been presented. Same with the 50/1.2L.

I can't wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 Art to be tested by DxO and for it to wipe the floor with the 50/1.2L. I can already see the posts from those with Red Ring Fever putting down DxO, etc. What a laugh that will be to see.

Hmmm.......hardly fair. The 50 L is a niche lens designed for a very specific purpose. It was never intended to be a GP standard lens. The comments made against it are very much in the 'test chart specialists vs specialist practical users'. However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).

The new Sigma and Otus should be seen as a different to the 50L.

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:59:59 PM »
:) :) Also comparing it with the Zeiss… I think from f2 onwards the Sigma corners look better!! And here is the comparison with the most expensive Canon 50mm…. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1[/url
Looks WORSE…
One other point: Why should Canon not update its lenses for >20 years while others are doing so without having the might of Canon? Does Canon not want its customers to have better? Am thinking…

During the 'twenty years or so' Canon has been developing it's zoom tech, cumulating with such remarkable lenses as the 24-70II & 70-200II and so on. Primes have taken a back seat but this may result in Canon producing a 50mm with the same optic configuration if they think the market's large enough at the price.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:08:32 AM »
Perhaps, but I still love steam locomotives !  ;)

Then you'll love this:

Norfolk & Western J 611 is a J-class locomotive built in 1950 in the town where my family has lived for 4 generations.  She is the ultimate development of the steam locomotive, having a cruising speed of 110mph with 15 passenger cars.  She is also breathtakingly beautiful, the streamlining being part of the key to her speed.

She'd been sitting the in the VA transportation museum since 1995, but a group of concerned citizens have pulled together the money to have her restored to operating condition, starting this month.  If all goes according to plan she'll be making the rounds around the eastern USA as part of N&W's 21st century steam program sometime in 2015.

I do !  :D

I'm really a big kid. Good to hear that this one is being brought back to steaming condition. It's the difference between living and dead.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 15, 2014, 03:12:07 AM »
Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!

... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting  ::)

Just don't start breaking the glass off from around the filaments to prove the point or you'll be very unpopular !

Very interesting, but how does this answer the DC light bulbs not producing onion bokeh ?

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark.II delayed again + 1Dx replacement mentioned.
« on: April 14, 2014, 05:45:51 PM »
  I'm sure the new 7D II will be awesome but the EOS landscape has changed a lot now that we have the 6D selling at a similar cost to the 7D's introductory price and I wonder what effect that will have on the next model.  Will it be a rugged 70D with higher FPS?  An APS-C 1D X Jr.?  Something else?

The slot is there ready for the new 7D now. IMO it will offer top end controls (now restricted to 1, 5 & 7D models) at a price equal to, or very slightly below the 6D but still twice as expensive as the current 70D, and for that extra money over the 70D you'll get 'high end' controls, slightly faster in speed and AF, and I think it will lose the pop up flash.

But also a different sensor which will eventually filter down the models until it's in the 1800D in five years time. And I guess that's what's holding it up. If dual pixel had been enough of a step forward I think we'd have seen it in a 7DII before filtering down to the xxD line.

Where's the real world weakness of aps against FF ? I find it's the high ISO Performance. From a marketing point of view FF can probably stand on its larger size benefit so Canon could afford to improve aps low light performance without taking too much away from potential new FF sales. How about an aps-c sensor with larger pixels, using the latest tech but still keep a resolution of around 14 to 16 mp.

Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 12:58:16 PM »
Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !

Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 12:40:27 PM »
I'll avoid making a reference to a side of filter fries to go with you rings (oops, I just did!), but my next thought would be the intensity of the light.  A candle is (obviously) very dim, while even a 25w bulb is significantly brighter.  My bet is that the bokeh aberrations will increase with the brightness of the light source.  If you have a dimmable light (or similar lights of varying brightness) try shots at different brightnesses.

That's a good point because one candle is, after all - 1 cp ( candlepower) or about 17 milliwatts.

Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 12:34:31 PM »
The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.


It took me many years of being dragged from the '70's to accept this, but there is certainly no practical IQ loss with the top end zooms. In fact even the 24-70 f4 IS is as close as makes no difference, especially in something like wedding photography were the detail within the frame is large and quite close. ( Not talking about large brides here ).

Primes certainly have their place and will continue to do so. (Generally) cheaper, smaller, lighter and faster. Perhaps it is no coincidence, but in the UK at least you can buy a 24 2.8 IS, a 28 2.8 IS, a 35 f2 IS, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 all for the price of one 24-70 f2.8 II.

And if you carry them all together they are about the same weight too  ;)

And now I'll wait for the first person to come along and say that's not surprising because the 24-70II is better than all those primes put together anyway  ;D

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:50:17 AM »

Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake.  Comparing them:
- my feeling is the 35IS is a little sharper, but there's not a whole lot in it
- my feeling is the 35IS has slightly better colour and contrast, but there's not a lot in it
- my thinking is the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
- the 35IS has noticeably faster and quieter AF - but that's not to say the pancake is bad in those respects, so query how much difference this is likely to make in practice (no doubt it depends in large part on what you're shooting)
- the 35IS feels more substantial and hence makes you think it may have better build quality - but I have no idea whether, in reality, the 35IS is likely to be any more durable.  (In this case I strongly suspect it is likely to be more durable than the pancake, but all the same I get sick of reading lens reviews which seem to equate weight with build quality, and conclude anything light weight is lesser quality.  Isn't that like saying something made of steel is always a higher build quality than something made of titanium or carbon fibre?)
- of course, the 35IS has a one stop aperture advantage (which you'd rather have than not), and IS (worth at least another 3 stops - which allows you the choice of longer shutter times or lower ISO)
- the 35IS has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)
- the extra 5 mm of width (in the focal length) is noticeable on the 35IS but again, it's not very different - and to the extent there is a difference, each has its pros and cons
- much better focus ring

Weighed against that, the 35IS is around 3x more expensive than the pancake, substantially larger and over 2.5x heavier (even if it still ranks as a relatively small and light lens in the bigger scheme of things).

So, my question remains about the value of the 35IS compared with the pancake.  The 35IS clearly offers more flexibility in that if you want to be able to handhold shots of still subjects in low light, the 35IS is way in front.  If you're subject is moving, the 35IS still has the advantage but the gap is much closer.  If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Put another way, and taking the position most people can hand hold a 35mm or 40mm lens at 1/60 second in most circumstances (noting the debate in one of the other message threads about whether 1/focal length is a suitable guide or if these days it's closer to 1/double the focal length, I'll use a compromise here), if you'll use the lens in circumstances where you want to handhold shots at shutter times longer than 1/60 second, the 35IS offers a clear advantage (and more so as you get into the 1/30 second range and longer).  Otherwise, though, you're paying quite a lot more for only extra stop of shallow depth of field ability, and a few other things which may be of limited practical value to some people (eg the better AF).

If Canon made an error with the pricing I think it was with the 40mm pancake. The lens is just too good for the price ! Canon could easily have 'crippled' it in such a way as to stop people like myself buying it; just give it a plastic bayonet mount, and that's the likes of me out of the frame.

Regarding the statement "there's not a lot in it', I'd say "There's nothing in it' !  ;)

Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:22:14 AM »
Does this mean Zeiss test their lenses by candle light ?

Like DxO

If I was the owner of an Otus I'd drop Zeiss an e mail asking why they think this happens.

Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:56:17 AM »
Plus, outdoors photographers know that every lens change means potential sensor dust bunnies.

You make a very plausible case for the advantages of zooms at dynamic event work, but I just wanted to point out that someone who uses just primes and changes a lot will get a lot less dust in the camera than someone who is using zooms which change their physical length, and the most popular ones do: 24-105, 24-70 etc. These zooms are constantly pumping air in and out of the camera, and although it's having to pass through the brush weather seal around the barrel, it's far from a dust filter.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 13, 2014, 08:59:13 AM »
This is not motion blur and it is not candle light movement. This attached shot is 1/4000s(!!), f1.4, ISO2000. It is later in the day, so lighting conditions are different.

It is consistent that non-electric light does not have onion blur and I do not understand why.

That's a strange one; with the candles there is lower intensity of light, different colour temperature and smoke particles being produced, but I wouldn't have a clue if this would have any impact. Maybe the smoke makes the light more diffused.  ???

Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 13, 2014, 06:20:57 AM »
By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.

My partner in Building Panoramics was in at the dawn of digital imaging business so I know a little about this. I haven't looked at the wiki link, but to all intents and purposes 6 to 8 mp is about equivalent to good 35mm film in terms of resolution. You can scan more meg but you end up recording grain.

The 4-16 megapixels are based on findings by Dr. Roger Clark. If you don’t know who that is, please follow the link this time http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/

Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable. 

I didn’t say 1/20, I said 1/40
For (slow) moving subjects like people at a wedding you need at least 1/60 to 1/100
The point I tried to make is that for moving subjects most photographers should be able to get the job done at those shutter speeds with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera without image stabilization. The IS will help a lot if you go down to 1/20 or 1/10 but those shutter speeds will only get you sharp images of non-moving subjects.
Because a f/1.4 lens is a full stop faster than a f/2 lens you can shoot wide open with double the shutter speed or half the iso and that’s a substantial difference in low light situations. That’s why I prefer my 35mm f/1.4 over a f/2 with IS

I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ?

I can’t speak for other people but I didn’t say the wide angle IS primes are aimed at video, I said “stabilization is nice if you like to shoot video”.
Other than video, image stabilization on wide angle prime lenses will only help you with still images of static subjects at low shutter speeds where you can’t use a tripod.
Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The EF 35L was introduced in 1998, so it is sixteen years old. No doubt this info isn't on Roger Clarks website but I'm sure you will find it on wiiki somewhere.

The principal of a 1.4 lens being 'better in low light' is a risky one to hang your hat on. Good exposure, lower ISO and less shake are of little use if your dof is woefully inadequate, and given the focal length of the 35mm and likely distances 'in low light' this is likely to be the case.

Also in days of old you might buy a 1.4 lens to be better at F2 than an f2 lens, but with modern lenses this isn't the case anymore. Seeing as you like web links I have copied photozone's results for the two lenses and you can see that although the 1.4 lens is sharper in the very centre it is way behind mid and edge of frame, and this continues up to f4.



 It's pretty typical of very fast wide lenses compared with slower ones, and why for someone wanting good mid / corner resolution they might well chose a slower lens. ( Though this is changing with the likes of the Sigma 1.4 and Otus ).

There are situations where a faster aperture is a valid reason for low light photography. Take the 135L, it's often sited as a low light advantage, and given the distances of say indoor sports and the focusing on an individual then that is plausible - assuming you nail focus and ignore the high ISO performance of modern FF cameras.

In real terms the 35L is cheaper than it was sixteen years ago.


Of late Canon have been adopting an EOP marketing strategy; I think these new IS lenses have been caught in this; after all they were the first wide IS primes to be introduced.


In time they will come to be appreciated as what they are - really good lenses. Look at the crap the 70-300L took on forums such as this at the time of it's introduction. Now it is highly regarded by many. 

Regarding shake - try it at 1/20 or 1/40 or 1/80. It's the principle I am referring to. The amount of frames with shake will reduce as the speed increases, but you will find that even 1/80 on a 35mm focal length from an unstable platform is no guarantee of a shake free shot.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 13, 2014, 04:30:04 AM »
If the system was really aimed at the professional portrait/ wedding profession then one or two leaf shutter lenses would be introduced. ( For high speed sync ). Lack of this gives away the intended Market. However it's interesting that there's a move towards MF once again costing ( only) twice that of a top end 35mm system but offer considerably greater resolution.

Trouble is though, from my point of view, in situations where I want MF quality I can take three vertical frames and get a format that's  larger than this MF anyway whilst still retaining the high versatility of the FF system.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 96