Messages

196

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]

« on: March 26, 2013, 05:05:30 PM »

@privatebydesign, I can't quote you 'cos I'm on my iPhone, but you mention a serious landscape photographer not using one FF frame even if it is 36mp.

This is quite right, high mp on a smaller format will never equal a larger format in landscape photography because your subject or detail in the picture will only cover a very small areas of the sensor, ie the light image projected onto the sensor will be tiny, because the detail is not close to the camera, whereas on a larger format the actual capture is larger. So MF or LF is always going to beat a smaller format in these circumstances. ( This is why when people test FF against APS and fill the frame with a subject close to the camera they see no difference - because in this scenario there is essentially no difference).

Digital has allowed us to easily stitch frames together to mimic a larger sensor, the advantages you gain are the same because each section has a larger image on the sensor. So a 13 mp 5D for instance, stitched from four vertical sequences, will produce a higher 'IQ' than a single frame 36mp FF, because the 5D has been turned into a larger format, - about 36x 90 in this instance, about the same size as the old 645 film medium format.

For applications where the subject detail is larger in the frame, 18 or 22 mp is going to be enough to make enormous prints, so the 36 or 50 mp FF is a little in no man's land. Just like the D800, a gimmick. And you want the E? just add unsharp mask to the regular one.

I think Canon know this. Canon are quite good at avoiding the fluff on their higher end cameras.

"Does Sir require a little pop up flash to fill in his 36 mp ? May I direct Sir to Nikon"

40 mp belongs on a larger format.

197

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 F/4L

« on: March 26, 2013, 04:17:51 PM »

@ TrumpetPower - yes, me. 

Low light shot with an f/4 lens:


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 10000

That's remarkable; and there are those howling that Canon are behind the curve .....

198

Reviews / Re: Canon 6D review and Canon 6D vs 5D mark III

« on: March 24, 2013, 05:37:07 PM »

syncspeed is 1/180s not 1/160s.. i hope your review is not full of such errors.

And in practice there is Naf all difference between 1/180 and 1/200 anyway

199

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?

« on: March 24, 2013, 05:22:20 PM »

@Hesbehindyou, I presume you're meaning the mkii needs better glass because of the pixel density.

As a user of them both I can assure you that the mki thrives on the best glass you can attach to it.

200

EOS Bodies / Re: Will you be disappointed if the 70d gets the same 18mp sensor?

« on: March 24, 2013, 03:46:13 PM »

Do you actually believe that the number of megapixels means its the same sensor?  Perhaps you think the T4i has the same sensor, after its also 18mp, and then the T5i too.
Does the G11 have the same sensor as the old Canon 5D?  Both are 12 mp, as is the Nikon D700.

Good point. Who wants more than 18 mp on APS anyway ? Come to think of who wants more than 18 mp on FF really 

201

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?

« on: March 24, 2013, 02:33:46 PM »

At Building Panoramics we use both Mk1 and 2. I prefer the mk1. Why ? Data at 100 ISO. But then we only shoot commercially at 100 ISO. LCD is fine for lighting and exposure (histogram) when you're used to it but I really truffle if going from the much much better mk2 screen.

On an A1 size print ( 34x23" ?) you really have to peer close at the print to see the difference between 13 and 21 mp, which is after all only a 14% increase in resolution but a whole heap of increas in file size.

The mk2 probably is a little better between 800 and 1600 ISO. Wouldnt touch 3200 on mk2.

Guess it comes down to money. Mk1 is better value IMO. Our battered mk1 is now basically worthless so I guess we'll never sell it !!

202

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?

« on: March 24, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »

There have been some very good points made here, and some confused ones. The whole subject of " what the eyes see" is of great interest to me because we spent a long time at Building Panoramics creating a technique called "Eye's View" for our pictures which we generally take of ancient monuments, both preserved and ruinous.

As I said in my earlier post, the eyes do not see. The brain sees. The reason people can have hallucinations, or see ghosts is that the brain sees these things. To the people topping up on magic mushrooms what they see is real - to them.

The eyes have a field of view, yes, but it is difficult to define as our peripheral vision is a little ill defined - literally. Because a camera ( normally ) takes one exposure with one lens to record a scene, it is in fact very limited when it comes to try and record the view we see, because we are looking around us, subconsciously mapping the info, so our brain then fills in the missing info - a little like the principle of how a tv cartoon works.

You can test this for yourself. If someone takes you into a place strange to you with your eyes closed, and then, once there you open your eyes and look straight ahead you will find out that your actual field of vision is less wide than you have come to accept. Because you have no reference to what is on either side of you your brain cannot fill in the detail to your field of view. it's a bit weird actually, but in a view seconds you will involuntarily glance around.

It the same thing with perspective. People say ' ah-ha, when I look at something really close up I don't get the distortion of an ultra wide lens. No you don't because your brain knows what it should look like, but again you can try and test this for yourself. Find something that sticks out such as a door knob or someone's nose etc. Put you eye right up to it real close, close your eyes and try and empty your brain of though. ( Some will find this easier than others - those who post about 6 million pages etc should find it real easy ). Now open your eyes and look at the object and you may briefly see the very distorted perspective from being so close.

The picture of Beverley Minster below is a good example of this. The nave and transept look like the angle between them is less than 45*, ie V shaped. 'This is perspective distortion from the wide angle lens ' you say. But actually we didn't use a wide angle but a 50mm, shot in our 'eye's view' technique. The V shape is the result of how close we had to be to the subject. When you go and stand there you don't see this V because you know it's a 90* turn. However if you stand there with your eyes closed, let you mind go blank, and then open your eyes you will see the V before your brain adjusts to correct everything.

Digital has made it possible to replicate how we see things, but it takes a lot of post processing. The picture below was taken using our 'eyes view' technique, which was done by not only stitching, but also exposure and lens focal length stacking to get both the field of view and perspective the same as we see it.

I've added another copy with the 28mm framing added, so you can see just how wide a shot this is, as well as the 50mm framing which was done in various parts of the picture. This takes a lot of work in putting it together. ( Not these focal lengths refer to FF). The result is really like being there.

But to cut to the chase, as others have said: on your APS-c about 30mm will give the perpective as you see yourself, and about a 22mm will give a field of view close to your direct vision.

Hope this is of interest: try and find this on 6 million websites 

203

Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?

« on: March 23, 2013, 05:38:31 PM »

It's generally considered that a 50mm on FF gives the same prospective as our vision, ie the magnification of the scene from a given distance, but the 35mm is closer to our conscious field of view. However some suggest that when we concentrate on an object close to us our prospective in lens terms becomes more like 85mm.

In APS-c these become 32mm, 22mm and 54mm. They translate directly because they provide the same field of view as FF and as prospective is a result of distance it is the same with these lenses.

But it becomes more complicated as people often don't realise that we do not 'see' with our eyes, it is our brain which 'sees', our eyes are just like the lens on the camera. This is why a camera will never be able to really match what we can see in one exposure; we are seeing the world in what is in photographic terms a combination of HDR and focal length and focus stacking !

204

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?

« on: March 23, 2013, 03:07:32 PM »

funkboy, it's funny that you mention the nifty 50's focus ring turning too easily, one of the few things that annoys me about my 50mm f/1.4 is that the manual focus ring is very gritty and often snags

That's strange; when I had a 50mm f/1.4 USM the focus ring was decently damped & smooth.  Maybe you should have it serviced?

Yes what kubelik describes is the classic symptom of the very delicate mechanism in the 50 1.4 being broken - but it still works - in a fashion.

205

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?

« on: March 23, 2013, 03:05:11 PM »

My choices would be

Sigma 35 1.4
Canon 24/28/35 IS primes.
Canon 85 1.8/Canon 100 f/2

None of these are huge and all are very good to excellent

Wouldn't you include the 40 2.8 ?

206

Lenses / Re: EF 17-40 Indoor foto????

« on: March 23, 2013, 09:16:14 AM »

I know you say that you want ultra wide, but if you want to shoot inside castles and churches without a tripod I would strongly recommend a lens with IS, even with the 6D's high ISO capabilities.

The default choice is the 24-105 IS or maybe the Tamron 24-70 VS. Or maybe consider the new 24mm f2.8 IS.

The picture below was taken with the 24-105 hand held.

Why didn't we use a tripod ? Because someone forgot it...............

207

EOS Bodies / Re: I did it, I took the plunge

« on: March 23, 2013, 07:21:36 AM »

@barrfly, really like your picture of the steel bridge - very polished !

To use the joystick direct you have to set it up in the custom menu.

208

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: March 23, 2013, 07:11:43 AM »

Our latest picture, shot for Beverley Minster in Yorkshire, England, using the 35mm f2. We intended to use the 40mm f2.8 for this but it didn't arrive in time.

Despite using f11 the 100% crops show what the lens is capable of matched with the 5D. We could enlarge this real big.

Rock on 13Mp !

Bring on the 40Mp monster  .......   Not ! 

209

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: March 22, 2013, 05:01:18 PM »

At Building Panoramics the only thing that we usually shoot with wings are flying buttresses 

But here are two pics of a Woodpecker feeding it's young. Taken with the mk2 and a 300 mm f4 plus 1.4X converter, positioned about 10 feet away from the tree and fired by wireless remote.

210

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:15:47 PM »

Thanks for the comments


Bowness Bay, Belle Isle, Windermere, Cumbria by TomScottPhotographyCumbria, on Flickr

I'm absolutely baffled by this picture of Belle Isle. I've spent a great deal of time at Windermere, my Grandparents lived there and I was a member of the Royal Windermere Yacht Club, yet I have no recollection of the hills behind the isle looking like that ! Also I'm puzzled by the orientation of the sun !

Could you say where you shot it from ?

IMHO its Derwentwater taken from somewhere near the Jetty at Keswick and looking towards Catbells (the spikey bit) Maiden Moor and Dale End. I guess its the wrong caption somehow.
But if you come from Windermere I am very surprised that you dont know it as it is a classic view. 
Cheers Brian

When I was a lad in the Lakes I spent virtually all my waking hours on the lake, ( Windermere ) and very rarely went to Keswick or Derwent Water, which in hind sight was a shame as Borrowdale and the lakes and hills around it are really stunning. So no, I've never seen that view from the Keswick end.

Here's a shot that I took recently from the other side of the lake looking towards where tomscott must have taken his picture from.