January 29, 2015, 03:18:18 AM

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 5 ... 144
31
Buy secondhand pro gear. I have many times, it is often bought by non pro enthusiasts and often times has very little wear or actuation numbers. I actually got my last 1Ds MkIII from a Canon Explorer of Light with well under 10,000 actuation's at nearly half the then retail price!

I just discussed this with a friend that has a 5d2 that broke down due to (alleged) moisture damage.

The problem is: around here (Germany) used "pro" gear isn't as accessible as in larger markets like the US, even cameras like the 5d2 which are definitely obsoleted by newer and even less expensive gear are sold for ridiculously high prices. Somehow, Germans seem to value sturdiness so high that there's a high level of demand and a low level of offers. No way you can snatch a 1ds3 or 1d4 for little €€€ in a public marketplace, at least no time I looked, it's rather used as backup or donated to friends or family.

However, I hope somewhere in the future when newer cameras like 1dx2, 5d4, 3d, ... are released this "pro" gear will drop in price simply because it doesn't break down a lot. Such a shame the 1d doesn't run ML :-\

Buy from reputable pro dealers in England then like Dale Photographic. If they say it's 'mint' it will be. I've used them a fair bit over many years for both new and used gear and haven't been let down.

By the way: don't want to appear thick, but just what is a 'flat picture profile' ?

32
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 11, 2015, 03:15:45 AM »
Great photos everyone. I'll add a few.
Makapu Lookout, Oahu, Hawaii towards Kailua by EricJ777, on Flickr
Rabbit Island, Makapuu Lookout, Oahu, Hawaii by EricJ777, on Flickr
Kailua Beach, Oahu, Hawaii by EricJ777, on Flickr
The Mokes island, Kailua Bay, Oahu, Hawaii by EricJ777, on Flickr
Kailua Bay kitesurfer by EricJ777, on Flickr

If this is where you live I may have to come and stay with you for a while !

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 10, 2015, 05:43:36 PM »
I get that, I was more or less thinking in terms of absolute area of the lens diameter and not the focal length.  Because in theory in Bizzaro World I could create a 16mm lens with a gigantic diameter or a super long and narrow 600mm lens.  I didn't do the math on any of it so the 600 might very well always beat the 16mm...

...Ooo time for more Guiness Extra Stout...

Yea, it does get complicated. Here's a link to a guy who can explain it much better than me:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/

In a nutshell light density is not the same as total light in volume terms. Exposure is dictated by light density, not volume. A greater volume of light will lead to less noise.

When you magnify you lose light density. This is why the given aperture of a longer lens is larger in diameter than a shorter one, to give the same exposure. So when I said a longer focal length lens passes more light, in practice it does, unless you want a 600 mil lens that starts at f64.

This is why those who use long focal length lenses on their aps cameras are generally more content with the sensor size than those who use very short focal length lenses.

Of course this becomes more relevant in lower levels of light density - darker.

'Landscape' FF focal length lenses are still quite short, and so suffer from small diameter. This is why I find it amusing when I hear people referring to the likes of a D810 or A7r as the 'ultimate landscape camera'. It is also going to be the problem with cramming more pixels into a FF size sensor, and the reason why a lower mp count DMF sensor will run rings round a very high FF.


34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 10, 2015, 01:16:48 PM »
Hmm. You guys are awfully persuasive. I appreciate the thoughts and have chewed on them a couple days. I think my hesitance to take the leap is mostly rooted in the lenses I've bought. The 70-200 blew me away when I got it, I couldn't believe how much better my shots got- instantly. Obviously this was after developing just enough skill for that to take place, but it was amazing. Then I bought the 16-35. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. You all probably recognize instantly that it stands to reason and was predictable given the body I'm shooting with. I think that started a faulty subconscious line of thinking that FF wasn't going to wow me either, that it's all about the glass, good or bad (thus the efs 10-18 that I haven't read a bad word about). I've known for a while I would eventually need to upgrade the T2i, and it kind of stuck in my head to do that now and wait to see what happens with FF as Canon (maybe?) actually enters the war. I was actually leaning 70D and figured I'd get input that it would be an appropriate next step. In the end you guys are right, if I'm reading you correctly: My lenses certainly, and possibly me as a developing photographer, will not come into their own unless I stop being cheap already and just get the 6D :))

My only follow-up question is, do I wait to see what Canon's rebates will be in Feb?

You're very observant, because what you have seen is the difference in the volume of light that a longer lens passes and the lower volume that a short focal length passes.

Half the problem with the so called IQ difference between aps-c and FF is the fact that, pro rata, you're using a shorter focal length on a smaller format, and gathering less light. So using a lens such as the 70-200 on a crop camera, especially an f2.8 one, is going to give that smaller sensor the best chance. The 16 to 35 on the other hand is going the other way and reducing the volume of light available to the sensor. For example a 200 mil lens at  f8 has an aperture diameter of 25 mm. A 16 mil lens at f4 ( you can get away with wider aperture on wider lens for dof etc) has an aperture diametre of only 4 mm ! If you could use a 200 mil lens at f2.8 on a crop sensor all the time no one would have any complaints about smaller sensor noise etc, but unfortunately that is hopelessly impractical. This is why bigger formats are better for using with wider angle ( shorter focal length ) lenses. How often do you hear how people like APS camera for birding ? What length of lens do they use for birding ? The longer the lens you stick on a crop camera the better it's going to be.

So you are spot on when you say the 70-200 f2.8 is fantastic on APS, but no the 16-35 f2.8.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 12:39:45 PM »
Tend to agree with the comment that a new 5D split into one with, and one without an AA would be very unCanon- like. Canon tend to decide what's good for us (them) and then supply that. And as the effects of a good AA filter can all but be cancelled out in post then it's probably better on balance to have one.

Still think we are going to see an interchaneable Finder. It's been pointed out, correctly, that this type of high end feature has only been seen on the highest model - the 1 series in the past, but in those days we didn't have an upgraded 5 series. I would suggest that the 5DIII was very much the 1Ds IV. Despite the 'crippling' of the 5DII with the 20D/5D AF system, pros still chose this much cheaper camera instead of the 1Ds III on the whole ( which rather says something about the importance these sort of photographers place on AF does it not ?), and in the end Canon seemed to adopt the "if you can't beat them join them" approach and up graded the 5 series, and did so with only a relatively small price increase. So I think that it is possible we will see this feature in a 5DIV, probably the 's' version if that has a 52 mp DPAF sensor, so good focus can be achieved with the interchangeable EVF.

My wording is ironic, yours is sarcastic  ;)

36
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 09:50:17 AM »
Tend to agree with the comment that a new 5D split into one with, and one without an AA would be very unCanon- like. Canon tend to decide what's good for us and then supply that. And as the effects of a good AA filter can all but be cancelled out in post then it's probably better on balance to have one.

Still think we are going to see an interchaneable Finder. It's been pointed out, correctly, that this type of high end feature has only been seen on the highest model - the 1 series in the past, but in those days we didn't have an upgraded 5 series. I would suggest that the 5DIII was very much the 1Ds IV. Despite the 'crippling' of the 5DII with the 20D/5D AF system, pros still chose this much cheaper camera instead of the 1Ds III on the whole ( which rather says something about the importance these sort of photographers place on AF does it not ?), and in the end Canon seemed to adopt the "if you can't beat them join them" approach and up graded the 5 series, and did so with only a relatively small price increase. So I think that it is possible we will see this feature in a 5DIV, probably the 's' version if that has a 52 mp DPAF sensor, so good focus can be achieved with the interchangeable EVF.

37
Lenses / Re: Anyone own the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:17:27 PM »
I have a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L non-IS lens now that is just too heavy to hand hold anymore and all I ever use it at is at 200mm when I do use it. I'm thinking of selling it and getting the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. Is this prime more manageable for hand held shooting? Thanks!

It is definitely more 'handy' that the xx-200 / 2.8 zooms, and about half the weight. I ended up going down the 85 - 135 - 200 prime route, because I wanted speed without weight, or at least not as much weight as an f2.8 70-200. It's all compromises of one sort or another. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is optically better than the primes. ( excluding 85/1.2).

I've been in photography for many years and I know how unnecessarily large, heavy gear becomes unpopular over time. But then you have to define unnecessarily....

38
EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 08, 2015, 04:08:28 PM »
This could be the start of a new life for canon!

Rebel line, top LCD, full frame, priced in the 900€, and you sir, have my cash again!

The 6D was a great budget FF!

They could just keep
1Dx mkII top  6000usd
5D mkIV "sporty" 3500usd
6D mkII Studio (36mp or more in the next) 2000usd
xxxD FF Top of the rebels (low budget FF) 1000usd

Right?

Or it could be a crop 1.6 Cinema Line! Hehehe

Maybe you were pretty close with your "80D". But you put a 0 in by mistake ! 8D

39
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:57:47 PM »
Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems.

A bit OT, but in regards to the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 f4 - having used both, I think they are different beasts despite sharing the same focal length. To simplify, it boils down to this for me:

The 24-105 is better for general shooting at events (sharper, greater range), outdoor and even indoor well-lit areas, if you have a newer generation DSLR. Also people and portraits (longer end of zoom can blur background nicely).

The 24-70 is better for landscapes (less distortion), still life (better IS) and travel (smaller, lighter).

Different strengths and weaknesses. I used the 24-105 for some of the purposes I listed under the 24-70 and came away dissatisfied...ditto with the 24-70 at an indoor event (very soft at MFD).
That sums it up nicely. I have both and the 24-70 f4IS is definitely the better lens - technically - if you ignore the fact it doesn't go to 105mm....

Anyway if the look on the "is this the 80D" thread you may find the home for this 24-105 STM - a budget FF camera ?

40
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:50:29 PM »
Thanks for the review...not too much out there on this lens it seems.

A bit OT, but in regards to the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 f4 - having used both, I think they are different beasts despite sharing the same focal length. To simplify, it boils down to this for me:

The 24-105 is better for general shooting at events (sharper, greater range), outdoor and even indoor well-lit areas, if you have a newer generation DSLR. Also people and portraits (longer end of zoom can blur background nicely).

The 24-70 is better for landscapes (less distortion), still life (better IS) and travel (smaller, lighter).

Different strengths and weaknesses. I used the 24-105 for some of the purposes I listed under the 24-70 and came away dissatisfied...ditto with the 24-70 at an indoor event (very soft at MFD).

That nicely sums it up. I have both, and the 24-70 f4IS is definitely the better lens technically - if you ignore the fact it can't go to 105 mm................

Anyway if you look on the "is this the 80D" thread you may find the appropriate home for the 24-105 STM - a budget FF camera ?

41
EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:40:58 PM »
Well spotted !

Top lcd, no AF On button, cheap incorporation of the rear command wheel, even cheaper than the latest xxD / 6D lines. No I don't think this is a replacement for the 70D. I don't think Canon will dumb the xxD down so low.

I think this could be the new budget FF camera to go with that ( otherwise slightly bizarre) 24-105 STM.


42
Lenses / Re: New Canon 100-400mm Mk2 lens with 2x extender mk3
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:13:32 AM »
Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.

43
Version 2 of the 200 2.8?

Yes, but I believe the only difference is the lens hood.

44
.. I'd rather have a few lighter, high quality primes...
@Sporgon,
Hoping to not offend the many excellent landscape photographers here, from what I've seen of your landscapes posted here, I rather consider that you've mastered the landscape genre.

With that in mind and along the theme of this thread, I'd like to know;
1) What "few lighter, high quality primes" make up your preferred landscape lens kit?
2) Is there one of that kit that gets predominantly more use than the others?
3) Is there one of that kit you'd choose as the only one if different from 2?

---
@Sporgon the 2nd comment, please, get thee to the Grand Canyon.
Of the many landscape and cityscape photos I've seen here that spark an interest and make me want to visit, the resent 'scapes of the Grand Canyon simply blew me away with the grandeur of the place.
I'd sure love to see what you might bring back from there.

---
edit...
What comprises the 5% you mention in your profile?
...edit

That's very kind of you.

I'm not suggesting that using primes produces better landscape pictures; the quality and versatility of a good zoom is undeniable. The trouble is I don't like a relatively large, heavy lens on a camera when I am roaming around the countryside on foot, but I do want speed and quality, so there is a conflict. I'm happy to carry a few light primes in lowepro cases on a belt.

Also I don't like ultra wide lenses because they make far away detail microscopic, and although the light passing through them is very dense - bright - there is a low amount of volume. If my landscape pictures do have an edge it is probably that many of them are ultra wide angle but not shot on a wide angle lens, because they are stitches, so my prime landscape lenses are 135, 50, 40, and 28. Nothing wider. Of these I would say that the most commonly used are 50 and 40, followed by 28 followed by 135. I have an 85 but have never produced a panoramic with it.

However a lot of my panos have been shot with the 24-105L, using it at 28 to 60 off the top of my head, but the distortion at the wider end and longer nodal point can lead to problems that lead to more work. Again this is why I favour shorter primes; no distortion and you don't need a panoramic head as much for difficult to stitch scenes. The 24-105L is not a lens I would recommend as a single frame shooting landscape lens because it is weak at 24 - 30 region. the 24-70 f4 IS is much better here. The 24-70 f2.8II better still.

Does one get used the most ? Yes, and its the cheapest of the lot, the 40mm pancake ! I love the way the camera handles with this lens on it but I don't love the fact it has no focus scale.

If I didn't have the 40 then I'd most probably be using the 50/1.4. If I didn't already have the 40 I would almost certainly have got the 35/2 IS to compliment the 28/2.8 IS.

If I was shooting single frame landscapes then I would almost certainly be using the 24 TS-E in the mix. In fact I'm going to rent one of these shortly and do some back to back shooting comparisons between this lens and a vertical three frame 1.5 x 1 'pano' shot on the 40. A 40 mil in portrait has roughly the same vertical field of view as a 24 mil in landscape format. The advantage of the TS-E is that you can reduce the lower light volume by using a wider aperture and tilting, but I will be interested to see if i can see a difference at normal viewing sizes. If there is a difference it wont be the 50 mp of the stitch, it will be the larger format giving it the edge.

One day I will get out to the Grand Canyon, but I am just so flat out busy it is difficult to get away for long.

The 5% ? Well I have loads of gear that never gets used. In fact I'm having a clean out, so my little personal slogan may not be accurate soon. 95% of the time I am shooting with 5DII + 40 or 50. Loads of other gear, some that never get used: 300/4L, 100L, 100-400L, battery grip, 50 macro, 200/2.8L to name a few !

45
Each to their own. If someone want a Fuji XT-1 so what ? It's a great little camera.

Regarding Luminous Landscape: well let me put it this way. Many of the best images posted on Canon Rumors leave LL in the dust.

And some of their recent articles have just been  ???

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 144