October 20, 2014, 10:08:26 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 132
526
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 05:39:34 PM »
Sign of the times I'm afraid. The guy's out of order. He could have requested you don't take any pictures of his kids, but doesn't sound as if he had any there yet be was hanging around the park with the kids himself.

If you're going to take pictures in these kind of situations nowadays I suggested you get a CRB certificate or what ever is the equivalent in your country. I have one for the Building Panoramics work I do around the schools and colleges.

In that sort of situation you can have a copy and produce it for anyone who challenges you. Whether it would pacify the jerk you came across is unknown.

Unfortunately expect more of this kind of thing.

The real perverts are the ones who see everyone else as a potential pedophile all the time.

527
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:02:08 PM »
Playing about with my daughter's 1100D. I'm surprised by how much latitude there is in the RAW data. I can pull it around much more than I thought would be possible.

This is just one exposure, no flash, shot on the 50/1.4 @ about f2.8. ISO 200
Bokeh looks good. 2008 is when I first got introduced to dslr. 40d and 50mm f1.4

Thanks Dylan, I find the bokeh of the 1.4 lens can be quite good if the scene is right.

Here's one that I just couldn't resist; shot at f1.6

528
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 20, 2014, 05:27:55 AM »
The trio of IS primes are all excellent for landscape. They offer virtually the best across the frame sharpness with IS for hand holding late evening / early morning shots with small apertures and low ISO.

However the 24-70 f4 IS is also excellent, much better than the early reviews gave it credit for. I have no idea why this happened; the 70-300L also suffered in the same way.

If you want lighter, cheaper ( individually ), smaller then the primes are the way to go although the 24-70 IS is noticeably smaller than the 24-105L in actual use, and goes well on the 6D.

Here are a couple of landscape shots taken on the 24-70 f4 IS. If you want to see a large size have a look on my website. 

529
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:46:54 AM »
Not a macro shot, but this lens makes for a great portrait alternative.

Shot on 6D - at 1250 ISO. The high ISO performance of the 6D is insane !

531
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f2.8L II Shutter Speeds
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:10:46 PM »
To guarantee 9 times out if 10 no relevant shake I'd have to be around 1/140 or twice the focal length. I'd get some OK at 1/70, maybe 50%

The earlier advice to 'double tap' is good and does work. Inevitably it's the second frame that is sharper, I have no idea why.

532
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: the canon 100d/sl1
« on: April 19, 2014, 10:10:30 AM »
. In my view it's one of the more interesting releases from Canon in a long time.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1

-pw

Agreed !

533
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:42:55 AM »
For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.

From some of the images that I have seen posted on the web the out of focus or 'bokeh' of the Sigma has, on first impression, looked really good. However I think that the transition from in and out of focus is quite abrupt, at least when compared with the 35L. That lens has a proper ground glass aspherical element, and I do find that on lenses when this is used there is a more 'glassy' or 'liquid' quality to the out of focus area. I'm guessing that the Sigma is pretty highly corrected for chromatic aberration to get the sharpness, and I'm sure it doesn't use a ground glass aspherical element, and the out of focus is a little more 'plasticy'. ( I'm being really scientific here).

I wonder if this is what Dustin is relating to ?

The EF 35 IS will use a moulded element, but as with the other Canon mid range primes the bokeh transition is good. Pretty clever stuff for such a sharp lens.

Have a look at these images, and tell me this lens has a smooth transition zone.  Notice how rough the highlights look, both in front of the focus plane, and behind it. 

http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=2787280480_kxf8wgz

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2

Frankly the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, had as smooth of a bokeh as this, if not slightly superior, it seems to me.  The Sigma 35mm Art, appears to also have a smoother transition zone in the bokeh, than the Canon 35 f/2 IS.  Just have a look at Photozone's samples from the Sigma.  They do fault it as having "slightly busy" bokeh background, but very smooth in the foreground.  But its background highlights, do not seem to have such a pronounced "bright ring" around them, as does the 35 f/2 IS.  It would help if the exact same scene were photographed to compare, of course.

I see the IS feature as the only very good aspect of the Canon 35 f/2 IS lens, going by these samples.  Certainly a nice feature to have.  Also I will admit that for bokeh smoothness at 35mm, the Canon f/1.4L is still clearly king.  Also, if I had to guess which had the smoother background bokeh, between say the Sigma 35mm Art, and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii (at 35mm), the Sigma might edge it out a bit.  Would be interesting to see a direct comparison of that.  If there are no highlights in the background, then all of these lenses can probably portray a relatively smooth blur, as most lenses can.

I use photozone a great deal for comparing the resolution of lenses, but to be quite honest I never look at their samples. However I've just looked now at your prompt and it's confirmed my belief; the Sigma samples are pretty useless for a bokeh assessment.

Have a look at the ones in the CR thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.45

As I said in my earlier post, my initial reaction was this looks really good, but then over time I thought they are just a little - 'clinical' - is that the word Dustin used ? From what I read Dustin has come to that conclusion over time, which makes it more pertinent,  and I'm with him on that one.

Also I mentioned earlier that the likes of the 35L, 50L and 24-70 II use a much more expensive lens manufacturing process. Mid range lenses such as the 35 IS etc. use moulded glass elements, and really cheap lenses use plastic ones.

However I agree with you on the 40 pancake - and remember you are talking to someone who ditched his 35L for the pancake  ::)   ( But don't tell anyone else that !). I don't have a use for a really fast 35, I'd much rather use a 50 or 85.

Overall I'm very tempted by the 35 IS, not for it's aperture but because it has IS and is really good across the frame when stopped down. 

534
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:12:34 PM »
Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews  say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.
From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments.  The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed.  The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series).  A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations.  The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.

I would think it is a matter of unit cost. It must be much more expensive to manufacture a lens, with all its moving parts to be reasonably protected from the ingress of water, and as the Sigma has to be competitively priced I doubt it was feasible.

535
the focus plane is the same in every picture at F 1,4

Bold statement implying that the only way to focus a prime f/1.4 lens is to move it (which is demonstrably false). Again, what is the explanation for how AF f/>2.8 images were achieved using canon bodies? Did the camera stop down to focus?

Here's some shots of rare Swedish Red Ear'd Biggies Piggies taken with the centre point of a 6D with a 50mm f1.4 @1.4. Nails the focus plane near as damn it 8 times out of ten. Cropped and recomposed, so not 'focus and recompose'.

Biggies Piggies just won't keep still for a moment !

536
Lenses / Re: What has become of the long-rumored Canon 50mm IS?
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:42:39 PM »
It's got engaged to the 7D II

537
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:59:21 AM »
For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.

From some of the images that I have seen posted on the web the out of focus or 'bokeh' of the Sigma has, on first impression, looked really good. However I think that the transition from in and out of focus is quite abrupt, at least when compared with the 35L. That lens has a proper ground glass aspherical element, and I do find that on lenses when this is used there is a more 'glassy' or 'liquid' quality to the out of focus area. I'm guessing that the Sigma is pretty highly corrected for chromatic aberration to get the sharpness, and I'm sure it doesn't use a ground glass aspherical element, and the out of focus is a little more 'plasticy'. ( I'm being really scientific here).

I wonder if this is what Dustin is relating to ?

The EF 35 IS will use a moulded element, but as with the other Canon mid range primes the bokeh transition is good. Pretty clever stuff for such a sharp lens.

538
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:34:13 AM »
Hi Sporgon.
A couple of very atmospheric shots there, very nice.

Cheers Graham.

The Loaming Hour on the River Stour, Eastern England, just up stream from Flatford Mill made famous by the English artist John Constable.

Thanks Graham !

It was that strange twilight that my father used to call 'The Loaming', so I was pleased to be able to record it.

539
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: the canon 100d/sl1
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:27:17 AM »
I've been playing about with my daughter's 1100D recently, using it in RAW for the first time, because I'm going to get a small body for when I don't want to lug the larger stuff around. I was considering the M, but now think I am almost certainly going to get a 100D instead because I really like the tiny dSLR form.

However for myself the size of the camera body must match the lens, so I would never buy something so small to use a 70-200 on a regular basis.

540
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:18:35 AM »
Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

If you are not going to manipulate the data in post processing I agree that if you can get it right in camera, then given the modern camera produced jpegs, there just isn't any practical difference.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 132