March 06, 2015, 01:02:19 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 150
91
Lenses / Re: Canon prime rumors? 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2
« on: January 28, 2015, 09:15:12 AM »
I doubt Canon will produce an updated version of both the 85 and the 100. Of the two I'd be pretty sure they'd go for the 85.

Theoretically the 85/1.8 is designed primarily for portraiture, the 100/2 more for sports etc. The 85 is less corrected for CA and produces a nicer bokeh - at least if you can see any difference most of the time. This is why people complain more about purple fringing on the 85 more than the 100 yet despite this it is by far the most popular of the two.

I would guess that the delay in introducing the 50 and 85 is Canon are scratching their heads wondering how to produce a worthwhile update in optical quality, with IS, at a price  point where it is worth it for them to produce and the customer will buy. From f/2.8 the current 50 is a stellar performer across the frame, easily able to aquit itself on an upcoming 'high' mp camera. The 85 also. This wasn't the case with the predecessors of the new IS trio, so I think Canon were getting their ducks in a row on those focal lengths.

92
Thand any Pentax 67 LS lens can be shot via adapter  (full manual).

If you are talking about using old Pentax 6x7 lenses on a 645z you'll likely get a shock. No doubt fine for portraiture, but they were never the sharpest lenses on medium format. Highly regarded for portraiture, yes, but will be left wanting on the latest 50 mp DMF sensor.

93
I think that if you really need and/or want 50 mp then you have done the right thing, irrespective of what Canon do with a higher mp FF sensor. 50 mp on a FF size sensor is a total waste in my opinion.

Personally I prefer to stick with FF and stitch for the sort of work I do. It is so easy to stitch now, especially if you are using a lens who's entry pupil is close to the camera body. Obviously with your portrait work you cannot stitch.


94
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:28:18 PM »
I find that as long as you are quite close to subject and really nail the focus the EF 50/1.4 is useable at f/1.4

Canon 5DII + EF 50/1.4 @ f/1.4

Sleeping Piggies

95
Lenses / Re: I'm conflicted please help
« on: January 26, 2015, 01:31:47 PM »
My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?

96
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:47:58 AM »
Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that pixel density doing that or distance from the chart ? I presume these are shot on the same framing so the 7DII will be further away.

I think TDP is a very useful and well executed resource, but I'm not sure allowing direct comparisons between APS and FF reflects real world results.
I'm no optical expert, but I would think that the abberations would improve the closer you get towards infinity focus, so I would think it's the pixel density.  I noticed this same phenomenon with my fast lenses, particularly with the 24L II and 50L when I was shooting with a crop sensor.

Yikes ! Yet another point then, to add to my list of reasons to get hold of another 5D mark one.

97
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:30:48 AM »
Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that pixel density doing that or distance from the chart ? I presume these are shot on the same framing so the 7DII will be further away.

I think TDP is a very useful and well executed resource, but I'm not sure allowing direct comparisons between APS and FF reflects real world results.

98
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:22:40 PM »
Sporgon, is there a large difference between primes and zooms at this f stop?

In the context of common focal lengths for landscape, Canon have rewritten the rule book with the 24-70/2.8II and the 16-35/4.

However looking at other common FF standard or wide zooms such as the 24-105, the 24-70 IS, 17-40, 16-35/2.8II, a good quality prime is better edge of frame to mid, and in the four corners at f8. Centre can be identical. I am bearing in mind that 'landscape' normally means trying to define and resolve small detail that is a relatively long way away.

At f11 I cannot, for instance, see any difference between my 24-105 @ 50mm and my EF 50/1.4 at the same aperture, even at 100% on a studio tripod.

When shooting subject that are closer to the camera I find at f8 the differences are much slimmer, but landscape is a different ball game. This is why until recently the large format cameras reigned supreme in this sphere, and even now you are better with a larger format for serious work due to the greater magnification of the subject.

99
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:57:20 PM »
The EF 50/1.4 has been out getting some love again, and I'm left thinking maybe I've been using the 40 too much lately.

Swans of the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to shoot a panoramic. The sun had given up for the day, but then just managed to sneak out for a few minutes before setting.

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f2.5

100
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:51:26 PM »
Love is.......being a piggie

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f1.8

101
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:43:41 PM »
Swans on the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to do a panoramic. The light had gone but then the sun managed to just sneak through again before setting.

5DII + EF 50/1.4 @ f2.5

102
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:33:03 PM »
Forgive me if I'm wrong. But aren't most lenses perfectly sharp at f8-f11? What would be the difference between a the 35mm 1.4 and the 24-105 f4l at F8? CA?

I find that there can still be a real difference mid and edge of frame between lenses at f8, but they all do seem to begin to gravitate together at around f11 and beyond. Not that you have to take landscapes at f8. With wider lenses in particular you can go significantly wider than f8 with great dof.

103
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 24, 2015, 04:18:03 PM »
I have both. The 24-70 is much better than the 24-105 at 24 mil. Sharper centre, mid frame and better corners. Less distortion. With my copies the 24-105 is a tad better at 30-35 mil. Of course it is significantly better at 71 to 105 too.

If you are using mainly 24 to 28 and want a small, compact lens the 24-70 is the one to go for. As I am shooting at the longer end I tend to stick with the 24-105 now, and for critical work I use primes.

104
Funnily your greens and reds are obviously more saturated in the second picture, which is apparent on the background bricks and moss ! This is more in line with the theory of ETTR.
So we are speaking of a major imbalance in the treatment of the components.
Maybe your software is playing havoc with colours, trying to compensate for a known colour shift of the sensor in low light, but applying it in a range where there is no sensor coor shift due to the overexposure ? Just a wild guess...

I think we have a different understanding of the word saturated. If you put a colour picker on the reds or greens they are more saturated in the top picture in all three sets. The 'correct' exposure is giving more detail and saturation than the severely overexposed image.

Thanks Private, yes that is what I would expect.

I believe blue is the weakest wavelength and this may have something to do with the effect ETTR has on blues, but other colours are effected in the same way. Not sure why feanolas thinks the second image has more saturated red, green etc.

If you intend to lift shadows then a small amount of ETTR will improve the overall image, yes, but ETTR for the sake of it is a myth, and the article from LL that started this thread is absurd.

I suggest anyone who believes in ETTR to 'improve IQ' try taking the same shot twice, one at correct exposure, the other two stops over. Convert to a JPEG and then have a look at the difference in size of the two files.

Another point that I would make regarding exposure is printing. I have always found that the closer the exposure used was to a 'correct' incident light reading the better the picture prints.


105
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.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 150