August 23, 2016, 09:33:15 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
An autofocus EF version would probably cost more than now plus for Astro you'd have to manually focus anyway. Great lens for the price now. You may want to look to the 20mm f1.4. I hear it is a great Astro lens too, although a tad bit more.
Not only would it cost more, but it will cost 2-3x more. The 14mm for FE generally hovers in the $300-350 range, the new AF version is $800ish last I had heard pricing.

The 14mm comes highly recommended. I love my FE version for my A7r
5D4 Mark II is rumored to have triple focus pixels that will be able to capture the lightwaves from the past. So you can say go out to the lake at a nice time like 2PM and capture the sunrise that took place at a hideous hour earlier in the day. Sleep in and still get magic morning light. Or say you hit one place and can only stay there a day and it's pouring rain, set the triple focus back 24 hours and capture it on a clear day and you can even dial it in for the evening golden hour lighting from the day before to boot!

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV: Dual Pixel Raw allows focus in post. Wow!
« Last post by scyrene on Today at 05:30:19 PM »
I say this, because focusing is the ONLY factor that is beyond our total control when taking a photo (using viewfinder). Exposure, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, composition...all these factors can be controlled and a good photographer will know how to do it.

Weeelll.... Not quite. We bump into limitations in all these things sometimes. A photographer is not a god - it is not always possible (or even desirable) to control the light.

What I mean is: the other factors are within your control. If the light is coming from one direction, it's up to you how to make the best of it for your shot. In most cases you can move/rotate the source or the subject around in order to get what you want.

With focusing, there is always an error possibility (less with more expensive gear), and there's currently no guarantee that your shot will be in perfect focus unless you are on a tripod manual focusing with the live view.

The AF misses (and misses a lot!) in every DSLR body. It also makes your photo unrecoverable in post processing. You can change exposure, reduce noise, sharpen, crop, remove unwanted distractions....but you can   not save that slightly out of focus photo, there is no tool that will move the  (mis)focus from the ear to the eye.

Oh I agree :) But we like advances in all areas  ;)
thanks, but no thanks. I do not rent software. Especially not from a ´landlord`like Adobe.

Actually, you never have more than a "lease" on any software. Period. You never own it!
Out of focus means that the light from one point, coming through the four quadrants of the lens, does not meet in one pixel again. The light coming through the left half is shifted to pixels on the right, the light coming through the right half is shifted to the left, top->down and bottom->up. Even if you can correct the left-right shift with the information of the dual pixel raw to reduce the blur, you will still have the blur/shift in top-bottom direction uncorrected (or the other way round, depending on the orientation of the pixel halves).
And even this limited correction will not be very good, because with only two partial pixels you can not treat light from the very border of the lens (large shift) different to light coming from near the center (only small shift). So the borders will still be undercorrected and the center parts will be overcorrected.

Surely the point of post processing is that the software will be programed for that and take selected information to account for it.

So, you're anticipating the triumph of firmware over physics?  Tell ya what, you let us know when that happens, mmmmmkay?   ;)
I have the Rokinon version with a Copper colored band.  99% of my shooting with this lens in for night photography, so auto-focus isn't an issue.  The few times I've used it at events, such as car shows, it would be handy to have some focus confirmation.  Growing up with rangefinders and manual focus actually makes the lens more fun to use.  Focusing for nightscapes is a small chore but no different than any other lens in near total darkness- crank up the ISO & live view.  I put a piece of gaffer's tape on the focus ring to keep from accidentally changing it. 
I shot a custom car/hot rod show and was really stunned how well sun reflections off of chrome at the corner of the frame was insanely clear of aberrations.  The reading I have done about this lens seems to point at f5.6-f8 being the sweet spot for overall performance, but f2.8 is still stunning.  Considering the massive amount of glass, that's pretty impressive.
The up side- the auto-focus will never fail or be inaccurate.  :P

Thanks Keith for your input. Much appreciated. I do enjoy your wonderful images as well.
Good to hear about the performance at 2.8. That is the main use (for landscape in general I use my 16-35 f/4)
I don't worry about the AF versus manual focus. Just looking for the performance difference between the new and old Samyang.

The only way to compare is have both and swap lenses on the same subject/lighting.  I doubt you would see a dramatic difference for night work.  Daylight shooting- maybe a slight improvement over contrast and colors, but software can do a lot there. 
Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology.  In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.

finally someone who both knows their science and has insider connections as well

Sports / Re: Sports from Poland
« Last post by Click on Today at 05:22:50 PM »
Very nice series, Dawid.
Sports / Dawid Gaszyński
« Last post by dawid_gaszynski on Today at 05:20:27 PM »
Śląsk Wrocław vs Wisła Płock
Canon 6D + Canon 300mm 2.8 IS L USM








EOS Bodies / Re: There Will Be a New EOS M Camera Coming in 2016 [CR2]
« Last post by ahsanford on Today at 05:17:23 PM »
Also I might add, from my point of view I think the 24 MP is too high for the sort of market this camera is aimed at, which I guess is reasonably casual shooting. I find I have to have the camera rock steady, or use a very fast shutter speed to get the IQ that I want. Then, with a good lens it's pretty good. I found the 16 MP crop cameras that I have used to be much better in that regard. But then I guess that's progress.

Thanks for a great reply.  Really helpful, thanks.

I will slightly disagree on the point above -- one would think it needs to outresolve a cell phone to market itself well to the social media crowd, but I could be wrong.

- A
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10