if it had better low light capabilities, I'd probably be shooting with it as my main camera this spring... with all the features, it does make using a Metabones Speedbooster adapter ($650 or so) worth considering:

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT3
http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-M43-BT4

Don Haines said:

Magic Lantern will always be after Adobe unlocking new RAW files because they don't get to start until the others are finished...

Click to expand...

Of course. Mine was "tongue in cheek". IMHO, I can't see big advantages in outputting DNGs instead of CR2s (unless you have already a DNG based workflow for any reason), but being able to open them in application that don't support yet the latest CR2s.

sebasan said:

That's what I was thinking. "Exposing to the right" should be always the way to shoot if you want the best IQ. The increse in DR is good in some ocasions when you have a situation with some contrast, but even in really high contrast situation you should use other techniques (bracketing, filters) to get the best IQ in the final image.

Click to expand...

ETTR works best when the image is well within the DR of the sensor, and you have enough space left to shift exposure to the right without clipping the highlights - it could help minimizing noise in the shadows. In high contrast situation, that could be very difficult, because there's no really room to shift exposure. ETTR too needs to be used carefully when it makes sense, it's not a generic way to shoot, IMHO.

That's why IMHO graduated filters may still be useful (especially if you're not a photoshop master, and/or merging different shots is not possible)

jeffa4444 said:

If immersive means you can no longer see the full image without physically panning & scanning with your head & eyes then we have defeated the realism and viewing for long periods would be uncomfortable for moving images. The extra resolution is a mute point with moving images & less so with still images where we have time to be more critical.
We have reached a critical junction with resolution and for many we have already gone too far. Colour space is different many still prefer analogue because it imparts a more subtle look and a wider bit depth & colour space may provide for that subtle in digital that some feel it doesn't have.

Like everything however its subjective and we all hold our own views.

Click to expand...

true that.

I honestly don't know how they are envisioning 8k .. whether it's more a surround virtual reality mode where the 8K resolution is covering a wider view?

I do know the audio is over 20 channels apparently. 22.2 is NHK's spec.

so if they are making audio very immersive , I can see them pushing for a far more video immersive effect. imagine it feeling like you are right there in the stands kind of thing.

when you think about it.. we are always presented with a wider field of view than we can comfortably see. every second of the day.

Take a look at Knesis. Probably a L321, that's what I had when I was using the EF200 f/1.8.

http://www.kgear.com/bags/l.html

leolol said:

That is defenitely true, i still think that you win some DR with the HDR-Mode.

I get that they might want to try it out in a lesser body first but the 5d4 isn't much of a lesser body after all.

Click to expand...

Theoretically you can achieve similar results while shooting with the "C-Log"-ish profile (http://www.eoshd.com/2016/09/now-available-eoshd-picture-profiles-brings-c-log-canon-dslrs-including-1d-x-mark-ii-5d-mark-iv/) and grading yourself, or if you set the DR optimization to High.

Received an new Yonguo 600-Rt flash and it wokrs for me needs perfect. Forr 100€ a "no brainer"...
The company answered my email and wrote, that the Canon 580 flash has problems to get synchronised witht he triggers.

rrcphoto said:

pokerz said:

rrcphoto said:

powershot2012 said:

Sounds disappointing...still has that cheap slow lens

Click to expand...

#physicsmatter :

Click to expand...

In 2012 Rx 100 (28-100mm f1.8-4.9 with 10 FPS)
in 2017 G9x2 (28-84mm f2-4.9 with 8 FPS)

Click to expand...

troll harder.
the G9X is smaller than the RX100.

#physicsmatter.

fps has not much to do with the smaller /slower lens that I was responding to.

physics does. want a smaller lens profile - make it slower and less zoom range.

concept hard for you to follow?

Click to expand...

I feel for some people it's really hard. "I want a smart phone size camera with an 11-1200 f/0.95 zoom lens. A medium format sensor is a must".

privatebydesign said:

He doesn't use the M5 on the pole, he uses a DJI Osmo.

Click to expand...

I thought that thing over the pole was a ball head ...

If moving from the 6D I would go with the 5D MKIV as your not a professional. The 5D MKIV is a more generalist camera with very goof AF and whilst the burst rate is a lot less than the 1DX MKII its a lot lighter, uses the same batteries as the 6D and has a similar form factor.

If your using the Tether Tools USB-3 cable then purchase the additional external power supply it could be you don't have enough juice running on the battery as the 5DSr / 5DS is more power hungry. My cable works fine but tethered I always add the external power boost.

No longer optical image stabilisation? That's a let down. I didn't spend attention to it when i bought the A5 2016, but now I don't want to miss it on my job anymore... pictures even under difficult lighting conditions are at least sharp and can be used for PC and documentation purposes.

rx100

Yeah, new too. It's still weird because this is my second 200 f2.0 and the other one was perfection on the 1dx, luckily I don't own 5-6 bodies I need to calibrate it to. And when it works it's my favorite combo, and hopefully will work at least 4 years when I upgrade to a 1dx2.

I have one slight issue with this article (and especially the previous incarnation of this); while looking at the pure cost of a new front element makes perfect sense for guys who's day job it is to strip down and rebuild lenses and are equipped with optical benches to ensure they rebuild them shimmed/adjusted to perfection, how can the likes of any of us successfully replace a front element for the price of the parts alone? Once you factor in labour, shipping and additionally time without the lens, not to mention the possibility of it not being adjusted or assembled correctly, surely to us a filter makes more sense in an even greater number of scenarios than Roger indicates?

Having said that, I don't filter all of my lenses that could be - the cost/size benefits of pancake lenses are somewhat defeated with the addition of a filter in my mind, and the EF-M 18-55 is so rarely used (and cheap) that again I can't justify that.

hubie said:

hendrik-sg said:

3.6 - 255mm f 2.8-7.0

equals to (if the crop factor is 5.6)

20-1430mm f 15.7-55

This is far beyond the diffraction limit. Magnifying some amount beyond the diffraction limit may may give some benefit, because the resolving pover somehow converges, the losses are multiplied, and with some "oversampling" the loss of missing sensor resolution dismishes. Exactly at the diffraction limit, the losses caused by diffraction and by lack of sensor resolution are equal.

This amout is a complete overkill, it's just physical nonsense, and adding a converter to such a lens can not give any additional information, it's not there.

This is almost unhonest, sell people a camera which gives a magnification that is so high, that the image is getting blured by physical reasons. This is another way to kill the PS market, people are excioted by the promise given and the following disapointment is not evitable.

This customer will rely on the good old phone, if a real (and big) camera gives only blured pics.

Click to expand...

I guess you got something wrong there. The aperture of the lens remains the same no matter what crop factor you use. The crop factor is nothing more than a comparison of the sensor size to the full frame (and some people deduce other picture properties from it).

The physical dimensions of the lens are independant of it... although I doubt the lens will create an image area anywhere near a full frame sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes, the physical aperture remains the same, no matter what extender or equivalence you are referring to. But if the focal length changes as a result of extenders or how its referred to with equivalence, the aperture ratio has to change in those terms. After all, 255/7.0 (focal length/aperture ratio at full zoom) reveals it has a physical aperture or entrance pupil of 36.4mm at full zoom.

If you take the crop factor to be 5.6, it cannot be equivalent to a 1428/7.0 lens, as that requires an entrance pupil of 204mm. Whereas a lens which is equivalent of 1428/39.2 (both multiplied by 5.6) does indeed have the same 36.4mm entrance pupil.

Thanks, made with 5 d mark iii that i had for a few days

I have issued a number of warnings and bans today to members who think that they can freely insult other members, and have a history of such posts.

Things get out of control so periodically, when I see improper comments from a member, I look at his history of posts, and clean out them as well as scanning back thru a topic to see why the comments started. If I see a larger than normal number of improper comments, I remove them and issue a warning or even a ban.

The forum will never be perfect, but those who complain that removing personal results is censorship best go to a different forum, assuming they can find one that will let them insult members.

Its the function of a moderator to keep unwanted material off the forum, that includes Spam and personally insulting comments.

Members should report insulting comments rather than firing back, which can end up getting both persons warned or even banned.

Two more bans were added - anyone else?

You can find another thread about the show when it was first aired. It looks to me you missed some points, anyway.

It is a TV context, so it has rules to abide. You may not like them or not, but that's how it worked. It may be difficult to get a good picture in the allowed time, but the format required it, photographers were followed along by the Sky crews.

Same for being forced to use the sponsor's gear. Using only the allowed cards was a way to ensure no cheating.

Then, you don't really need a "blue" or "golden" hour to take a good one (although at least one was took in the early morning - the one shoot at the Trevi Fountain). You may be surprised about what kind of images are actually regarded "art" today.

The jury for the next season will be composed by Hunter, Padilla and Toscani. The first season saw Blees Luxembourg and Frederick with Toscani. Again, you may like them or not, but that was the jury.

Toscani character is well known. Too harsh? There was a 150K euro prize, an exhibition in Venice plus the publicity the show brought. Unluckily TV times and "drama" have their needs also, nor it wasn't a didactic show for beginners, nor for photographers only. At least, nobody teared photos apart and thrown them to the floor. Could have be made better? Probably so.

The guest photographer/artist/editor was expected also to give some help to the competitors. I agree in episode 2 he was really awkward. Others were far better.

Have you ever taken part in a workshop with a well-known photographer? Well, it's not so uncommon you may get some really harsh comments about your images. Of course, they could be right or not - but it's better to learn how to manage them as well - and learn from them as well.

Since there are likely some Nikon users on this forum, I thought I'd post this. I'm not bashing Nikon, things like this can happen. It does point up the need for backups. Storage media is relatively inexpensive and a backup can save you from a serious loss.

"Thank you very much for your continued patronage of Nikon products.

It turned out that image data may be corrupted when transferring images using Nikon Transfer 2 on macOS Sierra version 10.12.2 in our software "View NX - i".

ViewNX-i Ver.1.2.4 which was released on November 22, 2016 supported macOS Sierra version 10.12, but since it was not designed for macOS Sierra version 10.12.1 or later, we are currently working on compatibility.

For this reason, until compatibility with macOS Sierra version 10.12.1 or later can be confirmed, and please do not use Nikon Transfer 2 until an announcement from us.

We are diligently working on a solution for this phenomenon and we will notify once a fix has been issued. "

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19736

Frodo said:

neuroanatomist said:

Clearly both flynt and tinder are still around.

Click to expand...

!!

FWIW, the Canon F1 also had a 250 frame film back.
Must be showing my age but I owned the original F1 for a time. Nice camera, but the sensor was identical to much lighter cameras.
I assume that the difference between the 99 II and the A7RII is the pellicle mirror.

Click to expand...

Actually no. The F1 did indeed have a 250 frame bulk back, but the 1984 High Speed F1 is based on the New F-1 and that had the FN-100 100 frame bulk back. I only know this because I recently sold one.

ahsanford said:

Also, as a side note, using the 50L as my primary and 28 f/2.8 IS as my wider other lens for the trip, my focusing experience was night and day between the two. I fully recognize how much newer and easier an f/2.8 is to resolve, but the entire focusing experience more responsive, effective, and personally fulfilling with the smaller non-L lens. That lens has impeccable AF for my needs.

So this rental 100% reinforced what I want with the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM: alongside improving the optics, putting a modern/reliable/consistent/fast AF setup on it is an absolute must. It's a massive part of fulfilling the potential of 'the small DOF experience' for me.

- A

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for posting, for following through with your thoughts. Looking forward to a few shared images.

Do you think some of the misses were due to focus shift?

I'm just waiting too. I tried the Sigma 50mm Art, two copies, had inconsistent AF and less than exciting image quality--apart from excellent sharpness when AF did work. I MIGHT be willing to give it another look if overwhelming evidence showed it to have reliable AF on the 5DIV. Still, waiting for a magic Canon allows me to yearn...

Happy New Year!

(And thanks, slclick, for telling us you have such good luck with your 5DIII. Strange beast, that Art.)

Some beautiful shots Glen. Fantastic

Mikehit said:

The '15-feet' explanation was discussed ad nauseam several years ago and roundly disproved.
The '15 feet' thing was more of a back-calculation from the experience that shooting frame-filling with a lens between 90mm and 135mm on a 35mm format camera gave the correct perspective on facial features - shooting closer with a wider lens gave distorted nose/cheeks, shooting further away with longer lenses gave a flattened perspective.
The human visual system does not assess the full-length body from 15 feet and putting a 30mm lens on 35mm format camera and shooting full-length from 15 feet will give you horribly distorted body shapes. The human visual system will assess full-length from further away and at those distances perspective is less important.

Click to expand...

To a large extent, I agree with you.

In full frame terms, I usually work use this "guideline"

35mm : Environmental Portraits
50mm : Full Body Portraits
85mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
100~135mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

In crop frame terms (APS-C / DX), this would translate to:

20mm : Environmental Portraits
35mm : Full Body Portraits
50mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
60-85mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

However, the focal length used will introduce distortion. To achieve the similarity of the field of view factoring the crop factor, a wider angle lens have to be used. If one uses say a 85mm on a crop frame body, the resulting image is a 85mm lens distortion effect with a ~135mm perspective effect by standing far away.

This become a kind of compromise issue for crop frame shooters. A 50-100mm lens on a crop frame body will result in a 50-100mm lens distortion effect with a ~80-160mm perspective effect.

For full frame shooters, a 85mm lens will result in a 85mm distortion effect with a 85mm perspective effect. An 1:1 ratio.

In my opinion, I would recommend a 85mm lens for crop frame shooters to enjoy less distortion but due to the crop factor, one has to stand further.

YuengLinger said:

CanonFanBoy said:

If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.

That said, I understand the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent. Been reading that the 16-35 f/2.8L III has a lot of vignette (4 stops?).

I ended up with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and find I never use it. Excellent lens, I just never have to shoot that wide out here in the desert. If I lived in a big city I would probably use it much more.

I'm thinking a 16-35 would be the same. 24-70 is plenty wide for me and I wish now that I had gotten the 14mm you have instead of an ultra wide zoom (Tamron) for when I want to shoot astro.

Have fun choosing!

Click to expand...

Overlap is good when it reduces the need to change lenses as often as no overlap, but I understand the perception that we are paying for some redundancy. I just don't think the perception is important in real world use.

Click to expand...

I don't worry I paid for redundancy. I just don't like the way the redundancy looks on paper when I type out my inventory. It is a personal problem, not a real problem with the lenses.