Old, really old news. Do you use a time machine to find this stuff

monkey44 said:

Don't we all wish we were this flexible ...

Click to expand...

If we were. many teenage boys wouldn't leave their room....or so I'm told.

I concur with the "just go do it" recommendation. It is the digital age and if you don't like it delete it. You should be able to to shoot 10 pics at various apertures in about 5 minutes. That will be more than enough to learn whether the performance will be acceptable to you.

neuroanatomist said:

nvsravank said:

So can somebody who understands these lenses explain what are the differences between the cine lenses and the regular lenses of the same focal length? Other than the mount.

I keep seeing a T number rather than an F number? Is it very different?

I hear that the focus shift is minimal on the Cine lenses. Is that true? Is that for effective manual zooming?

Image Stabilization differences? Is it better tuned to reduce motion when using on mounted tripods moving on dollys?

Click to expand...

F stops are calculated from focal length and aperture diameter, and don't accurately represent the amount of light the lens transmits (every air/glass interface reflects some light). T stops are actual measured light transmission.

Focus breathing is minimal/absent with cine lenses, that means the framing stays the same as you change focus. At the other end of the spectrum, consider the EF-S 55-250, which has a 250mm FoV at infinity focus, but barely over a 150mm FoV at the minimum focus distance (zoom still set to 250mm). Even some higher-end lenses breathe badly, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 at 200mm only gives ~135mm framing at the MFD. The cine zooms are also parfocal, meaning focus doesn't change as you zoom.

IS differences? Pretty significant - the cine lenses don't have IS.

Click to expand...

The parfocal attribute is a big deal. It would be nice if more regular zoom lenses had it. There are some, I know, but it is the exception.

2/25 on A7R II

Thank you, Snapper, for reminding me that I promised an update:

5DIII arrived, functions perfectly. My wife is using the camera during the day (although the weather has now returned to its usual state of total suck), and reading the manual after dark. Thanks to everyone again, and thanks to B&H.

Don Haines said:

CanonFanBoy said:

Both are from the FCC itself. There are requirements for providers to provide accurate location data within a range specified based on the tech used. What is the most accurate way and cheapest way to meet the requirement? Some are using PSAPs and some are using GPS. I would think the answer is GPS. That is also a feature most consumers demand.

I believe the most stringent requirement is 50 meters. Over time, the tech will get more and more accurate. Triangulation only works if three cell towers can get the signal. In more isolated areas... this is a real problem.

I used to travel to Spokane to do some work at Triumph Composites. There are some very isolated stretches out that way.

Click to expand...

Usually GPS is more accurate. A phone can be accurate down to 2 meters under ideal conditions, less when the view of the sky is blocked by buildings and foliage and you can only pick up a few satellites. That said, cell tower triangulation is more than accurate enough (10 meters or less) in most populated areas....

As you said, rural areas are a problem... for example, I live outside of Ottawa Ontario and can only pick up two towers.... my reported position toggles between a small town in Ontario and a small town in Quebec.... line of sight between the two locations is about 20K and because of the river in between it's a 100K drive from one to the other.... kind of useless for 911

Click to expand...

Yes, GPS is surely the way for you.

They want accuracy enough to also gauge what floor of a building a person is on and what suite. Wow.

It has gotten very late for Nikon to compete in the high-end APS-C market. However, if they repeat their original big time success D3 + D300 with yet another well matched, excellent FF/APS-C duo D5 + D400 (or D500), they could be back with a vengeance - as far as mirrorslpapers go. Also needed are a few key DX lenses - especially an optically upgraded 17-55/2.8 DX *with* VR.

Key to success is a "matched pair" of FF and APS-C camera:
* identical user interface
* identical batter (use of big D5 battery in vertical grip of APS-C D400)
* identical choice of memory card slots ... whatever they may use - just as long it's not XQD

Nikon could further boost things by adding some form of a "combo"-bonus ... e.g. "take both and get some big time credit towards purchase of lenses and speedlites".

Back when Nikon brought their D3 + D300 duo, I nearly switched. Canon's excellent EF-S 17-55/2.8 versus lack of an image stabilized constant f/2.8 Nikon DX standard zoom plus preferred Canon UI plus Canon getting their decent 7D out just in time ... made me stick with Canon (40D -> 7D).

Of course even a supreme D5 + D400 DSLR duo will still not help Nikon to compete in today's mirrorless world ... but it could make for a reasonable "last round" or "last stand" in the Nikon mirrorslapper world.

privatebydesign said:

It works fine.

Click to expand...

Sure does- thanks for pointing that out!

JMZawodny said:

I have often wondered to what extent the sharpness varies with target distance. We often forget that the lens must perform well over a wide range of subject target distances and that this is just one of many performance criteria that must get optimized, in a balanced/trade-off, during lens design. I seriously doubt performance is uniform over the full focal range. Anyone have any info on this? Perhaps some of the deviations in "measured" performance between various testing websites is actually due to the test itself.

Click to expand...

All Prime-Lenses (except conventional Macro) are optimized for infinity. Conventional Macro-Lenses are optimzed for midrange distance (1 meter). Only lenses like the Canon MP-E 65mm are best at short distance (1:1). All double-gauss-Lenses (50mm prime for instance) are optimized for f5.6, regardless how fast they are.

Zooms are optimized for nothing, fast Superteles may be best wide open. (this is very difficult to measure).

martti said:

You do realize that "The best that you can afford" means different things for different people?

Click to expand...

Naturally, it means different things to different people. My point is that it should be viewed as a long term investment. I still own and use a pair of Polk Audio SD-1a speakers that I purchased ~34 years ago, but I've had a few different receiver/amplifiers during that time. If you are willing to spend X on a body you should be willing to spend 3X on a lens - especially with versions of lenses that have come out in the last couple of years, there is very little room for improvement there as compared to the sensor and AF technologies in bodies.

Loving the 20 Art so far. It is amazingly sharp in the center, has shockingly smooth bokeh when you can create some, good contrast, pretty good focusing speed (adapted), and distortion isn't anywhere near as bad as I was expecting it to be. All in all, for the discounted price I got it at, the best wide angle bargain I've had to date.

Thank you Magic Lantern for Full-resolution Silent Picture from the live view, without working the shutter, or any other mechanical action. Your shutter won't wear down when making Timelapse Sequences. It require some practise, but after short time you will realize how good quality in can provide.

Thank you for watching ;-)

More info how to use Full-resolution silent pictures with Magic Lantern on your Canon cameras:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12523.0

Song by:
Hammoc - I can almost see you

neuroanatomist said:

dilbert said:

This is a link to a Nikon patent from 2008 that discusses a new AF mechanism that is rumored to be in the D5:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8526807

Click to expand...

Wow, what an amazing concept! They're proposing to use AF sensor line pair baselines of different lengths depending on the maximum aperture of the lens used, to allow for increased AF accuracy with lenses having a faster maximum aperture than the least common denominator of f/5.6. In other words, AF points that are more accurate when faster lenses are used, for example f/4 or f/2.8 AF points instead of all the AF points being restricted to the lesser accuracy of an f/5.6 baseline. I'm sure glad Nikon thought of that, maybe Canon will copy an innovation like that some day.

Click to expand...

If I've understood properly, the subsequent Canon patent looks to move the AF microlenses closer or further from the sensor. Would be interesting to know which approach works better.

RGF said:

dilbert said:

GoldWing said:

Canon missed every 2015 Christmas shopper....

Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt that the Christmas shopper is who Canon has in mind with the 1DX.

Click to expand...

It would be a very nice Christmas present I could buy myself. Then again it would be a very nice January present I could by myself, or February present or March present ...

Click to expand...

;D

Hi Roo
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and the compliment. My rule for shooting from the side or a slight angle to the net is not to shoot if the goalie moves past the mid way point of the net. That way I'm not shooting his back.

I thought about shooting wide open, but I want the comfort of a few inches of DoF. (That makes me a coward.....)

wsmith96 said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Lens quality varies with the lens.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II beats Canons best primes at some focal lengths. Its a good first lens in the high end region, you will not have to worry about upgrading it soon.

However, when you stop your lens down, as most do for landscapes, a coke bottle might do just fine

While we all like fine lenses, and I have and use some of the pricey ones, the advantage tends to come at the wider apertures. But, for landscapes, you want depth of field, which sometimes means shooting at f/8, f/11, f/16 or even f/22. Its a waste of money to buy a expensive wide aperture lens when the image is limited by diffraction at the small apertures.


So, for landscape, the low cost consumer grade prime lenses will be wonderful at f/8, f/11/ f/16, as will expensive zooms and fast primes.

Click to expand...

+1

Click to expand...

Very useful advice.

AlanF said:

YuengLinger said:

AlanF said:

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.

Click to expand...

Joke? These look horrible!

Click to expand...

Try thinking before making rude comments. At 400mm, the target, only 1mx1.3m at 240m away, fills only a 300x524 crop from the centre of the 20 mpixel image, at which size it is impossible to resolve most of the target because the details are below the Nyquist limit. The 2xTC III brings features above the Nyquist limit and you can resolve details in the round section of the target. Those images show that the TC is able to increase resolution without degrading the image - you can easily read the the 6 10 14 18 in the circles, which are only smears without the TC.

Click to expand...

AlanF, you are right, I didn't understand what I was looking at.

Sorry.

*posted this on DPR in the "open talk" forum as well*

I read through the 5DSr review recently and kind of skipped over the shutter shock section but then while perusing another forum, I found that the topic popped up there too, in regards to Nikon gear.

I don't own any of the gear in question but it seems like the common denominators are shutter speeds of 1/80-1/30 and with longer focal lengths. Also, apparently Canon's in-lens IS apparently alleviates some of the issue as well whereas SOME Nikon lenses with VR actually make it worse.

Historically, it's been thought that lower megapixel FF sensors had less, or even nothing, to worry about with regards to this issue (hence I never bothered to learn about it as I use the 20mp Canon 6D) but apparently the Nikon D750 (24 mp) proves otherwise and actually had worse results than the D810.

Before I go any further - does it seem like I have all of the info correct thus far? If so...

That brings me to my question... with a Canon 6D, the lenses I own which have "longer" focal lengths would be the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM, and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.

With the 100L, I will often shoot in the 1/50-1/60 range for portraits, thanks to the IS. Thus far, I haven't noticed any issue with it and that's even with pixel peeping at eyelashes (curiosity got the best of me).

With the 135L, I usually aim for 1/160 or higher unless braced or on a tripod so I can't see it being an issue, for ME, with that lens. But it WOULD be nice to know in case I have an isolated circumstance pop up where I'm actually going to mount it on a tripod and shoot slower shutter speeds.

But the 70-300L is a new lens in my arsenal and this is the one I'm most worried about. I literally picked up this lens less than a week ago so I have basically zero experience here. I can absolutely see me using this lens all the way out to 300mm and in the 1/30-1/80 range. Can anyone offer any insight?

I'm not really going to go looking for a problem, but at the same time, if I can avoid (real, not theorized) issues by avoiding 1/30-1/80, then I definitely will.

Thanks for any insight you folks can offer!

martti said:

You can stack photo with all of the above mentioned lenses and use SW to get as sharp pictures you can ever dream of.

While it is true that the optical and the technical quality of the TS lense are astounding, once you have to go shooting stuff that moves, you will have to change.

I guy who asks questions needs a zoom.
A guy who has answers shoots primes.

Click to expand...

Those two comments rather contradict each other. How do you make stacked images if there is significant movement in the scene? On the other hand you can get an entire ocean sharp and in focus, including any fast moving objects or subjects on it, at f4 with a T/S lens.

I shoot zooms and primes, whichever is most appropriate and gives me the perspective I am looking for.

brad-man said:

Maximilian said:

MrFotoFool said:

The third one on the list has the people in color and the rest of the scene in black and white. So there is absolutely, positively no way that is an unmanipulated photo.

Click to expand...

If this is a try of a joke please forgive me if I didn't get it. :-[
(Or you got me )
If this is no joke please note that in this picture the temple is covered with grey ashes from a volcano while the people that went there later are NOT covered with ashes.

Click to expand...

Now that's just good comedy...

Click to expand...

Yeah! I know.
But somehow I couldn't leave it without comment. *sigh*
Hope, you weren't the only one who had a good laugh.

AvTvM said:

Or ... YABMSFC

Yet another boring mirror slapper from Canon

Click to expand...

That's your opinion, which is fine as long as you understand you're in a small minority of camera buyers.

JohanCruyff said:

StudentOfLight said:

With the success of the 16-35/4 IS and 17-40/4 presumably discontinued, Canon might need a new fighting grade ultrawide full frame zoom. My guess is Canon EF 16-40mm f/4 STM. (So this could be non-L, non-IS, non-weather sealed)

So entry-level, single-lens-kit:
6D with 24-105 STM

Potential entry-level, two-lens-kit:
6D with "16-40 STM" + "55-200 STM"

Potential entry-level, three-lens-kit:
6D with "16-40 STM" + 50 STM + "55-200 STM"

Click to expand...

Replace "6D" with "6D Mark II DPAF" and it sounds better.

Click to expand...

... or EOS 6D-M (DPAF)

PureClassA said:

I still think Canon lets Nikon have it's 15 minutes of fame with the D5 and then proceed to steal the entire show from there forward.

Click to expand...

It will all be done with perfect timing on Canon's part.