Neutral said:

StudentOfLight said:

I stand under correction, but as far as I know Quantum Effieciency is how many incident photons are converted to an electron by the sensor. A QE of 476% means that when one photon hits the sensor then on average it liberates about 5 electrons. I'm not a physicist but that I think that's impossible.

Click to expand...

It might seem to be impossible but this fact this is possible.
And I think this could be found in some specialized applications.
Trick here is using special electrons multiplication circuit.
One photon is converted to one electron but then this electron is casing emission of several more electrons in this electrons multiplication circuit. This is different process then analog amplification. Kind of nuclear reaction but using electrons. And multiplication coefficient could be adjusted.
I remember I've seen some patent for that somewhere some time ago.

Click to expand...

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

Here is the D2X, where QE of 476% is claimed... I will let you make you own conclusions on the validity of the the data.

When you say same WB, are you using a graycard or simply dialing the same K and tint in post? Because different bodies have different WB settings.

A custom profile will help you, as others have mentioned already. But there's no guarantee that they will look exactly the same. I use ColorChecker Passport for all my cameras but there's a difference in rendering anyway. My 1Ds3 will not render the same as my 6D for example - both profiled. Mainly because of different CFA's and the fact that the 1Ds3 is more balanced in all channels.

Do you have any examples to share?

I'd be looking at a D750 and some of Nikon's 1.8G primes.

When you look at the TDP site, it seems that all TCs degrade the image. But, Bryan moves the camera further away from the chart to produce the same size image when a TC is attached. What I want to know is what the images are like from the same distance and does the gain in focal length more than compensate for the degradation of image with the lenses and TCs I use. Inspired by my recent purchase of a Kenco Teleplus 300 Pro DG 3xTC and a bright sunny day (the clouds having cleared after the eclipse), I compared the 100-400mm II and 300mm f/2.8 II bare and with Canon 1.4 and 2xTCs and the Kenco on the 7DII. The target was an iso12233 chart 24m away. Focussing was done automatically in liveview. Here is a collage of the centre ring, which is only 12.3 mm across. The unsharpened images are on the left.

At 400mm, only the two broadest of the fine semicircular lines can be resolved. Resolution gradually increases until a focal length of 1800mm is reached by stacking the Canon 2xTC III with the Kenco 3x on the 300/2.8. The stacked TCs at f/17 just about resolve all the lines.

I resized all images to the size produced by the 300/2.8 x 2 combo, on the right. The downsampled image from stacked TCs is the best.

I used to live right on Yonge Street in Richmond Hill. I never thought of it as a exceptionally long street.
In fact, its length is only a myth.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/myth-yonge-street-being-world-longest-road-lives-20110414-124435-380.html

All the super-fast lenses are only that fast in the very center of the image. If you go just slightly to the corners wide open you realize that a 1.4 rated lens for example is mostly a 2.8 lens or so, except in the very center as I've said... All due to heavy vignetting. I'd give a thousand bucks more if the FF corners of modern super-fast lenses would be a bit brighter.

I do landscape-astrophotography. When you brighten up darker corners, you also raise the image-noise in that area to a certain degree. Or you can stop down a super fast lens to f2 or f2.8 to even out the incoming light and reduce vignetting, but then f2 and beyond isn't really "fast" to me anymore.

For portraits, this doesn't matter as some people like the effect of "framing" the subject and the fact that you are not shooting in the dark using high ISO. At daytime, vignetting is absolutely no problem because when you want to correct it, it doesn't affect the IQ at all and you won't notice it.

Other thing what's important to me is coma. That's also something you won't notice at daytime. But in the dark this can be very annoying esp. if you have city lights or stars in your frame. Still, most modern primes don't have appropriate coma correction like the EF 35 IS USM for example.

So, I wish, at least in the L-series, that Canon is giving me as good coma correction wide open as the Samyang lenses and a little less vignetting.

lintoni said:

BeenThere said:

ahsanford said:

As you can see, the lenses are very, very close from a resolution perspective, which is a high compliment for the Tamron. ......



But this Tamron may be awesome for your needs. Congrats if this is the one you've been looking for -- other than coma, this lens looks impressive.

- A

Click to expand...

I would have to say that from the lens tip test, coma looked pretty good to me.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm wondering if ahsanford has confused the recent Lenstip review of the Sigma 24 Art, which does have disappointing coma, with the review of the Tamron zoom? :

Click to expand...

Myyyyy bad. I absolutely did mix up the Tamron and the Sigma 24. Apologies!

(The resolution data I reported was correct, however.)

- A

Just a thought: The USM focusing motor whines at 30 kHz while Lions have an extraordinary ability to hear sounds that come from many different frequencies. They can detect frequencies that range from 55 Hz up to 79 kHz.. It might have been the ultrasound that attracted the lionesse's curiosity.

I've noticed some dogs get jumpy when I try to take their picture at a close range.
This in fact gave me the idea.

I'm liking the dog photo even more.
The intensity of the stare, whatever is being looked at, it's like tunnel vision, really focused.
As I'm looking at the photo, obviously from camera/photographer's view, I really want to 'snick', finger pop, whistle, call the dog or something, see it's ears perk up as it's head snaps right. I almost expect to see this action from this still.
So, there's not only curiosity about what the dog is watching, there's anticipation of the very next instant. And this is no way trying to say that I think the dog should be looking at the camera in this photo, dog's pose speaks (barks?) eloquently candid as is.
---
Newbie's lenses; got a 35, 40 or 50? If so, mount it up, see how long you can work with just that, you'll learn lots.
Often you'll not be able to get 'enough' of a scene in the viewfinder, you'll have to decide on the spot what's most important to include, what parts are forgettable. Not to mention the zoom with your feet thing which includes sideways, up and down as much as fore and aft.

Just received my M2 two days ago, and my Sigma 30mm is focusing perfectly fine on it. So I guess it is indeed DPAF affecting its performance on the 70D.

Another take on the coma of the lens:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/sigma-24mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-a-review/4

At the other end of the light-level scale, anyone interested in shooting star fields or cityscapes at night will be pleased to hear that coma is very low indeed, meaning that point light sources in the corner of the frame don’t distort excessively in shape, even when shooting wide open.

Click to expand...

But the samples look pretty much the same between this and the lenstip sites.

next month will be very interesting...

leGreve said:

Eldar said:

Leaked from Zeiss says 24/1.4 (but you never know until you know )

Click to expand...

Is this based off that comment from the zeiss engineer who it "sitting on his desk".
Or is there a new rumor?

The 24 would be their wisest choice. I can understand why they would out out an 85 for the portrait people, but above that I would have no sympathy for their choice.

Click to expand...

I´m enjoying the Otus 85 just as much as the Otus 55. A phenomenal lens, provided the focal length is within your area of interest. It clearly is within mine. The only Otuses I am missing now are a 24/1.4 and a 35/1.4. The Distagon 15mm/2.8 and the Apo Sonnar 135/2.0 are so good I don´t see the point in upgrading those (I actually don´t believe they can be made much better).

The 24/1.4 rumour is from Zeiss. I did not read it at Fred Miranda first (if that is where you saw it), but I don´t remember specifically who leaked it. Considering the available lenses out there, that would be the natural choice (if I had anything to say about it). And I believe it´s a focal length people would be willing to pay the premium price for, if it is as good as the others.

Memdroid said:

Ruined said:

I've had both and I can say this:

If you are frequently shooting moving subjects (i.e. people) in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L II over the F/4L IS - or even better the 24mm f/1.4L II if you are able to use a prime as f/1.4 will bring in a ton more light than f/2.8. If you think about it, it is very challenging to capture groups of moving people wider than 24mm without severe distortion approaching the edges; even 24mm has some noticeable distortion at the edges, though you can crop a bit of the pic out if that happens. That edge distortion looks great with landscape but poor with people. Cool people/portrait shots w/o distortion are possible at 16mm but it generally requires a carefully setup shot with the subject posing near the center of the frame.

If you are frequently shooting still subjects in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/4L IS.

That decision tree should guide you pretty well. For wide angle, personally I now use a 24L (wide event) + 16-35 f/4L (landscape) combo which I am very happy with. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 II in the range which I can use if I want an f/2.8 zoom that can hit 24mm, but I love the extra light the 24mm f/1.4 II gives me to stop motion in dim light.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ruined and the rest.
I have the 24-70 II and the 24L II in my bag as well, and I mix and match all the time, depending on the venue and the subjects I shoot. The range is pretty covered but sometimes I just got go a little wider. I have acquired a loan 16-35 F4 just now from CPS (delivered in 1 day! thanks Canon!) and I am going to use it tonight on an event and see how it works for me. I like the build, just like the 24-70 II, which is already a plus!

@Mackguyver. No I rarely bump the ISO that high.

Click to expand...

Okay, I didn't think so, but I used to shoot a lot of outdoor events at night and I would often be at ISO1600+ & f/1.4 just to get 1/30s so the 16-35 and 24-70 f/2.8s were no good for me. I think you'll like the 16-35 f/4 IS - and that is a fast loan from CPS! It should be a great compliment to your other lenses and unless you're shooting sports, I imagine you'll get 1/60 - 1/100s at f/4 at an acceptable ISO with those camera bodies.

I always use lens hood with my 100-400 II. It looks like protective filter may slightly affect sharpness so, in some circumstances, I will remove protective filter.

...and another review:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-review-27176

EDIT: For comparisons, here are the comparable reviews from them:

EF 16-35 f/4 IS

Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 Di VC

Nikon AF-S 14-24 f/2.8 ED

Ahaha! I've got a couple of those, they could market them to Physicists as Particle/Wave Duality Capturing equipment; there's no way of knowing where those photos are landing until you observe their distribution after the affect...

Light_Pilgrim said:

What does it mean, a soft shutter sound? Is it more like Nikon or Leica, a beautiful melody...or it is more like 5D MKII?

Click to expand...

take a look at this hands on video to get an idea of the soft shutter and delay shutter mode on this camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjUnDb-dbw

Dylan777 said:

On a7s, Press then Hold will give magnify view on LCD.

Not sure if same for a7r.

Click to expand...

I think there are subtle differences between the A7s and A7R plus a sony lens versus a canon lens attached via a MetaBones adapter?

Well, the lens is totally new. Deliveries have not yet started in sufficient quantities...
You'll have to wait a dew months.
I would NOT buy the old 400-DO-I, the v II is said to improve IQ greatly, especially the bokeh. Also, it should work much better with canons v.III extenders.

So, wait just A LITTLE. Prices are rather stable on the big whites, - the price on 400-i is 5800 and 400-ii is listed as 6500, so when the lens is in stock, i see no point in waiting too long, my expectation would be prices won't go down as quickly as with the smaller lenses - but i might be wrong.

Harv said:

Watch for your feet and your shadow in the shot. ;D Been there, done that.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Make sure that all your frame has interesting subjects (foregroud and background) since most of the image will be in focus due to wide angle DOF. Considering/calculating the hyperfocal distance with wide angle lenses is lot more important than with telephotos.

I'm less likely to use a polariser or grad ND <24mm. I'm not saying that it's rare that I use them, but I'm a lot less likely to - so that is not a deal breaker by itself for me when considering a UWA for landscapes, but it is a major consideration.

Khufu said:

Are they your own product shots, Mt Spokane? I like the use of that soft, white material, regardless; works great with the light and adds a nice, fuzzy touch!

Click to expand...

Yes, I use white velvet (or other colors) for a backdrop. It does not reflect like a lot of fabric. I've sold all of my 50mm lenses, I've dropped my lens count to about 9 from a lot more.

Re: Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art & 150-600 Contemporary Lens Due to Ship in March

It's true. My Sigma 24 Art preorder is shipping today.

A question for Neuro or another imaging expert: would moire ever be a problem with the repeating patterns in avian feathers? I understand that it is rare in most natural scenes due to the general absence of repetition, but feather structure seems like a potential problem.

I am toying with the idea of the 5DS R mostly for landscape b/c I make very large prints on occasion (and could be inspired to do more). I can achieve very high resolutions with panos, but that technique is limiting for moving subjects (waves, leaves, even clouds etc) and results in a lot of post capture fiddling around (not my strength). However, I could see this body being helpful for more pixels on small subjects (birds) when the light is good and lower ISOs achievable. A dual utility would help me pull the trigger.

Thoughts? (Thanks)