Rienzphotoz said:

For a bit of fun hands-on review
Canon EOS 1200D (Rebel T5) Hands-on Review

Click to expand...

I'm fond of these guys... I really enjoy their crappy camera series.

Thanks, but I'll keep using my real microscope…

Folks, can I use all the features of the GPS device when connecting it to the EOS M via USB cable?
I would like to do so because I want to mount a Flash as well.

Carying a Flash and the GP-E2 might look wiered but the M is my only EOS with GPS support.

mandiwmarie said:

thanks for the info. I'm only working with a canon rebel - have for five years now. I have a full frame coming on Friday, finally decided to upgrade to the 6d. So on top of strobe lighting to learn, I will get to learn a new camera too. This next one was taken with my canon rebel - 50mm 1.8 (ISO 200, F3.5 and shutter 1/200) All in all the color is flat but it looks "natural" lighting wise and that is what I'm going for. I will just keep playing around until I get the look I like. I used both bee's and both softboxes with this one.

Click to expand...

First step would be to stop down to at least f8, probably f11 or so would be better. Keep iso at 100 and you can easily keep shutter speed a bit lower such as 1/50-1/100th to be certain there is no chance of black bars in the photo.

The important thing to realise with strobe photography is that only the aperture and the iso will affect how much light is on the subject, shutter speed will only make a difference if there is ambient light to consider which you probably won't have much of in a studio. Since you are using mains powered strobes there is really no reason to go above the best performing ISO which for canons is either 100 or 160 depening on model. Aim for a small aperture as you want them sharp. If your backdrop is wrinkly stand them further away and put a light on it as much as possibly from a perpendicular angle as it "smooths" out the creases. Having them stood away from the backdrop will also mean that you don't get their shadows on it.

As more of a general tip, the photo you posted makes my eyes really confused as you have the leaning kid, the leaning stripes from the floor and a large straight watermark. Having photos at a slant very rarely makes them better.

RunAndGun said:

I've never used the C100, but most that have them seem to love them and there's no doubt that the image it makes is very good. Personally, the ergonomics of the Cx00 series don't fit my shooting style, but others LOVE them and if you're one of those that do like it, you can probably do great things with it.

Click to expand...

If low light performance is really good, I'll probably go with the XF200. The C100 low light is supposedly incredibly good, better than my 5DIII, so that is really tempting for me.

Ultimately, I think the best filming package for me would be both the XF200 and the C100, but I really want to keep my 5DIII, not just for stills, but I like the video from it as well and many times I am glad to have both in one package. Don't think I can swing keeping all three right now.

Good to see another vote for beta shell cases - best lens cases I have ever used.

they traded a little overall sharpness for improved micro-contrast
the test-bench result here looks pretty good.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30

smooth bokeh also a goal for Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 Art lens

See about 2/3 the way down in this dpreview interview, or just search for "onion"

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/02/sigma-qa-part-i-ceo-kazuto-yamaki-explains-why-so-few-pentax-mount-lenses

I hope this makes Zeiss blush.

johnf3f said:

AlanF said:

Carl
What do you think of the 400 DO outresolving a 600 f/4 L?
Alan

Click to expand...

I have been searching for the images I took to illustrate my post but I have to admit I can't find them - sorry! They may be on my old PC (which I still have) so I will see if they are on there.
Basically I fancied one (but couldn't afford it!) so I tried out the 2 at my local camera shop. As a comparison I then mounted my Canon 600 F4L IS and took pictures of the same subject (a BMW 3 Series) from the same place. The difference was that we could see that the lacquer on the rear of the car had crazed slightly with the DO lenses we weren't easily able to pick this up with the 600.
As I said I will have another look for the images.
The 400 DO is certainly a very controversial lens - but the ones I have tried have impressed me though less so with extenders.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the use case for the 400 DO is the bare lens. If you plan on only using it with extenders, you won't be getting the most out of it. That's true with all lenses, but especially with one that is not quite up to the "series 2" sharpness. Even though I've yet to try one, I do feel the 400 DO is not deserving of the bad reputation...however I think I read somewhere that the earlier samples from a decade ago or so, may have had some production inconsistencies. That alone could have contributed to a lot of the negative buzz on this lens, and has endured. It was first introduced in 2000. So most guys who are ready to blow a lot of cash on a supertele, want "the latest and greatest"...and anything that isn't, is sub-par to them. It's a similar snobbishness that third party lenses usually get. But I was surprised at how poor the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 looks in Bryan's tests, even compared to the "less than perfect" 400 DO. Yet the images I've seen from it online, look pretty sharp with decent contrast. I guess it just means the better lenses would be that much better doing the same shot.

photonius said:

Don Haines said:

Here is what the same scene from each image looks like when enlarged to the same size.... SX-50, Tamron 150-600, and Tamron 150-600 and 1.4X teleconverter.

In this case, it seems like the Tamron with the teleconverter resolves the most detail, the bare Tamron is second, and the SX-50 comes in last.... but when you consider I paid $300 for the SX-50 on sale and it fits into a coat pocket, it is a surprisingly good performance for such a camera.

Click to expand...

Nice comparison. I've always been wondering about such comparisons, even just to a Canon 100-400 (before the Tamron came along).
An important aspect - or problem - of the bridge cameras is the small sensor and the aperture (usually 5.6 or even less) at the long end. It means that diffraction is already well into affecting image quality no matter how good the bridge lens is. Rough calculations suggest that at f6.3 or so, a resolution limit of ~ 2Mp is obtained for this sensor size. Thus a bridge camera is not as effective as the equivalent focal length would suggest.

Click to expand...

uuuh, so more reasoning towards my (obviously G.A.S. driven) wanting a 150-600, grrreat , keep it comming

btw, since extenders work on the Tamron (well, the 1.4x obviously does), out of curiosity, did anybody try to push it with the 2x?

Grant, you and your site are ones to envy and admire. Your work is fabulous and your tips/reviews are most helpful and informative. Thank you.

Make sure you splurge for the Videomic pro (the smaller one) - it will be ten times better than the regular videomic for video, mostly due to that +20dB gain setting.

Re: New Versatile CINE-SERVO Zoom Lens from Canon Provides High-Optical Performance and Operation fo

I'm going to save up to rent one for a day ... then live a life of longing for many years

Rienzphotoz said:

The optics of FE 24-70 f/4 are very much from ZEISS made by ZEISS, including the anti-reflective coating ... its just that the lens isn't all that good for the money they are charging, because of which some people speculate that ZEISS "only provide QC to Sony".

Click to expand...

It's a bit more than a speculation.

I did some research, and Zeiss/Sony lenses are indeed designed by Zeiss, but in close collaboration with Sony, which is then the sole responsible for production and distribution. This means that Zeiss engineers are restricted to what Sony is able or willing to produce.

In fact it's not a contradiction that Zeiss will announce some manual focus primes for the FE mount. Those will be 100% Zeiss lenses like the ZE or ZF primes.

Overnight the refurbished 70-200 2.8 ll from Canon increased in price $400.
I can't but wonder the cost vs profit range for lenses. When the price was reduced I presume Canon still made a profit.

Makes sense I assumed # AF points would've been software based not hardware based. Poor assumption on my part.

Rienzphotoz said:

CarlTN said:

I'm not sure I could work under those conditions!

Click to expand...

What does that mean? ;D ;D ;D

Click to expand...

Haha, let's just leave that to the imagination!

Lightmaster said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/a_redux_critique_of_contemporary_camera_design.shtml

quite a bit about the EOS-M too.

Another interesting analysis that can be gleaned from the EOS M is the problematic decision to put a 4+ year old sensor in a brand new camera. Below is a side by side screenshot from DxO Mark comparing the EOS M/7D sensor to the Fuji X100 sensor. Personally, I think their findings are spot on. For the attributes they are testing, the X100 has a better sensor. However, I routinely get comparable to better results from the EOS M, than I got from the X100, despite the advantages of the X100’s imaging chip. I don’t know all the reasons for it, but it isn’t that difficult to speculate about some of them: First, there’s a 50% advantage for the EOS M in pixel count--18MP, as opposed to 12, and it even has a slight advantage in pixel count to the X100s, 18 to 16. The EOS M has a much more robust A/D processor, which among other things likely accounts for why the high ISO performance is a bit better on the EOS M. (Class leading high ISO performance has always been a Canon trademark.) But, I think the biggest difference is that you can remove the quite good, but hardly world class, EOS M lens, and use other lenses with the camera, which are world class. You can see the difference in a heartbeat, as you import the RAW files into Lightroom before you even touch them in post. It’s easy to spot the files shot with a Zeiss T* ZM lens, as opposed to the Canon lens.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

He calls this a "problematic" decision and then goes on to say how, regardless, the images are better. At least he could have bitched about it a bit before moving on to the kudos

This is probably a good article to read for someone contemplating the mirrorless route. However, I have a comment or two to make about the writing style. Having spent most of my working life reading and writing scientific journal articles and reviews I find articles like this, that ramble on without defining a direction, distracting. The succinct summary of his previous article in the beginning was promising, but then it lost organization. It is one thing to journal your thoughts as they come. But I feel it is important to organize the content when writing an essay, if only for the sake of the reader.

Thanks for sharing though, Lightmaster!

KKCFamilyman said:

Exciting i have been an digital imaging tech for canon for over 15 years and look forward to having my equipment locally serviced. There is a Sigma service center near there also. Yeah. That facility is nice. I get to play with all the high end printing equipment while my gear gets serviced

Click to expand...

I looked up the location of that Sigma service center in Elk Grove Village, and it appears to be around the corner from a Canon service center where I had a warranty repair on my PowerShot S5 IS several years ago. It was nice to be able to drop off my camera in-person. It looks like the place that handles Sigma repairs also does some sort of Canon repairs now. Maybe they took over for the Canon center I went to.

The new Itasca center is only 30 mins away from me. CPS membership is more appealing now.

Hi Jrnation,
This is what I was trying to convey in my post about the lowepro bags, they don't have wheels, they attach to your wheeled bag.

Cheers Graham.

Halfrack said:

Easy answer - the Think Tank Urban Disguise has a sleeve that the handle on your Airport International will slide right through, so rolling it around as a unit is fine.

http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/urban-disguise-50-v2.aspx

Lots of other bags have the option - just about anything that fits a 15.4" laptop will fit under the seat in front of you.

Click to expand...

Hi Folks.
++1
Or nice and concise, enquiring minds need to know!
Appreciating things for what they are when really they are not is an exercise in futility!

Cheers Graham.

AmbientLight said:

privatebydesign said:

Roo said:

Sometimes we waste too much time over analyzing everything rather than just appreciating things for what they are...

Click to expand...

That depends, if you are an artist type then sure, just look at things as they are and interpret them as you will. If you are an engineer type then it is far more fun working out how things are done. If you are a dillusional type then arguing black is white in the face of far more experienced doubters seems fun. If you are a pro photographer knowing what can, and can't, be shot easily, or created in post with better results, is a professional necessity.

It isn't that I believe my opinion is important, it is that I believe the truth is, particularly when the truth is being denied.

Click to expand...

Bravo! I can only applaud your ethics in this, because finding out how something has been done is important for many of us on this forum. It is only sensible to point out how things can get done effectively to achieve the wanted results.

Click to expand...

The only half-way funny photographic April Fools I've seen is on the sigma-rumors.com site.

I have only tested it, not actually used it, it worked fine, just follow the manual for setting it up.

That is clearly stated with helpful pictures.

AdamF said:

I would like to use a 52mm graduated neutral density filter with the 300mm lens and I was talking to a guy at B&H and he said by using a graduated neutral density filter in the filter holder, I wouldn't get the same results as if I were using it on a lens that has screw in threads on the front of the lens. Do you think this is true ?

Click to expand...

I haven't used one (I do have the drop-in CPL, however), but I think he was probably saying this because you can't adjust it once it's inside the lens. Unlike the drop-in CPL that has a brilliant thumbwheel, the holder is just that - you insert the cut gelatin filter then insert it into the lens. You won't be able to rotate it once it goes in nor can you raise or lower it to adjust the horizon level. The line will be in the center and you won't be able to adjust it unless you take it out and rotate it and then put it back in the lens. Additionally unlike the Drop-In Filter Holder for 52mm Screw-In Filters, the gelatin has to be cut in an octagonal shape which will limit the number of ways your can rotate it. I'm not even sure if you can buy graduated ND gelatin, so I think you'd have to buy the screw in holder and a thin 52mm ND grad to go with it.

Unless you have a very specific purpose, it's a costly way to limit yourself to shooting with a dead center horizon. The filter holder is best suited to a plain ND (i.e. not graduated) filters to slow shutter speeds to achieve blurs or shoot wide open in extremely bright conditions. Art Morris does this with a 3-stop ND using that drop in holder to create his blurs.

If you want to do it with the plain ND gelatin, I'd recommend the good stuff - Kodak Wratten Gelatin. It's expensive but it's the best