Posts

gwflauto · Jan 30, 2014

I just read this statement from yesterday:
Smartphones and tablet computers are adding sophisticated lenses and sensors, eroding demand for Canon’s PowerShot compact models and EOS high-end sets and leading to the first annual drop in shipments of single lens reflex models. Canon expects to sell 7.6 million single-lens reflex cameras in 2014, which is 50,000 fewer than last year, while sales of compact models are forecast to drop 20 percent to 10.5 million units, the company said.
The upper end camera market seems to be affected too. We don't know, what the balance sheets of other makers will show.

Chuck Alaimo · Jan 30, 2014

StudentOfLight said:
dilbert said:

Chuck Alaimo said:

If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens? I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.

"A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8..."

what about the 14mmm prime???? Wider than the 16-35, less distortion, better IQ than the 8-15mm...it's a lens on my list to check out for sure!!!!

Click to expand...

Landscape portraiture?

*shakes head*

The amount of single mindedness about lenses and roles in these forums is deeply disturbing.

Or rather it probably reflects how little photography people do...

Click to expand...

I believe a better description from Chuck would have been "environmental portraits", where the environment adds context to the image. (e.g. Model reading a book under a large tree.) If the scale of the environment adds context to an image why not shoot with a wide angle lens from a reasonable distance.

TY...yeah, that is a better way of saying it. Just saying really that there are lots of ways to use an ultra wide. They aren't easy to use due to distortion, but when you nail the right angle, they can be quite awesome!

mkabi · Jan 30, 2014

Anybody watch the Wolf of Wallstreet?
Can anyone tell me what camera was used when they slow-moed the part where Jonah Hill was going to go off after the quaylude took effect during pool party. Just before he starts to jerk off in front of the blonde.

Epic movie by the way.

mackguyver · Jan 30, 2014

Nothing to add that hasn't already been said, but wanted to say that third shot in particular is excellent!

ronaldbyram · Jan 30, 2014

Hi Canonites!
I have the Canon 70D since it was released last sept 2013. I have enjoyed it greatly and have put approx 8,500 on the camera to date. But over the last month or so I have started to notice a issue in the SD card slot where there appears to be a slight obstruction (metal housing sticking out more sometimes not allowing you to insert the SD card properly. I have the Canon warranty plus extended one from Big box store. Just wondering anyone else having a issue or notice the metal in the slot?? ANY OTHER NOTED PROBLEMS WITH THE 70d i NEED TO LOOK FOR? Ive called canon and no reported issues from engineering.

mackguyver · Jan 30, 2014

This thread is cracking me up! I didn't meant to start it off with such a paranoid post, but I love where it's gone. I'm LMFAO about the last couple of posts!

awinphoto · Jan 30, 2014

privatebydesign said:
awinphoto said:

jhpeterson said:

I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)

That and stopping down to maybe f:5.6 or 8 should do the trick. You don't want to go so slow that the girls' movement spoils the shot.

Click to expand...

good advice, plus, the ol' rule of thumb (although disputed by many), 1/3 of the focal plane in front and 2/3 of the focal plane will be in focus, depending on what aperture you use, so you have the better chance of of the back subject falling in focus than the front one jumping in focus.

Click to expand...

Along with Neuro's answer I'd add this very helpful site link. Take a look at the tables in the "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD" section and don't forget that, generally, lens focal length gets shorter as you focus closer, no disputes, just physics.

And when all else fails, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. DOF and parameters vary based on the focal length of the lens, aperture, and focal distance... Some combinations are narrower as neuro suggests, however other combinations are quite in the favor of 1/3 in front 2/3 in back... the common characteristic is however no matter how narrow the front/back focus is, there typically is more latitude in the back focus than front focus of the acceptable focus range.

slclick · Jan 30, 2014

Marsu42 said:
Canon Rumors said:

... with the new macro lens in 2014 ...

Click to expand...

I didn't hear that before - is that a [CR0] or even more substantiated? My opinion: 180L-IS! 180L-IS! 180L-IS! ...

I'd love to see another >1x lens, possibly a 1x-3x MP-E 90

Northstar · Jan 30, 2014

Erik...

You are improving! Really nice job on some of these. I especially like some of the black and white close ups, like the two guys laying on the ground with the on guy obviously "sucking air" and showing his exhaustion.

I might have to try some MMa myself! It looks fun to shoot. (Except for the cage being in the way)

Hannes · Jan 30, 2014

If your wrist is hurting, I suspect it has more to do with technique than anything else. I found exactly this every time I moved up a camera size starting with a rebel ending with a 1D. What I did was generally to hold the camera in the right hand and that hand took most of the weight. When I stepped up to a 40D with the same mid sized crop lens it was still fine doing that but when I got my 24-105 it didn't work any longer. Getting the 70-200 f2.8 on the 40D was the same thing, my wrist would feel like it was snapping until I started taking much of the weight on the lens collar with my left hand. Holding it with the left hand the joint is built for force in that direction and it won't hurt. Finally finishing with the 1D with a big lens attached I would have done lasting damage if I hadn't changed my holding technique. Every step of moving up camera/lens combination I've had to adjust my technique to the point where my right hand now only gently holds on to the body to stabilise it.

tazdog · Jan 29, 2014

Great every thing is working!!!

Thanks Again!!

jrista · Jan 29, 2014

sjprg said:
Jurist; With the aperture closer to the lens while the angle is the same, the area of the dispersal is much smaller which may allow better lens corrections in the first lens behind it. Just a thought.

If this is a response to me, it is jrista - Jon Rista

As for corrections, you might be able to correct aberrations, but there is nothing you can do to correct diffraction. Diffraction is intrinsic to electromagnetic energy, it's part of the energy field itself. It doesn't matter how close the diaphragm is to the lens, diffraction is uncorrectable. (If it WAS correctable, someone would have figured out how a LONG time ago...at the very least as a solution to better subwavelength etching at lower frequencies than the EUV we use now (which is more difficult to generate.))

candc · Jan 29, 2014

The 18-35 is incredible, it is the sharpest zoom lens you can get for a crop body and it's f/1.8! It also works on ff at 35mm with vignetting but its easily fixed in post, the corners are dark but the image is there. I think around 28mm the corners go black. So you have the sharpest normal zoom for aps-c with the widest aperture and a good 35mm ff lens as a bonus.

Jan 29, 2014

scottkinfw said:
Ouch! (and I'm a plastic surgeon).

Better hope potential bride/customers don't google you and come up with this.

sek

ajfotofilmagem said:

Please hide this video of all the ugly women in the world. ??? Have you ever wondered all fat and old brides , with wrinkles and mottled skin , requiring the video of your wedding with this "miracle software " processing video in real time. If such software existed, the use license would cost millions of dollars per year. :-X A computer to run this software would have imagined at least:
128 gigabyte of RAM DDR6 (quad chanel) FSB 2333 .
4 different processors (OCTO CORE each) CLOKC with 9.3 GHz .
2 grafic cards with 512 bit, 1024 treads, and 32 giga of dedicated grafics memory DDR7 each.

Hear all the ugly women: :-*
This software does not exist , and when there , will cost much more expensive than all plastic surgery and aesthetic treatments that money can buy. Do a favor for themselves : Prefer plastic surgery , with a video of this because you would not be recognized by their husbands , they would get a divorce immediately watch the video . :'(

I'm serious . Do not ask me to make these imaginary corrections to your videos , I command you put the video on ...

Click to expand...

Haha, don't worry. Nobody I know would be happy replacing PS with video/image editing. A few dozen thousand is a cheap price to pay for permanent (with touchups) changes. It's a whole different feeling to go out the door and get the compliments than it is to have someone say your picture online looks good. PS are just as important as any other kind of doctors, in your own way, you people save lives too!

Mt Spokane Photography · Jan 29, 2014

I have been using a 3880. I use Cone inks in it, and this makes the cost of ink a much smaller issue, since it costs 1/4 of Epson's price. I see a local has a 4880 that he is selling for $325. Its been sitting for a year, probably more, so it might be a project to get started up, but it has a roll feed, which is a feature sadly missing from the 3880.

crazyrunner33 · Jan 29, 2014

That's easy, the 5D Mark III offers better image quality in video mode than the 6D with a VAF. The 6D downsamples the sensor using lineskipping and takes it down below 1080p, then scales it back up. The 5D will also produce better results and perform better in low light due to the pixel binning. The 5D Mark III can also record full 1080p RAW with Magic Lantern, the 6D is only capable of capturing around 720p.

For stills I feel that the 6D is the way to go, it has a great sensor that can outperform the one in the 5D.

Personally I would only consider a Canon camera for video if you plan on using the RAW feature with Magic Lantern, otherwise there are much better options out there. RAW with Magic Lantern isn't video, it creates RAW photograph stills at the desired framerate. H.264 on the other hand feels like standard definition, even when comparing the two on Youtube after the edit.

Rogerdodge · Jan 29, 2014

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=0&Lens=745&Units=E
This is an excellent resource with loads of data that you probably can't find elsewhere.

HTH

Roger

surapon · Jan 29, 2014

canon23 said:
Hi All,

I'm looking for continuous video lighting for my still photography. I do weddings & events and have always used on-camera flash. I'm venturing into using video lighting as an off-camera light source.

Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!!

My budget is $250.

I shoot Canon 5D Mark II & III

Thanks again!!

Dear Friend, Canon 23

Here is the link that I use the LED light panels

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17848.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19010.0

Enjoy.
Surapon

http://www.amazon.com/NEEWER%C2%AE-Dimmable-Digital-Camcorder-Panasonic/dp/B004TJ6JH6

TheJock · Jan 29, 2014

ajfotofilmagem said:
If you can not afford 5D mark iii, currently 70D is the best choice. However, if you really need to shoot at ISO 6400, it is recommended to save a little more, and in the future buy 5D mark iii, or maybe 5D mark iv.

Thank you

I intend on keeping a crop body for sports and the like, maybe I'll buy a 5DIII one day, but at this moment a crop suits my style and budget better, I just wanted to know if I was making the right choice of body considering the rave reviews of the 7D, but the 70D looks like the one for me 8)

Jan 29, 2014

slclick said:
The 85 1.8 price is 389 not 319

That's because the deal has ended...it was $319. With things like this, you need to act fast!

Eldar · Jan 29, 2014

I found this add today for a lens you don´t see every day:
(It´s in rather poor Norwegian, but the seller seem to be English)

http://www.finn.no/finn/torget/annonse?finnkode=46412958&searchQuery=canon

For anyone with an interest:

Here is the official line on the lens.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm

Focal length: 150-600mm
Aperture ratio: 1:5.6
Lens Construction: 15 groups with 19 elements
(including 8 UD glass elements)
Coating: S.S.C. (super spectra coating)
Angles of view: Diagonal: 16 20' - 4 10' Vertical: 9 10'ñ2 20'
Horizontal: 18 40' - 3 30'
Distance scale: (m) 3 (Magnification 0.07 x at 150mm. 0.26x at 600mm) to 100.OO (ft);
Focusing mechanism: Rotation of knob
Zooming: Sliding of knob, mechanical compensation system
Minimum aperture: f/32. A
Diaphragm: Automatic
Filter type: Rear section biterholder, drop in type (with 34 mm exclusive filter Regular 1X)
Hood: Built-in type
Cap: Exclusive (CF2-0716)
Function: Auto Aperture, Full aperture metering (AE operation when used with ALL Canon automatic SLR cameras.
Length x max. diameter: 468mm x 128mm
Weight: 4,260g.

Dick · Jan 29, 2014

1.8k could be spent on some interesting lenses. I'd get the L fisheye just for fun and maybe a 600ex-rt. Not sure if 1.8k is enough for those...

Dylan777 said:
I would buy a gift for my wife, so she wouldn't not give me hard time when I'm ready for 600mm f4 :

Does it really work that way for you? No matter what I buy for my wife, she will be pissed if I get another lens.

Sith Zombie · Jan 29, 2014

Could help out the video game industry, development costs are already out of control and will be going even higher with the xbox one and ps4. It costs tonnes of money to make a game nowadays and if a studio puts out a poor selling game or two, it's game over [pun intended].

Jan 28, 2014

jrista said:
With Lytro it does happen optically. There is actually a special optical array in front of the sensor. They do longer exposures, and over the duration of the exposure time, they are actually gathering information in "three" dimensions. A lytro image is not just a bunch of pixels in two dimensions, it actually contains more information that allow their software to do it's thing. It isn't just software trickery, it is a combination of optical ingenuity and software algorithms that achieve the ability to change DOF in post.

Lytro is a limited application of the concept, though. If you play with some of their examples, you'll find that there are a number of discrete options for DOF, it isn't really a continuum. Improvements on the technology could make it more effective, bring in enough information that you could indeed have more of a continuous three dimensional field that you can tweak in post. The raw data file sizes would become considerably larger, however as time continues to trudge on, processing speed and storage capacity is improving considerably (i.e. CFast 2). I don't think that the Lytro concept would ever become a mainstream, frequently used thing...it would be one of those more niche options for people who really need it.

And there are actually already some options to solve some of these problems. Not quite the way an infinite field lytro-style device does, but tilt/shift lenses can be used to great effect to control your focus. You can either constrain DOF, or expand it such that you could photograph a landscape scene at f/4 or even f/2.8 and have the entire depth of field in focus and at high resolving power. Again, though, this is a purely optical solution, and as such, you tend to pay more for it, especially if you need the capability at multiple focal lengths...so a lytro-type solution could still offer something in a cheaper package.

jrista said:
flowers said:

jrista said:

You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns with sensor resolution if the lens is the limiting factor. Now, it doesn't matter how good the lens is...if you need to use f/8, you need to use f/8, and you'll never get more than 86lp/mm even with the best lens and the best sensor humanity is ever capable of producing. The only option at that point to achieve more resolution is to start taking more radical measures. Use f/4 and stack for focus. Maybe build a camera capable of always using a lens at it's fastest diffraction limited aperture, and use clever post-lens optics and software algorithms to produce whatever depth of field you need at the resolution of that maximum diffraction limited aperture. This is kind of where Lytro is pioneering something new. Their concept was consumerized, but it is possible they have the foundation of the future of ultra high resolution photography in their pockets (I don't know for sure, depends on exactly how their technology works and how applicable it is to different kinds of cameras.)

Click to expand...

Okay, I got it. That makes sense. I think there would be no shortage of optical problems if the camera had pixels the size of the longer end of the light they're collecting! And I don't even want to imagine the S/N ratio... I read about Lytro recently, it was fascinating! Maybe I'm being sentimental, but to me that would feel like "faking DOF"! The significance is huge, but it would feel so different if I had to use it in practice. Personally I prefer everything to happen optically that can happen optically!

Click to expand...

With Lytro it does happen optically. There is actually a special optical array in front of the sensor. They do longer exposures, and over the duration of the exposure time, they are actually gathering information in "three" dimensions. A lytro image is not just a bunch of pixels in two dimensions, it actually contains more information that allow their software to do it's thing. It isn't just software trickery, it is a combination of optical ingenuity and software algorithms that achieve the ability to change DOF in post.

Lytro is a limited application of the concept, though. If you play with some of their examples, you'll find that there are a number of discrete options for DOF, it isn't really a continuum. Improvements on the technology could make it more effective, bring in enough information that you could indeed have more of a continuous three dimensional field that you can tweak in post. The raw data file sizes would become considerably larger, however as time continues to trudge on, processing speed and storage capacity is improving considerably (i.e. CFast 2). I don't think that the Lytro concept would ever become a mainstream, frequently used thing...it would be one of those more niche options for people who really need it.

And there are actually already some options to solve some of these problems. Not quite the way an infinite field lytro-style device does, but tilt/shift lenses can be used to great effect to control your focus. You can either constrain DOF, or expand it such that you could photograph a landscape scene at f/4 or even f/2.8 and have the entire depth of field in focus and at high resolving power. Again, though, this is a purely optical solution, and as such, you tend to pay more for it, especially if you need the capability at multiple focal lengths...so a lytro-type solution could still offer something in a cheaper package.

I think it's just a novelty thing, at least until it's developed considerably more, and even then it might be more useful to scientists than photographers. I can't remember ever looking at a photo I've taken thinking "I wish I could go back and use a different aperture instead". If you didn't get it right the first time, you shouldn't even have the image so there's nothing to hope to change! Of course if it allowed t/s type manipulation as well, then it would be more interesting for photographers as well, no doubt. But you can buy a good t/s lens for $1500 or even $1000 (!), I don't know how much the Lytro costs but I don't think any dedicated camera would be competitive in comparison. A TS is more fun to use than some sliders anyway!

recaptureflyfishing · Jan 28, 2014

We would like to take this chance to reach out and tell everybody about our film project called "Recapture". Here is our Indiegogo campaign. It has a great video and there are some amazing perks for each donation level. Check it out and cause every dollar counts , big or small. We are filming all across North America starting in February. Fishing for some spectacular species with some amazing people and friends. It will be a full length feature and we are shooting for it to be on one of the fly fishing film tours for 2015. Please help support the film. Like us and share our facebook page under the same name.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/recapture-a-fly-fishing-film

Thanks in advance

btw shot with a bmmc and a 6d using various lens.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics