Posts

TrumpetPower! · Oct 23, 2012

I'm with anand on the highlights: not a problem.

I'd have liked just a wee bit more in focus on the first one, but you nailed it to the wall on the second -- perfect control of depth of field.

Cheers,

b&

jrista · Oct 23, 2012

TheSuede said:
You are seriously talking past each other now, and things are mixed up beyond belief.

Disregarding the real-world effects of a TC (increased reflection and absorption losses, decrease in sharpness due to optical imperfections) from now on through this entire post: Yes, of course a TC magnifies the diffraction circle by exactly the same amount as the rest of the image. But that is also the point; the object referred diffraction is already determined at the front of the optical system, by the entrance pupil (as long as we're within reasonably Gaussian systems, for microscopes and other applications with very high magnification you need to look at angular aperture in stead of numerical aperture). A teleconverter will magnify both this object referred diffraction and target detail, a wide-converter will decrease magnification on both diffraction and target detail. It varies the projected image magnification and not the angular object referred diffraction, which is what optically limits your target resolution.

jrista] You are misunderstanding what a TC does. A teleconverter is a magnifying glass. It simply enlarges what the original lens projects. It magnifies everything....including diffraction. You cannot add a TC to a lens an not increase the effects of diffraction said:

In astro (which is a purely Gaussian limited application with ordinary systems, with infinity focus targets) this is extremely important, since the angular resolution in front of the lens is determined by the entrance pupil. NOTHING you do behind that can make things better, in any way.

Click to expand...

Well, that would only be true if a sensor with larger pixels is the limiting factor in terms of spatial resolution. If, assuming an astro context, and diffraction is only 5.8 microns (the 173lp/mm spatial limit of an f/4 aperture), but your sensor uses 6.95 micron pixels (such as the 1D X)...switching to a sensor with 5.8 micron pixels (a hypothetical 26mp sensor...a change in something behind the diaphragm) would indeed improve the detail and quality of the RAW image actually produced by the camera. Would it not?

Let me ask. Do you believe adding a 2x TC to a 400mm f/4 lens (800mm f/8) is the same as using just the 400mm f/4 lens on a sensor with half the pixel pitch, in a general photographic frame of reference (vs. just the astrophotography frame of reference)? Or would you agree that using the 400mm f/4 lens with a sensor twice as dense will produce just as detailed output that encompasses a wider field of view (greater total area) than the TC setup?

In the former case, an 800mm f/8 lens on a FF sensor with say a 5.8 micron pixel pitch. Diffraction won't affect resolution enough to matter on that sensor, as the pixel is the same size as the airy disc.

In the latter case, a 400mm f/4 lens on a FF sensor with say a 2.9 micron pixel pitch. Again, diffraction won't affect resolution enough to matter on this sensor, as the pixel is the same size as the airy disc.

Assuming you use both setups to photograph a landscape of some kind...a small waterfall at some distance. Let's assume the entire waterfall fits on the FOV of the 400mm lens. Would you agree that the 800mm f/8 5.8um setup would capture only 1/4 of the total area of the waterfall? Would you agree that the 400mm f/4 2.9um setup would not only capture the entire waterfall, but that it would also capture the same 1/4 area as the 800mm setup in nearly the same detail?

My primary key point here is not so much that the 800mm f/8 setup is capable of reproducing that 1/4 area of the waterfall in high detail. I've never disputed that (I believe my post at #78 entirely agrees with you on that point, actually.) My point is that the 800mm f/8 5.8um setup is capable of reproducing only 1/4 the area of the waterfall, while the 400mm f/4 2.9um setup is capable of reproducing the ENTIRE waterfall, with roughly same amount of detail in that same 1/4 area, as well as roughly the same amount of detail in any other 1/4 area that you could crop from the original frame.

My second key point here is that no matter what you do with any number of TC's...the spatial resolution of the real image at the plane of focus (the sensor) is intrinsically limited by the spatial resolution of the sensor you are actually using. Saying that a TC added to a lens on an 18mp sensor suddenly gave you the same "resolution" as a 369mp sensor of the same dimensions is a fallacy.

(At least, in the frame of reference of sensors, who's resolutions are always measured in terms of spatial resolution. If you wish to move to a different frame of reference and use a different measure of resolution such as angular resolution, you need to make all of that very clear, and make sure you transform EVERYTHING, all numbers and units for all participating elements of the discussion, into the same frame of reference...I'm not really sure how you measure a sensor in terms of angular resolution. Additionally, it is the sensor that "sees" in a camera, not something external, not even the front lens element that is gathering the light...it is the sensor that sees and records an image. So it seems logical to me to remain in the original frame of reference: Spatial Resolution at the Sensor).

To keep things consistent, if the discussion continues. Can we use the following sensors, cameras, and lenses?

Sensor A with 5.8 micron pixels (25.6mp FF)
Sensor B with 2.9 micron pixels (102.7mp FF)

Lens A is 800mm f/8 (400mm f/4 lens with 2x TC)
Lens B is 400mm f/4

Camera A with Sensor A and Lens A
Camera B with Sensor B and Lens B

rpt · Oct 23, 2012

hammy said:
Bosman- i just bought the 85 1.2 L2 as well and i cant seem to get sharpness at 1.2. I can only get it sharp at 2.0. on my 1Dx.

Did you AFMA it yet? Set it on a stand and take a picture of some still object... Sorry, since you did not give any details of what you shot this is what I could think of.

Oct 23, 2012

Act444 said:
All other lenses focus fine, though. (I have had occasional issues with backfocus on the 17-55mm 2.8, but I don't have that lens any more) I recently tested the new 24-70 2.8 II lens on it and there was no problem...

AF issues like that are usually a combo of body and lens. FWIW, my 40/2.8 needs -1 AFMA on my 1D X.

Chris_prophotographic · Oct 23, 2012

i BACK DATED MY 7D WITH A LAST SECOND switch out of firmwares.

So I am assuming it should work with the 1 D X

danski0224 · Oct 23, 2012

So, if the 7D is capable of extrordinary resolution in perfect circumstances, does this also mean that the rumored high MP count FF camera(s) will also require perfect circumstances? Will cries of "soft" be heard when/if the rumored high MP camera hits store shelves in the near/not so near future?

Maybe the excellent high ISO performance of the 1DX is being "field tested" for the "1DXs"...

Menace · Oct 23, 2012

friedrice1212 said:
Thanks guys! One of my local stores offer 14-day satisfaction guarantee so, I will probably pull the trigger on the cheaper 85mm 1.8 first, then if I don't like it, get the sigma. Somehow, I'm pretty certain I'll like it though. Screw the bad reviews about CA. There are always more people saying bad things about things on the Internet than ones that say good things!

Go for it - you'll be very pleased with it. Also, 14 days satisfaction guarantee is a real bonus

distant.star · Oct 23, 2012

.
Thanks for the heads up.

B&H is my bellwether (and supplier of choice) so this gives me confidence that sometime before year's end, I'll see a $2800 price.

Waterdonkey · Oct 23, 2012

Same on 5D 3. Seems you can only change pictures in zoom after you press play.

Rat · Oct 23, 2012

Subevent said:
Well...I can always get the house only...but a grip is a must have!

There are a lot of third party grips, if you search around you can probably find a few threads here. I think the one in highest regard is the Pixel, less than 100 usd on eBay and reasonably sturdy. Although I wouldn't want to depend on the tripod mount screw, which is why I bought the original, expensive Canon :-\

dswatson83 · Oct 23, 2012

I would not go with the 6d. It just really lacks as a pro body. The 5D mark III will easily replace your 7D with almost as fast frame rate, better DR, better low light, FF, dual card slots, and better focusing. I don't think the 6D focusing system will serve you. There are some reviews of the 7D & 5D mk iii vs some nikon cameras as well as a preview of the 6D of why I don't think the camera will serve you best if you want to take a look: http://www.youtube.com/user/learningcameras

I'd go with the 5D mark III...wait for a deal to get it around $3000 though.

pierceography · Oct 23, 2012

rpt said:
pierceography said:

sandymandy said:

I wanna see a photo where somebody got like 20+ Filters on his lens And then everytime a new "which filter to use" thread pops up, we just show this photo with the kind words "as many as u can get!"

Click to expand...

Boom.

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Actually add a few more and you should be able to focus on the inside of the lens cap!

Or pull shadow details out of the surface of the sun. Long exposure, of course. ;-)

florianbieler.de · Oct 23, 2012

I owned the non-L before Its optical quality is L-equivalent, but it lacks the build quality, thats why I upgraded to L now. Didn't have time to take macros with the L, but here are some of my non-L macros on a 5D Mark III. They are downsized.

EYEONE · Oct 23, 2012

I think if you turn off Auto-Align it won't crop. That being said, I have no memory of where I heard that.

bbasiaga · Oct 23, 2012

The 24-105, IMO, is one of those lenses that gets a bad rep just because so much stuff is repeated second hand on the internet. The 'distortion' everyone talks about is there, but in most cases hardly noticeable and even then easily correctable with the excellent lens profiles availble in DPP and the Adobe products. 'Sharpness' is subjective, as what is sharp enough for one may not be for another. Pixel peepers are often disappointed with gear that others are making excellent large quality prints with, so I tend to consider that fact when discussing sharpness.

I 'upgraded' to the 24-105 recenty from a 28-70 F2.8. My old lens is in need of repair and I'm looking for a shop that still has parts. In the mean time, i did not want to pay the current prices for a 24-70 F2.8 because they were in high demand and expensive even used. The V II is way out of my range.

I thought at the time i would be 'settling' for the slower lens, but it only took about 5 minutes after I put it on the camera to ask myself how I lived without the 24-105 for so long! It is lighter and more versatile than the 2.8 lenses in the standard zoom range, and i find the IQ to be very similar. With the newer bodies having higher ISO performance, I hardly if ever miss the extra stop of light. Though, of course you can't recreate the F2.8 depth of field with an F4 lens at any ISO

.

In summary, the 24-105 is an excellent lens, particularly considering is versatility and weight.

-Brian

sandymandy · Oct 23, 2012

Yeah i figure i gotta wait til i get FF to actually make good use of the Samyang so probably ill just get the 35mm f2 even im not too positive about it.

AmbientLight · Oct 23, 2012

Considering the choice of bringing the 50mm f1.4 or not, perhaps it helps, if I list what gear I will bring for my next trip to Egypt:
1D-X, 5D Mark III
14mm f2.8
24mm f1.4
50mm f1.2
85mm f1.2

The only thing I would be missing with this setup is a tripod. It is a good thing to bring for night time shots outside of the usual temples and such, when you might want a rather small aperture. During my last visit to Egypt I managed to loan a tripod from a local photographer, so that helped me out, when I needed it.

AmbientLight · Oct 23, 2012

This is about rumoured DXO results, not about actual measurements and official results, isn't it?

I have no idea how DXO's actual results will look like nor am I likely to spend my time checking DXO's website daily for any updates in that direction. Perhaps someone else frequenting CanonRumors might do, given that there are so many eager to discuss DXO, so I don't think we will be waiting for long, once official results appear.

wickidwombat · Oct 23, 2012

pwp said:
At a function last night in a very dimly lit venue I struggled yet again with low-light AF. The 5D3 with 580EXII & 24-105 f/4is was OK except for the black AF points, which made it unprofessionally slow to always be sure of correct AF, but the 1D4 with 580EXII & 70-200 f/2.8isII was absolutely hopeless with a very large number of missed shots. Both bodies were on one-shot AF mode, keeping as often as practical on the cross-type AF points.

I'm actually considering picking up a couple of pre-owned 5D2 bodies just for these type of events. They have the handy red AF points and from memory are better than than the 5D3 for very low-light AF.

Any thoughts on this? What's the red-hot very low-light hero DSLR hardware?

-PW

the 5dmk3 will actually achieve focus in many situations where a 5dmk2 simply will get nothing
did you have the 8 expanded points around you selected AF point? this makes a massive difference to low light focus, also the 16-35 L II has amazingly quick AF in very low light i dont think the 24-105 is particularly blazing in this regard, i find the 24-70 mk1 also very fast , 70-200 II no problem either with expanded AF points
granted the black points are annoying as hell though

verysimplejason · Oct 23, 2012

nicku said:
I have read careful the thread... in the last page many people are discussing about the 1Dx performance; Yes, 1Dx is a very, very good camera... but i believe 90% of the forum readers consider the Canon flagship out of their reach or too expensive for their needs (including me).

I use the DSLR in light controlled situations , 95% under ISO 320, In studio, commercial, portraits and stock photography. In my work field size matters ( I mean MP )... high ISO performance , frame rate are not so important. What should i choose ?? 5D3 or D800?...

I believe Nikon answer to the majority of my needs.

If canon release the MP monster in 1D body ; than certainly the price tag will be around $9000. In this case what will stop many pros for getting a Pentax 645d Medium format instead of a Canon FF with same resolution?? The IQ will be incomparably.

If you really believe Nikon D800 is the right tool for you then go ahead. It will be a great tool for you. You just have to ask yourself always, "Is it worth it?" (price, system cost of switching, overall camera comfort of use, build, reliability, etc...). If it's worth it, no statistics or tests should stop you from buying one though I'd say priorities in life always keeps me from buying what I want.

It really doesn't matter what tool you used to capture that "moment" or picture you're after. What's important always is your end result. Don't be a pixel peeper like some here. Sometimes, I'm also prone to thinking that way but I try as much as possible to be a real artist which all photographers ideally should be.

Bosman · Oct 22, 2012

5dM3 + 70-200 2.8LII Winning! ;D

Drizzt321 · Oct 22, 2012

I haven't done any gigs for pay for anyone, but unless I was specifically shooting for a publication or something like (e.g. staff photographer, work for hire) I would never give up copyright. I'd certainly be happy to sign an agreement where I could not use the works in certain circumstances without getting permissions first (e.g. the merchandising as above).

Now, if the artists (more likely managers/agents/label) were making work-for-hire arrangements, that would be different, although I certainly would like to retain rights for portfolio/self-promotion. Really, once you go the work-for-hire direction, you can put anything you want into the contracts. Nothing stopping the photographers from refusing though.

MrFotoFool · Oct 22, 2012

I got a reply email from Sigma today. They said the lens is out of production (and thus cannot be repaired) but I could trade it in for a credit towards a new Sigma lens. Of course I am smart enough now never to do that, having learned my lesson. I think I will get the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) Canon and use it with 1.4x extender when needed (which I already have).

SJTstudios · Oct 22, 2012

Either the canon 100-400, because your 24-105 is ok for portraits, bokeh is decent.
Or, the 28-300 l, it is a really gOod lens, or so I hear, your covered for air shows, and air shooting, the 300 also helps.
But you may also want that extra reach. The 3.5 aperture good at the wide end will best your 24-105 though. But, if portraits are that important, pick up a 50mm 1.8/1.4 and/or sell the 24-105 for a 400mm 5.6 is. I know the 24-105 is good for walking around, but either way, you may need to compromise.

Other option, canon 70-200 2.8 is ii. get some extenders and a tamron 28-75 in place of the canon 24-105, the 28-75 is a remarkable lens, I borrowed it from a friend, and it is on par withe the canon 24-70 1 in terms of bokeh, but lacks a bit of sharpness.

I'd prefer option 2, for the versatility.

TRIPL3try · Oct 22, 2012

Hi all,

I'm taking my first digital photography course this semester and learning a lot about my new DSLR. The Canon Rumors forum provided me with great advice when choosing a camera, so I'm coming back for some new advice

This week's photoshoot is to replicate pictorialism. From what I gathered, this involves:

-Soft focus
-Slight blur effect
-A photo which tells a structured story.

What do you know about soft focus/blurring and how to achieve it? The professor told us to take photos at dusk. Is it more about the location/time of day than it is the camera?

I'm not sure what to take 3 to 5 images of, let alone how to create some of these effects. Still life? Landscapes? I'm shooting on a t4i, 40mm f2.8

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics