|
Pablo Bluth posted:That sentence didn't make sense! AF stops working at and above f8 not above f5.6. I got what you were getting at. It's above f/8 on 1 series and 5d3's, above f/5.6 on all others. But as I said, I think it's actually a teleconverter reporting thing more than anything - I'm betting this will still AF on a body that is supposedly only good to 5.6
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
I have always wondered about that limitation. Obviously with a little light it would be hard for the auto focus systems to function but is the fail rate so high that they just decided to switch off the autofocus to prevent that, or will it actually harm the camera some how? I ask the harm question because I have read that you can tape off contacts to force a body to attempt to autofocus above its f stop cutoff, but the camps seem pretty polar opposite in the don't so camera death insures vs the doesn't bother a thing just expect poor results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I have always wondered about that limitation. Obviously with a little light it would be hard for the auto focus systems to function but is the fail rate so high that they just decided to switch off the autofocus to prevent that, or will it actually harm the camera some how? I ask the harm question because I have read that you can tape off contacts to force a body to attempt to autofocus above its f stop cutoff, but the camps seem pretty polar opposite in the don't so camera death insures vs the doesn't bother a thing just expect poor results. Poor success, so they disable it to prevent people bitching about it. There's no real reason I can see that it would damage anything, unless you just sat there for 20 minutes racking focus back and forth over and over again trying in vain to lock on, MAYBE it could wear out the lens parts. But, as AF systems have gotten better, it seems silly to me. I bought a 2x for my 100-400 years ago on my 10D, and it was well earned to turn it off there - it would not lock on anything even in bright sunlight. 1.4x would work ok, if it was super bright, but still a poor keeper rate. By comparison, I just decided to try the experiment again with my new 70D and the Kenko 300 Pro's , and it's night and day. The 2x will lock in one shot and servo, in my home office. Not exactly a bright sunny day. I was pretty impressed, and look forward to spring now. This all btw, is referring to viewfinder/PD autofocus anyway. Live view will always work even with small apertures, but taking a photo with live view and a long tele is like a cruel joke trying to handhold it. Tripod only there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
It doesn't work at small apertures for the same reason split-prism doesn't work at small apertures. You end up with your focus pixels seeing darkness because they're trying to collect light from portions of the lens that are blacked out by the narrow aperture. This is from wikipedia's autofocus article:  quote:Illustration of autofocus using phase detection. In each figure, the purple circle represents the object to be focused on, the red and green lines represent light rays passing through apertures at the opposite sides of the lens, the yellow rectangle represents sensor arrays (one for each aperture), and the graph represents the intensity profile as seen by each sensor array. Figures 1 to 4 represent conditions where the lens is focused (1) too near, (2) correctly, (3) too far and (4) way too far. It can be seen from the graphs that the phase difference between the two profiles can be used to determine not just in which direction, but how much to move the lens to achieve optimal focus. Note: The figures are not to scale, and colours are used purely for clarity and do not represent any particular wavelength. Now, if you stop down or use a slower lens, light from the lens will hit a smaller and smaller portion of the black line in that image until the orange and green apertures are no longer illuminated and the phase detect sensor doesn't see anything. So you'll have your autofocus systems tuned for an aperture range that you know most lenses will be able to achieve, such as F4-F5.6. There are also systems like the one in the 40D that have sensors that collect light from even farther out on lenses faster than F2.8, but which don't work with slower lenses because, as with an F5.6 sensitive system with an F8 lens + teleconverter combo, there isn't any light reaching those sensors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
 ATTENTION 1st ADSome dude at CanonRumors figured out how to use Magic Lantern to get more dynamic range out of the 5dIII quote:This means that for example on 5d3, iso 800 with ML has more dynamic range than iso 100 with Canon :-> … and at high iso you’re getting 7% more dr which is nothing to sneeze at, esp. since it builds upon Canon‘s advantage vs. Nikon: d800@6400 = ~8.3 & 5d3@6400 = ~9.4 ev. According to sensorgen.info the 6d should add another 2/3 stop (once the code is adapted for it) making good ol’ Canon the superior sensor for low light high contrast shooting. The forums over there are really really terrible for the most part but there's a couple dudes know some poo poo so this might be a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
The whole idea of low light, high contrast shooting is pretty funny. I can't think of a situation where I would need that or could even find it useful. If I'm shooting at ISO 6400 any light that I use will blow my exposure and without judicious flagging I won't be able to control the lighting at all. In any situation where I have lights I have never needed more than ISO 800. Maybe if I wanted to shoot everything at f11 or something I would think differently. But I don't. And don't get your hopes up, 1/2 a stop is being generous and I'll bet the noise is really nasty in the shadows. Look at raws coming from the 5D3 vs a D800 still or BMCC frame, those latter sensors are just waaaaay better at recording shadow detail and no firmware hacking is gonna change that. I underexposed some 5D3 raw video shots by like 4 stops to compensate for an underpowered light kit (battery powered LEDs) vs daylight, and boy there is just no detail captured at the very bottom. I guess you can do that dual ISO stuff but I think it looks like poo poo. Also I'm pretty much done with 5D3 raw shooting, it is such a loving pain in the rear end. I'd rather deal with the smaller sensor of the BMCC and get cheaper recording media and more DR out of the box than have to deal with expensive cards and crashing cameras. It hosed me HARD on a recent shoot and I probably should have rented a Scarlet instead. Basically Canon is dead to me because their video offerings are overpriced and you have to use janky software and expensive and time sucking solutions to get functionality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Found a good deal on a Canon 80-200 f/2.8 "magic drainpipe" and just couldn't help myself. It's ridiculous, I love it. The AF is loud and moves with a bit of momentum, and it's just about as ugly as it is heavy, but damned if it doesn't turn out some impressive shots. Going to drag it to the studio tomorrow for a quick test during a portrait session. Hopefully this lasts me a while, because from what I hear, Canon won't even touch it for repairs, seeing as it's a minimum 20 years old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
All lenses should have a moniker. You know, like fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:All lenses should have a moniker. You know, like fighter jets. Like the Tamron "angry bees" 17-50, or the the 18-200 "morbidly obese tourist"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Canon 24-70 Wedding Buster
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Canon 100-400 Penis Pump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
18-55mm: Babby's first lens
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
50 1.8 shallow depth of wallet
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
70-300 IS poo poo Resale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Does canon regularly run sales like they did during the holidays? I was in the market for a 70-200 2.8 IS II, but was hoping to get it at a better price. Worth holding out for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:Does canon regularly run sales like they did during the holidays? I was in the market for a 70-200 2.8 IS II, but was hoping to get it at a better price. Worth holding out for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:They seem to do a quarterly 15% off sale on the refurb store. If you're asking about rebates on the new stuff, then yeah they do those about every 6 months, I think. Gotcha. Guess I'm holding out!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
You gotta be ready to pull the trigger when they pop up though because the in demand lenses are usually gone within hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
I don't know if they do this every time but before the xmas sale they jacked the prices up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
The Magic Drainpipe is awesome. It's one of the few lenses I miss using now that I'm off the DSLR bandwagon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Also I'm pretty much done with 5D3 raw shooting, it is such a loving pain in the rear end. I'd rather deal with the smaller sensor of the BMCC and get cheaper recording media and more DR out of the box than have to deal with expensive cards and crashing cameras. It hosed me HARD on a recent shoot and I probably should have rented a Scarlet instead. There's a reason why Canon wouldn't bother implementing RAW video on the DSLRs, they just can't actually handle it consistently enough to put their names behind it. Even the C500 can have trouble and requires expensive external recorders to pull it off. The amount of heat generated is bound to gently caress things up pretty badly. But yeah, I'd love it if the C100 cost less so hopefully the competition picks up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
C100 is Canon-mount only I think, which is p. useless for cinematography. The C500 is really good for low light though :vidtalk:
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:C100 is Canon-mount only I think, which is p. useless for cinematography. The C500 is really good for low light though :vidtalk: Well, the C300 has a PL mount option, but if you're going for the C100 then you probably can't afford 4,000 dollar primes or 20k zooms in the first place. Almost all the budget cinema lens options come in EF too. As far as the C300 goes though, I think the F5 is quite a bit better for only a bit more money. Canon is really going to gave to update their line, despite how popular the C300 is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
I wish Canon had some on-board options for 10-bit recording, because that would be good enough for me personally. There's just not that much you can do with 8-bit 422 footage if you're like me and like to aggressively mess with the curves and input levels, and Canon log is pretty noisy. The BMCC ProRes and DNxHD recordings have the same problem, but that camera has a raw option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Most people recommend the Sigma 8-16mm as an awesome wide, but the question I have is this: have any of you used it on portraits? When I get my wide I'd like to use it mostly on landscapes, architecture, and indoor crowd shots, but I'd like one that's suitable for single person portraits. One or two people online have said that the Sigma 8-16mm doesn't work well with people due to it stretching proportions (they recommended the Tokina 11-16mm instead), but I can't tell if these people are just not using the right set up and/or are incompetent; on the other hand, I found at least a few nice looking portraits done with the Sigma 8-16 that show no stretching. My personal choice are down to the Sigma 8-16 due to how insanely wide it is, and the Tokina 11-16mm because I like doing night/dance club stuff and the combined 2.8 aperture with the $200 cheaper price is pretty appealing. A second question: what can I replace my kit lens (18-55mm) with that both covers the highest range of mm while maintaining good quality? (i.e., not something like Canon's 55-250mm, which is quite slow and of moderate quality at most ranges.) My Sigma/Tokina wide will cover anywhere from 8-16mm, depending on what I pick up, and I'll eventually get a Tamron 150-600mm. I see the Tamron 17-50mm recommend a lot for replacing kit lenses, but how does the 24-75mm compare quality-wise? Are there any other good contenders I should be aware of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:Most people recommend the Sigma 8-16mm as an awesome wide, but the question I have is this: have any of you used it on portraits? When I get my wide I'd like to use it mostly on landscapes, architecture, and indoor crowd shots, but I'd like one that's suitable for single person portraits. One or two people online have said that the Sigma 8-16mm doesn't work well with people due to it stretching proportions (they recommended the Tokina 11-16mm instead), but I can't tell if these people are just not using the right set up and/or are incompetent; on the other hand, I found at least a few nice looking portraits done with the Sigma 8-16 that show no stretching. My personal choice are down to the Sigma 8-16 due to how insanely wide it is, and the Tokina 11-16mm because I like doing night/dance club stuff and the combined 2.8 aperture with the $200 cheaper price is pretty appealing. Using superwides with portraits is general not reccomented, you get stuff that looks like this http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/stepheneastwood-tile1.jpg That said, the 17-50 is recommended a lot because 24-75mm is an odd focal length range on a crop body. Not very wide, but not very long either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:Most people recommend the Sigma 8-16mm as an awesome wide, but the question I have is this: have any of you used it on portraits? When I get my wide I'd like to use it mostly on landscapes, architecture, and indoor crowd shots, but I'd like one that's suitable for single person portraits. One or two people online have said that the Sigma 8-16mm doesn't work well with people due to it stretching proportions (they recommended the Tokina 11-16mm instead), but I can't tell if these people are just not using the right set up and/or are incompetent; on the other hand, I found at least a few nice looking portraits done with the Sigma 8-16 that show no stretching. My personal choice are down to the Sigma 8-16 due to how insanely wide it is, and the Tokina 11-16mm because I like doing night/dance club stuff and the combined 2.8 aperture with the $200 cheaper price is pretty appealing. I rented the Sigma lens for a weekend for a landscape shoot and I would strongly recommend not using anything that wide for portraits. When you shoot wide, everything in the center of the picture gets pulled forward and everything to the sides gets pushed back, meaning your subject's nose and face will look big and their head will look stretched from their neck. Since you're on a crop frame, pick up the Tamron 17-50 2.8; 50mm is pretty decent for portraits on a crop and it's a great lens. Also, looking back on my shots, the majority of the shots I kept were shot at 11+mm; everything below looked off, if that makes sense. If you want a wide lens, try renting the Tokina from lensrentals.com and see how you like it. Just..don't use it for portraits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Uh, at 16mm you're mostly trying to avoid people looking like bobbleheads or weird Gumby-aliens. I wouldn't even think of doing portraits on anything shorter than 30mm on a crop camera, and you start hitting a sweet spot around 50-85mm. Here's an oft-posted page about how longer focal lengths really make portraits look nicer: http://neilvn.com/tangents/composition-for-full-length-portraits/
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I'll add that it's not the focal length that causes the weird distortion, but the relative distance between the lens and the person. Let's say you're shooting someone at 40mm on a full frame (~25mm on crop). You only need to be a few feet away to get a full body shot, but because you're so close, there's big differences relative to the camera distance. That's how you end up with one eye looking WAY bigger than the other, a model's hands looking gigantic, unnaturally large noses, etc. Compared with if you're shooting at 85mm from 12 feet back, the difference in distance between the left eye and right eye is still the same, but now it's based on an overall distance of 12' rather than 4', so that difference is much less dramatic. Shorter focal lengths are good for exaggerated facial expressions and hardcore band shots, but it can be really hard to set up and execute a standard portrait with people up real close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Have to say this, I'm sure you all already know though but for anyone who's in doubt: A 50mm is a 50mm on a crop or on a FF sensor. It's the angle of view that changes. Your lens will still retain its characteristic ie even though a 30mm on a crop offers the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF, it's not great for portraits as it'll still look wide. Heck, even a 50mm on a crop isn't the most flattering lens you can use. Stick an 85 on and just move further back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
At what point does that stop being true? If 85 is more flattering than 50, and 50 is more flattering than 28, is 200 even better? Basically I have no idea what angle of view means. E: And I am bothering to google it now, so nobody feel like I'm asking you to explain it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Huxley posted:At what point does that stop being true? If 85 is more flattering than 50, and 50 is more flattering than 28, is 200 even better? Click the I posted on this same page, the guy went up to ~350mm to show the differences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Huxley posted:At what point does that stop being true? If 85 is more flattering than 50, and 50 is more flattering than 28, is 200 even better? It can be. Longer focal lengths can flatten out a face if shot from close distances but generally 200mm is a good length for tight headshots from 7-10 feet away. Blows out the background really well at wide apertures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Just to throw another wrench into the works: http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2013/01/geometric-distortion-correction.html Long ends of zoom lenses will still produce pincushion distortion, which while not as unflattering as barrel, is still not what could be considered "perfect". Even the high and mighty 24-70mm 2.8 II has some pincushion at 70mm and that focal length is considered barely adequate for portraits on FF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Huxley posted:At what point does that stop being true? If 85 is more flattering than 50, and 50 is more flattering than 28, is 200 even better? It stops being something to worry about when it's not a problem any more. Fashion photographers generally shoot with the longest lenses they can, though it's not possible or even preferable for typical lifestyle portraiture. I messed up in packing my kit for a photobooth gig one night, and shot the whole thing with a 17-40mm pegged at the long end the whole night. More than a few times, I had to recompose group shots so we didn't wind up with a giant forearm in the front, or one person looking twice as large as the person 2 feet behind them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I messed up in packing my kit for a photobooth gig one night, and shot the whole thing with a 17-40mm pegged at the long end the whole night. More than a few times, I had to recompose group shots so we didn't wind up with a giant forearm in the front, or one person looking twice as large as the person 2 feet behind them. On the other hand, a photobooth would be a good opportunity for hilarious ultra-wide angle portraits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
When is the Sigma 50 art supposed to be released....I need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
No, don't release it yet! I've just dragged my bank account down paying for a new car and can't afford it until they pay me the 13th month. But for reals, before I switched to the 6D, I was waiting for the updated version of the 50-150mm of Sigma. Between announcement and release was more than a year. So don't hold yer horses. Also, someone else told me, one of the reasons this didn't become larger than f1.4 is that it isn't possible to create an autofocused lens for Nikon that's larger than f1.4, because of the silly placement of the contacts. Since these are essentially multi-format lenses, where they just mount a different bayonet, this sounds plausible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:No, don't release it yet! I've just dragged my bank account down paying for a new car and can't afford it until they pay me the 13th month. Where do you live that they have 13 or more months in a year? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Where do you live that they have 13 or more months in a year? I'm guessing they mean tax return. The phenomenon where people let the US government hold onto to their money for a year then treat it like they're getting a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 15:30
|
|