|
Fools Infinite posted:Focal length determines the geometry and isn't just the FOV. You can see in the picture above that in the smaller focal length things further away appear relatively smaller than closer things. poo poo, I can't remember where this was, but recently I read somewhere that the geometry distortion perceived at different focal lengths isn't actually a property of the lens, but of how far away the camera is from the subject. Like, in the comparison example posted upthread, it's apparent that the camera was moved as lenses were changed in order to maintain similar composition. Had the camera been left in place though, it's my understanding that you wouldn't see that same distortion, stuff would just be closer or further away.
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
President Beep posted:Like, in the comparison example posted upthread, it's apparent that the camera was moved as lenses were changed in order to maintain similar composition. Had the camera been left in place though, it's my understanding that you wouldn't see that same distortion, stuff would just be closer or further away. is this the correct way to use the word "distortion" here? My ignorant use of the word would be to describe the way very low mm lenses make straight lines appear curved. Is that wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:is this the correct way to use the word "distortion" here? My ignorant use of the word would be to describe the way very low mm lenses make straight lines appear curved. Is that wrong? I think we're talking about the same thing. If I understand what I read correctly, you'd get that same "bending" if you had a telephoto lens close enough to your subject. I should probably just shut my trap, as I'm likely mangling some concepts here!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
President Beep posted:poo poo, I can't remember where this was, but recently I read somewhere that the geometry distortion perceived at different focal lengths isn't actually a property of the lens, but of how far away the camera is from the subject. Like, in the comparison example posted upthread, it's apparent that the camera was moved as lenses were changed in order to maintain similar composition. Had the camera been left in place though, it's my understanding that you wouldn't see that same distortion, stuff would just be closer or further away. Yeah, fstoppers did a video recently and it's been getting passed around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTXY1Se0eg Or if you hate videos: https://imgur.com/a/OcU7T
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah! Pretty sure I read the Fstoppers piece.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Vsauce also has a video that talks a bit about the effect, among other things that are moderately interesting and tangentially related to photography: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2gTSjoEExc
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Someone was reaaaaalll bored and decided to hook up their Canon lens to something that's a little short on resolution: http://ekeler.com/game-boy-camera-canon-ef-mount/
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Someone was reaaaaalll bored and decided to hook up their Canon lens to something that's a little short on resolution:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Those results are actually way better than I was expecting...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Those results are actually way better than I was expecting... Exactly my thoughts. I was playing with one of those a couple weeks ago and they're such horrible trash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Cameras aren't trash, but the neanderthal holding it that can't figure out an effective use for the tool certainly can be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
The new f2.8 70-200 is optically identical to the existing version. Only differences are coatings on some lens elements to reduce flaring, and changing the paint on the outside to a lighter shade. Crack open those wallets everyone.  The f4 is more of an upgrade. Closer focusing, flare reduction, 5 stop IS, new aperture blades, 72mm filters. But really, who would go for this when you could get the f2.8? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFTBw7-8gdk
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
I took my 5D4 and 7D2 on vacation and left the GPS on the whole time. What's the best way to export the GPS data from the raw files into a text format? It'd be cool to noodle around with some mapping outside of Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The new f2.8 70-200 is optically identical to the existing version. Only differences are coatings on some lens elements to reduce flaring, and changing the paint on the outside to a lighter shade. Crack open those wallets everyone. holy gently caress he sounds like Kermit the frog
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Something like exiftool should export all metadata to a text file.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I took my 5D4 and 7D2 on vacation and left the GPS on the whole time. What's the best way to export the GPS data from the raw files into a text format? It'd be cool to noodle around with some mapping outside of Lightroom. You need some kind of metadata batch processor I guess. There are some out there for EXIF data but not sure about RAW since different camera brands store the metadata in their own unique ways. Comedy option: bulk export to JPEG from lightroom (thereby converting metadata to EXIF) and find an EXIF batch processor to dump it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
exiftool can do what you want: https://sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/geotag.html#Inverse Embrace the CLI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The new f2.8 70-200 is optically identical to the existing version. Only differences are coatings on some lens elements to reduce flaring, and changing the paint on the outside to a lighter shade. Crack open those wallets everyone. Good. I don't have any desire to upgrade then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
same as the 24-105 then
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 00:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
i went to an aquarium yesterday but i spent the entire time judging people near me based on their dslr body purchases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
rebel scum
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
landgrabber posted:i went to an aquarium yesterday but i spent the entire time judging people near me based on their dslr body purchases. nobody with mirrorless?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
akadajet posted:nobody with mirrorless? i saw an EOS-M actually hahah
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
akadajet posted:nobody with mirrorless? Wouldn't surprise me to see randos calling any digital camera a DSLR, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Wouldn't surprise me to see randos calling any digital camera a DSLR, to be fair. gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
A local camera shop is having a Canon event with a canon rep, gear demos etc. Are these things worth going to? They say there's added savings but I can't imagine it's much more than whatever the current rebates/free printers are, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
you might get to play with some shiny toys, at least
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:rebel scum 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
My monocle doubles as a drop in CPL. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:you might get to play with some shiny toys, at least Well, I went, and it was not that great. The rep was pretty cheezy and they didn't even have a 100-400 to play with. They had everything in the M series and G series though  10% added discount on most things if you buy through the shop, which is more or less tax around here. Probably the best thing I learned was that there was going to be a free class on printing next weekend so I might go back for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I took my 5D4 and 7D2 on vacation and left the GPS on the whole time. What's the best way to export the GPS data from the raw files into a text format? It'd be cool to noodle around with some mapping outside of Lightroom. If youre willing to learn a bit of Bash scripting this is a fairly trivial thing with exiftool and pipes. edit: I bought a 6D and a 24-70 f/4 and I am happy enough with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Hello Canon thread! I had a 60D years back that I sold to go mirrorless and have been shooting Fuji for the last few years but I've been presented with an opportunity to snag Canon gear at an incredible discount so I think I'm going to switch back and finally take the dive into full frame. I don't shoot anything professionally only for fun and shoot general stuff (family gatherings, walking around, vacations, automotive, etc) but with the discounts I'm looking at I'm taking it as a chance to build a kit that I would never otherwise be able to justify. It's specific to Canon branded stuff, so I can't look at any third party lenses. So far I've put together this list based off of my memory of the lines, some quick research and talking with a buddy of mine: 6D II Body 24-70 f2.8 II 50 f1.4 135 f2 430EX-III Thinking 1.4 over 1.2 on the 50mm for the drastic price difference vs. performance, I figure the 24-70 is what will sit on there most of the time and the 135 was suggested by my buddy to cover long range at almost half the cost of the 70-200. I'm tempted to add something on the ultra wide side as well, just because I've always loved that length style wise. Open to other suggestions as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:28
|
|
Cat Army
|
I'd suggest something 85mm because while the 135 is great its also a bit tight for portraiture indoors - unless you're doing that sort of thing exclusively outdoors. See if you can't swing a 40mm pancake. The plain old 50mm is getting really long in the tooth and is pretty horrid wide open. The pancake on the other hand is totally usable wide open, aside from heavy vignetting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ 135 is tight for indoor portraits, but my thinking was that the 50/1.4 would be suitable for that purpose. It's news to me that it sucks wide open, but I've never used it. Depending on how much you're getting the flash for, it might still be worthwhile to check out just getting used copy instead. I don't think they hold value the same way lenses do. With a 50/1.4 and a 135/2, I would personally be tempted to pick up a 16-35 as my L zoom instead of the 24-70. The 24-70 offers you a wide, normal, and short tele focal length, and you're already duplicating two of the three classes with those primes. If you were shooting events for money or in really fast-paced situations where changing lenses wouldn't be feasible, I'd say stick with the 24-70. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jul 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Ever since I got the 70-200 I haven't shot a single shot with my 85mm or 135mm. Would highly recommend that single lens instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I'd suggest something 85mm because while the 135 is great its also a bit tight for portraiture indoors - unless you're doing that sort of thing exclusively outdoors. I'd note that the f/1.4 version of the 50mm is quite a bit better than the f/1.8 version though; I shoot with it wide open or stopped down one stop and it's still sharper than my old 1.8 stopped down to f/4-ish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
For what it's worth I really, really enjoy shooting with my 50 1.2 despite its minor faults - I wouldn't pay anything near it's RRP but if you don't mind waiting for a good second-hand deal then it's absolutely worth considering. The 24-70 2.8 II is by far my favourite walkaround lens though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
I'll add in a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens as a suggestion. It's a nice portrait prime, and macro shots are surprisingly interesting on random walks. The L- version is really nice, but the cheap ones (and Sigma/Tamron ones) are great, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I'd suggest something 85mm because while the 135 is great its also a bit tight for portraiture indoors - unless you're doing that sort of thing exclusively outdoors. I've never used the 40mm, I had the 50 1.8 before, the 1.4 was recommended as an upgrade without going all in on the 1.2 (though it's tempting to run a full L line up). SMERSH Mouth posted:Edit: ^^^ 135 is tight for indoor portraits, but my thinking was that the 50/1.4 would be suitable for that purpose. It's news to me that it sucks wide open, but I've never used it. Yeah, I figured the 50 would be my indoor portrait lens. I haven't heard about it sucking wide open either, but I will look into it more. The discounts basically make it worth buying everything new, checking on prices I'd still save money over buying a used flash. I was looking at adding the 17-40 to get ultra wide coverage. My thinking was that the 24-70 would be my "bring one lens" setup for when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. I appreciate the input so far, I've got some time to plan it out so I want to make sure I'm taking proper advantage of the opportunity. ijyt posted:For what it's worth I really, really enjoy shooting with my 50 1.2 despite its minor faults - I wouldn't pay anything near it's RRP but if you don't mind waiting for a good second-hand deal then it's absolutely worth considering. The 24-70 2.8 II is by far my favourite walkaround lens though. I am somewhat tempted to go for the 1.2 based on the discounts I'm looking at, but it's hard to say how much I'd use it. I do shoot with a 35mm like 80% of the time right now on my Fuji, but I find it a little tight when I'm walking around, hence the zoom on my list. Infinite Karma posted:I'll add in a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens as a suggestion. It's a nice portrait prime, and macro shots are surprisingly interesting on random walks. The L- version is really nice, but the cheap ones (and Sigma/Tamron ones) are great, too. I'll take a look, macro lenses have always felt niche enough that I've never looked into them much before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Ouhei posted:Yeah, I figured the 50 would be my indoor portrait lens. I haven't heard about it sucking wide open either, but I will look into it more. The discounts basically make it worth buying everything new, checking on prices I'd still save money over buying a used flash. I was looking at adding the 17-40 to get ultra wide coverage. My thinking was that the 24-70 would be my "bring one lens" setup for when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. ...huh. I always wondered why the 50 1.4 was so cheap as well. It looks like it does kind of suck at 1.4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 16:51
|
|