Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Pointless to argue about the look of a camera? Or pointless to argue with Udaman?
(runs and hides)
(runs and hides)
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Actually, the OM-1 was my dream camera once upon a time. My father was a Canon man and I had a very cute little Minolta 35mm, but I planned and dreamed my way towards an OM-1 ..... which, needless to say, never actually happened. Possibly something to do with discovering girls and beer and my first car and the delights of being 20-something and taking a short break from photography for 20 years.
These days, I have all Canon gear and my father (the rusted-on Canon man) has a Nikon D70. Go figure.
These days, I have all Canon gear and my father (the rusted-on Canon man) has a Nikon D70. Go figure.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I don't know if any of you have read the literature (marketing propaganda dressed up as a documentary if you're cynical) on the genesis of the 4/3 system, but the story behind it goes something like... we were looking for the perfect combination of size, handling, and image quality. After much thought and discussion, the OM-1 was identified as the perfect size body to emulate. We designed the sensor, body, and lenses to be able to recreate the OM-1 experience in the digital era. Lo and behold, the E-1 was born.
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode1_02.html
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode1_02.html
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Yup, and when I was being conceived, I rang God up on the hotline and asked to be made with brown hair, brown eyes, slim, and about 5' 10", because that was just about perfect.
(Actually, cynical comment above notwithstanding (Tea made me say it) I believe Olympus. Why wouldn't they make a new digital body as similar as possible to what was by far their best-known and most successful film body? But then, given that the OM-1 was a full-size 35mm jobbie, why wouldn't they make the sensor the same size too?)
(Well, OK, we know why they didn't do that - they wanted a camera they could get into production at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time-frame.)
When I first got into DSLRs, I looked pretty hard at Olympus, largely, I guess, on the strength of the old OM-1 legend. But in the end no other manufacturer could offer wildlife lenses as good as the Canon range, and although Nikon seem to have belatedly decided that they better get back into the main game, as of 2007 it remains the case: for wildlife, it's Canon first, daylight second, Nikon third, and the rest still standing around at the start line wondering if the gun has gone off yet.
(Actually, cynical comment above notwithstanding (Tea made me say it) I believe Olympus. Why wouldn't they make a new digital body as similar as possible to what was by far their best-known and most successful film body? But then, given that the OM-1 was a full-size 35mm jobbie, why wouldn't they make the sensor the same size too?)
(Well, OK, we know why they didn't do that - they wanted a camera they could get into production at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time-frame.)
When I first got into DSLRs, I looked pretty hard at Olympus, largely, I guess, on the strength of the old OM-1 legend. But in the end no other manufacturer could offer wildlife lenses as good as the Canon range, and although Nikon seem to have belatedly decided that they better get back into the main game, as of 2007 it remains the case: for wildlife, it's Canon first, daylight second, Nikon third, and the rest still standing around at the start line wondering if the gun has gone off yet.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Well, the same promotional legend has it that they designed the sensor size and aspect ratio to allow for minimal lens size and weight for the broadest possible range of focal lengths while maintaining telecentricity and adequate pixel pitch and resolution for maximum image quality into the future. (they conveniently omitted the part about cost and production constraints
)One would hope that this would allow the kind of reach one would need for wildlife photography without as much bulk... but are they delivering on their promise?
The longest lens they have is a relatively heavy 300/2.8 (375 mm APS-C 1.6x or 600 mm 35FF equiv) at 3.3 kg (7.3 lb), and yet they give up half to 1 stop in high ISO noise performance to the best Canon and Nikon have to offer in an APS body even with the new E-3.
If you compare against equivalent focal length and speed for Canon or Nikon glass, it will be lighter and smaller (the Canon 400/2.8 is 5.4 kg), but if you take the sensor performance into account, you might only need a 400/4 to compete with an E-3, lowering the weight to 1.9 kg...
And I bet 400 mm on an APS-C 1.6x body is still not enough reach for you...
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Both the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 & the 300-800mm f/5.6 are available in 4/3 mount. There's a 2x conversion on both those on an Olympus DSLR body of course... (600-1600mm, holy batman). The monster Sigma is very highly rated for image quality. Of course it's like carrying around a 2nd body --a human body that is!
Also, the former probably isn't particularly useful seeing as how Olympus has the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 at only 620g and 12.7cm long. I recently took my 100-300mm out on my Pentax; I'll try and remember to post a pic soon.
Also, the former probably isn't particularly useful seeing as how Olympus has the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 at only 620g and 12.7cm long. I recently took my 100-300mm out on my Pentax; I'll try and remember to post a pic soon.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
The noise performance at higher ISOs is surprising & inconsistent with what I would expect. They rate it as superior to the Canon 40D. I imagine there must be a sacrifice in detail to accomplish that.
ddrueding
Fixture
Interesting tidbit from the thread:
Canon lens tested: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens), $180
Olympus lens tested: 12-60 f/2.8-4, $950
Nikon lens tested: 24-70 f/2.8, $1700
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It is indeed an interesting article. I find it very interesting that anyone would bother typing up a "test" comparing three cameras using a $1700 lens on one, a $950 lens on another and ... wait for it .... a $100 lens on the third. (They say the 18-55 is $180 (presumably $US) but it isn't anywhere near that price. Maybe the other two are way out as well, I couldn't say.
Anyway, I saw that, laughed, and closed the page.
Back to your other point: yes, Olympus peddle the legend that they designed the asininely-named 4/3 system because they thought it would lead, all things considerd, to the best system. Once again, on the whole, I believe them, at least so far as their account of their original motivation goes. But history is a harsh taskmaster, and the more time that goes by, the more short-sighted that decision to lock themselves into a tidgy sensor with no room to grow the system looks.
Notice the stock-standard situation normal misleading comparison. As nearly always with Olympus propaganda, they muddle crop factor with reach - and I do mean muddle. When considering an Olympus product they pretend that crop factor = reach and thus regard their 30mm lens as a 600mm unit, but when considering other products, they ignore it completely - in the example above, Olympus fanboys pretend that a 600mm lens on a Canon or Nikon 1.5/1.6 crop body is still only 600mm, where in fact (if you accept the crop factor fiction as gospel for a moment, which you should not, of course) it is an 840mm equivalent.
Where am I heading with this line of reaoning? Nowhere really, just mulling stuff over. Does the Olympus system deliver for wildlife? I haven't tried it for myself, but pretty clearly the wildlife experts around the world don't think so: practically no-one uses Olympus for wildlife. (No-one that is anyone, I mean.) The vast majority use Canon, with a small but significant minority still clinging to Nikon. We can expect that minority to increase over the next few years and grow more vocal now that Nikon has got competitive bodies and has announced (if not yet shipped) a range of lenses that we have every reason to expect will be comparable to the Canon models, albeit not as extensive so far as choice goes and way more expensive.
400mm on APS-C is borderline for birding. 500mm is significantly more useful. With that said, I don't think it's really about raw reach. In general, a 500/4 is much more useful than a 700/5.6 or a 1000/8. How much of this is down to the big aperture, how much to the focal length, and how much to the fact that I'm getting to 700 and 1000mm with a 1.4 or 2.0 converter I'm not sure. At present I'm in a "throw away the teleconverter" phase and doing nearly everything with bare lens only, because the pictures are sharper and I don't like not being able to open up to f/4 and most of all because the bare lens produces a much better background blur without the ugly hard edges I get with teleconverters.
And with that said, I've started using the 100-400 more again, largely because it focuses down to 2.5m where the 500/4 won't go any closer than 4.5 metres and that means that with small birds you actually get more bird in the picture with 400mm than you do with 500mm.
And that reminds me - I have to remember to order a 25mm extension tube today: the 13mm tube is a help on the 500/4 but I need more. Damnit! Why can't they make telephoto lenses focus closer? All it needs is a quasi-bellows system, very simple mechanical engineering by the standards of a camera maker. They don't seem to realise that not everybody using one does sport with it.
Anyway, I saw that, laughed, and closed the page.
Back to your other point: yes, Olympus peddle the legend that they designed the asininely-named 4/3 system because they thought it would lead, all things considerd, to the best system. Once again, on the whole, I believe them, at least so far as their account of their original motivation goes. But history is a harsh taskmaster, and the more time that goes by, the more short-sighted that decision to lock themselves into a tidgy sensor with no room to grow the system looks.
Notice the stock-standard situation normal misleading comparison. As nearly always with Olympus propaganda, they muddle crop factor with reach - and I do mean muddle. When considering an Olympus product they pretend that crop factor = reach and thus regard their 30mm lens as a 600mm unit, but when considering other products, they ignore it completely - in the example above, Olympus fanboys pretend that a 600mm lens on a Canon or Nikon 1.5/1.6 crop body is still only 600mm, where in fact (if you accept the crop factor fiction as gospel for a moment, which you should not, of course) it is an 840mm equivalent.
Where am I heading with this line of reaoning? Nowhere really, just mulling stuff over. Does the Olympus system deliver for wildlife? I haven't tried it for myself, but pretty clearly the wildlife experts around the world don't think so: practically no-one uses Olympus for wildlife. (No-one that is anyone, I mean.) The vast majority use Canon, with a small but significant minority still clinging to Nikon. We can expect that minority to increase over the next few years and grow more vocal now that Nikon has got competitive bodies and has announced (if not yet shipped) a range of lenses that we have every reason to expect will be comparable to the Canon models, albeit not as extensive so far as choice goes and way more expensive.
400mm on APS-C is borderline for birding. 500mm is significantly more useful. With that said, I don't think it's really about raw reach. In general, a 500/4 is much more useful than a 700/5.6 or a 1000/8. How much of this is down to the big aperture, how much to the focal length, and how much to the fact that I'm getting to 700 and 1000mm with a 1.4 or 2.0 converter I'm not sure. At present I'm in a "throw away the teleconverter" phase and doing nearly everything with bare lens only, because the pictures are sharper and I don't like not being able to open up to f/4 and most of all because the bare lens produces a much better background blur without the ugly hard edges I get with teleconverters.
And with that said, I've started using the 100-400 more again, largely because it focuses down to 2.5m where the 500/4 won't go any closer than 4.5 metres and that means that with small birds you actually get more bird in the picture with 400mm than you do with 500mm.
And that reminds me - I have to remember to order a 25mm extension tube today: the 13mm tube is a help on the 500/4 but I need more. Damnit! Why can't they make telephoto lenses focus closer? All it needs is a quasi-bellows system, very simple mechanical engineering by the standards of a camera maker. They don't seem to realise that not everybody using one does sport with it.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yes, there are long lenses available for the 4/3 mount from Sigma too, not forgetting the Bigma too (50-500), but they are all quite slow. I was comparing long and fast lenses between systems with consideration given to the greater speed required by the noisier 4/3 sensor.
What do you mean ugly hard edges with the 1.4x TC? Images are slightly softer and with less contrast than the 500/4 alone.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Oh, I'm not talking about the subject of the image, Lunar, only the background. With the 500/4 bare lens, I tend to get beautiful, creamy out of focus backgrounds; even if I apply quite a bit of sharpening, the background tends to remain creamy and restful on the eye.
But with the 1.4 converter on it, I have to be more careful: the subject (bird or etc.) still looks OK - not quite as sharp and contrasty but still perfetly OK, but the out of focus part of the image is (to my eye) less pleasant. It is often obtrusive, and even a little overall sharpening makes it more so, meaning that I have to start stuffing around making masks and sharpening in layers, which I prefer to avoid as much as possible.
I'm not talking a huge difference here, but enough to notice.
By the way, maybe I'm just dreaming, but I've never thought my current 1.4 converter is as good as my first one was. (I dropped the original one and had to buy a new one in mid 2006.) It's only been since them that I've taken a dislike to the converter, though I still use it from time to time, and sometimes even the 2X. Mostly though, I'm just using the 500/4 stand alone.
But with the 1.4 converter on it, I have to be more careful: the subject (bird or etc.) still looks OK - not quite as sharp and contrasty but still perfetly OK, but the out of focus part of the image is (to my eye) less pleasant. It is often obtrusive, and even a little overall sharpening makes it more so, meaning that I have to start stuffing around making masks and sharpening in layers, which I prefer to avoid as much as possible.
I'm not talking a huge difference here, but enough to notice.
By the way, maybe I'm just dreaming, but I've never thought my current 1.4 converter is as good as my first one was. (I dropped the original one and had to buy a new one in mid 2006.) It's only been since them that I've taken a dislike to the converter, though I still use it from time to time, and sometimes even the 2X. Mostly though, I'm just using the 500/4 stand alone.
I broke one 1.4x converter too. It was ripped apart when the 1Ds and 300/2.8 went flying in different directions a few years ago. Fortunately the TC has a weak female bayonet side or the camera or lens would have been damaged. I got two more 1.4x TCs and I not sure that they are exactly same, but similar. I also used a couple of the older version I without the weather seal.
Fortunately the TC has a weak female bayonet side or the camera or lens would have been damaged. I got two more 1.4x TCs and I not sure that they are exactly same, but similar. I also used a couple of the older version I without the weather seal.
ddrueding
Fixture
I installed the EOS Viewer Utility, and everything works fine, except that anytime I try to change the name or time, it crashes. Tried with 2.0.0 and 2.0.3 firmwares to no avail.
Anyone have experiences with this?
Anyone have experiences with this?
ddrueding
Fixture
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Big, empty scenes are always hard to do much with - you have to work for your compositions under these circumstances! (Unlike some other places where interesting shapes keep jumping out at you and you just have to decide which one of them you like best.)
The first thing one wants to do with them is back off or zoom out to try to capture the immensity of the scene. That rarely works - what it does it minimise the size of the small points of visual interest you have to work with and make them insignificant. You can (sometimes) just go stupid on the "I need to shoot this really wide to capture the sense of space" theory, and (sometimes) that works, typically somewhere close to the 10mm end of a 10-22; but it certainly doesn't work all of the time.
Then you can go hunting for some visual detail to start making a composition with rather than just a snapshot. You've done that already with the gulls, the lighthouse, and the bit of seaweed (or whatever it is) at lower left. But, at least to my mind, those points of visual interest are too small, they don't do enough to the eye to make the picture work as a composition.
The third thing you can try - and it's surprising how often it works - is to go in the opposite direction. Stop trying to imply enough detail in that vast scene to make a picture, shoot the detail and imply the vastness. My favourite tool for this, by far, is the EF-S 60mm macro, very often in portrait rather than landscape mode. But I've done similar things with the 18-55 towards the longer end, with the 24-105, and (more often than I'd have imagined likely) with the short end of the 100-400. Hell, I have even used the 500/4 for landscape shots once or twice! But that 50ish to 100ish focal length range (100 to 150ish on 35mm) is what works most often.
Still, we have the shot that we have, and it's too late to swap lenses now. Where do we go from here? I would do something like this with it:
I've had to give up the larger bit of seaweed, but can make do with the smaller one to anchor the composition's lower left corner (often the most important pat of a picture). The eye is drawn from its natural starting place at lower left up and right along a series of details in the sand, then drawn back up and left along the white line of the ripples, and strongly back right by the breaking waves, picking up the lighthouse along the way. The seagulls reinforce the consistent lower-left to upper-right motion of the composition because that is the direction they are heading too - the eye follows moving objects and tries to anticipate where they are going to - and also, at a more subtle level, the seagulls symbolise movement, which is (as we have seen already) the theme of the picture. It is the seagulls more than anything else which do the work I spoke of earlier - it's their strong sense of movement out of the frame which creates that necessary implied space of the rest of the coastline.
And the lighthouse, it too serves a function: being placed right in the centre of the picture (usually a very bad place to put stuff) it continually draws the eye back inside the frame. Without the lighthouse, the eye would just be pushed up out of the picture by all those strong diagonals.
All in all, we have taken a pretty scene and done something with it that works. I dont think it works brilliantly by any means, but it sort of works. But what it really wants is to be taken from a few metres to the left of that spot, allowing the seaweed to be pushed in a bit, in turn allowing a more conventionally-shaped frame, and (more important) moving the lighthouse over towards the left-hand side more.
Your original as-shot composition is actually better balanced than that slightly weird thing I've concocted, but it suffers from : (a) a big hole in the middle where there is nothing of visual interest, and (b) that very strong horizontal line of beach and surf leading the eye out to either side where, again, there is nothing of visual interest.
There you go: just for you Dave, a genuine hand-crafted 80/20-mix critique.
(That's 80% BS, 20% nonsense - the usual mixture for these things, just ask a wine critic if you don't believe me.)
PS: I should have taken a tiny bit more off the right-hand side. No matter, close enough.
The first thing one wants to do with them is back off or zoom out to try to capture the immensity of the scene. That rarely works - what it does it minimise the size of the small points of visual interest you have to work with and make them insignificant. You can (sometimes) just go stupid on the "I need to shoot this really wide to capture the sense of space" theory, and (sometimes) that works, typically somewhere close to the 10mm end of a 10-22; but it certainly doesn't work all of the time.
Then you can go hunting for some visual detail to start making a composition with rather than just a snapshot. You've done that already with the gulls, the lighthouse, and the bit of seaweed (or whatever it is) at lower left. But, at least to my mind, those points of visual interest are too small, they don't do enough to the eye to make the picture work as a composition.
The third thing you can try - and it's surprising how often it works - is to go in the opposite direction. Stop trying to imply enough detail in that vast scene to make a picture, shoot the detail and imply the vastness. My favourite tool for this, by far, is the EF-S 60mm macro, very often in portrait rather than landscape mode. But I've done similar things with the 18-55 towards the longer end, with the 24-105, and (more often than I'd have imagined likely) with the short end of the 100-400. Hell, I have even used the 500/4 for landscape shots once or twice! But that 50ish to 100ish focal length range (100 to 150ish on 35mm) is what works most often.
Still, we have the shot that we have, and it's too late to swap lenses now. Where do we go from here? I would do something like this with it:
I've had to give up the larger bit of seaweed, but can make do with the smaller one to anchor the composition's lower left corner (often the most important pat of a picture). The eye is drawn from its natural starting place at lower left up and right along a series of details in the sand, then drawn back up and left along the white line of the ripples, and strongly back right by the breaking waves, picking up the lighthouse along the way. The seagulls reinforce the consistent lower-left to upper-right motion of the composition because that is the direction they are heading too - the eye follows moving objects and tries to anticipate where they are going to - and also, at a more subtle level, the seagulls symbolise movement, which is (as we have seen already) the theme of the picture. It is the seagulls more than anything else which do the work I spoke of earlier - it's their strong sense of movement out of the frame which creates that necessary implied space of the rest of the coastline.
And the lighthouse, it too serves a function: being placed right in the centre of the picture (usually a very bad place to put stuff) it continually draws the eye back inside the frame. Without the lighthouse, the eye would just be pushed up out of the picture by all those strong diagonals.
All in all, we have taken a pretty scene and done something with it that works. I dont think it works brilliantly by any means, but it sort of works. But what it really wants is to be taken from a few metres to the left of that spot, allowing the seaweed to be pushed in a bit, in turn allowing a more conventionally-shaped frame, and (more important) moving the lighthouse over towards the left-hand side more.
Your original as-shot composition is actually better balanced than that slightly weird thing I've concocted, but it suffers from : (a) a big hole in the middle where there is nothing of visual interest, and (b) that very strong horizontal line of beach and surf leading the eye out to either side where, again, there is nothing of visual interest.
There you go: just for you Dave, a genuine hand-crafted 80/20-mix critique.
(That's 80% BS, 20% nonsense - the usual mixture for these things, just ask a wine critic if you don't believe me.)
PS: I should have taken a tiny bit more off the right-hand side. No matter, close enough.
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks Tannin. When you speak of shooting details with a longer lens, is it the compressed perspective that you are after? Or just a closer crop to the subjects?
I see what you are talking about with your critique, and most of the things you said make sense (despite the 80/20).
Thanks much.
I see what you are talking about with your critique, and most of the things you said make sense (despite the 80/20).
Thanks much.
paugie
Storage is cool
Really appreciate your "tutorial" Tannin. Great insights!
Thanks.
Hmmmm.
Off topic, but this thread is the context. Here goes.
My usual Rig is a S939 with an MSI NVidia based mobo with 6100 built-in video. And yesterday I looked at the cropped pic Tony placed here. Great, I could really see the point of cropping Dave's pic.
Today, I'm testing a Sempron on an AMD 690 chipset mobo with an ATI built-in video for my nephew.
I read the update on this thread and page-up to see what else I may have missed reading. And lo! Tony's cropped pic jumps out at me, fully saturated and detailed. Really a joy to look at.
Question. Did you do some editing to the pic since yesterday? Or is the hype about this ATI video chipset as the best on-board video true? I am using the same old MAG 17" CRT monitor.
Maybe I should start a new topic.
Thanks.
Hmmmm.
Off topic, but this thread is the context. Here goes.
My usual Rig is a S939 with an MSI NVidia based mobo with 6100 built-in video. And yesterday I looked at the cropped pic Tony placed here. Great, I could really see the point of cropping Dave's pic.
Today, I'm testing a Sempron on an AMD 690 chipset mobo with an ATI built-in video for my nephew.
I read the update on this thread and page-up to see what else I may have missed reading. And lo! Tony's cropped pic jumps out at me, fully saturated and detailed. Really a joy to look at.
Question. Did you do some editing to the pic since yesterday? Or is the hype about this ATI video chipset as the best on-board video true? I am using the same old MAG 17" CRT monitor.
Maybe I should start a new topic.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Just the crop. Perspective doesn't change when you change lenses, it only changes when you move closer or further away. For this sort of shot, depth of field doesn't change either: even the foreground is close enough to count as infinity focus, especially because you are probably at f/11 or so. So the only thing that would change is the framing.
This is where a prime lens really helps. Not because of any marginal optical advantage (in any case, modern zooms are very good these days and any crappy old lens is pretty good at f/11) but because the fixed field of view makes you work harder at seeing better,
Next time you are in this same place (or a similar one), try putting your 50/1.8 prime on and leaving it on. Yes, you will miss shots you would otherwise have got, but you will also start seeing things in a different way. This is one reason I'm so fond of my 60 macro: it's just a bit too long for this sort of thing, and because I can't just take the obvious shot (can't fit all that in) it forces me to think about what objects really matter, forces me to reduce a scene to just the essentials. Nine times out of ten, the result is a better, more powerful shot.
Because I've been doing that for a while now, I don't really need the forced discipline of the fixed-length lens anymore, and I'll often just use the 24-105 somewhere near the longer end and save some lens swapping. But it's using the prime without the ability to zoom that teaches you to see in a more thoughtful, creative way, and even after you have absorbed that lesson and can apply all the time (despite maybe having a zoom mounted) it's good to revisit the fixed-focal-length world from time to time and reinforce it.
I find the 60 macro perfect for this, but your 50/1.8 will do just fine. As I write, it occurrs to me that I should get a 30mm or 35mm prime and work with that for a while, because there is a focal length I hardly ever use - maybe I need to learn to see better at 35mm.
This is where a prime lens really helps. Not because of any marginal optical advantage (in any case, modern zooms are very good these days and any crappy old lens is pretty good at f/11) but because the fixed field of view makes you work harder at seeing better,
Next time you are in this same place (or a similar one), try putting your 50/1.8 prime on and leaving it on. Yes, you will miss shots you would otherwise have got, but you will also start seeing things in a different way. This is one reason I'm so fond of my 60 macro: it's just a bit too long for this sort of thing, and because I can't just take the obvious shot (can't fit all that in) it forces me to think about what objects really matter, forces me to reduce a scene to just the essentials. Nine times out of ten, the result is a better, more powerful shot.
Because I've been doing that for a while now, I don't really need the forced discipline of the fixed-length lens anymore, and I'll often just use the 24-105 somewhere near the longer end and save some lens swapping. But it's using the prime without the ability to zoom that teaches you to see in a more thoughtful, creative way, and even after you have absorbed that lesson and can apply all the time (despite maybe having a zoom mounted) it's good to revisit the fixed-focal-length world from time to time and reinforce it.
I find the 60 macro perfect for this, but your 50/1.8 will do just fine. As I write, it occurrs to me that I should get a 30mm or 35mm prime and work with that for a while, because there is a focal length I hardly ever use - maybe I need to learn to see better at 35mm.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
No editing, Paugie, not since my original upload.
I did do a little tweaking then though. Apart from the crop, I ran it through Neat Image to (a) remove a little digital noise in the sky (at the cost of removing a little detail in the clouds and sand, which I judged was acceptable trade-off), and (b) sharpen a fraction (as it happens, the mild sharpening setting Neat Image uses by default if you select "remove noise and sharpen" instead of the default "remove noise only" setting is often just the right amount, assuming that you are working on a full-size original which you intend to later shrink to a medium res like 1024 x 768).
So I cropped, ran it through Neat Image, added a little extra saturation (about 10%, I think) because I was leaning more towards the picture-postcard-make-it-pretty side of things than the flat realism side, resized to 1024 x 768, and did a post-resizing moderate sharpen.
(You should always sharpen after resizing an image - look at what Flicker has done to David's original in the 1024 version: dull and blurry. Machines are no good at this stuff, it needs a human eye.)
Back to chipsets and displays, Paugie. Maybe your new board is indeed better, or maybe it simply has a more vivid default colour setting - i.e., you might well find that you can (if you wish) adjust either of your boards to look the same as the other one. Note that "more colour" <> "better". It's a matter of taste and degree.
I did do a little tweaking then though. Apart from the crop, I ran it through Neat Image to (a) remove a little digital noise in the sky (at the cost of removing a little detail in the clouds and sand, which I judged was acceptable trade-off), and (b) sharpen a fraction (as it happens, the mild sharpening setting Neat Image uses by default if you select "remove noise and sharpen" instead of the default "remove noise only" setting is often just the right amount, assuming that you are working on a full-size original which you intend to later shrink to a medium res like 1024 x 768).
So I cropped, ran it through Neat Image, added a little extra saturation (about 10%, I think) because I was leaning more towards the picture-postcard-make-it-pretty side of things than the flat realism side, resized to 1024 x 768, and did a post-resizing moderate sharpen.
(You should always sharpen after resizing an image - look at what Flicker has done to David's original in the 1024 version: dull and blurry. Machines are no good at this stuff, it needs a human eye.)
Back to chipsets and displays, Paugie. Maybe your new board is indeed better, or maybe it simply has a more vivid default colour setting - i.e., you might well find that you can (if you wish) adjust either of your boards to look the same as the other one. Note that "more colour" <> "better". It's a matter of taste and degree.
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the tips Tannin. I do run around with the 35mm/F2 Prime quite often, but none of the pictures make the cut. Either I need more practice or I'm too used to shooting @ 50mm. Likely both. I shoot with a prime almost exclusively; the only time I don't is when I am hiking with only a single lens.
On that note, I'm tempted to get something like the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and not carry multiple lenses on hikes, what do you think? Worth $2300? It weighs 1670g, so their really isn't a weight advantage. Too slow at the long end? I think I've talked myself out of it...
On that note, I'm tempted to get something like the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and not carry multiple lenses on hikes, what do you think? Worth $2300? It weighs 1670g, so their really isn't a weight advantage. Too slow at the long end? I think I've talked myself out of it...
I have mixed feelings about the 28-300 IS. I was better than I expected, though suffers the obvious zoom range/speed limitations. Ultimately I decided not to keep one. OTOH, I have two of the 100-400s though that lens also has some serious weaknesses.
However, you would not be helped by the 28-300 IS. Again, I say take some workshops.
However, you would not be helped by the 28-300 IS. Again, I say take some workshops.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm not good enough to take workshops yet. I'm also not comfortable enough with the camera yet.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Hmmm ..... can I see an 85mm lens in your future? Might suit you well.
I struggle to see a lot of point to the 28-300, though unlike Lunar, I've never tried one for myself. At 28mm it's too long at the short end to be walkaroundable (sorry about the term, I just made that one up), it's very heavy by the standards of anything other than a super telephoto, it's not long enough at the long end to be any good for birding (& etc.), and it's slow. I'm sure that there is a good use for it - why else would they make it? - but if so I haven't figured out what that use could be. Certainly, it would have to be in the context of a full-frame body, only then would the focal length range make any kind of sense.
I too find the 30-40mm focal length range (on a crop camera, I mean) very difficult, David. It isn't wide, it isn't long, it isn't anything really ... just bland. It also happens to be the focal length range that many of the great masters of the art have made their own. (They were using 50mm on film cameras, of course, but for our purposes that amounts to the same thing.)
Pity you don't live in the next suburb over. Sounds as though we could usefully swap: you take my 60mm macro for a month, I'd use your 30/2. We would probably both improve!
I struggle to see a lot of point to the 28-300, though unlike Lunar, I've never tried one for myself. At 28mm it's too long at the short end to be walkaroundable (sorry about the term, I just made that one up), it's very heavy by the standards of anything other than a super telephoto, it's not long enough at the long end to be any good for birding (& etc.), and it's slow. I'm sure that there is a good use for it - why else would they make it? - but if so I haven't figured out what that use could be. Certainly, it would have to be in the context of a full-frame body, only then would the focal length range make any kind of sense.
I too find the 30-40mm focal length range (on a crop camera, I mean) very difficult, David. It isn't wide, it isn't long, it isn't anything really ... just bland. It also happens to be the focal length range that many of the great masters of the art have made their own. (They were using 50mm on film cameras, of course, but for our purposes that amounts to the same thing.)
Pity you don't live in the next suburb over. Sounds as though we could usefully swap: you take my 60mm macro for a month, I'd use your 30/2. We would probably both improve!
ddrueding
Fixture
Do you mean an 85/1.8 or a 17-85/4-5.6 IS? The latter, at 475g and $US500 isn't too painful in any respect. Though it is slow.
ddrueding
Fixture
Also, I'm looking exclusively at lenses with IS above 50mm. I don't have the most stable hands. How long a lens do you think you can get without missing the assistance?
The general rule for hand holding is to shoot at no slower than 1/focal length. If when you are hand-holding the camera and maintaining that shutter speed, then you don't need IS. That's for the average person, of course you may wish to be conservative, if you are excessively shaky. Don't forget that you don't ever need IS, if you are using a tripod.
ddrueding
Fixture
I think I'll let the 1.6 crop be my conservative margin. So that means that shooting 100mm, it should be faster than 1/100. Which means @ f5.6, ISO800 on a cloudy day or thereabouts? So if I want to shoot ISO400, longer than 85mm requires IS or a much faster lens.
ddrueding
Fixture
Of course
I'm literally just carrying the camera with the kit 18-55 lens around on walks. The only tripod I have isn't tall enough to make it over the brush. Typically, I'm in a tree or balancing on a rock or stump. I'm looking into getting a good, tall tripod so I don't have to do any acrobatics; it will get harder with the heavier lenses.
ddrueding
Fixture
Rob Galbraith reports some decent improvements in Canon sub mirror fix and also with the latest v1.1.3 firmware upgrade.
It is still pretty lame if you ask me.
Maybe, but it seems to be much improved from the review (and better than the 1d Mark IIn in some cases).
I've noticed in my limited testing so far that the newer firmware 1.1.3 keeps the AI Servo from "hunting" as much as it was before.
I've noticed in my limited testing so far that the newer firmware 1.1.3 keeps the AI Servo from "hunting" as much as it was before.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yes, the recommend shutter speed is supposed to be 1/effective focal length (35FF) anyways. So a 100 mm lens should be used with a shutter speed faster than 1/160 sec on a Canon 1.6x APS-C body. If you wanted to be conservative, you would go for 1/2f, which would be 1/320 sec.
Yes, you do have to take into account the 1.6x focal length multiplier for those cameras with a small sensor, when hand holding. So as dawg notes that for a 100mm lens with a multiplier of 1.6 you should have a shutter speed of no slower than 1/160 sec because effectively your lens is a 160mm.