plastique2: It is really about time to change the term used in the English speaking photography community for the capability of a lense to let through more or less light. The term "speed" is absolutely misleading. We from non-english speaking countries have to endure the torture of reading photography related material translated from English by people who have no clue about photography.
This can look like this (my attempt to make an impression of what we actually have to read in our language - because someone translated literally something he didn't understand what it's about - but then who can blame them given the English text):
"This lens is very fast, although it isn't fast at all."
When we say in our language that a lens is fast, it always relates to it's ability to perform any kind of mechanical operation in a short time period. Yet when we wan't to address it's quality of light gathering, we use two words, the translation would be: "light power". Doesn't that make more sense?!
I will now aim to be extremely vague in my posts so as to confuse more people. Internet is fun.
Mark Schormann: Really hoping that camera manufacturers can get over this "Fn button" thing. It is stupid - it eventually just becomes a button that you aren't really sure what you last set it to. I would much rather have all the buttons do something useful and marked accordingly. Usage testing should easily determine what the majority of users want/need and the least used functions can be relegated to the menus for occasional use.
Now, with connected cameras, manufacturers should be able to automate the collection of button usage data!
My "Function button":
First press brings up contrast/sharpness/saturation
Second press brings up AF area/metering mode/(third very imporant thing I can't think of because I don't have it in front of me)
It's hardly stupid and far from useless.
Infared: I guess if you are into video this is an exciting product?For stills...totally unexciting...to me.I don't see what all of the fuss is about?
Well, for one, I own full frame and nex bodies. I just spent $830 on a 35/0.95, which is basically equivalent to the $150 50/1.4 I already had for full frame. My 2.8 zooms would go from slightly awkward on nex to every bit as usable as on full frame. And I'd have the option to use my 600/4 at an actual 600mm focal length with nex if I so choose.
Options. Cost savings. The hokey pokey. That's what it's all about.
Sdaniella: FF FoV:EF35mm F1.4 L x0.707 = 24.8mm F1.0 x1.5 = 37.2mm f/1.5 DoF (Light F1.0)
EF40mm F2.8 L x0.707 = 28.3mm F2.0 x1.5 = 42.4mm f/3.0 DoF (Light F2.0)
EF50mm F1.4 L x0.707 = 35.4mm F1.0 x1.5 = 53.1mm f/1.5 DoF (Light F1.0)
EF85mm F1.8 L x0.707 = 60.1mm F1.3 x1.5 = 90.2mm f/1.9 DoF (Light F1.3)
DoF: (Aperture Diameters)35/1.4 = 25.0mm diameter40/2.8 = 14.3mm diameter50/1.4 = 35.7mm diameter85/1.8 = 47.2mm diameter
Maybe to help distinguish difference in f-DoF vs F-Light, we express little 'f/num' for DoF and capital 'F' for Light, since 'f/num' for DoF implies FL/f-num for absolute aperture diameter = DoF. What say y'all?
eliedata: My colleagues and I bought 3 S100 cameras about 6 months ago. we were extremely satisfied with the image quality & the matchless convenience.
I used my camera really well travelling to Italy, Sicily, Dubai, Lebanon and other places. I shot about 3000 images and a few short movies.
However, the lens unit on my camera failed about a month ago for no reason at all. The same happened to one of my colleagues camera today even though she hardly used her camera.
Canon should pay more attention to the lens mechanism issue that caused many people to stop buying their products even though the image quality is really good. Reliability is a great issue!!!
I am so reluctant to advise anyone to buy the S110 if there is no assurance that the lens mechanism has been revamped.
Every Canon compact I've ever owned (s200,2x s400, s500) has also had a less than stellar longevity because of lens mechanisms. I thought they'd have gotten around to solving this issue by now, but I see they haven't.
PatrickP: the resolution of the said lenses seem to correlate with age more than anything. for premium lenses, the newer ones always resolve more.
Canon had a 24-70/2.8L for quite a while before the Nikon 24-70 shows up. Nikon 24-70 was crowed as the best out of the best for the past 5 years, until the Canon MkII shows up and claimed the throne.
I am sure once a Mark II from Nikon (hopefully with VR) shows up it would be the best again, so would be the Mark III from Canon. it's always a leap-frog between the two.
Yes, it is always a Canon-Nikon leapfrogging provided you glance over the $300-dollar-cheaper-than-Canon Zeiss 24-70 entirely.
PStu: The 70-200mm f4 is about one-third heavier than the Canon equivalent. It will have to be cheap to make it attractive.
No. It will have to perform well and be *less expensive* to make it attractive. And at $1200 for the Canon that leaves quite a lot of room.
I will be looking forward to that 20.
Colin Franks: "Truth is not determined by majority vote".
True. *Winner* is determined by majority vote
photo perzon: Isn't the pl5 important? It has 99% of the OMD and half the volume and the weight. It is pocketable with a prime!! Same IQ, tilt, touch.
Survey says "no."
EssexAsh: interesting article, thanks :) How does this compare to using hyperfocal focusing though?
Absolutely. And sometimes large panos with thin depths of field are absolutely gorgeous. I've done this with weddings specifically and gotten stellar results with some really unique looks.
Different strokes for different... situations ;) It's the photog's job to figure out what will work best, as always!
gsum: Sorry but that's only partially true. Chosen aperture also plays a role.
Saying "things that are outside of the plane of focus will be out of focus" doesn't make Thomas' comment incorrect.
mrdancer: I noticed a few folks here are using Photoshop. I've tried using Photoshop several times in the past, but it seems to take forever to construct panoramas, and the results are usually less than satisfactory. More importantly, it locks up on larger files (I usually stitch several dozen images at a time). I've found that M$ ICE seems to work the best of any stitching software I've used. It is fast, super-easy and very forgiving. Best of all, it is free. Just wanted to throw that out there for those of you suffering with Photoshop...
I have no problems with PSE10 and find the quality of the panos it spits out exceed that of MS ICE, though generally that program works fairly well too.
What you WILL find is that when you are trying to stitch extremely large panos and not paying attention to dimensions Adobe products will come to a screeching and unannounced halt once they hit the 30,000 pixel limit. It simply stops and forgets that it was ever doing anything. It doesn't take dozens to hit that limit.
Mssimo: Why not use a high quality UWA lens and focus stack (if needed)?
The last I did was 195 mp and was printed 60" at 300 dpi. It was something like 70-80 mb. What kind of file are you trying to send? I consider the highest quality jpegs to be strictly for maintaining quality for further editing, for printing I usually save at the 9 setting in Adobe (of 12) and don't think I'd be missing anything to go lower yet. Maybe try getting 4x6 sections of what you'd like to have printed at higher compression first to make sure you're happy with the quality.
That certainly works if you're looking to make a regular-sized print, and by that I mean 16x24 or smaller. If you want to have the sort of detail you'd find in a smaller print but want, say, a 60+" print, you want all the resolution you can get.
And before you say it, yes, people print this big. The only photos I regularly print are huge panos from vacations, which are slowly collecting for mounting on my office wall once it's remodeled :)
You know you've done your job when you have to shrink photos prior to stitching to keep from banging up against Adobe's 30,000 pixel limit!
Lightpath48: I would love to be able to afford something like the RX1. But it's really priced beyond my sanity.
It's a supercompact full frame mirrorless with an attached f2 Zeiss lens.
If you want something more affordable the answer is easy: Get a crappier camera.
I can't afford a Ferrari, so I drive a Dodge and don't bitch about Ferraris being overpriced.
OneGuy: This cam has a flare weakness. My earlier post on that got deleted
Red G8R: First non Nikon lens for me.
Well it's either your second lens or you are easily parted from your money :)
mpgxsvcd: First place prize goes to anyone who photographs someone else talking on their camera.
Wait... whose camera? Are we talking a mirror shot of someone talking into my camera as I hold it, photographing them?