xavier_henri

<p>I had the <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF50-18.php">50 f/1.8</a> and now have the <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF50-14.php">50 f/1.4</a>.<br>

I am now craving for a new f/1.4 modern lens with:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fast Ring USM FTM autofocus </li>

<li>Eight rounded aperture blades for a silky bokeh </li>

<li>Spectra coating on the rear lens to reduce flare from sensor reflections </li>

<li>E-TTL 2 flash compatibility </li>

<li>A real and large depth of field indicator window </li>

<li>Same lens formula as the current f/1.4 </li>

</ul>

<p>Just dreaming, it will never happen...</p>

<p>You might want to check my <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/FlashTipsE.php">Cobra Flash Tips and Tricks</a> page...</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2129602">Daniel Lee Taylor</a> said :</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Your 7D breaks the laws of physics?</em><br>

What law of physics would that be Scott?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only intrinsic superiority of FF would be with shallow depth of field around 50 mm. Which happens to be a focal length I favor. To get the equivalent shallow depth of field of a 50 mm lens say at f/1.6 you would need a 31 mm lens at f/1 that just does not exist.<br>

Furthermore, a 5D² plus a 135mm f/2 lens weights much less than the equivalent 7D plus a 85mm f/1.2 lens for about the same field of view and shallow depth of field.</p>

<p>A friend of mine has a D700... And mostly uses the center focusing point :-)<br>

I have no lust for the D700, but I secretly wish for a Leica M9 with a Fujifilm x100 type viewfinder and autofocus fast prime lenses...</p>

<p>@Hal B :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You'll never see any ego-maniac admit that his fancy camera lacks a feature that could ever imaginably be useful to anyone in the world, and that everyone should just carry around additional accessories to accomodate every situation. Since the quality of on-camera flash is inferior, it should not exist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm... The D700 for which I hesitated does have a real auto ISO feature (M mode) that I would really have wanted, same with the wider auto focus area. But I don't crave for the built-in flash as I nearly never used it on the EOS 33 and 20D. The 5D² does have other superior features for me though...<br>

They targeted well for me, I bought the 5D² even though it didn't have a built-in flash :)</p>

<p>I had it on my EOS 33 and my EOS 20D and barely used it...<br>

The Hulk example above is one of the rare occasions where it could be useful.<br>

For fill flash in bright sunshine, it just isn't powerful enough; it can give you a feeble catchlight in the eyes though.<br>

For portraits or group shots in low light, it's just catastrophic. You would need at least bouncing on the ceiling. See <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/FlashTipsE.php">those tips</a>.<br>

@Pete Lilley, the shadow happens with wide angle shots not with a tele lens.</p>

<p>Since I got the 135 L, the zoom stays home most of the time; but then with the 5D² I have plenty of resolution for cropping when necessary...<br>

A few <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF135.php">examples with the 135 L here</a>.<br>

Xavier.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have "DoF Calculator" on my iPod Touch, but generally prefer to use a simple DoF card as <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/DoF_E.php">presented here</a>.</p>

<p>Here is also a simple trick to get the hyperfocal distance:</p>

<ul>

<li>focus on infinity,</li>

<li>take your picture and inspect at your preferred zooming level to determine where is the sharpness limit (LiveView is also possible),</li>

<li>focus on this point which is your hyperfocal distance (sharp from half this distance to infinity).</li>

</ul>

<p>If you zoom completely then it's like using a CoC of about 2 pixels. Zooming less is like using a larger CoC (I use 50% on the 5D MarkII to get about the standard 0,03 mm CoC).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=485847">John Jennings</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 23, 2009; 10:32 p.m.</p>

 

<p>[...]</p>

 

<p>Just how bad is increase in shutter lag ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no impact on shutter lag, BUT...</p>

<p>When you depress the shutter button halfway, the lens starts measuring your movements, and after a few oscillations places the stabilization lens in an average position. If your movements are large enough, it may decide to change rapidly to a new average position. You'd better not be shooting at that moment !</p>

<p>This means that fast focus recompose is not very effective, and may even give you a very fuzzy image if you fully depressed the shutter at the wrong time.<br>

To use it well in mode 1, you should depress the shutter halfway, be stable for a small second and then fully trigger.<br>

If you are panning, horizontally or vertically, you should be in mode 2, but then your are only half stabilized...</p>

 

<p>Scott, I agree with you; I just want to warn people about IS over confidence as I had 4 years ago when I got the lens.<br>

There are other ways to get over camera shake that might be more useful in many cases: fast primes, higher ISO, bursts, etc.<br>

In the case of birding and longer lenses there is no question about IS being very useful though...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This <strong>"Handhold for Birding"</strong> thread:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="../nature-photography-forum/00QE7l">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QE7l</a> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I agree with the last post of this thread: shooting moving subjects at slower speeds (without IS, with IS or with a tripod) is pure luck, that's why they talk about taking bursts to statistically get one sharp image...</p>

<p>This doesn't mean that IS is useless with moving subjects though, especially with longer lenses! It just means that it removes the camera shake problem and leaves you with the moving subject problem! The slower the speed, the less the number of keepers...</p>

<p>Well, as I use a very light tripod for travelling, stabilization is an enormous plus for me in those conditions. Much more than when shooting moving targets in mode II, or focus recomposing in mode I.<br>

With third generation IS at least on a tripod, you need to depress the shutter release halfway, standing still for a full second before fully triggering (time needed by the lens to detect the tripod) => no self-timer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p>Yes, IS is expensive, but it can be worth its weight in gold in the right situations.</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely right, but not as many situations as one would think at first. Oh, and did you ever try the statistical stabilizer (<a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EOS5D2TipsE.php">4th tip here</a>) ?</p>

<p><strong>@David Smith</strong>: You are going to use tripods therefore at lower ISO, you don't own fast primes so are not really interested in shallower depth of field. It's a no brainer, buy the 7D...</p>

<p>I don't think wide angle should be a reason to choose one or the other camera. There are good wide angle lenses for APS-C nowadays.</p>

<p><strong>@Michael</strong>: what I ment is that I shoot much less stable subjects than I initially thought of... People at a party have moving hands, birds are flying, tree branches & leaves are moving in my landscapes, children, cars, water, etc.</p>

<p><strong>@David</strong>: all my links were in english, so I suppose you mean that my sRAW1 explanation was too technical. It all boils down to sRAW1 smoothing chrominance a bit and leads you to a 10 MPixels file that is somewhat already filtered for higher ISO.</p>

<p><strong>@Katrina</strong>: we have approximately the same interests...</p>

<ul>

<li>You did put Landscape first, and I believe you won't want to haul a heavy tripod. The 5D² will enable cleaner higher ISO at smaller apertures (deeper depth of field). Especially at dusk.</li>

<li>For portraits, the shallower depth of field will help to have your children pop out of a blurred background.</li>

<li>Now for sports, the 7D would surely be better, but I do manage quite well with the 5D². I use centered AI-Servo which is very effective, even in lower light. I then have enough pixels to crop and place my subject adequately in post-processing (cropping a centered subject to the thirds leaves you with 12 MPixels).</li>

<li>And I'm sure you will take pictures of your kids in low-light, in that case it's a no brainer.</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>I must say that after 5 years of IS, I don't find it as useful as I did when I got it first...</p>

<ul>

<li >

<p >It doesn't stabilize your moving subject,</p>

</li>

<li >It doesn't like fast focus recompose (needs one stable second before shooting).</li>

</ul>

<p>Nevertheless, it has its advantages:</p>

<ul>

<li>Stabilizes the viewfinder or LiveView image,</li>

<li>Enables to hand hold when small apertures are needed for deep depth of field.</li>

</ul>

<p>Today, I tend to prefer to use fast primes with the 5D² high ISO and cropping capabilities.</p>

<p>Jamie,<br>

The sRAW1 format is in fact very different from RAW (14 bits per pixel Bayer matrix): it is already demosaiced and is coded in <a href="http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/#sraw">YCbCr</a>. Luminosity information is coded with 15 bits and chrominance with 2x15 bits every 4 pixels. Therefore, it is very effective at higher ISO settings where chrominance noise will be smoothed out (very impressive at ISO 6400).</p>

<p>Concerning focusing (a few <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EOS5D2TipsE.php">tips here</a>), the center AF point is very good in low light; much much better than my old 20D. </p><div></div>

<p>

<p>Hmmm, I believe I need to explain why the following kind of photography might be better on the 5D² independently of the "larger prints" criteria.</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Portrait</strong> : because a 5D² + 135 f/2 L is lighter and cheaper than a 7D + 85 f/1.2 L (for equivalent shallow depth of field and blurred backgrounds). [#1 for me]</li>

<li><strong>Architecture</strong> : because you would either use tilt/shift lenses or need sufficient extra resolution to recover perspective in post-processing.</li>

<li><strong>Low-Light</strong> : because an sRAW1 ISO 6400 5D² file is just unbelievable.</li>

<li><strong>Landscape</strong> : only if you don't use a heavy tripod (higher ISO), otherwise I believe 7D is about equivalent.</li>

</ul>

<p>If none of these ring a bell, then by all means get the 7D.<br>

Oh, and concerning weight, you might want to leave the zoom on its shelf more often, knowing that cropping lighter prime lenses images gives excellent results on the 5D² ;-)</p>

</p>

<p>Fairly easy :<br>

 

<ul>

<li >

<p >For landscape, portraits, architecture and low light -> 5D²</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >For sports, wildlife and macro -> 7D</p>

</li>

</ul>

</p>

<p>Mostly evaluative associated to a single focus point. With Focus Recompose, focus and metering are then locked before recomposing. I shift it between +/- 1EV with the rear wheel depending on the subject (light or dark). Very effective.<br>

Otherwise, like Mark spot...</p>

<p>I want real Auto ISO in M mode :-(</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=688881">Andrew Robertson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 09, 2009; 11:40 p.m. said :</p>

<em></em>

<p><em>"I think, Xavier, that instead of it causing you problems, you misunderstood what it does. <br />And, if you have a lens with both mode 1 and 2 IS it will stabilize people to some degree. You just have to be good at panning."</em></p>

<p>Let's say that I was expecting too much for a while ;-) But I did take hundreds of excellent pictures with IS...<br>

Four years ago, it was a necessary feature for me. Today, with better higher ISO quality things have changed.</p>

 

 

<p>Jack, I am really sorry, but I threw them away... Never thought I would need to post any of those.<br>

It happens when you shoot and the IS system is trying to catch up with your large movement and recenters.<br>

If you shoot while panning, you must use IS mode II.</p>