karl_lehmann

<p>Puppy, it works great on clear blue skies at lahaina noon. In fact, at ~21 degrees north, any time very close to noon between May and August works if you're careful. Try it for beach shots.<br>

If you cast any shadow at all, you'll need to line up your shot on your shadow's axis to avoid unnatural gradients.</p>

<p>If you cut the front slot off the regular Cokin P holder it won't vignette and you'll still have 2 slots (it will work to 20mm with full frame, wider than that and you need to remove another or get the wide angle holder). Cutting off the front slot is no loss because stacking 3 filters is ridiculous anyway.</p>

<p>The Cokin P holders are fine but stay away from their filters. Their "ND grads" are not neutral at all. They have weird color casts which will be all but impossible to correct in post, since they are graduated.</p>

<p>Sarah, have you ever considered using a lens hood? Or removing the filter when you don't need it?</p>

<p>While we're putting words in each others mouths, I"ll also point out that any assertion that putting a filter in front of a lens will improve its optical quality is utter nonsense.</p>

<p>And a reminder to all that certain words should never be used on this forum. That's not because they are bad words, it's only because using them here has the same effect as poking a hornets' nest. Three of those words are "Tiffen", "Sigma" and "Nikon".</p>

<p>Don't worry Sarah, I'm only teasing. But you have to admit you deserved it.</p>

<p>Also - Jennifer, good prime lenses can be very inexpensive. You can get one for less than the cost of a multicoated polarizer ;-). "Prime" just means they don't zoom. They usually provide better image quality than even the best zooms, but the difference is often minor. Most of us use zooms a lot of the time anyway because they are more versatile.</p>

<p>Jennifer, Gary is right - there is nothing wrong with your lens and I didn't mean to imply there was. But the advice from others to spend an extra $60 for a multicoated polarizer is way over the top. It's a wonder none of them told you to get rid of your 50D and buy a Hasselblad.</p>

<p>Before the gearheads get too upset, I will admit to using only multicoated filters myself and I'm sure using the multicoated polarizer instead of an uncoated one makes a perceptible difference at least 1% of the time. But I get to write off the extra cost. I would never tell a beginner to spend that much for a tiny incremental improvement when she could put it toward something more useful like a tripod or a second lens instead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>'I also wonder why you say "with a zoom lens"...' - Craig Dickson</p>

<p>Because a zoom lens such as the EF 28-135 contains many more internal surfaces than a prime it is far more prone to ghosting and flare. Thus it is likely to swamp the effects of reflections from the inner surface of a filter. If you've already got a row of 9 ghost images, 1 more doesn't make much difference. The OP did not ask for technical details so I didn't provide them.</p>

<p>Obviously if you are shooting into bright light sources and you don't want flare and ghosting you should use a prime lens with a hood and no filters, and if you MUST use a filter it should be multicoated. You would want to remove any UV filter whether it's multicoated or not. But this has nothing to do with the poster's question. If you have unrelated filter questions maybe you should start a new thread, or search the archives.</p>

<p>You don't need the wide angle filters for the 28-135mm, especially not with the 50D. Even on a full frame camera (like the 5D) it wouldn't matter unless you stacked the filters, which you shouldn't do anyway. Your lens caps will stay on the regular filters better.</p>

<p>Don't worry, the Tiffen UV and polarizing filters are fine. A multicoated filter (like Hoya HMC) is slightly better in some conditions (with the sun in the frame, for example) but much more expensive. In the real world, with a zoom lens, you will probably never see any difference.</p>

<p>"So the 5D II and the Eg-S screen sounds like the way.<br /> Anybody got this combo?"</p>

<p>Yes, this is what I use and it works great. It's fine with f/4 lenses too (I don't doubt it's a bit darker at f/4 than the original Eg-A, but you'd never notice unless you compared them side by side - at least I wouldn't. On the other hand it's MUCH easier to focus with the Eg-S, so I leave it in all the time).</p>

<p>"Does it work straight out of the box?"</p>

<p>Yes, except you have to change one custom function setting for proper exposure metering (don't worry, it's in the instructions). The whole procedure only takes a couple of minutes.</p>

<p>BTW, if you have the old Ee-s (for the 5D I) it's the same thing as the Eg-S but with 2 extra tabs on the sides. You can grind or cut them off and it will fit the 5DII (of course the same applies to any other 5D screens you may have).</p>

<p>Yes, the EC-N is harder to focus. Even if you always use AF this is a drawback because it makes it hard to judge depth of field (especially with wide angle, it tends to look like everything is in focus).</p>

<p>If you never focus manually and absolutely trust autofocus you might not mind, but I don't think it's a good trade-off. The EC-N isn't that much brighter anyway.</p>

<p>"...should I still have long exposure noise reduction turned on while making my exposures?"</p>

<p>Definitely not. If you do that you will end up with extra 30 second gaps between exposures, which will turn your trails into a series of dashes. Your dark frame replaces long exposure noise reduction (which is really the same thing).</p>

<p>But the new extenders are colored a new, more neutral shade of white compared to earlier lenses. It is intended to indicate that the IS II lenses have evolved. That means if you combine them with the 100-400mm IS, the paint won't match.</p>

<p>Brett, auto ISO is disabled in M mode on the 5DII (it simply defaults to ISO 400). That makes it pretty much useless.</p>

<p>If you use auto ISO with AV or TV you're giving the camera two variables which means you've lost control of the settings. Another useless combination.</p>

<p>Perhaps it makes sense if you use P mode, on the assumption that you don't care about the settings anyway. But M is the mode where it would be most useful.</p>

<p>Scott -</p>

<p>The major problem with P is that it forgets your exposure shift after a few seconds. That means you have to watch the settings and keep re-shifting when you should be watching your subject. You are spinning dials and worrying about exposure shifts instead of composition or decisive moments.</p>

<p>If it weren't for that extremely annoying shift reversion I would agree when you say "It does exactly the same as Tv or Av."</p>

<p>"I should probably learn to set my camera to P when putting it away. I've lost many a fleeting opportunity while spinning wheels and dials. There's something to be said for having the camera ready to shoot SOMETHING when you first yank it out of the holster bag." - Sarah Fox</p>

<p>That's an excellent idea! I think it's the first rational argument for P mode I've ever heard. You can also accomplish something similar by setting to AV and a wide aperture before putting your camera away, which is what I normally do.</p>

<p>The most useful modes for general shooting are probably M, AV and DEP (sadly, DEP is no longer with us). TV is great for fill flash, and some people prefer it to AV for general use. P is generally worse than useless (anything P can do, AV or TV will do better) - except for what Sarah said.</p>

<p>Avoid the Green Square of Death at all costs. If you accidentally hit that, a random selection of your settings will revert to "factory default" and have to be reset.</p>

<p>"Well......I heard.....Canon is going to make all their components available on an 'a la carte' basis...."</p>

<p>Yes, then you can just download and print it out at home on your Canon 3D printer. No more waiting for overnight delivery. Of course those 3D ink cartridges will probably be expensive... especially the ones for "L" glass.</p>

<p>Just take enough cards to last for your trip, plus a couple of extras. You can get reliable 32GB CF cards for about $75 now (if you have to buy more cards along the way you'll only find small cards and you'll probably pay 4x what they're worth). It's also a good idea take a portable storage device (I use HyperDrives) for backup. They will hold up to 500GB. Don't keep the backup device in the same bag as the filled CF cards. If you are paranoid or extremely concerned about weight you can mail the Hyperdrives home as you fill them. Carrying a netbook or iPad is ridiculous, IMO, unless you need it for some other reason. They are big, heavy and power hungry.</p>

<p>Never try to reuse a CF card before you've got the images on your computer at home and backed up. This is by far the most likely way to lose data (oops, formatted the wrong card...).</p>

<p>"I personally think this is a poor way (optically and probably technically as well) to get the two focal lengths." -<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a></p>

<p>Keep in mind that the TS-E lenses are very heavy and cost $2000 each. The 1.4x is small and light, it costs much less, and it works on all your long telephotos too. You pay a small price optically but you gain a lot of versatility and it's always in your bag (as opposed to a 2nd TS-E, which would probably get left behind along with the proverbial "too heavy" tripod).</p>

<p>The EOS 1.4x extender works fine on both the 24mm ts/e II and the original 24mm ts/e. I would say it gives you improved results at extreme tilt and/or shift settings, because you are "cropping" away the worst part of the image, at the edges. By the same token, a cropped sensor would do the same.</p>

<p>As for whether adding the 1.4x will give you better results than adding the 7D, until someone tests them side by side it's all speculation. No doubt it will depend on the situation (which is more important, noise or resolution?). But I can guarantee either combination will give you "professional quality images", and either combination will give far better results than digital perspective correction. I've had no problem selling images shot with the OLD 24mm ts/e + 1.4x combination! Nobody has ever complained about the image quality.</p>

<p>I would choose between them based on which (the 1.4X or the 7D) adds the most to the rest of your system. Maybe you should get both.</p>

<p>If you've already tried the Acratech Ultimate and you like the way it works, you should definitely go with it. Its combination of light weight and stability is superb - I believe it's the most solid ballhead in its weight range. The only objection would be, it can be awkward to use at first if you're used to a more "standard" design.</p>

<p>The best deal now is probably the Kingston Elite Pro 32GB/133x. It's about $75 from B&H or Amazon. I would expect another price drop fairly soon because CF prices have been stuck for quite a while.</p>

<p>If you paid $130 for 8GB anytime in the past couple of years you've been robbed. You should return it ASAP if you still can.</p>

<p>Sarah, you wrote,<em> "Well, that's repeatability, not total vibrational excursion."</em><br /> <em> </em><br>

<br /> I think it's some combination of the two because the sequential exposures are usually made at different shutter speeds. The largest excursion occurs near the beginning of the exposure, so if it's significant the exposures won't line up. In fact you can almost eliminate the effect by using long exposures - with a 10 second exposure you don't even need MLU. With very short exposures (less than 1/60 or so but it depends on your system) total vibrational excursion will be more important. But camera-induced vibrations will not be the limiting factor in useful pixel density because you can reduce them arbitrarily by increasing exposure time.</p>

<p><em>"taking your estimate of 1/2 pixel at face value, I would say the 21MP resolution is already the limit that can be achieved with the rigidity of your system"</em></p>

<p>But that is not my estimate, with good technique it is usually much less. The reason I mentioned 1/2 pixel is because that is what I look for - if the difference is greater than 1/2 pixel the images need to be aligned before stacking. I don't like to stack when it's that sloppy because I am trading resolution for increased dynamic range and reduced noise. But a slight reduction in resolution is far better than blown highlights and blocked up or noisy shadows.</p>

<p>Usually the difference is not even detectable unless I have touched the camera between exposures (which I would consider poor technique, but sometimes you have to do it). Based on that I would say 21MP resolution is nowhere near the vibration-based limit. And my system is nowhere near the ultimate possible. Given a 100MP sensor I might have the incentive to buy a heavier tripod or lengthen my exposures, for example.</p>

<p>The bottom line is, we will reach limits based on diffraction (or, possibly, signal-to-noise ratio) long before we run out of ways to reduce camera movement.</p>

<p><em>"Images are printed to a specific size. Which means when you print a 12 MP and a 21 MP image each to 16x24, you are "downsizing" the 21 MP image relative to the 12 MP one. The noise in the 21 MP image, indeed all pixel level artifacts, are magnified less relative to the 12 MP one. </em>- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2129602">Daniel Lee Taylor</a></p>

<p>This is true, but it misses the point<em>.</em> The 21MP image gives you the option of printing at a larger size and/or cropping more. If you do so, you will see more noise. At some pixel density, with a given level of technology, the noise will reach a point where you will no longer wish to print at larger sizes. That is the trade-off.<em> </em></p>

<p><em>Pixel peeping (i.e. viewing images at 100% in Photoshop) gives a distorted view of noise performance because higher resolution images are magnified more.</em></p>

<p>That is only true if you misinterpret what you are looking at.</p>

<p>Daniel, it's obvious that you understand all this so it's silly to keep debating it.</p>

 

<p>Kelly- 23k sounds a bit pricey, I think I'll wait for the next rebate program before I buy. Until then I've got my phone for snapshots...</p>

<p>Sarah - you asked, "Does that translate to one or more pixels of wobble when I trip the shutter?"</p>

<p>I can answer that because I often stack images to reduce noise and/or increase dynamic range. If I use MLU and a remote, sequential images at 21MP are in register to within less than 1/2 a pixel (usually much less). That means at 100MP they ought to line up to within a pixel or better.</p>

<p>If I touch the camera between shots to change settings, or get lazy and skip the remote, the images are often (but not always) out of line by one or more pixels. I suspect the substrate accounts for most of the difference - unfortunately you can't always get all three tripod feet on bedrock.</p>

<p>With long focal lengths and distant subjects the difference is moot. The images don't line up anyway because of atmospheric effects. But that doesn't mean more MP wouldn't get you better resolution in a single, short exposure.</p>

<p>I'm not sure <em>I</em> need 100MP, but I'd be pretty happy to get 40 or so.</p>

<p>Sarah, you wrote, "You can mount that 50 or 100MP camera on the sturdiest Gitzo tripod, and it's still going to wobble as the camera vibrates."</p>

<p>This is very true and you don't need 50 - 100MP to prove it. It's a problem even at 21MP and it was a problem with film too. But you can solve it with MLU and a remote release, and by choosing a windless moment to shoot. Landscape photographers do this all the time. With a long lens you might want to add a sandbag.</p>

<p>The humorous thing is, the real purpose of a 100MP sensor will be to market cameras to snapshooters for producing email photos and the occasional 4x6 print. The fact that careful photographers will benefit under ideal conditions is just a side issue of little importance to the camera makers.</p>

<p>"...more MP conveys a benefit but comes at a cost. If the additional benefits aren't really needed, are you willing to pay the costs (e.g. higher noise)?" - <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a></p>

<p>"<em><strong>There is no noise cost to higher mp sensors</strong>.</em>" - <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1774085">Keith Reeder</a></p>

<p>You are both right. It's a matter of semantics.</p>

<p>If you downsize a 21MP image to 12MP you get two 12MP images with similar noise, as Keith says.</p>

<p>If you leave the 21MP image at 21MP you get a higher res image with more noise, which is the trade-off Sarah points out. There are others too, such as more processing time and fewer images per card.</p>

<p>Which leads one to ask, what is the point of Keith's method? If you think 12MP is sufficient and you believe the noise in a 21MP image is unacceptable you can avoid all the other trade-offs by just shooting a 12MP image in the first place. It seems silly to me (I prefer 21MP and I find it to be well worth the costs), but Canon offers you the choice of sRAW so you can do something very close to that even if you are stuck with a 21MP sensor.</p>