ed_avis2

<p>What caught my eye was not 4k video but 120 frames per second video capture at standard HD ('2k') resolution. I don't think there are any broadcast standards for this yet, and it's probably too low-res for cinema use, but perhaps before too long we will see 'Netflix 120Hz'?</p>

<p>The way you program the chips varies but it has little to do with the aperture selection in the camera. Like a cheat code in a video game it involves some odd combination of button presses to set what the reported aperture and focal length are.<br> Since the camera has no control over the real aperture (never mind the reported value which gets recorded in EXIF data), it doesn't matter that the aperture value of 5.6 can't be changed on the camera body. You can change the real aperture as you want.<br> I think that One-shot AF mode may work better for focus confirmation since it will highlight the focus point used. Certainly that's the mode I use with manual focus lenses (whether native or adapted).</p>

<p>I thought it would do A-TTL with the 430EZ, so it does sound as though the contacts are dirty.</p>

<p>I recall that the Mark II has the same optical formula as the Mark I, but adds weather sealing. Possibly the coatings might have improved too. The Mark III ones are a big improvement from what I've read.</p>

<p>FWIW, I suspect that the test chart I linked to understates the difference in image quality between the two lenses. If the similar 40mm pancake lens is any guide, the newer 24mm STM lens will also have more punchy colours than the older lens; I suspect Canon use better coatings on their newer lenses, even those which are not "L" branded.</p>

<p>This test chart comparison shows that the newer STM lens has better image quality:<br> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0<br> <br />Given that, plus the other advantages of smaller size, faster and quieter autofocus, it's a no-brainer to buy the new lens at the cheaper price rather than the more expensive used one.</p>

<p>It does depend on the chip; some will return a made-up aperture value such as 1.4 to the camera, but in practice it makes little difference. The only modes that make sense with adapted manual lenses are Av (you set the aperture mechanically on the lens and the camera decides the shutter speed) and M (you set the aperture mechanically and the shutter speed on the camera body).</p> <p>There might be some odd combination of buttons you can press to reprogram the chip on your adaptor so that it returns a different made-up value for aperture or focal length or whatever. I can't see the point.</p>

<p>My subjective experience with these two has been that the 85mm is a good lens but the contrast is a little lower and the colours a little bit muted compared to the 'pop' of the 40mm. For all that these can be adjusted in post-processing, on overcast days I would like all the help I can get from the lens.</p>

<p>Apart from the higher frame rate, what does the 1D X have that the 5D Mark III doesn't have? Remembering that vertical grips are indeed available for the 5D III, and that high-ISO performance is fairly compared when resizing both images to the same number of pixels.</p>

<p>That sounds like an ideal collection of lenses for collecting lenses, which can certainly be a fun hobby but is not the same as photography.</p>

<p>Thanks; the original Tamron EOS mount is scarce so I will have to make do with a third party one. I have the 90mm lens with Olympus OM mount, and I tried using an OM-to-EOS adaptor. But although the adaptor works well with real Olympus lenses, it wouldn't stop down properly with the Adaptall OM mount.</p>

<p>Marc B., how have you adapted the Tamron lens to a Canon EOS body? With the Adaptall mount there is more than one way to do it.</p>

<p>I have the ancient 100-300 f/5.6 L. It is cheap to buy used and the image quality is reasonable, but autofocus is slow. It might work okay given that aeroplanes move mostly in a straight line, so don't require the autofocus to dance about in the same way as sports photography.</p>

<p>The Rokinon lenses are manual focus. Manually focusing at night is hard, unless you use Live View, but then you need a tripod. And if you have a tripod you may as well shoot at a smaller aperture like f/8. So I'm not certain that night time implies these particular lenses, although they may be fine lenses generally.</p>

<p>The standard screen in the 1Ds Mark II is the Ec-C III. You can replace it with the Ec-C IV, an newer version which is included with the 1Ds Mark III and later models. That gives a small improvement to manual focus while still being a good general purpose screen.<br> If you want to take lots of wide open photographs you may find the lack of Live View a problem. Stop down to say f/5.6 and I think you'll find manual focus works well enough with this lens.</p>

<p>Get Canon's 40mm pancake lens instead.</p>

<p>The Zeiss 50/2 is a great all-round lens and perhaps cheaper to buy in its original ZE form now that a facelifted 'Milvus' version is sold. Sigma's 50/2.8 macro lens has been around a long time (so used ones are cheap) and is also very good both for macro and for general purpose photography. If you want to get subjective the Sigma is more 'scientific' in rendering style while the Zeiss has its characteristic 'pop'... but I think the difference is noted less in macro work than in medium-distance photography. You'll need to stop down a lot for macro so the one f-stop difference in max aperture is neither here nor there.</p>

<p>With the 1Ds it's a custom function called something like "shutter release / AE lock". There are various choices and some of them mean that you must press the * button to engage autofocus. This is something you'll have to try to see if you like it in general; if you do, then it makes working with these older USM lenses a bit easier since you will be able to move the focus ring manually and autofocus as you choose without flicking the AF/MF switch.</p> <p>I expect there is an equivalent custom function on the 5D.</p>

<p>Canon often state that all their EF lenses are compatible with all EOS bodies. I'd be most surprised if it didn't work.</p>

<p>I believe all 'L' branded lenses contain at least one aspherical or fluorite element.</p> <p>Enjoy your purchase! I like this lens but they are getting old and I've had or or two fail with a broken USM motor, which means neither autofocus nor manual focus work. If someone else has one with the opposite fault (working focus but broken aperture diaphragm) let me know and we can perhaps Frankenstein together one working lens.</p> <p>One tip you may find useful is to set 'back button focus' on the camera body, so that the shutter button no longer engages autofocus. This will let you have full time manual focusing on this older lens.</p>

<p>A guide to the theory is <a href="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/FVC161.pdf">Focusing the View Camera</a> but it is rather a lot to digest for one weekend. If you want to get <em>shallow</em> depth of field, rather than using tilt to keep more of the subject in focus, then your job is a bit easier - you can just muck around tilting this way and that and adjusting the focus ring to keep one thing in focus.</p>

<p>No matter what lens was used, the impressive fact is that you can read letters in a crop of 1/40000 of the frame. You could not do that on a 10D with the same lens, or indeed with any lens. Of course, you could use a longer lens on your 10D and be able to read the letters, but only by using a larger part of the frame. So it's "meaningless" perhaps, but still impressive.</p>

<p>I'm more interested in the 8k display, though the word "reference" translates as "absurdly expensive". Even current DSLRs record still images in much higher resolution than the best currently available monitors (5k).</p>

<p>FWIW, 250 megapixels would be only 375 megabytes per image if you have a Bayer sensor where each pixel records 12 bits of dynamic range. A modest 16 gigabyte memory card would hold about 40 photographs, more than used to fit on a roll of film. However, given typical write speed you'd only be able to take one photo every two or three seconds. (Ye olde Kodak DCS 560 was about that fast back in the day)</p>

<p>They clarify in a footnote that the letters were visible in an enlargement of 1/40000 of the frame.</p>