October 22, 2014, 11:12:08 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - raptor3x

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
To make a better comparison:
Take the EF 70–200 mm 1:2,8L IS II USM
If you want to have the same DOF on FT you would not need a 35-100 1:2,8
but the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35‑100mm 1:2.0

You'd actually need a 35-100mm f/1.4.  The 35-100mm F/2.0 is equivalent to the 70-200 f/4.

Reviews / Re: Camera Store Trashes New G7X
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:17:33 PM »
But AF seems slow(er), lens worse, handling worse etc.

Not quite so simple to say the lens is worse.  Based on the results that are coming in over at DPReview it looks like the Canon is sharper on the long end while the Sony is sharper at the wide end.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:59:00 PM »
mabye, but i often wish i could somehow get just 1-2 stop more DR out of my canon RAWs.
would not give me a proper exposed outside but made things way better.
it´s seems nikon can do that without a problem.

then look at the 5D Mk3 picture in the review, they are unusable.

Have you tried MagicLantern's DualISO?

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:50:16 PM »
if the price settles, a 11-24 L would totally replace the 10-22 in my kit. Especially on a 7Dii

That would be insane to replace the 10-22 with this rumored 11-24L for a 7D unless you really really needed weather sealing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Multilayer Sensors are Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 08, 2014, 07:34:54 PM »
Completely off-track here but I've a question for Fujifilm users. Doesn't Adobe still struggle with Fujifilm RAW files? I know there are improvements, but they are still not entirely artifact free. So, how does one cope with that?

I've not noticed any artifacts but X-T1 RAW files processed in LR tend to be very soft.

I love this lens for portraits. But I shot a children event the other day and took my 1DX.  Lost some good photos because of slow auto focus.  I just bought a 5dm3 and haven't used this lens on it.  Would that have been a better choice or was the choice of lens just a dumb move overall.  (regrets suck)

How fast were these children?  The Canon 85 1.8 is one of the fastest focusing lenses made by any manufacturer.  If the 1DX + 85 1.8 wasn't fast enough to track them then nothing will be.  Also, the 5D3 is a bit slower to focus than the 1DX so I wouldn't expect it to do any better.

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 08, 2014, 09:02:59 AM »
Rainbow Falls by raptor3x, on Flickr

Although they have been moving along at a faster clip than Canon...so if the 5D IV ends up not being a high DR camera, I am sure Sony will have an ANr out at some point between the 5D IV and 5D V that solves some of the key issues). I do feel it would be stupid to buy the A7r before finding out what Sony has in store for January, though. (And stupid to buy it before trying a D810.)

At the rate Sony's been releasing bodies, I'd be shocked if there's not an A8R/A7Rii before the 5D4 is released.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:47:10 PM »
    I was browsing at YouTube and saw this interesting video on 7D2... the interesting part is not the 7D2:

    Have a nice day.

Oh man, that portrait at 2:02.

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:40:07 AM »
A renewed 50/1.4 may not even be "1.4" but rather "1.8" or "2.0" but with the addition of IS. Unless Canon wants to canabilize sales of the 50/1.2L, a newer 50mm from Canon won't have better IQ than the 50/1.2L and thus will not have better IQ than the Sigma.

I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.  Canon's already set the precedent with the 70-200 f/4 IS and 16-35 f/4 IS of allowing a cheaper version of a lens to have better IQ.

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:42:28 PM »
How is the autofocus on the 50mm Art?

I have the 50mm f1.8 Canon (love it wide open) and the 50mm f1.4 Sigma from long ago... it is a surprisingly sharp lens with great smooth bokeh, but the autofocus is awful! Likewise the 18-35mm f1.8 is dodgy... but surprisingly irks on my 5D Mark III just not crop bodies.

Worries me. I'm ready to spring for the Sigma but want to see if anything better from Canon comes out first.

I found that the AF on the 50 Art is excellent on the 5D3 if you're using the central dual cross points, but not so great with the other points.

Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:12:38 PM »
You're actually asking if a €900 Sigma with 77mm from 2014 is an upgrade vs a €300 58mm Canon from 2005?

The Canon is from 1993.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 03:39:42 PM »
I never said game changer for bif and wildlife. I said it was superb if you're not in the high end 1d market. I said the anti flickering mode is a game changer, and it is.

I think it's hard to understand how big of a deal this is if you haven't shot indoor sports in crappy lighting.

EOS Bodies / Re: Sony a7r with Canon Lens experience
« on: September 28, 2014, 03:35:55 PM »
For landscape photography, especially on a tripod, I think you'll be very happy with an A7R; although you may want to wait until the A7R II comes out and then grab an A7R for even cheaper.  For street photography, I think it's a bit iffy unless you're sticking with stationary subjects, in which case the A7R will be fine. For moving targets with your EF lenses you're stuck with focus peaking, since you can't effectively use the loupe on moving targets, which seems to only really be good at f/2.8 and smaller.  You could also try some FE lenses, but I'm not too impressed with the AF performance there.  In theory, since it's mirrorless, the focus should pretty much always be bang on, but I've found in practice the hit rate on static subjects is significantly worse than my 5D3.  In any case, if your primary usage is static scenes that you'll be manually focusing then I think you'll be very happy with it.

@ Sporgon

it was already mentioned that DPP is better at develop cr2 raw expecially in the shadows, from this point your examples of the blue boat is very interesting even more with no noise reduction ... In the end if not better sensor Canon could realise a better/powerful software or why not help Adobe improve the CR2 raw converter ??? Their DPP is free, they do not need to protect sales in this regard, maybe it is the opposite, there are many adobe customers that could get more out of canon so no need to search elsewhere.

That is debatable. DPP shows less banding and noise in shadows now, but it also gets a very mushy, sometimes almost posterized, very fake, digital, waxy, no detail look IMO. Personally I'd call that putting lipstick on a pig.

Yeah, especially with the new version of DPP even the lowest non-zero level of noise reduction is very heavy handed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14