August 29, 2014, 04:31:25 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 - CarlMillerPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Third Party Manufacturers / The New 50mm - Samyang 50mm f/1.4 (T*1.5)
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:28:20 PM »
The samples look pretty good to me. Question is how where they processed. Corner sharpness & price are also unknowns at this point.

http://www.samyang-europe.com/index.php/new-products/102-new-samyang-50-mm-t1-5-as-umc

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:22:52 PM »
As others have said....yawn. I'll be so disappointed in Canon if they use the same sensor as the 70D.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 01:06:46 AM »
CR seems out of the loop on this one. I've never heard any speculation on a f/2…only a f/1.4 or f/1.2

Though I do remember a fb post by them a month ago saying a 50mm 1.2 was still a ways out.

If the 28mm T.1.4 is the same lens as the 28mm F2.8 just with some funky gears on it.
Wouldn't that mean that a 50mm 1.4 would be a T1.4 or possibly around an F2-2.8, depending on size?

I think you have that backwards. A lens' T-stop will always be slower/smaller than it's F-stop, as a T-stop is basically the F-number adjusted to account for the light transmittance of the lens (which is always less than 100%). A 28mm f/1.4 could be a a T*2.8, but not the other way around. Regardless, the original post denotes f/2. If it does end up being a 50mm f/2, it's going to sell horribly lol.

I wouldn't be surprised is this turns out to be a different FL than 50mm or just another APS-C lens. After the release of the Sigma 50mm 1.4, Samyang probably knows it has to go back to the drawing board to be viable. There's already a ton of pretty darn good legacy glass (Nikon Ais 50mm f1.4 & f1.2, Takumar 50mm f1.4, Canon FD 50mm 1.4 and 1.2L, etc.) in the price range Samyang has historically existed. Their godsend, though, is that their market base is moving to mirrorless (the GH4 and A7s), and their lenses save the user from having to buy the pricey Metabones adapters. 

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 12:33:06 AM »
CR seems out of the loop on this one. I've never heard any speculation on a f/2…only a f/1.4 or f/1.2

Though I do remember a fb post by Samyang/Rokinon a month ago saying a 50mm 1.2 was still a ways out.

5
Hell ya Sigma! They're taking my money faster than I can earn it.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 10, 2014, 12:43:15 PM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.


lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0?  The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.

quite a bit actually.  if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity.  wide open.  and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?

If there's nothing in your frame closer than 11 feet that you want in focus @ 16mm, I worry about your landscape composition. Seems you might be the one doing something wrong.

And yes, Dilbert was exaggerating. At smaller apertures (f/9, f/11, f/13) both the 17-40mm and new 16-35mm take pretty damn good pictures. Yes, those of the latter have slightly sharper corners and if you're a professional, I'd say that's a needed improvement. But if not, stop pixel peeping and go shoot.

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:22:28 PM »
I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.

8
Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:11:10 AM »
You cheap out on food and anniversary gifts to ensure have enough for all the camera stuff you want.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:09:04 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

Yep.  According to nearly every review, too.  Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly.

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it:  People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc...  And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens:  There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus.  People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering.  The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality.  And the price would be four times what it is now.

EXACTLY.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 03:38:45 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

11
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:42:20 PM »
Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

12
Pricewatch Deals / Re: SanDisk Sale at B&H Photo
« on: July 17, 2014, 02:48:12 PM »
Like many, I got the 64gb 1066x Lexar cards for $88 a pop when they were on sale. Ordered in May and they didn't come until last week. It's really a supply/demand issue - they will come eventually.

13
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 11, 2014, 02:59:15 AM »
Get the Sigma, it's definitely built better than the Canon.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 09:28:55 PM »
The two I'm most hoping for are the 24mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8/2 OS. The 85mm would be welcome but I have a Vivitar (Rokinon/Samyang) 85mm f/1.4 that I'm extremely happy with (which is strange, as its contrast is pretty bad and flare control non-existent, but I just love the aesthetic it gives; very filmic). I'd also love a 24-70 f/2, and I wouldn't care how heavy or big it is. However, I'd still be stoked if they put out a 24-70 f/2.8 OS offering, as I do video a lot.

Additionally, if any of you checked out sigma-rumors they also have this exciting lens listed:
  • 16-20mm f/2 DG Art - listed as "60%" likely.

I would LOVE a fast uwa zoom like that. I shoot concerts a lot from the pit and I need the fastest glass I can get. They did list other focal lengths as possible (16-24, 14-20) but with a f/2 constant aperture I imagine they'd have to keep the zoom range short. 16-24 would be ideal for me. Wouldn't have to get a 24mm f/1.4 in that case!

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:54:51 PM »
My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

I just can't see Canon being 'daring' or smart enough to 'dare' put 10bit internal recording though or fixing up DIGIC so that it doesn't go all plasticky on everything. But what you suggest would be VERY nice, 10bits 4:2:2 4k that is crisp and keeps the fine detail and noise and doesn't do the nasty stuff that digic does even at ISO100.

I  hope Canon is "smart enough;" they certainly need to be at this point in the game. They're losing so many to the Gh4 and A7s, and those still holding out for Canon's "answer" are going to jump ship if it doesn't deliver. But, like you, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Canon fails epicly. 

Conversely, they could just make the 1D C $3,500. That video set at that price point is what they need to give. The problem is that on the stills side, it's the 1d X. I'd be all for Canon dumbing down a 1D C on the stills side (to more of mark-III capabilities, maybe even less), and then rebranding it as a baby 1d C. Or, better yet, put it into a 5d body and call it the 5D C. I honestly don't need any new tech than what is already in the 1d C. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7