November 28, 2014, 03:54:43 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 - zlatko

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Edited:  The NX1 looks very good overall.  Just the color is duller.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART for Canon
« on: November 25, 2014, 10:33:37 PM »
I also love my 35mm f/2 IS lens and am hoping Canon comes out with a 50mm f/1.8 IS with similar IQ and size.

Me too!  I hope Canon comes out with a 50/1.8 IS with IQ as good as the 35/2 IS.  I'd even be happy with a 50/2 IS if the IQ were great.  I also hope that Canon updates the old design of the 50/1.4, improving the IQ and AF, but not making it much bigger or not bigger at all.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 11:31:16 PM »
At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video).  So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon.  I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.

But how long is the lag is between tech development and pros adapting to changed circumstances?

From what I read on the Magic Lantern forum which used to be a stronghold of the 5d2 video revolution, people are either trying to fix the Canon system below the 1dc with raw video or abandoning the hybrid stills/video system in favor of dedicated video gear. Getting a 5d3 just for video is a lot of €€€.

Question how much impact the 7d2 will have as it's good value and hasn't got the moire issues anymore. But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...

I don't know about any lag.  When the 5D2 appeared, I started seeing videographers using it at every wedding.  More recently, I see them using everything from the Rebel (xxxD series) to the 70D to the 5D3. 

They don't need the 7D2 to run ML *today*.  They're already using other Canon bodies, so there's no urgency to add a 7D2.  Getting a 5D3 just for video is a lot of money, and yet I see a lot of videographers doing exactly that, usually coupled with other Canon bodies.

Sure you can get a GH4 or something else, but that's not what I see them getting.  In recent years, I've seen exactly one videographer shooting with Panasonic gear.  All the rest were using Canon.  The video crowd that I see is not rushing away from Canon.  Instead, they are nearly all using Canon.

when this comes out i really want to try it out with my 135 f2L
If the AF doesn't take much of a hit via the adapter it might be a wicked combo
effectively giving IS to one of canons best lenses.

Not sure where I saw it, but a native FE 135/2 is apparently on Sony's lens roadmap, but a release date hasn't been announced.  That will be an exciting lens to use on the A7 series because it won't need an adapter and will likely have fast autofocus.  And with the A7II, it will be image stabilized.  In the meantime, the Canon 135/2 may be a good option too, but I suspect the AF will be slow.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 05:43:34 PM »
I disagree because I doubt there are such a lot of "diverse needs". Actually I agree for once with the expert mainstream in the forum here - for most stuff, Canon is certainly good enough. And since they cannot get back behind this, upcoming products including crop will be more than good enough.

Indeed, but for how long. They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now. Who are next? The video crowd, or have they also already gone?

There's no such thing as "losing" the mirrorless market.  Every year, people buy new cameras, so there are constant opportunities to sell new cameras.  It's not as if the market closes its doors at some point.  Canon will have plenty of opportunities to sell mirrorless system cameras if they want to.

As for the video crowd, Canon seems to be doing very well in video.  I photograph weddings and at most weddings there are 1 or 2 videographers.  Nearly every videographer I've seen in the past 5 years has been a Canon user, usually with several Canon bodies and a bag full of Canon lenses (sometimes some 3rd party lenses too).  At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video).  So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon.  I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 23, 2014, 11:06:55 AM »
Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
a) Dynamic range
b) Pixel count
c) Video capabilities
d) In camera tools

Canon meets or exceeds my needs for all of those specific areas.  I realize that some people do need improvements in those areas.  But I frankly don't understand why they buy Canon in the first place, knowing *fully* that it doesn't meet their needs, and then complain about it?  Did Canon promise them some specific future product?  No, they didn't.  It's like someone buying a manual focus lens and then complaining that it doesn't have autofocus.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 09:10:20 PM »
But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Time after time, my Canon gear delivers the photos I want.  Brilliantly.  There is always room for improvement, but in truth I have very little to complain about.  I've tried a number of different brands, and each has its faults. 

I'm at the point where the 5D3 is doing everything I need it to do and getting what I want from it with minimal hassle. The 600rts, the superb lineup of lenses and AF is what keeps me here. If another company did a better system than canon, I'd be there already.

Yep, that sums it up for me too.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:08:10 AM »
What's wrong with the image?

The largest version on Flickr (1189 x 1500) just looks like it's out of focus.  Not a problem if most of the other shots are in focus.  It would be easy to miss focus in that tall grass.

I enjoy full frame and crop cameras.  Full frame for better IQ.  Crop for smaller size.  I'll likely pass on the 7D2 because it doesn't offer any size/weight advantage over the 5D3 or 6D.  The 7D2 offers some great features that are not a priority for me right now.

For IQ, the 7D2 should be compared to other APS-C cameras.  When compared to full frame, FF will always have a little more detail and a little more high ISO.

Slow and finicky definitely sums up a lot of my feelings about it. The handling and UI just don't do it for me along with a few other issues. If any of the a7x bodies handled like my X-T1, I would be much more inclined to give it another go. That, and I would need them to add a 35/1.4 to their ecosystem. As it stands, they have nothing that remotely covers my needs except for the 55 (which is still not exactly what I want).

Does anyone know whether the newer A7S is slow and finicky too?  For some reason, Sony wants a lot more money for the A7S than for the A7 or A7R.  Does this mean it's speedier and better in operation?

Canon is only "asleep" if you must downsize to a mirrorless-sized body, must have in-body IS, or must have a Sony sensor for some reason.  Otherwise, they make a highly functional camera system with so many great components and options.  I'd love to see a great Canon mirrorless that looks very much like this A72, but I'm not sure there's a compelling reason for Canon to make one.  It will be sweet if and when they do.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Would you get Zeiss 135 f2?
« on: November 19, 2014, 01:55:56 AM »
I would not buy it.  I find autofocus to be extremely valuable for a 135 focal length.  So for me the Canon 135/2 is the better choice.  But someone else might really enjoy the Zeiss 135 more.

Software & Accessories / Re: 1D X + EC-S Focusing Screen - Save Your Money
« on: November 17, 2014, 07:01:34 PM »
The S screens show the actual depth of field, but are always darker.  Then standard screens show depth of field as of around f/2.8, even if the lens has a wider max aperture, and are always brighter.  Each exists for its respective advantage, and there seems to be no way to have the advantages of both in one screen.

The S screens are fine in good light, but too dark in poor light or with f/4 lenses.  Even with f/2.8 lenses, the added darkness is somewhat annoying.

I won't be watching this video.  This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My Super Fresh New TOY, Canon 7D MK II
« on: November 07, 2014, 06:34:01 PM »
Wishing you lots of fun and great photos!

With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!

Actually, the 7D2 can do even better!  The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%.  It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer.  :D

Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26