July 28, 2014, 03:04:44 AM

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 ... 17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 26, 2014, 12:26:28 AM »
I'm going to use this example again:

When the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens came to the market and was tested, it got a lower score than the version I lens.  Later, DxO mark used a different CAMERA to test them, then the v2 finally scored higher.

Well, their Lens Scores are an even larger, stinkier pile of steaming BS than their Sensor Scores.  Even the name itself is intentionally misleading, since the primary determinants of the Lens Score are the T-stop of the lens and the low light performance of the camera body on which the lens is tested.

Last time I checked DxOMark, the very best lens that Canon makes was the EF 100mm f/2.  Yes, the famous $499 100mm f/2 known by professional photographers all over the world as the very best lens that Canon makes ... not.  That lens is from 1991.

Now that honor has gone to the EF 35mm f/2 IS.  Yes, the $599 lens is better than ANY other lens that Canon makes ... according to DxOMark ... and no one else.

P.S.  Nothing against either of those lenses (both excellent), but giving them the highest scores of all lenses in the entire Canon EF system is pretty much proof that the DxOMark scoring is faulty.

Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 10:40:55 AM »
EF-S 15-50mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 18-70mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 50-150mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 15mm F2
EF-S 22mm F1.8
EF-S 30mm F1.4

I agree with the above.  Those would be very nice additions for EF-S cameras.  I'd also like to see:

EF 85/1.8 IS

Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:29:30 AM »
I hope they give the new flash head the same range of rotation as the 600EX-RT.  The head of the 430EX has a limited range of rotation.  When holding the camera in vertical position, the head will only rotate 90 degrees straight upward.  This means you can't angle it a bit backwards as you can with the 600EX-RT.  Likewise, when holding the camera in horizontal position, you can only turn the flash head 90 degrees to the right (although you can turn it 180 degrees to the left).  This makes the 430EX much less useful for me.

How about 35/2 IS? One full stop faster, 56mm equiv. reach/FoV on the crop (very close to "normal" lens) and very sharp lens.

RuleOfThirds feels that 40mm is too cropped and 35mm is just a bit wider.  It could work and it is very sharp as you note, but may still feel a little too cropped.

The 28mm would give the closest to a true normal view on an APS-C camera, keeping in mind that 50mm on full frame is a slight telephoto, not a true normal.  A true normal is something like 43mm equiv. on full frame:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

Both the 24 and 28 IS lenses are fine lenses and I can't think of a way to recommend one over the other.  It really comes down to personal preference.  Good luck!

Canon General / Re: Have G.A.S. and can't to get rid of it!!
« on: July 11, 2014, 02:31:41 PM »
  What are your thoughts?

    Thanks in advance!!

I find that my needs & preferences change over time, so there is no end to changes in my gear.  I don't know what I will want next year.  Rather than offer specific advice, I say:
1) use what you have;
2) if something doesn't get used for a year, then sell it;
3) if something is needed for your current photography, then buy it.

We could have printed so much lager than 32x48. It would have made all the difference in the world to me. I want to leave you with one final thought as you find a new home. Don't let the door hit you in the A$$.  :o

How ever did Salgado, McCurry, Art Wolfe, Paul Nicklen, Alex Webb, Ami Vitale, et al, ever make museum-quality large prints, for years, before July 18, 2014 when the D810 came out? :o To think, they were never informed of their folly, until now...

Exactly.  World famous photographers print large with any camera.  Museum quality.  Gallery quality. 

But anonymous people on the internet "can't survive" without their extra pixels.  Nikon gives 7,360 horizontal pixels.  Canon gives 5,760 horizontal pixels.  So with Nikon one can print 5 or 7 inches bigger.  Wow, that's like ... soooo much bigger.  Worth a system change for sure. ;)

Lenses / Re: Video Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: July 08, 2014, 02:07:43 PM »
He is right about it being a "fantastically fun lens to use".  I prefer it to the 10-22 because it's smaller.

Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 07, 2014, 07:29:45 PM »
I use a bunch of Canon DSLRs, but sometimes the smallest one is the most fun.  The Rebel SL1 (100D) is super light and small, easiest to carry, and it works with all of my Canon lenses.  By comparison, all of the other Rebels are big! :)

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 27, 2014, 05:56:34 PM »
What product do you hope-for the most from Canon this year?

What I'd like to see are some new lenses:

For full frame:
updated high quality 50/1.4
50/1.8 or 5/2.0 with IS
85/1.8 with IS
100/2.0 with IS

For EF-S:
12/2.8 or 14/2.8
22/2 with IS, or 22/1.4

All of the above with excellent autofocus and very good to excellent performance wide open.

ALSO, a new 430EX-RT flash with radio control to work like the 600EX-RT and with same degree range of motion as the 600EX-RT so that it can be bounced backward when shooting in the vertical position (rather than just 90 degrees upward).

Where did you get that information from?

Yes, please tell us.  Interesting rumor, but are you just making this up?

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded.  That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd.  If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?

Lenses have qualities that are not easily described with numbers, at least not in the measurements usually seen in online tests.  Have you seen a numerical measurements for how a lens draws faces?  I'm not talking about sharpness, but how it draws.  Likewise, does any site publish numerical measurements of foreground and background bokeh with subjects at various distances and with foregrounds & backgrounds that have various degrees of detail and contrast?  How about numerical measurements of a wide range of colors from various lenses?  Probably not.  And yet lenses produce all of these things.

Renowned photojournalist David Burnett uses the 50/L.  He says, "It's really great ... It's funny how you can look at pictures and know it that it was shot with this lens ... What's the look?  And it has a look, and there's no doubt about it."  See at 15:30 — https://vimeo.com/13036394

I am finding this forum more and more misleading in the worse fashion, lead by couple of devoted brainiacs with great ability to browse, process and serve confusing information.
It is so much like politics is scary!
Now even titles are intentionally skewed.
Internet is buzzing with reviews, positive impressions about Sony, and all we got here is bitter, sarcastic ind smart ass comments without the end in sight.
I own A7r and it is the best camera I ever own for my shooting style!

When anonymous know-it-alls declare that Sony's new camera is doomed, that pretty much assures it will be a success.  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:49:31 PM »

When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture.  That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.

Yes, it's a marvelous lens and, despite the longer DoF cf FF equivalents, has superb bokeh and I very much enjoy using mine.  It is, however, fairly expensive (c. $900) and, by m43 standards, rather heavy; and I can't help pointing out that the rather impressive Nikon 100mm 2.8 E series manual lens, for which I paid c. $120 a couple of weeks ago, provides the same focal length when I attach it to my Sony a6000, has excellent image quality and, even including the adapter, that combination is smaller and weighs less than my OM-D E-M5 & Olympus 75mm and cost vastly less.  Of course, you have to be willing to fool around with manual focusing and forego IS, and your basic point about the compactness of m43 gear remains valid, but still....

Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out.  And an older lens is a good way to save money.  Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.  ;) 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:49:14 PM »
The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8.  Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot.

Huh?  Where are you taking this conversation?  I can't even make a point about small cameras and small lenses without someone going off on a tangent about point & shoots "since FoV and size are all that matter".

I didn't say they're ALL THAT MATTER.  Where the heck do you get this?  Just setting up a straw man to knock him down? 

I was careful to talk about how some photographers prioritize size at some times and for some occasions, as you yourself do.  Just a way to say why I think small systems will continue to survive.  Apparently I wasn't careful enough. 

Wow!  Just WOW!  It's really not fun having to defend all of these imagined statements I didn't make.  Such a waste of time :(

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:59:55 PM »

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof."  That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.

If you consider f3.6 on ff to give you a shallow dof then we are, again, talking different languages. Personally I use f2.8 zooms as a minimum, but don't pretend they give me the dof control I often want, then I move to faster primes. Does the f2.2 lens in the iPhone give me narrow dof?

Gosh, can't even admit that?  So if you set your full-frame zoom to 150mm and f/3.6, it doesn't give shallow DoF??  Readers can compare that statement to their on their own language and experience.  Why don't we just leave it at that because in that case we'll never agree on anything. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17