April 17, 2014, 09:56:24 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 199
1
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Available for Preorder
« on: April 13, 2014, 02:11:12 AM »
More stuff:

CNet Review - love the lack of IS as a con ;D

Sample images (including full res) from Pop Photo

Pop Photo Review


are they getting misfocus at f/1.4? it looks a bit dreamy and soft like the canon 50 1.4 no?

2
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Available for Preorder
« on: April 13, 2014, 01:54:25 AM »
I jumped in line as well earlier this morning, but I'm still not sure I'll keep the pre-order or keep the lens once I get it.  While the 50L has some issues, I still love the lens and don't know if this lens will be a big improvement for my uses of the 50 prime.  I took another look at the imaging resource samples last night and while the bokeh looks nice, especially compared to many of the previous Sigmas, it's not as smooth as the 50 & 85L.  Now that's being pretty picky and looking at it at 100% magnification, so I'm not sure that's relevant for prints, but the bokeh is one of the main reasons I love the 50L. 

Edit: just found these samples on CNet and this one shows some LoCA.  Definitely not APO like Otus, but still not horrendous.


Hmm well I guess it's not APO!  :o ;D :'( :-\ :o :o :o

oh well. So it really can't take on the Otus from a pure optical standpoint. I guess that explains the radically lower price a bit. It appears to be a lot farther away from being APO than I had guessed it would be.

OTOH, sounds like it will be way sharper and have much better contrast near wide open than any 50mm other than Otus (where it sounds like it will be same ballpark, maybe a touch better in some ways, touch worse in others), but with the LoCA it ain't an Otus, oh well. It does have AF as well, which is actually kind nice to have at this focal length and it does cost rather a lot less than the Otus.

I wouldn't actually compare it to the Otus optically any more, one is a ground-breaking ultra-fast APO lens and one is not. However, compared to all the not Oti,it seems like one is a ground-breakingly sharp to the edges on FF and with strong contrast from f/1.4 design and the rest are not and it looks like the Sigma is the one to rule those all those others and with ease.

Anyway, ignoring the Otus, sounds like it will be all that and by a long shot.  :D
Compared to the Otus I wouldn't say it matches up at all because of radically more LoCA and LaCA. But the Otus does lack AF, which is a big minus at this length and costs a ton more which is a pretty hideous minus for most. So the best 100% modern-day practical 50mm by a long shot.

3
Yes, of course! And the 50mm 1.4 has got to be on the list right?

4
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR and PowerShots in May [CR2]
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:09:57 PM »
Has there ever been a 7DII release-date related rumour at the CR2 level? (but as they say, sooner or later, it'll eventually be true lol)

Actually there was a CR3 from Canon themselves about the 7D2 release date.... but it has proved to be semi-wrong. (they said no 7D2 for late 2012 or early 2013, but yes for a 7D2 eventually with late 2013 expected)

5
Gotta be a joke. Not that they couldn't make use of some sensor patents perhaps, as Canon is the odd man out at this point when it comes to lower ISO DR. But surely they could get those for less than the whole company and it really doesn't seem to make any sense other than April Fools.

6
I've started mostly using the 2x on my 300 2.8 since it's hard to ever get close to most wildlife, but in your scenario the loss of stop and so on, 1.4x is probably the best bet, plus you are using it with a zoom as well.

7
Pricewatch Deals / Re: BEWARE LEXAR FAIL!
« on: March 28, 2014, 10:50:31 PM »
I had 2 Lexar 1000X Professional CF cards literally die on me. One time after taking 500 irreplaceable
vacation photos and the second time after 2 hours of a paid shoot which I had to restart completely.
I went back to Sandisk Extreme Pro 1066X which hasn't failed me in 13 years.
Save yourself a headache and don't buy Lexar.

Probably just random luck. In my case, the only card of any brand I've ever had fail was a SanDisk, once.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 11:21:57 PM »
The reason they haven't come out with the thing you personally want is that they don't have to.  They will produce new products when the market demands them.  Until then, they'll milk (MILC?) the R&D they already have invested in the current line.
Granted the camera business is much different so this is maybe slightly sketchy of a comparison, but such an attitude isn't always the best for a company. Look at Atari, the engineers wanted them to release an advanced new computer with GUI and mouse and multi-tasking and crazy level graphics and audio but the management said they hadn't finished milking the old 8bit line yet and saw no point in it. Who uses an Atari home computer today? Plenty of other such cases.

Canon is a large, diversified company with a lot of R&D and clever management.  I would be surprised if they don't have the basic tech available when the need (==strong market pressure) arises.  If some other company starts out-competing the 5D3 and 1DX, I am confident that Canon can match their products in a year or less.

The fact that Canon HAS not put advanced tech in the cameras does not mean they CAN not do so.

I'm not sure they have had the tech for more DR and it didn't seem like they cared enough early on. Anyway, Atari had the tech and the point is they didn't use it until well they didn't have enough money left to use it and the tech went to CBM and by that time the MAC had already come out (and while vastly inferior, all the Apple fanboys and Windows fanboys made it hard for anything to strike at that point with the impact it could have had it arrived earlier). But anyway the two scenarios are different.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 05:03:27 PM »
The reason they haven't come out with the thing you personally want is that they don't have to.  They will produce new products when the market demands them.  Until then, they'll milk (MILC?) the R&D they already have invested in the current line.



Granted the camera business is much different so this is maybe slightly sketchy of a comparison, but such an attitude isn't always the best for a company. Look at Atari, the engineers wanted them to release an advanced new computer with GUI and mouse and multi-tasking and crazy level graphics and audio but the management said they hadn't finished milking the old 8bit line yet and saw no point in it. Who uses an Atari home computer today? Plenty of other such cases.

(Even look at lower end video. The 5D3 didn't really make much of a splash compared to the 5D2 among movie-makes (my impression anyway) until Magic Lantern unlocked a lot more quality. it may have been coincidence but I couldn't help but notice that the 5D3 price had slumped quite a lot and then ML RAW came out for it and the price shot back up to full list for quite some time again. They went into market segmentation, protection mode instead of full steam ahead domination mode.)

I hope the rumor is for real and that they will finally have improved low ISO DR too (even bigger to me than upping the MP count). If it could still handle 1080p ML RAW, add in nice compressed in cam 4k (and please, please turn off the NR and smoothing digic so loves to do! canon loves to give this crisp details on contrasty edges and then give a plastic look to everything else with their in cam processing), bump the MP count, get exmor-like DR and maintain 6fps man that would be one awesome camera. And they certainly have, IMO, the nicest lens line-up around to go with it. They also need to allow for cropped modes so when shooting distance limited stuff to take advantage of the reach of the MP bump you don't waste so much storage on the edges, that might also allow for even higher fps (although >6fps FF mirror boxes do start to add to cost it's true, so hard to say about fps).



10
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:57:28 PM »
Can movie theaters show 4K movies with their digital projectors?  I'm not really sure what resolution the average 'non-hollywood' film is shot in though.  I would assume it is 1080p or the wide screen equivalent.

At this point, some theaters can and some can't.

I just got a 4k monitor and I have to say some of the 4k clips are pretty amazing! It finally starts feeling more like you are there rather than looking at a digital video file. and it's awesome for stills images of course. and anything to do with text for that matter too.

11
Yay! Just what everyone has wanted. The Canon sensor with a Nikon lens mount! Best of both worlds!  :P

12

I feel like they could charge $1500 and it would sell the same as if it cost $1000.

I feel like you need to shhhhhhh  ;).

13
Shouldn't be more than $899.  In fact, I'd probably still buy the Tamron for $1,299 even if the Canon were $899.

It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.
Ignorance is bliss  ::) and you obviously do not own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... I have owned both the lenses (Canon 24-70 L II & the Tamron 24-70 VC) ... granted that Tamron is great value for money but the Canon is made of superior optics ... anyone who thinks that the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II should be no more than $899 is extremely unintelligent.

Let me put it another way.  As when I bought it, I'd rather have the 24-105/4L IS I have now than a brand new 24-70/2.8 II, even if they were the same price.  And I could buy a new 24-105 for under $1,000.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 isn't enough for fast-moving subjects.  But the difference between IS and no IS (3-4 stops) is a huge difference in image quality when you are light-limited (ISO 3200 versus ISO 400, for example).  When I need speed, I use my 35/1.4, and often even that isn't fast enough.

I'd guess they eliminated 2/3 of their potential customers when they decided to go without IS on the new 24-70.

one stop sometimes can make a difference for moving subjects

plus you forget the little detail about how the image quality is like 10x better than with the 24-105 (I got a tamron 28-75 for like $300 that had better image quality than the 24-105, so why not say it's the 24-105 that should be discontinued? I wouldn't say that, but you get my point.)

14
Shouldn't be more than $899.  In fact, I'd probably still buy the Tamron for $1,299 even if the Canon were $899.

It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.

??
It should onyl cost $100 more than the sigma 24-105 f/4? and less than the 24-105L did until recently?

15
Software & Accessories / Re: updating to Maverick 10.9?
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:34:52 PM »
Now that Maverick has been out for a while I am wondering if all (most of) the bugs have been worked out?  Specifically is anyone having trouble running the EOS capture software/DPP/ or  CS6 Photoshop/Premier?

Thanks for any insights, 

Jeff


Don't do it if you have a non-retina MAC or anything but the latest MAC Pro otherwise you won't be able to use the hacks to drive UHD monitors! I actually got a MAC MINI to drive 3840x2160 perfectly! But it only works pre-Mavericks!



What hacks did you have to do?

I have a macbook pro, late 2011 model, non-retina.  I was able to drive a Dell U2711  at 2550x1440 merely by getting a thunderbolt to display port adapter to connect them.  Seems to work just fine with no "hacks" of any type.

Can you explain what you had to do to get yours to work?

Thanks,

C


I'm talking UHD (3840x2160 not 2560x1440).
My Mac mini has Intel 4000 graphics (and the hack should work for the slightly older machines with Intel 3000 graphics and perhaps in a few other cases as well). Intel put out UHD drivers for the chipset last year, but Apple kept their hardware locked down. And you also need to do some extra steps to enable scaling since there is no way direct way to make Mac OS scale nicely from the OS control panel itself (icons and text become crazy small without the scale factor stuff).

MAC PART:

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes. It took a lot of searching and some hacking and some serious scares along the way though! And most google searches only lead you to partial solutions or talk that it's impossible. But 2 hours later it works.

I have no clue what Apple fans go on about how MS has no clue compared to Apple when getting UHD running on a regular MAC is so tricky and not directly supported in the OS. Direct support was only for 1920x1080p (which interestingly enough the Dell UP2414Q actually WAS able to scale to fit the screen and run at 60Hz, although it doesn't do simple scaling but interpolation so it's a bit blurry looking from the interpolation). And supposedly there is no way to make it work, even with hacks, if you have already upgraded to Mavericks, which thankfully I had not.

Once you do all the hacking though it appears, at first glance, to work quite well though and perhaps better than Windows although I can't yet say. I don't have much software for the Mac since I basically only use it for tablet development. Although Apple still has 60Hz support locked out for some reason running at UHD so you have to live with either 30Hz and UHD or 60Hz but interpolated by the monitor 1920x1080.

Anyway when I did these steps and used HDMI I got locked into a no signal mode and my HDMI port now seems to be locked out of working with this UHD Dell monitor, although the port still works if I use with other monitors that it recognizes as being different brand. And then I found that using DisplayPort it still works with the Dell even at UHD and I can get in and reset things for this monitor.

Anyway here are the steps:

0. Make sure you have NOT installed Mavericks! AFAIK it only works with OS SUB 10.9, at least so far. And maybe for extra safeties sake check to see what chipset your Mac has and whether you find out if anyone has had it working at UHD before or if you can find UHD support for that chipset on other OS, then it should be safe for sure I'd think.

1. use the DisplayPort and not HDMI connector.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

3. Go here http://www.madrau.com/srx_download/download.html and download and install SwitchResX and select UHD mode for DisplayPort.

4. Go to create custom resolutions in SwitchResX and simple make a new 3840x2160 mode. Exit out of SwitchResX and agree to save changes.

5. Go here http://cocoamanifest.net/articles/2013/01/turn-on-hidpi-retina-mode-on-an-ordinary-mac.html and follow the instructions to turn on HiDPI mode options.

6. Re-boot. You will notice that the HiDPI modes offered by the OS Display preferences are stinking options, there is no 1080P natural scale factor option and the ones they offer make the screen shake and are too lo-res.

7. So go back into SwitchResX and you will now find a 1080P HiDPI option. Select that and then finally you have both UHD AND all the text and icons not being hideously small running even on a MAC Mini or other non-retina MAC (maybe much older models this won't work for, my MAC Mini is only a bit over a year old)

So wow even a non-retina, little old Mac Mini can drive it just fine! At least if it is fairly recent. In this case it was a 2012 model with Intel 4000 graphics. It should work at least as far back as the Intel 3000 chipped ones though.

Well, so long as you didn't go to Mavericks! Hopefully they will hack Mavericks too (although apparently Apple now signs the code block so I don't know, hopefully Apple will unlock UHD support themselves, feels like they just want people to buy new machines though hmmmm). You can only do it at 30Hz though as for some reason Apple doesn't seem to have 60Hz working when paired with quite a few of the UHD monitors. Mosts current monitors need a special dual displays as one driving hack and with some screens it doesn't seem to work with Apple for some reason so you need to drop down to 30Hz.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 199