Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 27, 2012, 06:40:27 AM »

I for one find this discussion both entertaining and useful in aquiring knowledge that I did not previously have.

I have a question: Am I understanding the statements in this thread correctly if I say that you cannot increase the DR in your image because it is a hardware limit? The reason for my question is that I have been looking at videos @ youtube for good tips on black and white conversion in photoshop, and in several of these videos they claim that you can increase the DR by using layers and tweaking Levels and Curves....

If you use raw - no. you get what you get.
If you use jpg - yes, because jpeg by definition has smaller DR than raw and you have to squeeze more information into smaller DR of jpeg file.
Jpeg has 8bit per channel 2^8=256 gradations of each color, 256*256*256=16,7 millions color combinations, raw has 12, 14 or even 16 bits per channel. Of course not all of DR of raw file is used (depends on the scene), but it is much bigger anyway.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 05:12:15 AM »

If Nikon, Sony or Olympus offers similar lenses to what own now, I will have jumped ship.

Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.

They are also lacking when it comes to 24 and 17 mm tilt shift lenses. This is one of the big reasons to why I haven't jumped ship.

If this new sensor from Canon is all we are hoping for, then I will have zero reason jump.

Personally I never even considered TS. So for me it is not a problem. BTW, Samyang has made 24 TS.
That must be good.

Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.
On the other side they have brilliant 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.8G and other lenses.

For my use, their 10-24 performs horribly and they have nothing like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS. Their 16-35 f/4 and 24-120 f/4 perform similarly to the Canon counterparts. Besides, I have too many other Canon accessories... need to consider more carefully...

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm 1:2,8G IF-ED not IS, but still.
I am not pro in nikon lenses, but for wide angle there is excellent Tokina 11-16.

I also have other Canon accessories, and I am considering more carefull.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?

« on: September 26, 2012, 05:02:55 AM »

I agree.  And I'm not reallly advocating a switch.  I just think that if the 6D is a sales disaster then Canon will have to give some serious thought to where they went wrong.  Although, realistically, I suspect it will be a sales success and the Canon execs will probably sit around slapping each other on their backs saying how awesome they (and the 6D) are.

Economically it will be good. That is the problem. Canon suck out money, that is the only thing they care.

Originally I wanted to get 60D after 350D. But compared to 50D they removed AF MA (very important thing to me), removed joystick, removed big wheel. So I basically had to get 7D which was €500 more expensive and almost same price as 5Dmk2 at that time. I got 5Dmk2. Now I am politely asked to go another €1500 higher to get 5Dmk3, because Canon is not willing to upgrade AF on €2000 FF cameras.

F*ck your customers is good business strategy, but not for a long time.
"I am so out of here."

4

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 03:57:08 AM »

If Nikon, Sony or Olympus offers similar lenses to what own now, I will have jumped ship.

Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.
On the other side they have brilliant 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.8G and other lenses.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?

« on: September 26, 2012, 03:48:47 AM »

Back on topic, I can't believe how much anger the 6D has generated.  Peoples, its just a camera.  It will probably work very well, even if it is uninspiring to many.  There's plenty of other alternative cameras out there.  You don't have to pin your hopes and aspirations on this one.  If its not perfectly suited to your needs, don't buy it.  The best way of getting your message across to Canon is for them to see all of their 6Ds gathering dust on the shelf while the D600 sells like hotcakes.

You see, people are invested in glass. Personally I want to switch to Nikon, even though it will cost me around €1500. Canon users had pretty clear needs. Canon instead of fullfilling them, just f*cks around.
They give with one hand, but take with other. Or they give with both hands but want us to sell our kidney to get it.

G-serie:
Needed: 10-12 MP, fast lens with moderate zoom, swivel screen.
Thy did 15mp with heavy noise at iso100, they did 7x zoom lens f/2,8-....
Canon has made all combinations except the right one. In he year 2012 they finally come to where they started - G3.

5Dmk2 needed a better AF. Instead of simply putting 5 X-points (center & 1/3 rule) they made 2 cameras.
One with same one-center-point AF - €500 more expensive, another with super-pro AF - €1700 more  expensive. WTF?

6

Lenses / No way.

« on: September 25, 2012, 08:07:02 AM »

Nope.
35L is much better on APS-C than on a FF (I bought it for my old APS-C).
If Canon make 35 f/1.8 they will kill sells of 35L which is much more profitable.

Canon updates and produces money cows - 70-200, 24-70, where from 1 lens they earn many hundreds if not thousand bucks.
They have little interest in small cheap crap like 50 f/1.8.

7

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

« on: September 25, 2012, 08:00:20 AM »

Tokina 16-28 (or better Nikon 14-24 for canon
Tamron 24-70 IS
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

8

Lenses / Re: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own?

« on: September 25, 2012, 07:58:40 AM »

135 f/2
70-200 f2.8L IS II
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 

9

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D in 2013? [CR1]

« on: September 25, 2012, 03:36:29 AM »

The 7D MK II will most likely completely redefine APS-C. Those who have mocked the 7D will beg for the chance to kiss Mitarai-San's feet for the chance to beg for forgiveness and the opportunity to be allowed to purchase one!

Bueh..
You say this based on what?

10

Lenses / Re: Which to get next: 35 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L...?

« on: September 24, 2012, 09:26:14 AM »

Well, I will be against a crowd in a second, but I will say it.
I have 35L and it is barely usable at 1.4. Everything out of the center is a total mess. It is better to use it at least @f/2.0 or 2.8. But then there is almost no advantage against other lenses.

In addition, if you have 5dmk2, for portraits you will probably have to focus with outer points - forget about 35L.
You will mix bad sharpness combined with very unprecise AF.

I am a hobby photographer. But I'd try Tokina 16-28 f/2,8.
It must be sharper than Canon 16-35.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D in 2013? [CR1]

« on: September 24, 2012, 08:45:31 AM »

You're failing to frame things in the right context. 4 years ago all people wanted was a better AF in the 5D2, now things have changed as technology matured and new performance standards were defined.

Also, the improvement in AF (supposedly) boasted by the 6D over the 5D2 is quite undersized for today's standards and for the price of that camera with respect to other missing features compared to its older sibling.

Some years ago a Blu-Ray player was 800€, now you can have one for 80€. Selling old technology for a brand-new price tag is unacceptable. But I guess Apple fans and stockholders would probably disagree with me.

Your blu-ray comparison is BS. There is nothing new in todays blu-ray player that wasn't in one from 4 years ago. So if you want to use that as an example then compare the price of the mkii from 4 years ago to now. Big difference right? The mkiii has a new sensor, new AF, new processor. i.e. it is NOT 4 year old tech. Anybody who thinks it is is just plain daft. It might not be the tech you wanted in the mkiii but it IS what people asked for.

5Dmk3 has a little bit better sensor. Same MP, better ISO by appr. 0.3 stop.
Biggest improvement is AF. But 5Dmk3 is also cost 1000 Euro more than mk2 did on its release and twice the price at the moment of 5Dmk3's release.
So we get more (better AF) for more money. After 4 years. This is not what "technical progress" means.

If we compare 5Dmk3 with other contemporary cameras, it looses in everything. You can claim as much as you want, that only Canon has correct color, sits good in hand or whatever.
But from technical (measurable) point of view, 5Dmk3 for 3500 Euro belongs to the year 2008.
In year 2012 it is highly overpriced.