September 18, 2014, 05:47:53 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 - tcmatthews

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:52:28 PM »
I would like to see a new
  • 100-400L
  • 135 f2 IS L
  • 180L IS Macro
  • New 50mm

All of the Canon 50 mm need updating.  I included the dates for just how old those lens are. 
  • 50L is great but a real specialty has some focusing issues out of my price range anyway.
  • 50 1.4 USM (1992) needs fixing prone to breakage. 
  • 50 1.8 II (1990) is POS focus motor noisy slow, coatings suck, not sharp enough for my taste until stopped down to 2.8.
  • 50 macro (1987) is archaic.

Personalty I think they need to release a new 50mm F1.8 STM to keep it cheep and a new 50mm F1.4 IS L.
I would not mind seeing an updated 50mm Macro.

I may just buy the Sigma 50 ART tired of waiting.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:10:54 PM »
I really do not know why they are arguing about DR stuff in a Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed section.  There was no mention of DR in these specs.  I admit I am not really interested in DR arguments in a 7D II rumor thread.  Unless DR is specifically in the rumored spec. 

DR is important but is this the right place for this discussion.

But the Internet has its trolls.  Every rumor site has its trolls.  If you go to a Sony site you see a ton of complaints about not enough lens for A mount.  All the the rumors are about E mount.  The flash system sucks.  Followed by I am dumping all my gear if they do not release X lens and going to Canon.  Some then someone pipes up and states why not go to Nikon.  This is generally followed by a bunch of former Nikon customer with various maintenance nightmares.

EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:15:46 PM »
"Tourist Landscape Photographer" reporting for duty! Nothing wrong with a non-action simple full frame camera - 6D is perfectly fine for landscape and general photographers in the Canon camp. One can argue that the landscape photographers should consider Sony A7r (or whatever Sony next produces in a high-res body) with adapters, rather than the few-hundred-dollars-less 6D body. PJ, action, event photographers need something else. Focal-length-limited action high-end shooters need the 7D2, non-FL-limited action high-end shooters (events, weddings, etc) need the 1DX or 5D3.

I thought about buying the A7r but find the lack of an electronic first curtain is a deal breaker.  The A7r has to shut the shutter twice to take a picture.  This can cause visible camera shake at landscape shutter speeds.  The A7 has first curtain electric shutter but I want the higher MP.  So I bough a 6D.   I was not interested in the current Sony EF lenses.  I though it would be strange to spend that money on a camera then manual focus Canon and legacy glass all the time. 

I will buy the A7r if they add electronic first curtain shutter or a successor if it has electronic first curtain shutter. 

Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:57:14 PM »
Guys, maybe it is a stupid question but I wanted to ask the following: If I put EF lenses on my crop camera (7D), I know that 24 mm lens will be equivalent of 38 mm. lens. However, if I put EF-S lenses of 24 mm, will I have 24 mm on crop camera or that will be 38 mm equivalent.

Once more time, sorry for such question but I really want to know the answer.

A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens regardless of crop factor.  So it will be 38mm equivalent.  The EF-S10-22 is 16-35 equivalent. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 03:59:33 PM »
I am a little disappointed that this thread has dissolved into DR speculation.  But not entirely surprised.   

The 70D on sensor Phase Detection auto focus is market leading.  In fact it is Revolutionary.  it is ahead of Sony on sensor Phase Detection by at least a generation. 

The Sony Exmor sensor as better sensor read out.  They also apply some noise reduction in sensor before going to RAW file.

We do not know what dual DIGIC 6 brings to the table.  Likely lower readout noise and improved DR.  So how about we put a cork in it until we get real comparison.  Or at least go to one of the plethora of other threads that already discuss this.

If Canon puts in cleaner A/D converters there goes the Exmor advantage.   

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 12, 2014, 03:01:47 PM »
One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters.  The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.

The 'affordable body for low-light shooting' is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!

Neuro hit the nail on the head if you want high ISO buy full frame. 

That said I really need usable ISO 3200 in a crop sensor for wildlife use.  I simply cannot afford the big whites for full frame use.  The 7D2 should be close for my purpose.  I will settle for ISO 1600 and 2/3 stop boost in post. 

Without radical change in sensor tech ISO 3200 usable on crop is probably the best we can expect. 

Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:07:16 PM »
  • Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake crop and already have EF-24mm f/2.8 IS so not really that interested.  If it was full frame that would be a different story
  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM soon to be cheep kit lens EF 28-135 soon to be discontinued.  (Does this mean the Rebel F is real?)
  • Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II interesting but more than I can afford
  • Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM (C) not likely good enough
  • Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM (S) interested how does it compare to the Tamaron 150-600 I want.
  • Samyang 12mm f/2.8 Full Frame Fish Eye need 150-600 more than a specialty lens
  • Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD most likely to buy the new canon 16-35f4
  • Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 if I win the lottery I might consider this.

I still think that the 24-70f4L will soon replace the 24-105f4L as the L kit lens and the 24-105f4L will be discontinued when current supplies run out.   The EF 28-135 will be discontinued replaced by the 24-105 STM as a low cost entry level full frame kit lens.

Pure speculation but Canon could be preparing to release a full frame rebel as the world newest cheapest full frame camera. 

I really need to get a 150-600mm lens and a full frame wide angle but do not need f2.8 so the Canon 16-35f4L and a 150-600mm are top of the list.  I have found the max focal length of every Tamron lens I own is there weak point so I want to see a 600mm comparison between the Sigmas and the Tamron.  But a new Canon 100-400L could change my decisions if it is good enough. 

EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 01:34:45 PM »
I have moved on.

I now use full frame Canon / Sony Mirror-less for general photography needs.  So I am not really interested in DR when it comes to a 7D2.  I am in the market for a dedicated crop wildlife camera.  So my primary concerns are ISO 3200 performance and price.   I would prefer it to be 60D sized but I know I am in the minority with that. 

I could care less about touch screens but really miss the 60D adjustable display when using my 6D.   So I would like to have seen that feature. 

I have been waiting to see if it is a big enough jump over the existing 70D to justify the price difference.  Both the 70D and the 7D should meet my focusing needs.  I see the ISO specs a general marketing garbage for the most part.  I will wait for a review.  Then I will make the decision do I keep using my 60D or move to the 70D or 7D.   Or rent both to decide.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 01:01:38 PM »
In my experience the ISO performance of the EOS M is better than the 60D.  I expect the ISO performance of the 7D II to be better than the 70D.

We currently have an incomplete list of specs.  So as usual I will withhold judgment until the camera is officially announced.  It looks like it will be a larger camera than I would like but if it gets me usable ISO 3200 in a crop camera I might be tempted. 

What I consider usable is completely subjective.   Until then I will wait for the images.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 12:41:09 PM »
If you shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.

well that's not good advice! :D

Care to explain why shooting at ISO100 but underexposed by 2 stops is worse than shooting at ISO400 on a Nikon 800/600 series?

Numbers are useful here.

Try it.

This is how I shoot low light on my 30D..  I stop at ISO800..   here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data...  on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.

that´s all fine, the data i mean.

but what if you only have 1024 tonal values you can boost because you underexposed so much.

from experience and not whitepapers i come to the conclusion that not underexposing by 2 stops and raising ISO instead i get the better images.

i usually shoot at a maximum of ISO 1600.

you may get a bit more noise but you also get more tonal values.
i can clean the noise in post but when i have banding it´s hard to fix that.

Personally I do not think that it is ever a good idea to underexpose by 2 stops on any camera.  Unless you using it for artistic effect.  So is it at that point underexposing? 

I generally prefer  to under on my Sony by at max 1.5 stops.   2 stops is pushing it a bit far.

It seems any time a discussion like this we fail to realize that Canon and Sony sensors are flat out different.  The techniques for maximizing their performance are different.  As is everyone's artistic expression.  Canon ETTR, Sony/Nikon ETTL, but regardless of what is best approach for the camera EXPOSE FOR THE SCENE. 

Last year I took a picture in the woods with my Nex6 in which I intentionally underexposed by 2 stops.  Then in Lightroom adjusted exposure slider up 1 stop, highlights up 1 stop, shadows down 1 stop, and drove the black slider nearly all the way to black.  The image was a little over saturated so I had to reduce saturation.  It produced the image I intended to take and I have done very similar shots with my 60D.

There are no hard rules but In general as you go up in ISO the closer you need to be to proper exposure to the scene.  The more DR in the scene the closer to proper exposure you need to be if you want the DR in the final picture.

The more DR the sensor has the more adjustment options exist in post at low ISO.  So for the Sony sensors there are cases where using lower ISO and underexposing to keep shutter speed up is appropriate.  The DR can be used to adjust in post.

Max ISO in general for me is the following. 
Nex6/EOS M ISO 1600 (800 no noise reduction)
60D ISO 800(400 no noise reduction)
6D ISO 3200


Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:59:41 PM »
sure jpeg  is good for some usages but having a raw can really save you in trick situations.  I one went out a took around 700  jpeg  photos.  It is sometimes hard to Judge the quality of the image in sunlight.  I got home and they were all slightly over exposed by 1/3 to 2/3.  If I had raw this would not have been a problem.  That was when I found out that my camera always over exposed with that particular lens.   The images were somewhat recoverable but I had to boost saturation to much for my taste.

Now I just shoot Raw+jpeg. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:43:58 PM »
In some cases yes.  But in others the system as a whole is more important.   For the most part Canon builds some of the most reliable and consistent cameras on the market.  After you become familiar with their cameras and lenses you are almost guarantied consistent results. For many pros consistency is the most important factor. 

I understand that many are satisfied with Nikon cameras but personally I cannot stand their layouts. 

I can get results with my Nex 6 that are flat out impossible with my 60D because of dynamic range. I love the ability to utilize legacy glass with actual focusing aids. But the Sony also has some quirks with color balance. I have seen images shifted to completely magenta in between normal shots. 

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used. I have not tried taking a picture of a black cow with a white face in full sunlight with my 6D.  The Nex 6 simply take the picture boost black in post to recover highlights.  The 60D you either blow out all the detail in the white face or end up with a black blob of a body.  So yes the sensor matters some.  But for the most part all current cameras have trouble with my cow test. 

The truth is the best sensor in the world is useless with out the camera system surrounding it to support it. And Canon as the best system as far as I am concerned. 

EOS-M / Re: FD lenses
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:05:55 AM »
135mm 2.5 on Nex 6 Example photo That includes purple fringe spectral highlights. 

EOS-M / Re: FD lenses
« on: February 08, 2014, 09:56:01 AM »
I have the following that I use fairly reguarly on my Nex6
  • Canon FD 24mm f2.8 S.S.C.
  • Vivitar C/FD 28 f2.5
  • Canon FD 35mm f2 S.S.C.
  • M42 Pancolar 50mm f1.8 Carl Zeiss Jena DDR
  • M42 Super-Takumar 50 f 1.4
  • Canon FD 135mm f2.5 S.C.

The 135mm f2.5 is good but shows purple fringe in spectral highlights such as water drops.

I also own  a Canon FD 50mm F1.8 S.C., Canon FDn 50 3.5, Macro and a M42 77M-4.  The Canon FD 50mm f1.8 is the last 50mm lens that I would choose to use.  It is not that it is a bad lens.  It is just so boring.  I kinda have the same problem with the EF 50mm 1.8.  The act about the same.  They both suck wide open (compared to some of my other options) have excellent sharpness stopped down especially in the center. 

But so do all the other 50mm lens I own.  It has a terrible minimum focus distance compared to the Zeiss.  The Zeiss and the M77-4 have swirl bokeh wide open and tons of character.  It cannot go as wide as the  Super-Takumar.  If on the EOS M the EF 50 1.8 I own has auto focus.  On the Sony my the Sony E50 1.8 can be used wide open and has Sony IS. 

The truth is the  Canon FD and EF 50mm f1.8 lens are my last chose for 50mm lens period. 

Personally I prefer using the Sony Nex to the EOS M for all old lens.  The Sony focus peeking works better then ML focus peeking.  I have noticed that all of the converted lens are a little week at infinity focus. 

Lenses / Re: Is There a Definitive "Best" Landscape Lens for Crop?
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:15:58 AM »
There is no such thing as the ultimate landscape lens. 

I have never really liked the distortion on the Ef-s 15-85 mm from 15-20mm.  And generally changed to my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 when going that wide.  That said I prefer 15-55 for pure landscape.  Unless there is something in the foreground to act as the subject of the seen I  rarely go wider.    I have used a 70-200mm for landscape when there was something at a distance that was interesting.  For the most point I consider landscapes with an ultra wide and no subject "Ultra-wide abuse".  In general the landscape is so small that the hole thing becomes boring. Especially with a large empty foreground.   

That said some of my favorite landscape pictures have been taken with an Ultra-wide with a subject in the foreground.  Such as a tree growing on the side of the Grand Canon, wave crashing into a huge rock with the sun setting in the background.  I think that the best Ultra-wide IQ wise on a crop is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.  The canon 11-22 is more versatile and holds its value better.  The Tokina is really a specialty lens with a limited focus range.

I bought the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 after extensive review on a site that compared the canon, Tamron, and both sigma 10-20mm's.   The site had full  size images at a variety of focal lenght and through the entire f stop range of the lens.  To me visual the canon was a little better IQ that the Sigma f4-5.6.  The Sigma f4-5.6 was better stopped down than the Sigma f3.5.  All of them were better than the Tamron. They were all extremely close.  So it is hard to go wrong with any of them.  The Tokina however stands out for the f2.8 but was not in the review.  I could not justify the priced difference between the Canon and the Sigma to buy the Canon.  Also 10mm vs 11mm is a big difference.  I was vary happy with the sigma until it went for a swim with my old 60D. 

The biggest  thing with the Sigma is that it focus different than all of my other lens.  It works best if you turn on all focus points.  If you use the center focus or an outside edge focus point then it will stop trying to focus the second it a achieves lock on the center point.  The dept of field is such that it may be at the edge of the dept of field.  This means that using center only could lead to soft out of focus corners.  Using a edge focus point could lead to a soft out of focus center.  I do not think Af micro adjustments could fix something like this.  It is more of a function of the focal range/dept of field and sight lens distortion.  But once you figure this out it can easily be accounted for.

But if I had not gone full frame and had not bought the Nex6 and a 10-18 F4 I would be buying a Tokina to replace my Sigma that is beyond reasonable repair.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9