August 01, 2014, 07:08:01 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:07:10 PM »
... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras.  While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.


I'd like to hear more!


http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0520987423/adobe-expands-dng-format-with-inclusion-of-smaller-lossy-dng-option

2
Canon General / Re: What do you Splurge on?
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:03:30 PM »
What do you splurge on - not just a little, but a lot.  Things that you know you could do with lesser versions of, but either you have to have the best, or you just love the item so much you have to have it.

"The best"???  I rarely buy the best of anything - way too expensive.

I often purchase relatively expensive items, but generally I buy stuff that has a good performance/cost ratio, not the very best of really anything I can think of.

3
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:38:56 PM »
My 1.4x II teleconverter - terrible resolution.

Unless yours is broken in some way, there's nothing wrong with the 1.4x II.  Usually, the lens is the limitation not the TC.  And, yes, I do have one.

4
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:07:43 AM »
17-40L.

I bought it in 2004 (before EF-s) as a normal zoom for my 10D.  I thought I'd love it when I got my 5D, but time had intervened.  To get a wide-angle on the 10D (again, before EF-s) I had purchased a Sigma 15mm fisheye.  Well, the fish is on my 5D perhaps 100 times as much as the 17-40L.  When I need a normal zoom, I use the 24-105 on the 5D and the crop camera (now a 20D) is used primarily with the 70-200.  Once in a great while I'll use the 17-40L.  It's still a great lens with great optics and great handling and AF.  It's just that I like all my other options better.

5
EOS-M / Re: The firesale begins... EOS M in UK £199
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:36:37 AM »
The statement was, "I don't see how anyone could resist".  I was pointing out that such a statement is a gross over statement of the attractiveness of this camera.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:35:08 AM »
I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good.  At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target.  I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it.  There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option.  As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent.  I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter.  But if I have to spend at least twice as much for  the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me.  I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget.  There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.

I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center.  I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.

So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8?  I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that.  In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron.  If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story.  But it's not.

7
EOS-M / Re: The firesale begins... EOS M in UK £199
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:24:47 AM »
If it was $199 in the US, I don't see how anyone could resist.  Even if the 22mm lens is the only lens you buy, you just can't do any better for $199 (I'm even talking about the Panasonic GF2 body for $99 plus a lens).

Better for what?  For me, I can't even think of a use for one.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:08:59 AM »
A new 100-400L was what I was waiting for, but no longer.  I suspect that if it is ever actually produced it will cost at least more than twice the $1069 price tag of the Tamron, and it will still stop at 400mm. 

I think it will stop at 560mm, with a 1.4x TC attached, and likely be better at 560mm f/8 than the Tamron is at 600mm f/8.  From what I've seen of tests, the Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at 600mm or there isn't much advantage over what you get at 400mm from the same lens.

So, it'll be 100-400/4.5-5.6 and 140-560/5.6-8 versus 150-600/5-8.  And I'll bet the Canon will focus faster, be smaller and lighter, and have better handling and IS.  And at twice the cost, of course.

But, we'll see if it happens or not soon enough.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:05:10 AM »
They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.

Which is why I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras.  While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:17:20 PM »
I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.

You must shoot a lot of very slow or stationary subjects.  It's simply impossible to reliably and accurately frame many of the subjects I shoot, which are often moving as fast as 60 degrees per second relative to me.  Shooting those with a 3 degree total field of view, it's hard enough just to keep them in the frame much less to make sure they are perfectly framed.

Essentially, I crop every image I shoot, at least a little.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:13:48 PM »
I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would much rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).

+1

I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.

The point is, keeping 20MB per image of nothing but blue sky is wasteful.  It's common for me to be shooting at 640mm-equivalent (400mm on 1.6-crop) and still need to crop 2x or more (meaning, 3/4 or more of the pixels are not part of the final image).  I'd rather save the space and have a deeper raw buffer.  In fact, I shoot JPEG in these cases largely because of buffer limitations.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:41:02 PM »
Great answer, thanks.  I didn't think about buffer/framerate.

Buffer, frame rate, and file sizes are all good reasons for an in-camera crop on high-pixel-count bodies, even if they are crop bodies already.  Extra "magnification" or "reach" are not valid reasons.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:21:40 PM »
Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC.

A digital TC is an increase in pixel density, not a crop.  However, the 7D replacement will almost certainly be a "digital TC" compared to the 1DX - maybe as much as a 2x.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:30:44 AM »
I expect the camera to be somewhere in the $2500 range.... so yes, I do expect that a bit of the 1DX price will be included :)

I expect to buy it for under $2,000, even if that's not until 2015.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:18:56 AM »
The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

I want it to have both more and less than the 1Dx.

  • More video performance (dual pixel, hybrid viewfinder) and a better sensor per unit of area.
  • Less size and weight (no integrated grip), much less cost.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46