November 23, 2014, 04:09:56 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 - Matthew Saville

Pages: [1]
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 10, 2014, 04:44:02 PM »
Why do people keep thinking that a 24-70mm f/2 is even remotely likely?

Have they not held the already behemoth Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2 or Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, both which require 82mm filter threads just to sharply render that zoom range at 2.8?

Have they not noticed that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is only a 2x zoom, not a 3x, and that it only needs to worry about a largest diaphragm of 35 / 1.8 and an APS-C image circle?  (HUGE difference from 70mm f/2 with an FX image circle!!)

Whether or not they actually make one, my point is that existing facts point to their being absolutely zero possibility / likelihood of it happening.  The whole thing was started as wishful thinking, and remains nothing more than just wishful thinking / urban myth, to this day.

Now a 16-24mm or 18-28mm f/1.8 FX, THAT I could get behind.  :-P

=Matt=

2
Canon General / Re: Should I get into this industry?
« on: August 17, 2013, 11:34:37 PM »
I love to shoot landscapes, cars, old buildings, abstract things.

Unfortunately Dave, along this particular path you are 80-90% likely to wind up making $2.15 per month selling to a half-dozen different microstock agencies.  Woohoo!

Okay, it's not really that bad, but you get the idea.  Shooting those things in particular is probably one of the worst career ideas anybody could ever have.  Sure, if you have insane talent and get famous, you can earn a comfortable living.  I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no room in the various industries that you could pursue.  However there are definitely already millions of photographers out there who are shooting amazing photos and happily flooding the market with them for pennies in compensation...

There is a little better luck out there for you as a general portrait or wedding photographer, because there is a little more money in selling actual photographic services than in simply selling single images.

Want a glimpse into my life as a full-time professional photographer?  For many, many years I could barely afford a minimal kit that barely got my jobs done, and worked all day every day with zero vacations just to barely pay my rent.

At the same time, I watched the white collar types (And even plenty of blue collar) pre-order all the latest new equipment the day it was announced, switch systems entirely on a whim, or own BOTH systems just for fun, ...and plan their next safari in Africa or cruise in Alaska.  All while, of course, they piss and moan about how they hate their day job.  I'd have loved to bash them over the heads with their D3X's  that they pamper and worry about whether or not the weather sealing will hold in a slight drizzle, but I was far too busy dealing with tough clients while hoping and praying that more clients would come in my door soon.

Things are a lot better now for me of course, but it's still not a career I recommend to anyone who doesn't have exactly what it takes including both talent and endurance.

So, the best thing I can encourage you to do is to get yourself a nice successfull career that has a health plan, retirement options, vacation days, etc.  A job that you only have to worry about for ~8 hrs a day, 5 days a week.  A job that will fund a bag full of gear and occasional trips to beautiful places for photography...

If, however, you are keenly bent on turning photography into a career, unfortunately my best advice is to still get another steady job, pay your bills with that, and slowly grow a photo business on the side.  Because it can take years to properly master all the marketing tactics, branding, etc...  The worst thing you can do is try to dive in overnight and pay your bills with your camera too soon.  That will only lead to burnout.  Even if you want to quit a day job cold turkey and dive right in, you should probably have 6-12 months worth of emergency funds saved up...

So, there you have it!  BTW, your CGI portfolio is pretty awesome; I'd like to think that in today's age that is a healthy, growing industry?  Maybe head in that direction...

=Matt=

3
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:12:07 AM »
I don't build lenses, but I think more should be expected as you say, people would pay twice what the L costs now, just make it amazing - it's really the only qualification. (It's basically a 1/3 stop... Nobody should care, ISO's are getting so good nowadays). I hope to get a copy of Sigma's 35 1.4, this is a line that interests me as true competition may be the only thing to make Canon shake things up a bit.

I just tested the Sigma 35 1.4 today, and it is indeed the new 35mm king.  Absolutely flawless sharpness, gorgeous bokeh, and built like a tank.  I'd love to own one!

=Matt=

4
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 13, 2013, 02:10:26 PM »
Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided). 

I do agree with the assessment that if Canon made a 1.4 with the build quality and wide-open image quality of the new 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS primes, the sales of the 1.2L would be greatly affected.  I like my 1.8 v. I, but I'm always on the lookout for a deal on a used or broken 1.4 because of the wider aperture, better (not excellent, though) build quality, and USM (though not Ring-USM).  Personally, I wouldn't consider the 1.2 for myself because of price alone, but the advantages over the 1.4 (build, weather sealing and Ring-USM) are obvious.  The image quality and focus accuracy are debatable.
THANK YOU!  Finally someone understands that I'm not just trying to be a Nikon troll, I'm trying to push Canon in a better direction with their more affordable offerings.  I'm not saying that the Canon 50 1.2 isn't the queen of bokeh. (The 85 1.2 being king, of course)  I'm just saying that Canon intentionally leaves their 1.4 at sub-par performance levels on purpose.

Canon could EASILY make a 50 1.4 with gorgeous bokeh and rugged build quality.  Sigma has already proven that this is possible for ~$500.  So my point is, if build quality and overall image rendition were identical, how many of you would still pay an extra ~$1,000 if the only difference was the 1/2 (?) of a stop?  Very, very few.  And Canon knows this.  That is why they haven't updated their 50 1.4. That is why Canon users should stop praising the 50 L and start asking for better glass across the board, down to even the affordable beginner lenses.

=Matt=

5
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 12, 2013, 11:37:51 AM »
I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap.  It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.  I know this is going to sound like flame bait but as a Nikon user myself, since we simply do not have f/1.2 (with autofocus) as an option thus far, Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.  My 50mm f/1.8 AFS-G has identical sharpness to the Canon 50 1.2 L at f/1.8, and it cost me $200.

I totally agree that with their larger lens mount, Canon will always be the king of bokeh, and f/1.2 is f/1.2.  But just some food for thought.  Personally, though I own Nikon I do shoot both Nikon and Canon, and what I'd love to see from Canon is a better 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, those two options are much more practical for the masses.  Part of the whole point of primes, in my opinion, is to be light and small.  Both of the Canon 1.2 primes are downright "compensating for something" size, I feel like many pros only buy them as a status symbol when they don't even come close to pushing the envelope far enough to actually need the DOF that the f/1.2 offers; they would create identical images if Canon had a sharp-as-heck f/1.4 or f/1.8 with solid construction.  Heck even my 50 1.8 has a weather sealing gasket!

Respectfully,
=Matt=

6
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses to be Announced Shortly.....
« on: November 04, 2012, 11:40:00 PM »
Anybody care to elaborate on what "shortly" means?  The whole gist of this post makes it sound like it's a matter of hours.  Should I be checking back at midnight eastern?

=Matt=

7
Quote
"The Tamron faired quite well"

*looks at MTF numbers*

...LOL...  How about, the Tamron OWNED the Canon?

Aside from Tamron's slightly inferior AF technology, (still in it's infancy after all) ...the Tamron is by far a better choice for all but the most warzone-bound flagship shooters who need their lenses to double as bricks.

Don't get me wrong, the Canon 24-70 mk1 is a workhorse and I use it all the time for wedding photojournalism, but it's getting over the hill.  I'm still in disbelief that Canon is going to attempt to charge $2300 for the 24-70 mk2, without stabilization, considering the incredible sharpness of the Nikon and now this Tamron.  Good luck with that, Canon...

=Matt=

8
Is it just me, or didn't this happen once before?  When DXO published a test, and then changed it?  Or was that a different review site?  (I know Luminous Landscape got itself into trouble once or twice, but I could swear that DXO also "changed it's mind" too once...)

Just wondering.  I'm a Nikon owner, and I don't believe the findings lol.  The 5D 3 should perform much better in low light, from the images I've seen.  I dunno, maybe it's chroma noise that is bringing the 5D mk3 RAW score down?  I never consider color noise because it's so dang easy to remove, but Canon usually does have more color noise in RAW files even if the "properly NR'd" files end up being better...  *shrug*

(I do post-production for a living, so I spend all day staring at D700 12 MP files and 5D 2 sRAW1 files. The 5D mk2 cleans up really well in sRAW1, and beats the D700 "in the real world", ...but the un-NR'd 21 MP files are what kill the DXO score.

=Matt=

9
The Canon version is so sharp and perfect I really doubt this can better it.  Even if it is Zeiss.  Might be alright for Nikon folk though!
Um, what?  I know this is a Canon forum so probably most here just don't care one way or another, but:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1316/cat/11 (Canon 70-200 mk2)
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1280/cat/13 (Nikon 70-200 mk2)

I'm just sayin'...  Not that one is better than the other, but that both are pretty dang near flawless, (at least at 12 megapixels) ...and that Zeiss will have to look elsewhere besides sheer resolution to impress any who already own either of these two lenses.  Which from the discussion relating to cinematography, does seem to be the case.

Respectfully,
=Matt=

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chuck Westfall & the 5D Mark III
« on: March 13, 2012, 01:22:47 PM »
How Chuck Westfall is able to remain employed by Canon will always be a mystery to me.  What complete non-answers.

Just about all I could gain from this is, I noticed he used different words when comparing the 1DX and the 5D mk3 to the 1D mkIV.  From what it SOUNDS like, I'd say that both the 1DX AND the 5D mk3 are going to be better focusing than the 1D mkIV, but in some subtle, tech-jargon-obscured way, the 1D mkIV will retain an advantage over the 5D mk3?

Anybody care to venture additional guesses at how the 5D mk3 will AF compared to other flagship cameras?  I know there was a similarly subtle and almost-impossible-to-detect difference between the D700 and the D3's AF, and then the D3s etc.  But I also know that the D700 (and now the D800 it seems) have ALMOST EVERY BIT of both accuracy AND speed when it comes to AF.

If Canon has found some subtle way to "cripple" the flagship AF in the 5D mk3 so that it looks awesome and flagship-y on paper but actually starts to drop the ball in low light enough to make people want for the 1DX, well, I think that is an epic fail on Canon's part.  Although it would be in keeping with their long tradition of tactful product placement.

However personally I'm assuming the best; I bet the 5D mk3's AF will be 99.9% of the 1DX, and it will be the perfect camera for MANY types of photographers...

=Matt=

BTW, the whole thing regarding RAW noise is kinda silly.  In my opinion, Chuck is just embarrassed to state that Canon's own RAW processing options play second-fiddle (or third, or fourth?) to Adobe's powerful ACR, and other RAW converters that do a WAY better job at maintaining low light high ISO image detail while eliminating noise.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 06, 2011, 05:18:20 PM »
I think this is inevitable.  Especially with the Nikon D800 rumors coming out with 36 megapixels and no AF improvements either.  It just sounds like both brands are trying to make up for the fact that, given this economy, there is no market for an $8K high-res camera anymore.  They've realized that the best market for high-res is in the $3-4K range.  The 1Ds mk3 and D3X sold well, but not as well as the 1DX and D3s will sell / have sold.  And not nearly as much as a 5D mk3 / D800 would sell.

HOWEVER, don't forget that Nikon still has a D4 coming, and Canon still has the opportunity to make an affordable 1DX.

It's pretty understandable that Canon will NOT be able to make an "affordable version of the 1DX" right at the same time as the 1DX hits shelves.  Like the D3 and 1Ds mk3, we'll have to wait about a year for the affordable version.

So, after the 1DX this march, I'm predicting a 5D mk3 shortly afterwards, as well as a Nikon D4, (in time for the summer olympics, right?) and THEN, within 12 months of next march, we'll see the lower-resolution, "affordable" versions of the 1DX / D4.

The only question is, will these cameras be super-cheap, with 60D / D7000 body parts, or will they be high-end, like the "3D" or 6D (basically, a 5DX) rumors have been saying?  I dunno, but I'm hoping for the latter!

By the way, I posted more thoughts about this particular rumor on http://slrlounge.com ...as well as my 2012 Canon predictions in general.  (24-70 mk2, etc.)

=Matt=

Pages: [1]