October 24, 2014, 02:01:40 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 - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:58:16 PM »
As a C100 owner, I'm pretty happy with Canon's update!

Fwiw I still think the CX00 series offers the best looking image on the market below the Alexa, though Canon Log sucks (wide DR is great).

For the best specs, get anything else and spend a lifetime grading it to look as good as Canon's AVCHD.

2
Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:51:12 PM »
Handheld 1/50th second

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:40:27 PM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels. :)

Having tools available to you to capture the perfect image is a bad thing? Real men walk backwards in the snow uphill for an hour to do their thing? Really? that is your argument????::)

Depends what tools you need. For me, the racing bike would be the better tool than the training wheels (metaphorically speaking, I've never used a bike that takes a good photo.) OVFs offer better performance in every area except having a built-in histogram, which is pretty useless to anyone who meters competently.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:04:52 AM »
...
The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)
...

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

The resolution and gamut of ground glass surpasses both an EVF and a print, but the RAW file (22 megapixels, 16 bit color) still surpasses what's seen in the low res EVF by far. Even an analogue negative far surpasses what's seen on the print... It's just part of the process.

Whether I capture all of it or not, I'm composing based on what I see, and either attempting to replicate that accurately or improve upon it by throwing in a subjective spin or at worst mitigating the damage if the scene is too detailed/there's not enough light/the contrast ratio is too high. When I grade, I don't use an iPhone. I want a high end CRT or Flanders LCD (or my Dreamcolor at home at worst!). Just because the final result is inevitably a compromise doesn't mean I need to compose for a worst case scenario.

When I shoot, I want the truest representation of the scene available to compose from; as for worrying about contrast ratios and white balance and whatnot well... years of spot metering and color temperature metering gives me the experience to know roughly what I'm getting and if I don't, I take out the meter.

I'm not kidding when I say if you win the Tour de France it doesn't matter if you have on training wheels. If your photos are amazing in the print, you could have taken them blind for all I care. 

But, personally, I do better when I don't. :)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:33:06 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

Absolutely correct about it all. And if anyone does not agree with you, ask them to shoot with a cover on the LCD. They will then understand!

Welp, enjoy the mediocre images. Goodness knows your audience won't.

Fwiw, my day job is color grading. Not at the highest level, but seven figure budgets... I am young getting started. My other job is in camera department and I've seen DPs who shoot properly and those who don't.

If you can win the tour de france with training wheels, more power to you, but composing a picture in a thumbnail leads to a thumbnail-worthy photo. I'd rather compose on ground glass.

And I'll give Roger your best regards next time I see him. :)

I'd try shooting with the LCD off, but my 4x5 doesn't have one and I don't shoot serious work on my dSLR.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:36:02 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels. :)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:08:55 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Nooo! With me shooting on RED and Alexia for film making I judge lighting in the viewfinder with perfect ease and success.

Tell that to Roger Deakins. :)

But while I am a big fan of optical finders over electronic ones, I'll admit the Alexa has a nice EVF and the red a... well... adequate one. Better than the current Rebel's OVF, even.

Even if so, you're in the minority. I find most modern DPs are awful at judging ratios and can't light a set without a camera in front of them. The others use a meter. :)

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:07:00 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:50:52 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 06:42:26 PM »
Rebels always had bad viewfinders. Entry-level shooters prefer WISYWIG though god knows anyone who has a clue what they're doing prefers optical finders.

Always glad to see insulting, ignorant comments on the web!


Good for you, I can tell. Continue posting them!

Those of us who know what we're doing will get back to shooting with optical finders and knowing how to meter properly in the first place. :)

As for my apology, you've earned it. I'm sorry you've been shooting that long and still don't have a clue how to meter!

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:58:14 PM »
Rebels always had bad viewfinders. Entry-level shooters prefer WISYWIG though god knows anyone who has a clue what they're doing prefers optical finders.

I can see it happening. Although between the Rebel line and the C100 Canon has proven their adeptness at making any kind of finder horrible lol.

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II pricing and feedback
« on: September 29, 2014, 09:50:22 PM »
How could it be advertised as $1799 when the currently strictly enforced MAP is $2299?

It dropped to $2199 I think, with a $300 gift card. I'm not sure who got it for $1799, but after B&H's promotions and bonus cash it came to about $1820 or so for me...

For those who don't own what it's what you expect. It's sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 L but not much and not "tack sharp" until f4 or f5.6 but ok wide open. (The 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma is sharper at 1.8 than this lens at f2.8.) The bokeh is the harshness of a complex zoom, but is very clean without fringing. Clinical and smooth. Seems good for landscapes once you stop down. The IS jumps a bit and isn't really ideal for video.

Very nice lens overall. Great build quality and a joy to shoot with. Amazing AF. Seems like a good deal for the price.

13
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:57:02 PM »
How is the autofocus on the 50mm Art?

I have the 50mm f1.8 Canon (love it wide open) and the 50mm f1.4 Sigma from long ago... it is a surprisingly sharp lens with great smooth bokeh, but the autofocus is awful! Likewise the 18-35mm f1.8 is dodgy... but surprisingly irks on my 5D Mark III just not crop bodies.

Worries me. I'm ready to spring for the Sigma but want to see if anything better from Canon comes out first.

14
Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« on: September 23, 2014, 04:45:06 AM »
My Canon kit - It works. It does what I need it to do. It never fails me. Gets the job done....every....single....time.

Having now owned and played with multiple systems from different companies, I am truly learning the value of the Canon ecosystem.

With as much chatter going on as there is about all of Canon's deficiencies and shortcomings, I felt as though it would be refreshing to bring a different view and experience to the table. Sorry if this has already been stated elsewhere, but this is my two cents that I've come to realize as of late.

Without fail, I have never gotten frustrated with the functionality of my kit to the point where I felt that something else could serve me better in every facet of my shooting.

Having now owned an A7r rig, multiple modern Fuji rigs, and played with a Nikon rig, I have come to the conclusion that nothing really beats the overall functionality, completeness, and usability of my Canon kit.

Yes yes, I know. Canon Fanboy, right? Wrong. If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent my last 6-8k on trying out other company's offerings. To a fanboy, that is blasphemy.

Anyhow, I have found that comparing IQ between all of the rigs, I am generally splitting hairs. There are a finite number of instances where I actually look at an image and say "wow, I am so glad I own ABCD rig because the images are so much better than the rest."

The differences for me at least, are in functionality and feature set....not IQ. Sure, IQ on some levels can be slightly improved with my Canon rig. But assuming I properly expose (or get close) and properly compose (or get close), there is nothing IQ-wise that my Canon rig cannot accomplish.

The only reasons left when I really think about why it is I enjoy using other rigs are due to feature sets. For instance, A7r, allows me to use my TSE lenses with a very good manual focusing aid feature set. A smaller plus would be the increase in resolution and slight bump in DR (not as important to me). The xt-1 is super compact for what it brings to the table and has an even better manual focusing aid feature set (prefer it for all my old lenses that do not require electronic communication with the body). However, that's where the positives end for me when comparing them to my Canon DSLR.

For me, the autofocus is still way too unreliable and slow on every mirrorless camera I have owned or used. Battery life has been consistently atrocious across the board. Ergonomics are almost acceptable at best. And the worst part? The ecosystems range from barely starting to develop, or mildly developed and still lacking significantly. All of these things taken together make for systems that involve a lot of compromise. It makes them very niche/specific use tools.

This brings me back to my original point, the Canon rig that never fails. Slight shortcomings, I will admit, are present. However, as a general rule in my experience, it has always gotten the job done and I have never felt it lacking to the point where I looked to another system and felt that I could do better.

The one truth I have found, the grass is almost never greener....

100%. Truth is the real highly paid pros I know all shoot Canon and think even Sigma lenses would be insane (though they appreciate Nikon, if no other manufacturers, too).

Why?

Job done well enough is a pay check.

Canon is conservative.

Canon shooters are conservative.

Pros are conservative: good enough is still a paycheck.

I use a 5D Mark III and a C100 and love them both, but if I cared for pure specs over reliability and ease of use I'd have long since abandoned them.

But I don't.

15
Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:48:17 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29