October 26, 2014, 03:53:22 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 - SambalOelek

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Get a new camera every 150,000 pictures?
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:44:28 AM »
I hope your rotating lens hood is serving you well :P

This. I am very interested to hear how the petal hood turned out.

2
Overall, the 1D X
and 6D deliver the best quality, with the weak spot of the 6D being its viewfinder

Um, what's wrong with the 6d vf? I've never come near a 1dx, so I cannot tell the difference and what you might refer to.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the 6D viewfinder, but the 1D X has a significantly larger image. The specs are 0.76x vs. 0x71x magnification, and ~97% vs. ~100% coverage, respectively. I think those numbers do not really tell the whole story, it is really a big difference. When trying to manually focus at macro distances, you want as good a viewfinder as possible.

On the other hand, someone coming from a xxxD would be blown away by the large, bright viewfinder of the 6D. It is a pity that Canon does not put 100% viewfinders in their entry-level cameras, as the optical viewfinder should be one of the main selling points of DSLRs these days. Even the cheapest Pentax DSLR has a viewfinder comparable to the 7D. But I digress..


3
I have spent quite some time trying to find the best camera for macrophotography (handheld, >1:1 magnification). This is similar to being reach limited in conventional photography.

The 60D is a joy to use for this kind of photography, because of the articulated screen and the built-in Speedlite transmitter. On the other hand, using a large, clear (read: full frame) viewfinder makes the camera more stable.

I personally found that the "reach"/pixels on target advantage of APS-C didn't result in better overall image quality, because of the noise creeping in at low/moderate ISOs. But it does come close at ISO 400 or lower. In my opinion, the 60D/7D outperform the 5D Mark II, but not the Mark III.

The 1D Mark IV with its medium-density APS-H sensor performs really well, but loses out to the 5D Mark III at higher ISOs. The aging 1Ds Mark III is a joy to use, with its fantastic viewfinder, but noise starts to creep in really quickly, and the LCD is useless to determine sharpness at the pixel level.

Overall, the 1D X and 6D deliver the best quality, with the weak spot of the 6D being its viewfinder. Obviously, Wi-Fi is not that useful for handheld macro.

Best image quality:
  • 1D X, 6D
  • 5D Mark III
  • 1D Mark IV
  • 60D, 7D
  • 5D Mark II
  • 1Ds Mark III

4
Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.

The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.

Does indeed sound like a bad copy. Earlier claims in this thread seem to indicate that there is no way an upscaled 300mm can outresolve a normal copy of the 100-400mm @ 400mm.

5
In descending order
  • Mediocre AF system. I would've been happy with 19 crosses (7D-like) or even 11 cross-type points
  • Lack of joystick for quick direct selection of AF points
  • Comparatively small viewfinder lacking 100% coverage
  • I prefer CF to SD
  • No WB button

Apart from that, the camera is alright. IQ is about as good as it gets (for Canon).

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: June 23, 2013, 06:08:22 PM »
Does anyone here actually own or know of a body that is NOT potentially affected?

If every camera with serial numbers ranging from 1-7 require inspection, it's safe to assume that a lot of bodies are affected, but lately I've been thinking that it's in the realm of possibility that the digit in question will always be in the 1-7 range... After all, the first part of the serial number is presumably some sort of date/production code.

What I'm trying to say is, perhaps Canon didn't want to announce that every single body produced (or the vast majority) is potentially affected, so they worded the advisory like that.

7
Lenses / Re: 400 2.8 vs 200-400 4.0 1.4
« on: June 18, 2013, 07:11:48 AM »
I wonder if the 200-400 breathes and what T value it has.
It would still be the dream lens for safari if one has an unlimited budget, otherwise the primes look a little more interesting due to the very high price of the 200-400

According to TDP, the lens has a 0.15x magnification without the built-in extender. Presumably this is at 400mm with a focus distance of 2.0m. However, looking at the 400mm f/2.8 II, it achieves a larger magnification (0.17x), even though the MFD is 0.7m further away! That's a tell-tale sign right there  ;)

Investigating further, we see that the 300mm f/2.8 II has the exact same MFD, but a higher max magnification (0.18x). In other words, when the two lenses are focused at 2.0m, the 300 II will frame the subject more closely than the 200-400@400mm.

This implies that the 200-400's effective focal length is less than that of the 300 II at the MFD. According to my calculations, at the MFD, the 200-400 has a similar FOV as an ideal lens with a focal length of ~200mm.

Looking at the numbers for the big primes, they also do have reduced focal length at MFD (but less severe), so the 200-400 may still be a dream lens for safaris :)



8
EOS-M / Re: Lenses that do or don't do well with the M
« on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:33 AM »
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM - focuses adequately fast for stationary subjects. Front-heavy
  • Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM - Focus speed ok, good weight distribution. Nice results
  • Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro - Focus speed seems quite quick. Yields excellent results
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM - Disappointing drop in focus speed. Quite impractical to use, even for stationary subjects
  • Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM - Just for the fun of it. Difficult to handhold and operate


Will update periodically. Most of the time I prefer the 22mm f/2 due to the overall compact size.

Update - more lenses:

  • Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM - As others have mentioned, works very well. Stellar results (I really like the 200 2.8 on FF, and this yields a similar perspective)
  • Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art - I really wanted to like this combo, but didn't. Slow to lock focus (indoors), and overall the lens just didn't "feel right" for the camera.

9
A lot of people say the Sigma is razor sharp. It just isn't nearly as sharp as my 70-200L. It is only as good as my 50 1.4. Don't get me wrong.

But the 50mm f/1.4 is noticeably sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS... at comparable apertures. The 50mm is only moderately sharp wide open, but at f/2.0 it's already very sharp. From 2.8 to 5.6 it will outresolve most zoom lenses, including the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Tests indicate the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a similar characteristic. I would not expect it to be as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS from f/1.4

10
Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: April 24, 2013, 06:11:29 AM »
It's definitely possible to make a practical <2.8 zoom lens with a conservative zoom range (not too wide and not too long).

The Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II is a (discontinued) full-frame lens that is a tad faster than 2.8 at the wide-end, and it's not very large (A bit larger than the 24-105 f/4 IS). Moreover it's fixed length (does not extend while zooming). Quite a nice piece of engineering.

11
6D Sample Images / Re: Photographs taken OF the Canon EOS 6D
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:01:26 AM »
Hello everyone!

As many know, the Canon EOS 6D is the worlds smallest, lightest full-frame SLR on the market today. As a travel and landscape photographer, I was quite intrigued by the ultralight factor and immediately bought one of the first to ship. Just over three months later I have shot quite a few images with it, and OF it : )


Wrong! That the Sony RX1

Wrong! The RX1 is not an SLR


Challenged! Cameras such as the Vivitar V3800N are smaller and lighter.

Perhaps the OP meant smallest DSLR on the market :D

Nice pictures though! Was the front, body only picture taken with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4?

12
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:44:45 PM »
I own the 85 f/1.2, 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but I rarely use any of them. I normally take my trusty 100mm f/2.8 L IS instead. It has the

  • IS and weather-sealing of the 70-200
  • Light weight and stealthiness of the 135
  • Creamy smooth bokeh of the 85 (albeit with less "blur potential" :) )
  • I heard it can do macro, too!

However, I'm still keeping the other three. They're all too good in their own right :)

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pro's who use 5D MkII
« on: December 03, 2012, 06:30:10 AM »
Pete Souza, official White House photographer, used the 5D Mark II until recently. It was the first digital SLR used for an official presidential photo

(The President himself has been seen using the camera, putting him in the same company as Madonna, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers :D)

Quoting Jeff Ascough: The number of truly brilliant photographers across the globe that use the camera daily in all sorts of disciplines and locations is testament to how good a camera it is. I have used a pair of 5D Mark II’s since launch date in 2008 and I had a pre-production camera before that. It is small, light, well-built and has the best files from any camera. Period.

14
Lenses / Re: 35mm lenses vs 24-70
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:58:29 AM »
they are all super sharp... 

but what you forget is crop factor...

the x100 is an APS-C and the 6d is full frame.

So a 35mm on the x100 is 56mm equivalent on the FF 6d.

So you prob want to look at 50mm or the zoom...

A moot point, since the X100 has a non-interchangeable 23mm lens, no doubt designed to closely resemble the field of view you get from a 35mm on a FF camera.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.
« on: October 01, 2012, 05:36:13 AM »
What have you done with that 5DII ? How long have you used it that it has such a low count?

That's nothing, I recently bought a 1Ds II with 840 actuations (original price €6900). Thats about $10 per shutter cycle, so I hope the previous owner had a high keeper rate :)

I don't think I'll ever see such a pristine 1Ds again. It even had LCD screen protectors.

I also sold a 5D II used for video. The shutter count of around 280 ensured a quick and easy sell...

Pages: [1] 2 3 4