October 31, 2014, 02:32:10 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 - Ruined

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
I received my A7r rental from LensRentals today.

You should rent a 6D and do the same test vs the 5D3.

2
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:31:48 AM »
Unfortunately iOS uses a web browser that is not fully HTML5 standards compliant, not unlike the dreaded Internet Explorer 6 of the 90s.  So sites have to code around it because of its marketshare which is not really fair to the web developers.
 
What Apple should do, is get with the program and stop releasing proprietary stuff.  But, it appears proprietary stuff is Apple's specialty, heh.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 23, 2014, 03:21:44 PM »
I'm very excited, just not excited enough to pay full MSRP at launch.  At first sign of discount though, it will be mine! ;)

Then hopefully Canon will announce 5D4 next year with 6D quality ISO and removable focus screen and I will be set!

4
...
I completely understand that.  But you are by far the minority.

Everyone gets older, even you will.

Ah yes, the ever popular evidence-unsupported "mirrorless is the future" argument ;)


Quote
Wrong. With a smaller body, the distance from the lens to the sensor is wrong. That's why metabones, etc, adapters are all so thick and is why new lenses are being created.

Actually it's not wrong - that was Sony's choice because their existing lenses were unpopular so they might as well start from scratch, it does not have to be Canon's choice.  Canon can maintain the flange distance yet still reduce camera size (such as reducing the height for sure, and possibly width) and it would be compatible with all EF lenses; it would operate much like a current Canon DSLR in live view mode, except without needing the extra height for the OVF.  The camera would have similar height of the A7 with greater depth from front to back than the A7 but it is worth that depth tradeoff to be compatible with hundreds of popular EF lenses, and it would allow Canon to develop one lens for both systems.   It would not be the smallest mirrorless camera but that is what the EOS-M line would be used for.  It would be nonsensical from both a business standpoint and a consumer standpoint to develop a whole new set of FF lenses just to cater to mirrorless when maintaining the flange distance yet eliminating the OVF would result in a much smaller camera that will be compatible with all the legendary Canon EF lenses, especially since if Canon did this I'm sure niche mirrorless fans would drop the A7 like a hot potato!  The problem is mirrorless is so niche even this easy score is not worth it business-wise.

Quote
You're forgetting that m4/3s is also mirrorless and both the cameras and lenses are much smaller and lighter. Image quality compromise? Not significant.

Maybe,  but depending on usage for many professionals micro 4/3 or aps-c is insufficient or at the least undesirable (unless your shots are frequently reach limited).  Again, it will be a very tough sell for professionals.

For consumers, even an APS-C or m4/3 based mirrorless system is still much larger (carrying around lenses/accessories) and more complex than a fixed lens superzoom or smartphone camera.  Consumers like small, simple, cheap - if you argue that they could buy a mirrorless ILC and just use one lens all the time, a fixed lens superzoom would be much more appealing to that same consumer as it would be cheaper, less complex, and have a more flexible focal range. And this is mirrorless' quandary - too small for professionals and their full frame lenses, too large for consumers who don't want to carry around an ILC and lenses mirror or not.

5
...
The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA.  Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality.  Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that.  The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

Let me put the situation to you differently.

If tomorrow Canon came out with a 5DIV and a EOS-MX, where both were full frame and using the same senor but the MX was mirrorless (with corresponding weight savings, etc), I'd buy the MX in a heart beat and never even consider the 5DIV. I'd also never buy another EF lens that was for non-mirrorless cameras.

I completely understand that.  But you are by far the minority.  Mirrorless is by no means new and even the overall best mirrorless system to date (arguable Sony A7/A7R) has failed to sell in big numbers.  Also, I don't think there will need to be a new set of lenses for a full frame Canon mirrorless camera.  Because of the physics behind full frame (unlike APS-C), outside of a few wide angle focal lengths you don't gain anything by reducing the flange focal distance.  If Canon did make a 5DIV mirrorless equivalent, I am quite sure it would still use EF lenses because there is little point on fullframe otherwise; this is in contrast to APS-C where a different set of mirrorless lenses makes sense.

Quote
The size and weight differences are not inconsequential and if I think to the future then at some point I'm going to say "I'm sick of lugging around fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses when I can use something smaller and lighter."  If I buy another DSLR it will either be the last or next to last DSLR that I ever buy.

Now maybe that's further into your future than you care to think about but not for me. In 30 or 40 years, what do you want to have hanging around YOUR neck?

You have very well describe the problems mirrorless faces:
1) Consumers sick of lugging around "fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses" are not going to be all that enthused to carry a smaller mirroless body but still have to lug around the same "fat ass" lenses nor are they interested in being stuck with a fixed 35mm prime as their only compact option.  There is no getting around physics - just look at the Sony A7 lenses; the only lenses more compact than Canon EF are the 35mm and below.  The Sony 50mm is actually significantly larger than the Canon EF equivalent and the 70-200 f/4 is not significantly different than the Canon EF equivalent.  The lenses are more the issue than the camera with full frame mirrorless...  Those consumers sick of lugging around a DSLR will buy a camera with an integrated superzoom lens or simply use there iPhone.  But pros will not do that, which brings me to:

2) The "fat ass DSLR body" is actually a positive for professionals, not a negative.  It's not much fun trying to handle a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or 300mm f/2.8L IS on a body that does not give you sufficient grip for the camera lens.  That is why battery grips are popular and Canon's top of the line 1DX is actually the largest of all - because pros need the grip to balance full frame lenses.  As mirrorless offers no benefit to reducing the size of larger full frame lenses, the small body size becomes the problem rather than the solution.  This is why Sony has not released a 70-200 f/2.8, it will be a nightmare to handle on the A7/A7S.

3) In summary, mirrorless is still too big for consumers who want to downsize, yet it is too small for professionals that need a meaty body (6D is about as small as practical) to handle their telephoto full frame lenses which are not getting any smaller with mirrorless due to physics.  Thus it becomes a tough sell to either group, resulting in the poor sales we have seen.

6
I don't mean this towards any person in particular, but quite frankly some of the mirrorless advocates are starting to resemble the used car salesman who will say anything to try to get you to buy!

No matter how many rational arguments are made demonstrating why mirrorless is inadequate for pros and unappealing for normal consumers, some mirrorless folk march on with the cause by trumpeting the very few benefits mirrorless has and ignoring the slew of negatives that you get with those benefits.

So, when a product like the Samsung comes along that looks good on paper, it doesn't even matter how it performs in real life.  It could produce pictures that look like a $5 disposable camera from CVS.  No matter, it has a specs sheet that they can copy and paste to carry on with their mirrorless crusade as others lose (or have lost) interest in the technology.

In fact, I'd wager some mirrorless advocates are more interested in the technology itself than the actual picture they are capturing.  If you can't capture the most stunning picture in the world on even a 6D (or 7D2 if you need the reach for the shot) then quite simply you are doing it wrong, and should be more concerned with your photography skills than sensor noise.  Yes, things like sensor noise can be improved and it will benefit a small percentage of specific scenarios, but quite frankly given the current sensor quality in Canon cameras offering best of class sensor performance (6D for FF and 7D2 for crop) there are other more important things to focus on.

The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA.  Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality.  Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that.  The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 21, 2014, 02:57:01 AM »
I am about about to upgrade from my Canon T2i to the 7D Mark II.  I consider myself an enthusiast trying to make the move to pro.  I decided that with my 7D Mark II purchase I would buy my first Canon L lens.  The plan is to be an all purpose photographer doing weddings and other events. 

Which of the following lenses would you get?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Thanks for your input.
or

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

So. basically:

Events such as Weddings or parties:
EOS 6D + 24-70 f/2.8L II

Events such as motorsports:
EOS 7D2 + 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Both the ideal body and lens differ depending on what type of event you are covering.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:22:28 PM »
If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

True about the raw video, but the 7D2 from samples online looks to have much better moire performance than the 70D and 6D - about on par with the 5D3.  I think this camera would be a solid video performer... and raw video is massive  :)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7DII - Did you preorder?
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:16:40 PM »
I already blew my budget  for 3+ 7DIIs on a 1D X, so I think I'm set.  If this was a few years back, I'd snag this and the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 and be all set for some great wildlife shooting.  This is a great time for action photographers!

Or, you could sell the 5DIII, get the 7DII and bank the rest ;)
Don't think I haven't thought of that already!  I really like shooting wide, esp. with the new 16-35 f/4 IS, so I think I'll pass for now.

Ah okay, I thought you liked to do a lot of tele stuff also.  The 1DX and 7DII would be an epic combo, best full frame paired with the cream of the crop! :)  Not that 1DX and 5DIII is bad, but the 7DII will give you reach that 5DIII can only dream of!  Unless you need two full frame bodies at the same time (i.e. for backup purposes on paid gigs which I empathize with or if you frequently need two FF sensors for other reasons) personally I would get that 5DIII on the market ASAP ;)

Plus, I could see 5DIII easily being replaced next year, it is getting a bit long in the tooth.  You could still get good money for it now.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:04:38 PM »
Hello everyone,

I currently using a 5diii with 24-70ii, 70-200ii, 100L, and mp-e 65.

There are times, I believe the 5diii may be an overkill for my needs. I current shoot landscapes with a gigapan and usually my 2 kids playing in the park or taking portraits in a home studio.

I also do not use the 5diii as much as I did when I first bought it.  I'm thinking I can sell it for a 7dii and use the rest to invest in a prime lens which I'm missing in my collection.

5diii to 7dii?

Thank you in advance.

Given the description of what you shoot you'd be much better off with a full frame 6D than a crop 7DII, and it will cost you even less at this time for a 6D than a 7DII since Canon refurb store stocks the 6D.  Since you are not doing any pro sports/bird shooting that is demanding of cutting edge AF technology, I think the AF system of the 7DII and even 5DIII would go to waste, and it does not appear you need the reach of the 7DII.  But, with your portraits and landscape you could still benefit from a full frame sensor.  The 6D AF is not as good with fast moving subjects, but if you learn to use it your results will be fine - I have used the 6D even for demanding panning shots during autocross races and have gotten excellent results, your usage will likely be much less demanding that this.  For best results with the 6D, for fast moving subjects use the center point; for slow or still subjects, other points will usually work just fine.

Also if you are interested in shallow DOF portraits with fast primes, the 6D supports the user-installable Eg-S high precision focus screen (like the 1DX and 7DII) so you can see the true DOF of what you are shooting.  5DIII does not have this option (Canon removed likely so they could upsell people to 1DX) and thus with a fast prime you will not see the true DOF in the viewfinder on the 5DIII resulting in potentially unexpected results and inability to properly manual fine tune focus.

During Canon refurb sales you can get a refurb 6D for ~$1250.  That would be your best bet for sure.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7DII - Did you preorder?
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:02:49 PM »
I already blew my budget  for 3+ 7DIIs on a 1D X, so I think I'm set.  If this was a few years back, I'd snag this and the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 and be all set for some great wildlife shooting.  This is a great time for action photographers!

Or, you could sell the 5DIII, get the 7DII and bank the rest ;)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7DII - Did you preorder?
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:01:07 PM »
I definitely plan to pick up a 7DII in time, but I'd rather others be the guinea pigs early adopters in case there are any bugs, and if you wait ~6 months you can generally save a few hundred or even more on Canon refurb sales.

13
Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:58:51 AM »
I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).

Well, idea is, if you have a bottomless pit of money with full frame you can just buy a longer lens and get better results than crop with a shorter lens.  But, the OP has a 100-400 and shoots wildlife; the FOV at 400mm on his current camera is ~640mm.  In order to get that on full frame he'd have to spend $10k on a Canon EF 600mm f/4L or start putting on teleconverters which will negatively impact the image quality (and often autofocus) more than a crop camera will.

So yeah crop is cheaper, but its not just the camera but more importantly the lens when you get to longer focal lengths.

As for cropping full frame to APS-C, when you are reach limited there will be more pixels on the target with crop.  Cropping full frame will work but you will lose detail because of this.  The exception to this rule would be when shooting in low light (i.e. ISO6400) when the lower noise & higher contrast of full frame would likely be a better tradeoff for a little less detail.  Some feel that cropping full frame is at worst no difference but that is not my experience at lower ISOs and it does not logically make sense to me knowing how digital imaging works.

jrista did a fairly well controlled test here that can demonstrate the loss of detail when cropping full frame vs using a crop camera on a reach limited target for a visual demonstration; you can see in his test the full frame crop loses a ton of detail on the moon surface/craters because there just aren't enough pixels to fully reproduce it on full frame due to the cropping:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0

14
Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:44:15 AM »
Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people.  Thanks for coming to the forum :) I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320?  oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer.  I guess there are probably many variables...

There have been quite a few tests done on this, even here at CR.

To sum it up, if you have good light (i.e. ISO 1600, maybe 3200 if the 7DII improves over the 7D - which initial tests seem to indicate) and you are reach limited (meaning that in this case, you are taking a picture that does not fill up the whole frame of a crop camera when using your longest lens), then generally crop will win.  If ISO is higher (3200-6400+) full frame will probably win with cropping, but do remember if you are at 300+mm with your 100-400 frequently you probably want to stick with the crop.  Otherwise, its going to be a real pain in post to crop every shot, and cropping aside the subject may be too small in the viewfinder to take the type of photos you want; I see a lot of emotion in your wildlife photos, that may going to be hard to capture if it is too small to see due to lack of reach when taking the photo!  If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture.  You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.

Full frame is quite excellent, but crop has its applications too.  That is why they make a pro crop camera, and the 7D line is known to be popular with wildlife photographers due to the extra reach. Full frame has an allure too, for my portrait work I would never give up full frame.  But full frame is not a panacea that conquers all, it is simply another option that mostly offers significant improvements, but does have some notable drawbacks as well for the type of photography you shoot based on your website photos - reach being the largest.

IMO in your case there really is no definitive answer.  If you want only one body, you will have to pick between reach and high ISO!  So, you should check the usual focal lengths you shoot too see what percentage >250mm, what percentage >3200 ISO - then do some shoots capped at 250mm on your current camera to see if the reach is sufficient.  If photo analysis and your tests indicate 250mm on your current camera will be enough for 95%+ of your photos, then definitely go for the 5D3.  If you exceed 250mm frequently and need the reach, I would think twice about buying a full frame camera due to all the cropping that will be needed - plus a good deal of the benefit of full frame (not all) is lost when you crop lots of the frame away every picture.

In short, do your research on your own photos/photography to see which solution is best for you.  Don't buy full frame just to buy full frame, as you may be disappointed if you want/need the reach of crop.

15
Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:15:43 PM »
Wow thanks guys, loving the support...

I totally get what you are saying Ruined and you make So much sense. I just can't seem to get my head around having two bodies... I would always have decisions every time I do anything (I don't like so many decisions).  I was going to keep my 600D as my back up (in case it broke - not as a carry along).  I know pros take 2 bodies, but i'm trying to minimise my gear, not increase it on travels. If all I did was out of a car/house then you make more sense, but travelling/backpacking at times, its a bit too heavy. 

I can understand, if you are dead set on only one body then 7DII vs 5DIII would depend whether reach/framing or high ISO is more important; I would not get the 6D alone as it will likely leave you wanting more for fast moving wildlife.  Note though, you don't necessarily have to take two bodies every time you go out, you can take the one that simply makes most sense for what you are primarily taking that day.  As a warning though I realize its just a backup, once you handle any of these three cameras (5D3, 7DII, 6D) you may have a rough time going back to the 600D as the handling and features of those three will have spoiled you!

I am sure you probably know this, but if you want to somewhat simulate the reach & framing of the 5DIII with your 100-400mm, put it on your existing camera and zoom all the way to 400mm - that will be the 7DII FOV max reach.  Now zoom out back to 250mm - that will be 5D3 FOV max reach.  If you are okay with the reach you see at 250mm then I'd get the 5DIII.  If you'd really prefer the greater reach and sacrifice some ISO to do so, then get the 7DII.   If you really want to be comprehensive, go out on a few simulated photoshoots and force yourself to be limited to 250mm max on your current camera to see if it really will work for you or whether you will be stuck in post cropping all day.

I do events and I can't wait to get the 7DII because the reach can be key for certain types of events like racing (since I don't want to buy or lug around a 10k 8.5lb lens :)) and other events when getting close is not practical.  it also opens up alternative FOVs for primes.  But, there is also no doubt in my mind that my FF camera will handily beat it at ISO 3200+.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44