July 30, 2014, 01:08:40 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 - takesome1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:55:24 AM »
It is an established fact that pictures taken with the 1D IV are substantially better than those taken with the 7D II.

Compare the 7D II's pictures on the attached link to any 1D IV picture you can find on the web;

http://www.nonexistantsevendtwopictures.com



2
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:30:31 PM »
Toyota pickups are assembled in Texas.
Chevy Silverado's are assembled in Mexico.

Now Zeiss is assembled in Japan?

What next?

3
PowerShot / Re: Canon to Leave the Entry Level Point & Shoot Market?
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:03:30 PM »
Correction.

Canon has already been removed from the sub $200 point and shoot market.
They have already been replaced by smart phones.
Like the house guest at the party that just will not leave, Canon seems to have hung around to long.



4
Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 12:11:32 PM »
Cheap camera gear.

You have to admit that in this situation a 5D III would have done a much better job.

5
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 05:52:42 PM »
To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.

If you think that's what he said, you need to read more carefully. He called it an appalling choice as a dedicated landscape lens.  A Toyota Tundra is a very nice full size truck, but it's an appalling choice for parking on the streets of San Francisco.  There are many options for a dedicated landscape lens covering 24mm, and the 24/1.4L is the last one of then I'd pick.

I can read fine thanks. He said the word appalling, I think that is a bit strong in the context of what he said. Saying there are better picks then yes I agree. There are many fine landscape shots that have been taken with the 24mm f/1.4L II.



I would find it appalling to even be seen in a Toyota Tundra. Recently at Bass Pro they were giving away $10 store credit to take a test drive, I told them it would cost $100. Any way I didn't drive it. But if for some reason I find myself in San Francisco I will find a way to park my Chevy High Country and be happy doing it.

6
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:49:42 PM »


The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.

Really it is money and versatility;
The 24-70 II is a great lens that usually cost close to 2K. If you are going to spend that much on a landscape lens and you want the best then IMO the 24mm TSE is the choice no doubt, can the OP afford that one?

The 24mm F/1.4 cost less, and if you are not using the TS functions the differences between these tow lenses IQ isn't that great. 

I have owned the 24-70mm II over a year now, if I want a wide lens for a landscape shot I put the primes on. Honestly   
I read all the reviews, debates, opinions and discussions but in the end I make the final choice by the final results.

Comments that this aspect doesn't matter or that doesn't matter, or you can correct this or that in PP a bit useless. Unless you know that the person you are addressing takes the same type of shots and PP just like you do you really do not know if those aspects matter or not to that person.

7
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:57:17 AM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?


An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

8
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:53:46 AM »

It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.

That statement is a strong argument against getting the 24mm f/1.4L for landscape use, since it's primary advantage is the f/1.4 aperture...something not generally needed in landscape shooting.

Not generally needed? I have found reason many time to shoot landscape less than (wider than) f/2.8. Most landscapes are generally shot with camera phones and P&S.

By the way I believe you own all three, the 24mm f/1.4L, 24mm TSE and the 24-70mm II as do I.

I find a use for each. As for the OP I think if he is serious about landscapes he should head toward the TS.
If he want's versatility go for the 24-70 II.
If he doesn't need a TS he could save a few bucks and get the 24mm II.


9
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 10:44:29 AM »
Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.

MP of cameras improves Vignetting and Distortion? I didn't know this.
You can change these in defects in PP, so I guess we should use a lens that we know we have correct its problems.

The output scenarios we are talking about are landscapes.

Correction of vignetting in post means raising exposure, which adds noise.  With current sensors and since landscapes are rarely shot at high ISO, that's not really an issue.  Correction of distortion in post costs sharpness. Higher resolution sensors mitigate the loss.

Landscapes are the input. "Output scenarios" refers to how the images of the landscapes are presented - online or prints of various sizes.  With higher MP sensors, most output scenarios involve downsampling the image, and that further mitigates the effects of correcting vignetting and distortion in post.

mitigates or eliminate? Of course a few clicks of the mouse correct distortion in LR. 

Someone could make the same argument that you really do not need the Tilt Shift with todays technology. LR can simulate much of what a TS can do.

I do not know about you but I would rather have fewer things to correct in PP no matter how rare or insignificant they are.

It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.


10
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 08:54:44 AM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?


An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

11
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 08:41:34 AM »
Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.

MP of cameras improves Vignetting and Distortion? I didn't know this.
You can change these in defects in PP, so I guess we should use a lens that we know we have correct its problems.

The output scenarios we are talking about are landscapes.

12
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:03:53 AM »

Zooms offer versatility, but it always comes at the price of compromising on IQ - in one way or another.


I disagree with this statement and the previous post as well regarding the 24-70ii.  Practically speaking the 24-70ii is about as good as it gets.  While the 300f2.8ii is sharper then the 300f2.8i.... both lenses are razor sharp!!!  Saying that canon's primes in this focal range has better IQ then the 24-70ii is just splitting hairs. 

Have you used the 24-70ii?  With this lens... there are no compromises.  Its tack sharp through the entire zoom range, from wide open through f/14 and all the way to the corners.  Unless you really need faster then f2.8, this lens effectively replaces all primes in this focal range. 



If your only measure of IQ is resolution then you have a point. But then that isn't the only measure or the only factor that contribute to IQ.

Here are a few hairs to split;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=787&Camera=453&LensComp=480

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


13
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:09:07 AM »
Thanks takesome1 for the advice. I agree 24mm is the best general landscape focal length. The recommendation for the 1.4L over the 2.8 IS is based upon IQ I presume?

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

Yes IQ not the faster stop. If you are serious about one type of photography it is my belief that a person get the best tool for that job. The TSE would be the better overall Canon choice, but if you are not using the TSE function the difference are slight. The 24mm f/1.4 is a bit sharper in the center but not much. The TSE is sharper on the edges, has a less distortion and chromatic aberration. 

I own both the 24mm f1.4 and the 24-70mm II. While the resolution is about the same out of the two the 24mm f1.4 still wins in other IQ areas. The 24-70mm II would be a good one size fits all lens but it wouldn't be my choice if I wanted the best landscape lens. Although when we are talking "best" it can be defined more than one way. I just gave you the answer how I see it.

14
Lenses / Re: What to Buy?
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:00:30 PM »
I would rather have the 6D before those lenses.

But how can we give you any advice. You didn't give us any clue as to what you like to shoot, or what direction you are moving toward with new gear.

15
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 24, 2014, 10:55:20 PM »
Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17