September 20, 2014, 04:28:10 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 - JohnDizzo15

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Invested In 3 Different Systems
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:48:21 PM »
I used my D800 alongside my Canon bodies, a 1D MK IV at the time.  The D800 was fine, my Nikon lenses suffered a lot of CA.  Since I do high ISO, and the huge amount of noise at ISO 12800 in D800 images took NR a long long time to run, I realized that the D800 was impractical for my use and sold it (for more than I paid new). 

If I were only using ISO 100-400, its a fantastic tool, but at ISO 800, noise creeps in.

That's what I've found with the Sony. Anything past ISO 400, and I just assume use any of my other rigs as the experience of making images is much easier and enjoyable with every other system. Starting to get the feeling that the Sony is going to have to go at some point when there is a better solution for my TSE lenses and shooting high resolution.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Invested In 3 Different Systems
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:46:54 PM »
Hi John,

We run in similar circles. I've been a Canon shooter for many years and love my 1DX/5D3/1D4 for sports and landscape.  I'm also heavily invested in Fuji's mirrorless system and I can confirm that the XT1 and 56mm f1.2 is the best combination Fuji offers.  Their 10-24 wide angle lens is also a consideration if you're considering going wide.

While the Fuji's are light and getting faster at 8FPS, they still will not replace a DSLR designed for sports. I've tried to shoot sports with my Fuji XT1 w/55-200 zoom lens and while the lens length was acceptable, the XT1 simply could not lock on as quickly or maintain AF for fast moving subjects.  The images from the XT1 were 'just about' as good as the 1DX from the same venue but I missed so many more shots with the Fuji.  Agreed too that the smaller Fuji's are not designed to be at the edge of a football field or a racetrack but they really do a great job at portraits and landscapes.  Their built-in intervalometer is also a nice feature for timelapse.

Welcome to the 'circle of confusion'. Which system do I take?

Regarding Sony, I too have considered the A7R or S but at this point, and based on some others comments, its not for me. 

Best of luck!

As far as respective uses, the Canon is what I reach for when needing telephoto. The X100s is my go to for daily random shooting (family, or just quick captures, etc) and the xt-1 will now be used for all of my vintage glass (or when I need compact with the native lenses). The Sony will still be in the stable for usage with TSE lenses as they do not have aperture control when adapted to the fuji. Starting to wonder whether I should bother keeping the zeiss 55mm.

I haven't been able to do any torturous testing with the xt-1 as far as shooting action with native glass. But I am certain it will not be on par with a DSLR. Though so far, with the 56 at least, I have gotten a pretty high rate of keepers with my kids. Not quite sports, but still some action involved. The low light focusing ability is also rather surprisingly good on the Fuji.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Invested In 3 Different Systems
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:32:40 PM »
Canon DSLRs (60D and 6D), with modern Canon, Sigma, and Samyang lenses, and (via adapters) film-era all-manual pre-AI/AI/AI-s Nikkor lenses (inherited) and my own M42-mount (various brands) lenses.
Sigma DP Merrill fixed-lens compacts.
Film gear.

Interesting to hear that you don't like the Sony shooting experience. I have toyed with the thought of the Sony A7r. Not going to happen soon.

The Sony just has a lot of issues for me with regard to UI, ergonomics, the shutter, and lack of some features. The biggest knock against it now for me is the softness that I get in the majority of my shots (including tripod mounted work) with some adapted lenses. I realized it this week when I started using some of my vintage lenses on the Fuji. I found that the images were signicantly sharper and cleaner with equal to or less shutter speed than the Sony. One of the things I thought to myself initially was that the Fuji is a crop sensor thus only using the center of the image circle. But comparing subjects at the center of the frame, the Fuji just blows the Sony out of the water.

The A7r is pretty good when paired with the 55/1.8 (the only native lens I have for it). If it weren't for the fact that it is capable of electronic communication with my EF lenses, it would have already been returned or sold by now. Honestly, if a company like Metabones were able to produce a speedbooster for EF to X mount (that allowed aperture control), or even just a straight up electronic adapter, that would also prompt the dumping of the A7r. The Sony, with all those pixels, basically gives me 36mp of softness vs the 16mp of sheer sharpness with the xt-1 when using adapted lenses (the main draw for me).

The Xt-1 has a significantly better viewfinder (especially for manual focus) than the A7r. It also has a much better shutter mechanism, better ergonomics, and just better overall photographic user experience.

Third Party Manufacturers / Invested In 3 Different Systems
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:13:12 PM »
So I was recently presented with the opportunity to trade out my seldom used 24-70II for a Fuji Xt-1 w/ kit lens and 56/1.2.

I am now officially invested in systems with Canon (6D and EOS M), Sony (A7r), and Fuji (xt-1 and x100s).

As ridiculous as the initial thought of being bought into all these systems was, I am now finding that they all have their respective uses for what I do. While I understand that it is not necessary to have all of it to get the job done, it is nice to have the option of choosing the best tool for the job when needed.

An unexpected side effect of getting the xt-1.....I'm once again reminded that I really can't stand the shooting experience of the Sony (even more so now).

EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:04:46 PM »
If your goal is to get more money for a prime, I'd say go with a 6D instead as another poster previously stated. That's actually exactly what I did and do not regret it at all.

For the type of shooting you said you do, there really is no "need" for the 5D3. From an IQ standpoint, I also prefer the files out of the 6D for whatever reason. Ever so slightly, but I do.

Also, depending on the deal you get, I'm certain you could probably pocket around 800-1000. I sold my gripped 5D3 earlier in the year for 2600 and bought a 6D for 1400. No brainer for my situation.

The other issue I see with you swapping out for a 7D2 is that it completely changes your lens collection. If one of the main things you do is landscape, you will surely miss the full frame sensor and not having to deal with the 1.6x crop. Even putting landscape aside, it will change the way you use your lenses for everything.

Is there a specific feature of the 7D2 that you feel is necessary for what you do?

Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:14:52 PM »
45 or 90 TSE

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:01:43 PM »
Pretty sure Nikon will have released at least 18 more bodies at the rate they're going before Canon releases an update to their lines. So they are much more than just 2 generations behind  ;D

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:10:12 PM »

Thanks John - this is a great answer to my question even before I finished typing!

No prob. Glad I could help.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:28:28 PM »
I currently own both and continue to use them respectively for varying purposes.

IMHO, it really is dependent upon how you shoot and the look you are going for most of the time. I know a lot of guys that love being able to shoot at wide open and super fast all the time. If you happen to be one of those guys, the 35/2 IS is not going to give that to you. That being said, f2 is plenty fast for most applications and the IS allows you to shoot at super slow shutter speeds handheld which is always awesome.

Being able to shoot at 1.4 and remain sharp is really about the absolute only reason you would want the sigma over the canon (albeit a major reason for many including myself).

Otherwise, during regular usage, the canon is definitely easier to use and yields a much higher percentage of keepers than the sigma (in my experience).

The canon has proven to be much more consistent in all conditions with regard to AF and keeper rate. The IS has allowed me to shoot as slow as 1/10th. Optics are updated and very good. Plenty sharp at f2. Super light and compact. Cheaper. 

But I remind you, f2 is not 1.4 (obviously). So if you liked shooting at 1.4 for a significant portion of your images, know that f2 in most of those same shooting instances will not be shallow looking enough for you. Otherwise, I think you are making the right decision in the swap.

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:27:53 PM »
i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

Not sure what keeper rates most people are getting. But I generally had a pretty high keeper rate with the 85II on my 5D3 either wide open for very close to it. When properly calibrated, there is no reason why the keeper rate should be so low that it would be an issue for a paid photographer.

I have owned the 85/1.8 as well as the 85II and 100L currently. There are obviously many variants with regard to shooting types and scenarios. For me, I would have chosen the 100L over the 85/1.8 any day of the week if we are talking relatively static subject portraits. The aberrations present in the 85/1.8 were plenty and not always that easy to get rid of in post when shooting wide open. Yes, it was decently sharp, but IQ in general was worse than the 100L which btw has IS that more than compensates for the real advantage of the 85/1.8.

If you want what looks vastly different, the 85II or possibly the Sigma 85/1.4 are it. What isn't anything to write home about when it comes to portraiture is the 85/1.8. Is it good enough? For most people, probably. Is it what you want? I have an odd feeling you are definitely trying to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth it while knowing inside that it is what you ultimately want.

Trust me, 85II on a 5D3 works just fine with regard to AF for portraiture. Don't let that be a reason you choose to go with the 1.8. If the cost is too prohibitive, then fine. But don't try to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth the money for most of the people that own it because of what "some" people have mumbled on the interwebs.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:27:18 PM »
@sdsr - only manual focus for anything I've adapted so far. Only tried the AF for curiosity's sake.

Regarding the vibration, I don't know that it is necessarily just the shutter or if it is merely one part of the cause. I just know I'm having issues with what appears to be slight motion blur even when my shutter speed is super fast on static subjects.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:00:15 PM »
@ Dylan - Agreed, something wide would have definitely been nice to have at the outset.

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Regarding shutter speed, I was shooting in the backyard at no less than 1/400 and still got plenty of shake/motion blur on a relatively static subject. Not exactly sure what is causing it. But I do have my suspicions about the adapter, weight of the body, and shutter mechanism.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:12:14 PM »
Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains.

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

My belief is that the issues are caused by having to add a piece of hardware (adapter) in between the body and the lens which leaves a lot of room for variance and play. The other issue is the way the sensor is set up in the A7r body. The EF lenses were simply not designed to work optimally in this scenario (distances, tolerances, etc). Whereas when I mount the Zeiss 55, I know that it was designed specifically for the FE mount bodies and microlenses which translates into much better IQ.

Prior to the A7r, I had already experienced issues with lens adaptation as I have used many M42 screw mount lenses on my Canon bodies. Many of those same issues have manifested themselves with the A7r + EF lens combos.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

IMO, the AF retention feature is a mere gimmick to get our attention and I'm certain less than a ball hair of a fraction of the people adapting EF lenses are bothering with it vs just manually focusing.

I suppose my point is that while it is great that Sony is encouraging the use of adapted glass, the actual reality of the experience is trash (on the average) which means they still need to start producing some of their own quality lenses in FE mount.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:26:16 PM »
On another note, has anyone else noticed that the colors straight out of camera are not all that great (especially when moving up the ISO ladder)?

I am also finding that the color on a fair number of the files I get to be a little more difficult to manipulate to a point I am content with. Color in general, I have found is not the best with the Sony.

To make matters worse, the auto white balance is by far the weakest I have experienced with any camera I have owned or currently own. This only makes matters worse when trying to work with the color in the files afterward.

Was also thinking that this may be a symptom of me already being used to Canon and Fuji files in post. But something about these Sony files still makes me feel as though there is more labor in post to get them to look the way I want.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:18:47 PM »
It is in fact very rough around the edges. But for the time being, I feel that I have gotten a good grasp on what it's limitations are and where the strengths lie. Because of this, I have decided to keep it in the kit as the last piece to round out my needs.

With a native lens (55mm FE for me), I have been able to get very good results. It gets way clunkier when I adapt my EF glass. However, the IQ is great when shooting at lower ISOs and the manual focus aids are great which have made all my TSE shooting much more fun. On those few factors alone, it is a valuable piece of kit to me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26