August 27, 2014, 07:14:40 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 - zlatko

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:30:10 AM »
Yay, more pancakes!  I'd love to have another.  :D

Lenses / Re: Rubber covering loose on zoom of 24-70 II - advice?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:12:09 PM »
The exact same thing has happened to my 24-70/2.8 II.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D True High ISO King?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:10:53 PM »
I absolutely love the IQ of the 6D

It;s amazing, isn't it? Smooth, sharp, clean images.

My only beef is the AF performance pretty much sails out the window the moment the sun drops. Dusk shooting is all about MF in my experience.

Now this I'm going to have to disagree with. Using center point AF with L lenses, the lowlight focus is the best  I've used on any Canon DSLR.

I agree, center point on the 6D is great.  In any light.

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:01:32 PM »
The 85L is a wonderful lens and I used it for many events.  But I also think it's too heavy for general event use.  I just didn't enjoy carrying it! 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:51:21 PM »
How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body?  No autofocus, full manual controls and good
battery life.  Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.

But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:18:42 PM »
I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies.  I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small.  Period.

I like the option of reach — I'd be very happy to see mirrorless shrink some big lenses.  A 70-200/2.8 is a bear to carry (3.28 pounds!), not to mention even larger telephotos.  By comparison, a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 weighs just 13 ounces and provides the same reach.  Similarly, an Olympus 75/1.8 is tiny when compared with a Canon 135/2, thought they provide about the same reach. 

Canon could build some smallish lenses for a new generation of Eos M (with EVF and fast autofocus), like a 45-135mm/2.8 IS.  Fuji is going to introduce a 50-140mm/2.8 lens for their X cameras, which is basically the same idea.

EOS Bodies / Re: My 'OMG EOS-M just £199' one week in review
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:55:40 AM »
Later I realized that the AF is just too slow still.  It's a very nice camera, but when I lose a good shot because the AF just doesn't hack an average situation, then I have to rethink my strategy.

Don't blame the camera for your deficiencies! The thing works just fine, all YOU have to do is to use it for what it is meant to be! I am sure you are one of those people who were whining because the ipad didn't have a keyboard and stuff  >:( >:(

Sad really!

I disagree.  Slow AF is not "just fine".  Blame the camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: My 'OMG EOS-M just £199' one week in review
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:53:04 AM »
I did get a SL1 when it was on sale here on, and that one I fell in love with.  Yes, it's still a little bigger than a M, but the AF works great, picture quality is better, I can assign the focus to the back button, it takes all my crop lenses without adapter, it's like a little 7D.  I still use that one all the time.

+1 on the SL1.  I use one too and it's a wonderful small camera.  Light weight.  Easy to use.  Good AF.  Excellent image quality.  Works with any Canon EF & EFS lens.

The EOS M would be much more interesting if it had a built-in EVF (not just the LCD) and fast autofocus, sort of like the Olympus E-M1.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:15:27 AM »
Canon has the best and fastest service for professionals - hands down.

I agree 100%.  Canon service = awesome.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:53:38 PM »
I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.

There are plenty of wedding photographers using the Nikon D3, D4, D4s, D700, D800 and the Canon 1D series.  For a long time, my main wedding cameras were the original 1D, 1DII, 1DIIN and 1DIII.  Currently I mainly use the 5D3 and 6D as they are easier to carry than the 1D series.  I also use the Olympus E-M1 and Canon SL1 for their smaller size.  The smaller cameras are really fun.  Of the Sony A7 series, the A7S is probably the most interesting for weddings right now. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:35:46 PM »

IMHO the 7D shouldn't even be mentioned with the  5D III,  6D,  1DX, or the 5D II for wildlife.

OTOH Poul Souders took his prize winning polar bear pic with a 7D and 10-22m lens:!bshaEo

It is all about technique, especially spending the time.

And having a boat.  :)  And being willing to get within 15 feet (?) of a polar bear in the wild.  :)

Some World Press Photo award winning photos were also made with the 7D.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:32:02 PM »
3. I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.  Before Christmas I bought an XE1 and returned it a couple of weeks later, assuming that the unsharp results, especially in photos where the subject wasn't close, were the result of a defect in the camera or lens, but I don't think they were - I've looked at countless images online taken by fans of these cameras (not to mention the comparisons you can make at dpreview) and seen much the same lack of sharpness.  There may be less noise than on images taken with other APS-C bodies, but there's less detail.  Frankly, I prefer the images I get from my SL1, extra noise and all.  Again, the differences aren't so noticeable if you don't scrutinize closely, and if you care more about noise than detail it won't matter, but if you do....  (Even some Fuji fans acknowledge this - e.g. whatsisname at soundimageplus says they're his favorite cameras to use, but he much prefers the images from his a6000, not to mention a7& a7r.)

I agree about the SL1.  Fuji offers less noise but less detail too, at least using Lightroom.

While some praise Fuji's color because they have all of that film experience, I frankly did not see excellent color from the XPro1 or the X100S (don't know about the XT1).  The color from their RAW files was always much better than from their in-camera jpegs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:39:29 AM »
So "4x5, 8x10 spanks you all" and so he chooses...the aps-c, because it's not that much worse than full frame.

That makes no sense.

I think he makes some good points, but the point about 4x5 and 8x10 is a bit silly because those aren't just different formats ... they're film.  You can't get those formats in digital.  So yes they are a lot bigger, but they aren't ready substitutes for a lot of the work that photographers do.

The XT1 looks wonderful as a camera design — great size & controls — but I was surprised to see that it offers noticeably less sharpness than other APS-C cameras in DPReview's studio comparison scene.  Comparing the RAW at various ISO's, the XT1 just lacked some detail that was evident in the same scene in images from the 70D and D7100, for example.  It may be that DPReview is using a RAW converter that doesn't yet properly convert the Fuji RAW files, or it may just be less sharp.  It *should* be just as sharp as any other APS-C camera.

Also, ZA has the luxury of ditching FF because he has a super expensive medium format digital.  For those who don't have  a super expensive medium format digital, FF is still pretty compelling, i.e. the next-best thing to medium format digital (and much cheaper).

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:24:37 AM »
I hope they bring back the f/1.0 - just sharper!

+1...without focus shift. Sharp from wide open to f2.8

Sharp ... you mean like how the Sigma 50/1.4 Art is sharp? Or sharp as in how the 50/1.2L is sharp?

Sharper than 85L II @ f1.2 and no AF issues like ART

And with amazing bokeh like the 50/1.0L, not like the Sigma 50/1.4 Art.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:51:06 PM »
Granted the white balance is off, but otherwise you are stupefied that a camera with 50% more pixels on the same sensor size and mounted to a lens that frame the subject 50% tighter gives you more details? Now I'm stupefied...

I agree.  Apart from the white balance, the problems are multiple:
  • The D810 resolves more to begin with.
  • The 85/1.4 is a better, costlier lens ... sharper wide open ... as most 85's are sharper than most 50's.
  • The 85 frames the subject tighter, resolving more detail.
  • Reducing the 85mm image to match the 50mm increases the apparent resolution of the 85 image.

Yes, these results are typical when you stack the deck in this way.  Considering the four points against it, the 50/1.4 did rather well!

One can see the same comparison on The Digital Picture (mouse over the image for the 50/1.4):

Also, not sure which 85 that is.  If it is the 85 G from 2010, then it is a much newer design than the 50/1.4 which came out in 1993, early in the EOS era and before the DSLR revolution.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18