November 22, 2014, 10:56:54 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 - zlatko

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: Today at 09:10:20 PM »
But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Time after time, my Canon gear delivers the photos I want.  Brilliantly.  There is always room for improvement, but in truth I have very little to complain about.  I've tried a number of different brands, and each has its faults. 

I'm at the point where the 5D3 is doing everything I need it to do and getting what I want from it with minimal hassle. The 600rts, the superb lineup of lenses and AF is what keeps me here. If another company did a better system than canon, I'd be there already.

Yep, that sums it up for me too.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:08:10 AM »
What's wrong with the image?

The largest version on Flickr (1189 x 1500) just looks like it's out of focus.  Not a problem if most of the other shots are in focus.  It would be easy to miss focus in that tall grass.

I enjoy full frame and crop cameras.  Full frame for better IQ.  Crop for smaller size.  I'll likely pass on the 7D2 because it doesn't offer any size/weight advantage over the 5D3 or 6D.  The 7D2 offers some great features that are not a priority for me right now.

For IQ, the 7D2 should be compared to other APS-C cameras.  When compared to full frame, FF will always have a little more detail and a little more high ISO.

3
Slow and finicky definitely sums up a lot of my feelings about it. The handling and UI just don't do it for me along with a few other issues. If any of the a7x bodies handled like my X-T1, I would be much more inclined to give it another go. That, and I would need them to add a 35/1.4 to their ecosystem. As it stands, they have nothing that remotely covers my needs except for the 55 (which is still not exactly what I want).

Does anyone know whether the newer A7S is slow and finicky too?  For some reason, Sony wants a lot more money for the A7S than for the A7 or A7R.  Does this mean it's speedier and better in operation?

4
Canon is only "asleep" if you must downsize to a mirrorless-sized body, must have in-body IS, or must have a Sony sensor for some reason.  Otherwise, they make a highly functional camera system with so many great components and options.  I'd love to see a great Canon mirrorless that looks very much like this A72, but I'm not sure there's a compelling reason for Canon to make one.  It will be sweet if and when they do.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Would you get Zeiss 135 f2?
« on: November 19, 2014, 01:55:56 AM »
I would not buy it.  I find autofocus to be extremely valuable for a 135 focal length.  So for me the Canon 135/2 is the better choice.  But someone else might really enjoy the Zeiss 135 more.

6
Software & Accessories / Re: 1D X + EC-S Focusing Screen - Save Your Money
« on: November 17, 2014, 07:01:34 PM »
The S screens show the actual depth of field, but are always darker.  Then standard screens show depth of field as of around f/2.8, even if the lens has a wider max aperture, and are always brighter.  Each exists for its respective advantage, and there seems to be no way to have the advantages of both in one screen.

The S screens are fine in good light, but too dark in poor light or with f/4 lenses.  Even with f/2.8 lenses, the added darkness is somewhat annoying.

7
I won't be watching this video.  This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My Super Fresh New TOY, Canon 7D MK II
« on: November 07, 2014, 06:34:01 PM »
Wishing you lots of fun and great photos!

9
With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!

Actually, the 7D2 can do even better!  The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%.  It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13858
And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer.  :D

Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.  ;)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 07:44:09 PM »
  And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:


Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.

A lot of gyms?  Heck nearly ALL sports venues still have them.  I shoot at AT&T Stadium, Globe Life Park American Airlines Center, among many others here in Texas and ALL of them suffer color cycling and flicker.  First day I shot an NHL a game with the 7D2 and the next day at an MLS game the camera showed flicker warning and you can see it... Perhaps North Texas venues are just outdated.   ::)

According to forum experts, these venues are so rare as not to be a problem.  And besides, any decent photographer can just deal with this with a Sony camera with all of that extra dynamic range at ISO 100.  ;) ;D :o

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 07:37:11 PM »
ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.

On the Canon Rumors forum, Canon sensors get bashed as crippled and crappy.  But in the real world, Canon sensors are the first choice of a lot of working videographers.  Of the dozens of videographers I've seen at weddings and events in the past 5 years, virtually all have shot Canon.  None have shot Sony or Nikon.  One shot Panasonic.  That's dozens of videographers who pour their hard-earned money into Canon gear, live on the product of Canon sensors and depend on them with paying clients.


Not really anymore. Go look at all the video forums and listen to the talk. The posts in those places are far more negative than even mine about the video.

Sure not evenone has switched yet, but for new buys most are looking to other brands for video now unless they need to be tied into the canon stills system as well (and many wedding people do use the canon stills system).

But hey if you want to constantly defend Canon crippling video quality and usability features and have us stuck with this forever, go ahead man. I don't see how that does any Canon user a any good though.

Sure, go look at video forums and listen to the talk.  You keep on reading that talk.  That's just like reading this forum.  There's lots of talk by people who like to talk — a massive distortion field.  But then go look at people actually working and creating video.  Time after time, I see them using Canon gear, often *new* Canon gear.  They come to weddings and events with more Canon gear than I do.  I've yet to see one using a Sony, at least not since the 5D2 came out.  Sure not everyone has switched yet.  In my world, no one has switched.  Actually, they are praising Canon features and video quality and lenses, etc.  They keep pouring their money into the 70D, 5D3, etc.  While you're bashing Canon online for "crippling" video quality, they're relying on Canon's video quality every week for the work they live on and choosing Canon over competitors.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:49:00 PM »
Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

Some people who've labored with Canon's "bad sensor IQ" from time to time:  Sam Abell, David Burnett, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Lauren Greenfield, Gregory Heisler, David Hume Kennerly, Douglas Kirkland, Antonin Kratochvil, Vincent Laforet, Annie Liebovitz, Don McCullin, Eric Meola, Peter Read Miller, James Nachtwey, Martin Parr, Paolo Pellegrin, Denis Reggie, Sebastiao Salgado, Mario Sorrenti, Pete Souza, Joyce Tenneson, Damon Winter ... and a few others.

Maybe they just have low standards, or maybe they just shoot easy stuff without much dynamic range?  :-\;)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:26:47 PM »
ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.

On the Canon Rumors forum, Canon sensors get bashed as crippled and crappy.  But in the real world, Canon sensors are the first choice of a lot of working videographers.  Of the dozens of videographers I've seen at weddings and events in the past 5 years, virtually all have shot Canon.  None have shot Sony or Nikon.  One shot Panasonic.  That's dozens of videographers who pour their hard-earned money into Canon gear, live on the product of Canon sensors and depend on them with paying clients.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:12:16 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.
The harsh reality is most photographers tend to turn up at a venue to shoot without taking the time to modernise the entire lighting system first. I've been guilty of that myself, and have been forced to choose between using shutter speeds too slow to freeze action, or be left with a whole load of editing on most of the shots, sometimes even going as far as using a graduated WB/exposure in PP for the shots that are really worth keeping. What a waste of time this 7D II is. Next time I'll just do things properly and spend days modernising each venue before I shoot. ???

Yes, same problem here.  When I photographed my son playing basketball at the local recreation center built in 2006, I failed to modernize the lighting over the basketball courts.  As a result, I got flicker-lighting effects in a lot of my photos.  A decent photographer would have gone in there and modernized the lighting system ... no big deal, right?  ;) :o

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 04:06:13 PM »

That's exactly what DxO does.  They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,

Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

Quote
But they give Sony lots of points for a little extra DR at ISO 50 and 100, as if that's what matters most for most photographers.  So the Sony scores much higher.

why wouldn't they? DXO specializes in IQ comparisons.

There you go again, elevating your own usage as primary and diminishing others' usage as "peripheral".  For what I do, Canon delivers *excellent* sensor IQ.  Not "bad", not just OK, not anything but *excellent*.  And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

1.  Make tedious color and brightness adjustments to individual pics ... which is tedious and messy when the flicker cuts right through an image ... good luck doing that with Sony.
2.  Set up remote flashes over the playing field/arena or at each corner and use flash to overpower the flickering lighting ... which is often not allowed, unsafe or impractical.
3.  Use a shutter speed slower than 1/60th (strike that ... can't do that for sports action).

As for "specializing in IQ comparisons", they sure do give a lot of points for ISO 50 and 100.  So there's a heavy bias against cameras designed primarily for sports and action shooters.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26