March 03, 2015, 11:46:00 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 - candc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
1
I don't know what the deal is with the 50l but it seems to be the worst on test charts/best in real life shooting lens there is? I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of it.

2
Canon General / Re: 5Ds R Moire and Bird Feathers
« on: Today at 11:03:51 PM »
Yes, I have seen moire with my 5DIII + 300 f/2.8 II IS combination a handful of times.  Not enough to freak out and DxO's moire tool seemed to work well on it, but I'm in a wait & see mode on this one.  It could be a much bigger issue with this body.  Besides, after seeing the price drops on the 7DII, it doesn't seem to make much sense to be an early adopter for bodies these days...

I'll see if I can find an example - I know one was a great blue heron, but will have to do some digging and pull up the RAW file to show you guys.
The 7d2 uses a stronger AA filter than the 5diii and the 5diii is stronger than the 1dx.  The 7d2 really takes a hit with its AA filter.  I would suspect that a 50mp sensors body will have yet an even stronger AA filter.  The result of that would definately limit the usefulness of a cropped image.

Seems the designers are assuming that you will always take an image that uses the entire sensor frame, where the softening of the AA effects are less noticeable.  I can't wait to see the unadulterated side by side comparisons of AA filter softness in all of the latest bodies.

Time will tell whether the R version will be remotely useful without a lot of post process moire filtering.

I read that the 5ds-r actually has an aa filter but it is cancelled out somehow. I don't know if that will have the same end effect as having no aa filter at all?

3
i think downsampling can give really good results. here is a downsampled d800 to match d3 image. and a downsampled one of mine shown next to the full rez one taken on a 70d. i think for downsampling to be really effective you need to use the bicubic sharper algorithm and go 50% in both directions.

4
My response is completely based on an apples to apples comparison...same photographer, same glass,
same generation camera body, same post processing, same everything excepting...difference in MP.

If you take that 50 MP image and, for whatever reason, downsize it to a 22 MP size...you will have a
better IQ image than you would have had taking that same image with a 22 MP body.

Note that I did not use the term crop, but said...downsize.

That is what excites me, not the high mpx but the ability to downsample  to a sharp clean image that is still big enough to be useful. At ful res it will have all kinds of cropping room and it may be a really good camera for an unintended market, bird photographers.

I don't think the high mpx on its own will make any difference for viewing at normal sizes but it gives you more to work with. Aside from bigger file sizes I don't see a downside.

5
i will have to add that exception to my sorting/pruning of photos routine: note to self do not delete weasel on woodpecker photos, even if oof and blurry.

6
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 11:34:35 PM »
i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size.  in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.

You may want to refer instead to Roger Cicala's tests.  They are more credible since he's using more samples than anyone can afford.

i don't need to, as i said i did the comparison myself. but just for the sake of argument: does roger say that the canon is sharper on a crop body than the sigma?

7
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 11:16:00 PM »
i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size.  in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.

8
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:44:49 PM »
Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.

It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.

9
Lenses / Re: Lens suggestions for trip to Grand Canyon
« on: March 02, 2015, 08:05:56 PM »
The new 10-18 seems to be a really good lens. I would get one of those and sell your 28-135.


10
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 07:14:45 PM »
Thanks for that info, Ill have to rent a copy and check this out, I also like the TSE 17mm for keeping lines straight in buildings and for the shifting, do you guys think that is a good thing? Ill have to rent them both and see which one is for me.

I don't have a ts lens. You can do perspective correction with software. There is a benefit from being able to shift the focal plane but not enough of a benefit to justify all the fiddling to me. The ts-17 is pretty much tripod only, manual focus and it doesn't take normal filters.

11
I really like the tamron but trying to use it with a tc is a waste of time. It works with the kenko but the af is about useless and your not going to gain anything optically.

12
Canon General / Re: Spartans, What is your profession?
« on: March 01, 2015, 09:42:59 PM »
Working as professional artist my entire life. In the niche and the region that I am active, relatively accomplished and respected.

I am amazed that majority of professions here are representing group of population  using predominantly left side of the brain, and apparently pretty secure financially as well.
That probably explains why CR discussions in general seem to be detached with reality of the true market out there ;)
Honestly, I was expecting more of an artists, poets, writers or musician to be in to photography than pilots, engineers, physicists or economists :)

Now it is clear to me why we don't have here enough posts (in my humble opinion) that are able to voice large group of users that beside the logic also follow intuition, gut feelings, emotions, or trends based on whatever (mode, looks, cool factor or social demands)

As a note I like to point out that most accomplished leaders in technology were/are people claiming to listen to intuition and gut feelings beside numbers, formulas and statistics, just like Tim Cook stated only couple of weeks a go :)

I would have to be surprised of you being surprised, and for a few reasons:
1- Photography is an expensive and technical 'art form'.
2- Liberal professionals are surely more likely to state their jobs and say that they enjoy photo as a hobby than people working at the grocery store as they have less chance of feeling shy about their work. (No offence meant to store clerks as there are no bad jobs), I'm sure everyone gets the point...
3- Engineers like to say they are engineers (by the way, did you know I'm an engineer?).
4- The amount of creativity required in scientific, academic and technical careers is much higher than is usually believed, although the expression of that creativity is different than than of those perceived as artistic.
5- CR is about photographic equipment.
6- I see a lot of very emotive posts about DR, crop vs ff, color spaces and evf vs off!
And so on.

However, I'm curious about you 'working as a professional artist'. I thought being an artist was a condition you were born with, not a form of employment... ;) Ok, that's a bad joke of my part I guess...

Point proven.

13
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 01, 2015, 08:57:16 PM »
I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologize if I am repeating what has been posted. Pretty much everyone who uses the lens for what it is designed for loves it. It's sharp wide open, It has "is" which is great for handholding water shots and such. It has great color and contrast. Its a very reasonable price so not much purchase justification needed and it takes filters. It is really a wonderful general purpose landscape lens.

14
Lighting / Re: Diffuser for Canon 600ex for event
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:59:47 PM »
p.s.

Here is an example of a shot with the winglight. Its just direct flash with a 70d, 320ex, and sigma 18-35. It is straight out of camera jpeg on the go.

15
Lighting / Re: Diffuser for Canon 600ex for event
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:55:15 PM »
This came up on a previous thread and another forum member who seems to know a lot about lighting recommended the winglight   http://winglightstore.com/  I bought one to take on trips and I think its fantastic.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52