October 20, 2014, 01:21:19 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 - tayassu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 19, 2014, 03:57:05 PM »
Definitely the zoom for flexibility! :)

Lenses / Re: Building my lens system - where to go from my basic kit?
« on: October 19, 2014, 03:56:16 PM »
The 70-200/2.8 is a beast and really heavy!
If you want to have a light, small (that is of course relative) travel setup, I'd go for:

-Canon 16-35/4 L for landscape, architecture, group shots etc.
-Sigma 50/1.4 A for people, street, low-light and creative stuff
-Canon 70-300/4-5.6 L for details, landscapes and every other telephoto use

The two Canons are the greatest travel lenses on earth and the Sigma is just stellar, but buy it with the USB dock and finetune your AF.

Reviews / Re: Camera Store Trashes New G7X
« on: October 19, 2014, 03:50:41 PM »
Yeah, watched it, too...
Tragic, I really thought Canon would bring it here! But AF seems slow(er), lens worse, handling worse etc.
I don't like the Sony's feel though, so I will pull the trigger on the Panasonic LX100! It's amazing what this little beast can do! 4/3, 4K, EVF, manual controls, DFD AF etc.
Should serve for 95% of my purposes (although my DSLR is still better ;) )

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:34:37 PM »
it´s been fun to follow the discussion. As I stated in the opening, I thought I had the pros and cons pretty clear, but realized that there was a bit more to it.

After about page 3 I thought I´d try to sum up the opinions so far, but I don´t think I´m the right guy for that. But it would be interesting if someone could try to make the comprehensive and objective list of pros and cons FF and crop.

Personally I have ordered the 7DII to be an addition to my 1DX for long reach, where I crop a bit too much today and where I also believe the AF will benefit from the 1.6x factor. I also see that it will be a very potent coupling with the 200-400mm f4L IS 1.4x lens. I do not use this lens for birding today, but I expect to do so with the 7DII. I´m also motivated by the AF and fps performance in such a small and light body, for long hikes, where size and weight are important issues.

But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance :)

Ok, Eldar, as I had nothing to do, I looked through the pages and summed up the following:

-FF has generally got better IQ. As well in good light as in low-light situations, it provides less noise, better sharpness, better colors/tonal range and more DR.

-that being said, FF provides more possibilities for PP, as you can pull up the shadows higher or sharpen the image more before the noise comes in.

-FF has also got the possibility to go to a narrower DoF, which leads to the FF 'look'. This certainly can give your images some sort of pop.

-FF has better wide-angle and standard lens options, as there are no professional UWA's for crop and only one non-pro lens starting at equivalent 24mm (the 15-85), whereas for FF you have got plenty of 24mm zoom and UWA options. For APS-C, though, there are technically more lenses due the EF-S mount.

-Crop cameras use the better part of the lens, the middle. As EF lenses are calculated for FF, APS-C litterally merges out the flaws in the non-center regions (sharpness falloff, vignetting and partly CA) by using only the middle. Keep in mind, that with the same lens, FF produces sharper results, though, as I mentioned above.

-FF cameras normally have a larger and better VF (exceptions: 6D and 7DII)

-APS-C bodies and lenses don't cost as much as FF bodies and lenses, as well at buying them as at having them repaired.

-APS-C bodies and lenses are normally smaller and lighter than their FF 'equivalents' (again, exceptions: 6D and 7D (II) ).

-APS-C bodies provide more reach by a theoretical factor of 1.6. (This is not the case in real-life, it is more like 1.3 if I read that correctly, but I don't know about that.) This is a good thing for distance-limited situations (think birds) or budget-limited situations ('easy' access to 500mm and above).

-as AlanF pointed out in a thread, it depends on distance which sensor format resolves finer detail; on long distances, APS-C is better, on short FF. This may only be true under certain circumstances, I don't know, I just collect opinions ;)

That is so far what I could find. I hope it helped! :)
But keep in mind: both formats are capable of producing absolutely stunning and professional results, and the more important factors are composition, light, moment and know-how. As the not always right Zack Arias said (and in his case he was right): It's the moron behind the camera! ;)

A happy and fulfilling weekend to you all! :D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hello FF!
« on: October 17, 2014, 11:01:39 AM »
In Norwegian, it would not be very commonly used, as a noun, but it would mean someone who are spreading lice ... Slightly less positive than the German version ;)

The OP can choose for himself, I think... He is a grown-up that doesn't need our help^^

@tayassu - Does Panasonic offer a water tight case to 140 feet/40 meters for the LX100 suitable for underwater photography?

I have no idea, but you can always go with an Ewa-Marine underwater housing or something like that ;)

@MtSpokane I meant at high ISO's ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hello FF!
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:51:22 AM »
In German, the word looser, but pronounced "Luser" can also mean "hearer, listener" ;)
Well, I'm flattered and so is everybody in this thread that you are treating us with such kind words! :D

Have you considered the Panasonic LX100? I'm looking for a camera for exactly the same purpose as you do, and the LX100 seems to be the perfect compromise in size, IQ, aperture, EVF and so on...
If you wanna stay with Canon, go for the G7X. The Sony sensor does true magic and the G1XII images are just too soft at high ISO's in my experience.

Lenses / Re: Which TS-E for NYC?
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:14:23 AM »
Also a vote for the 17mm. You can't get wide enough in a city ;)

To: "mrsfotografie" & "tayassu"
You've inspired me to share my image of Black Beach in San Diego.  I like this image so much that I printed it and have it hanging in my house.  It constantly amazes me that I took it with a Canon SD600, even now that I have much more advanced equipment.

That is a very nice shot and it shows the great color reproduction and tonal qualities that Canon Powershots can be capable of. Thanks for sharing :)
+1 :)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:10:50 AM »
I think this makes perfect sense... The Nikon D750 made the D610 nearly obsolete, so why should Canon bother to bring a D6xx competitor instead of a similar priced D750 competitor?
I expect the 6DII to be specced similar to the 5DIII and the 5DIV probably to be high MP... would make sense to have the three important Nikons (D4s, D810, D750) covered. Df and D610 are nothing they have to care about ;)

Lenses / Re: Which prime lens for nature fotography?
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:51:27 AM »
Your primary body is probably going to be the 7D because of the AF.
For bigger animals and BIF, an equivalent of 500mm is very good, for sitting birds and smaller animals, an equivalent of 600-800 (-1200) mm is perfect.
I would go for the 300/2.8 with both converters, as you then have (with FF the 300mm, the 420mm and the 600mm option) the 480mm, the 672mm and the 960mm option on your 7D. The new 300/2.8 is spectacular even with the 2x, don't be worried about that. ;) It is also the least expensive, smallest, lightest and optically best performing of those 4 lenses.
If you want to shoot FF, go for the 500/4 for the same reasons, it is lighter and smaller than the 600mm and great even with converters, although not as good as the 300/2.8. Besides, you won't be able to use it with the 2x because f/8 AF is not available on your bodies, what would mean, you'd use it on the 7D for longer FL's, which would destroy the purpose of shooting FF, which is why I'd get the 300/2.8. ;)
I hope you can make the right decision for you and this helped a little for that purpose! :)

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:39:15 AM »
Two very nice lenses, on APS-C as well as on FF! :)
It's nice to see new developments AND successors to old models! Also, it is maybe good not to announcement them at Photokina, as the 7DII got all the attention...
I could imagine an announcement of one (or two) high MP models together with these two, although the 100-400 maybe would have been better together with the 7DII. The 11-24 fits perfectly for a high MP body! :)

PowerShot Cameras / Re: G7 Picture @ Dpreview.com - High iso quality?
« on: October 09, 2014, 03:17:37 PM »
He is 13 years old and needs an low light capable compact cam. Shooting indoor @ discos,...
It should be compact, as he is want to take it with him when he goes flying and doing much sports.

I would not use anything but FF in light that low.  A 1" sensor is going to be a big compromise.  With people moving in a disco, you need reasonably high shutter speeds, so ISO levels of 6400, 12800 and higher might be needed.  Of course, he can possibly get some sort of image if there is a spotlight on the subject, but to capture the colors in low light is just plain difficult.
Also be aware that any laser light show will ruin the camera if the beam hits while the shutter is open.  Its a common issue for newbies who try to take video at a laser light show.  Warranties don't cover things like that either.

Thanks. He knows this problem. I know, that an 6D would be better. But to carry this Cam with the 24-70 2.8 around, is to much risk. Better an small camera. Lesser risk.

I understand the desire to want small, but if he wants to use it in low light, plan on returning it.
I would suggest a wide aperture f/1.4, f/2, or a 40mm f/2.8 over the 24-70mm L.  I bought a G1 X MK II as a compromise, its reasonably small, not tiny, has a large almost APS-C size sensor, can do ISO 3200 in a pinch, and has a fairly large  aperture at the wide end of the zoom.
I've yet to try it for low light events,  however, here is a theater shot of a stationary subject with my G1 X MK I at ISO 3200 1/25 sec f/5 (New model has faster lens)  Its ok for prints 8 X 10, but at 1:1, detail is definitely lost.
This is a jpeg processed from a raw exposure.  I went light on NR to retain detail.

That's why I'm scared off by the G1X II, it just loses so much detail at high ISO's...
Still have to decide for myself between Canon G7X and Panasonic LX100... I'm tempted by the size and FL of the Canon, but the handling on the Panasonic is extremely attractive...

Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 07, 2014, 09:52:16 AM »
But the weak-minded are the (relative) masses and they influence or should influence what Canon does ;)
And I don't see any reason not to post that here, as others complain here too, much heavier than I do.

I think Canon is more concerned with influencing them than the other way around – that's the point of advertising!

Of course, this is why they started a customer-oriented microsite  :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15