March 03, 2015, 08:09:52 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 - Otara

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is that dot on the 5D3?
« on: March 01, 2015, 09:12:43 PM »
Pretty useless these days.  Make wifi standard and do remote shooting from your smartphone.

Given you have to connect and it drains the battery on both devices, I love the idea of wifi/smartphone combos but in practise only use it for image review or remote liveview..  Having a small very light thing to carry around as an easy remote trigger is great in my view.


Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« on: February 28, 2015, 01:07:59 AM »
Can be useful for underwater photography using natural light, as front mount filterr systems aren't very useful.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D firmware 1.1.6 exposure issue
« on: February 19, 2015, 03:55:44 AM »
Same f/w and flash, works fine from what I can see.  Maybe flash shoe contacts or camera flash settings etc?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?
« on: November 16, 2014, 08:56:03 PM »
I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. So pair wide lenses for the 6d and long for the 7d MkII. I have the 7d MkII and currently use a 70d for landscapes- just so I'm not changing lenses all the time in the field but I find too often I set out on a day and wind up being either in 'landscape' mode or 'wildlife (birding) mode' and fail to use the other that much. I don't know that there's a 'lens duplication' problem' if separate the tasks for each body. But I would never consider a body based on using a 1.4x with it on a continuous basis. (You can get the Kenko 300 series extenders to work with just about any Canon lens and their 1.4x is very good, but I wouldn't recommend using a 'short lens' with any extender as someone pointed out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)

Thats the kind of thing Im talking about - you end up either carrying two cameras, or you end up only using one and not being able to use the other options, but at least wih 2 crop theres no lens mismatches.   If you are in a situation or mindset for your shooting where that works its great - I too often find myself wanting a camera and two lens options, and the splitting became more of a pain then.

For me the main reason to go with the 7D2 is I already have a fair few crop lenses.  I guess the 6D is cheap enough to try before considering a 5D instead, given a 7D is already in the picture, its the 6D/7D2 combo Im mostly warning against.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?
« on: November 16, 2014, 07:47:01 AM »
I have the 7D, 6D and 7D2.   I got the 6D with the idea it offered a low cost option to check out FF.   Problem is it doesnt really, and comes with other usability issues that ended up getting irritating when I was used to not having them, particularly AF and controls.

With crop and FF bodies, I dont find theres a natural complementing of lenses, and ended up starting to develop 2 systems, which doesnt work well from a cost or trip perspective.  As stated above, a 1.4 doesnt really fix this, and in my view the next 5D or the current one makes more sense than buying 2 separate cameras and trying to bodge it with each, eg having both AF and full frame advantages.  You will almost certainly end up favouring one over the other like me, and then the other becomes a devaluing desk ornament or at least far less commonly used.

For me the current desk ornament is the 6D, but it is early days.  I think Im the tiny bird guy Michael is referring to, and he has a point in that my preferences may be overspecialised, in that most Oz Victorian wildlife tends to be smaller rather than larger. 

Interesting review... definitely thinking about the camera, but the advantages over the 70D I own, for *my* kind of bird photography, seem to be mostly in the AF & Buffer departments. My 400 5.6L focuses ok with the 1.4x kenko TC, and with  the 2x in live view. And in the latter setup, the flip-out&touch screen is  very, very useful (if not necessary). You can keep the tripod low for more stability, and touching the screen for shutter induces way less vibrations that the actual shutter. OTOH, I only used the wi-fi a couple of times, I would not miss it that much.

A little thing: I believe the captions for the pics illustrating the magnification of the 600L with/without the teleconverters are swapped?

I really struggled with whether to get the 70D instead - if I had it already, I would definitely have kept it. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 04:17:27 PM »

You must shoot tiny birds, which is the only real advantage of crop, IMHO. I shoot grizzlies, bighorn, moose, elk, and raptors in the wild (not zoos, game farms, or fenced in areas). The differences in IQ, smooth exposures, and general harshness and roughness to the overall image is enormous.

I'm in the field now, just outside the largest wilderness complex in the lower 48, waiting for Canon to send my broken FF back to me. It should be here tomorrow.

Smaller creatures yes - live in Victoria Australia, so smaller birds, lizards, small marsupials etc tend to be the focus, and I shoot underwater too.

If I can get close enough, the 6D is pretty good.  But once AF or distance enters into it, 7D works better for me, let alone the 2.  I do sometimes wonder if a second hand 5DIII might have been the better choice, but once I start looking at the extra cost lenswise to cover what I currently have, not so much.  Crop vs FF isnt just about the body cost, by a long shot.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 03:28:30 PM »
I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review

For once, this is essentially in favor of Canon - with the 7d2 as a wildlife camera, who cares about low iso dr? If you wan to shoot sitting ducks you can just use the 6d for about the same price.

As a wildlife shooter, I'd consider low ISO dynamic range important. I'd also take the 6D over any crop camera by any brand for wildlife.  ;)

I have the 7D, 6d and now 7D2.  I was already using my 7D in preference to my 6D for wildlife, so it probably depends a lot on how and what you shoot.  I need all the help I can get with AF for instance, and I tend to struggle to fill the frame even with the 7D.

If I could get a second-hand 300mm 2.8 from Sony for the kind of price I can with Canon Id maybe consider the Sony camera DXO recommends.   As it is I got a 7D2 and my current lens for less than that, and if I got it from my local shop I would have enough left over to buy a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II as well.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: November 04, 2014, 11:27:01 PM »
Im in Melbourne Oz and have had mine since saturday.  More arriving this week with Teds, so cant be all gone.


That always seems to be the case, kits are available before bodies only.  If the kit had lens that was in demand, that might change.  There is nothing wrong with the 18-135 except that it better matches a rebel.

Does Canon just misjudge the demand of camera-only versus kit? Are they trying to push kits off on people who just can't wait (i.e., will buy the kit to get the camera, even though they don't want the lens)?  Perhaps kits attract new customers who might spend more?

An STM lens is useful enough they're worth offering in my view - they're a nice easy way to take advantage of the new video AF options for this model.  Id have got it if I didnt already have a 40 and 55-250 STM, even though my stills lenses are all higher end.

Edit:  And mine is from that kit anyhow - they just sold me the body and saved the rest to swap over with a body kit presumably.

Dont know for bigger stores, but my local one in Oz said they were getting 6 cameras on first round, out of 20 ordered.   

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:25:39 PM »

The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?

Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained.  And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.

But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2?  Sure, we talk about them.  Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks.  But how many really are there?

So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last.  They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc.  They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor.  But man, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.

Im sure thats what the salespeople will be saying to them in order to sell it, but the first comment I get from almost everyone picking up my 7D and 70-200mm F4 is 'wow thats heavy' and thats not exactly the heaviest lens around.  Perception of camera weight alone has changed a fair bit in the last few years in my view.

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 05:30:36 PM »
Im buying it, and I generally agree with the review.  I dont carry my 7D much now unless its for birds or underwater, I bought a 6D for people, but even that with lenses is starting to feel relatively heavy, given what image quality you can get with smaller cameras now for walkaround photography.

The market has changed, and most people wont want what this camera offers in exchange for the downsides for your average joe - if they just bought it on the basis of the plaudits it will get without realising its relative specialisation in todays market, they would be shortchanged.

"Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you "

Uh no - unless that improvement costs nothing, something else wont be done, or cost will increase or both.  When you're talking a new fab, thats more than a few dollars.  It remains to be seen how easy dual pixel for video and increased DR at the same time is for instance and thats a feature many would value over a measurable but not meaningful (to them)  increase in DR. 

Its unlikely to be an everyone wins scenario in the short to medium term.  If a feature gets overvalued, other features inherently end up being undervalued by comparison.

Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "

They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful. 

The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.

Sure, but that's why I included "evidence" in my list. There has been some evidence provided for this debate, some of it very good, on a number of occasions.

'Evidence' is again in the measurable category, not really in the 'meaningful' category.   This whole thread shows that in regards to how important the two images were to you compared to many others.

To put it one way, you can see these differences very clearly and think they are highly important.   Twenty years from now they probably will mean squat and probably be invisible compared to the overall progress made in that time.  The magnitude wont have changed, but how meaningful that difference is probably will have. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4