July 31, 2014, 06:04:11 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 - ahsanford

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:33:35 PM »
I'm always lost with crop-mode on Nikon FX to DX.  Unless you want to shave your RAW file size (cough D800 cough), why crop in-camera like that?  Why not crop in post?

- A

Did you not note that D800 goes from 4fps FF to 6fps crop mode??? Less pixels to push equals the same CPUs and all can drive more fps. And as well, did you notice how much less storage space an APS-C cropped D800 RAW takes than a FF D800 file? If you are shooting distant wildlife and such why do you need to store all that dumb wasted boundary pixel stuff?? It stuffs up HDs, makes backing up take longer, fills up CF cards faster, clogs up the camera's buffer more quickly and makes it flush less quickly.

So:
saves you money and time and clutter of having more HD around
gives you better camera buffer performance
potentially gives you more fps

they all sound like excellent and legit reasons to me

Great answer, thanks.  I didn't think about buffer/framerate.

- A

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:11:32 PM »
Does Canon usually announce entry-level products at Photokina?  I'm curious if they will be bringing out a more competitive Rebel to counter the recent entry-level Nikon refreshes. 

I am excited about hearing what a new 7D II would bring.

I am excited too i want to see what they do with the 7D II and hopefully it is something revolutionary and gets pushed to the FF cameras like the 5d4.

Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC. However knowing Canon's marketing policies, it's almost definitely not going to happen.

I'm always lost with crop-mode on Nikon FX to DX.  Unless you want to shave your RAW file size (cough D800 cough), why crop in-camera like that?  Why not crop in post?

- A

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:08:19 PM »
The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera.  I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on  their current sensor technology.  This will help me decide where my  future camera dollars are going to be spent.

I hear you brother.  No new sensor and I buy a Sony A7R

Post of the day right there.  So good.  Thank you.

I love this forum.

- A

4
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:51:46 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter.  2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists.  Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:45:56 AM »
Well, if they must have the best, they ought to pitch their autofocusing 70-200 F/2.8 IS II lenses as well:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9

Dustin, perhaps this is your next review?  ;D

- A


The director of Zeiss for the Americas specifically mentioned the Otus 85 next along with a "few other lenses available after Photokina" in an email to me.  This is likely one of them.

It used to be that video people had to suffer through using our still lenses.  Oh, how things have changed...

- A

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:55:09 AM »
:o. I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!


:o. I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!


+1 -- Double  :o


Two that must have the best. I guess the review was for you :)

Well, if they must have the best, they ought to pitch their autofocusing 70-200 F/2.8 IS II lenses as well:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9

Dustin, perhaps this is your next review?  ;D

- A

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:18:57 PM »
if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.
I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it.  What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance? 

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware. 

That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.   ;)

- A

8
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 02:33:24 PM »
That's the reason why I like the 40mm STM. It's just f2.8 which is sad for separating objects, but those f2.8 are just awesome and useable. A good lense is a lense you're willing to carry with you.

Agree in principle, but the 40mm pancake's much-slower-than-USM focusing speed is a dealbreaker for me.  That lens sits in the cabinet while I shoot with the venerable Canon 50 f/1.4.  Even with the 50 F/1.4's occasionally hunting AF, I miss fewer shots with that one than I do with the pancake.

Now, for a walkaround lens shooting non-moving subjects, the 40mm pancake is a peach of a lens.  Sharp right out of the gate at max aperture, and you can't beat the size and weight.

- A

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for camping
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:55:20 PM »
TDP's Bryan Carnathan just weighed in on his large hiking pack choice:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MindShift-Gear-Rotation-180-Professional.aspx

- A

10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:33:00 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

11
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:28:21 PM »
I'm hoping the 50 IS will be a small compact f/1.4 gaussian design that slots between the existing f/1.4 and Sigma's 50A, and I'm hoping that the 50L II will be a retrofocus design that competes against the 50A and the Otus. 

+1

Agree on both fronts.  Save the 'standard zoom sized' primes for the pros shooting portraiture and weddings and such -- I want that non-L 50 IS to stay small like the Canon 50 F/1.4, even if that means it will be a step behind w.r.t. resolution. 

And we know Canon can do it!  The non-L 35mm F/2 IS is 66% of the length and 50% of the weight of the Sigma 35 Art, yet it is nearly as sharp.  Sure, you lose a stop of max aperture, but for 3 stops of IS, I'll take it. 

That same value proposition in a 50 IS:  IS + shorter + lighter + nearly as fast + nearly as sharp would be gold for me.

- A

12
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:19:48 PM »
I see the 24 70 4 IS and the 16 35 4 IS as better options for the 24 105 & 17 40 users without killing 2 wildly popular high selling basic L lenses in the 24 105 & 17 40.

They have not had opportunity to tackle faster 2.8 & wider lenses without jamming the market with all of them at once.

Makes sense for them to wait until Sigma is done with their releases. Canon with the 35 & 50 mark II has a real opportunity to totally deflate Sigmas recent ascention which is based partly on nothing else new out there (OTIS is a higher realm of quality)

Let me clarify; Sigmas lenses are great, but real world comparisons don't show them to be cadillacs to kias that a few loud and wildly optimistic individuals are claiming

There is much more to Sigma's recent success in the quality of their products than in their go-to-market timing.  Sigma is doing well because it is putting out some fine lenses for terrific prices.  And on the data side of things, specifically in resolution, Sigma is handily beating Canon, not just keeping up.  The 35 and 50 Art are the sharpest AF lenses in their respective focal lengths, and by a comfortable margin.

I haven't shot either of the Sigma Art primes, but many trusted reviewers hold both of those lenses in very high regard.  But a lens is more than how sharp it is.  So I could see 'real world' reviews possibly not seeing as large a gap between Canon and Sigma in these focal lengths.

Canon must be working on some next generation L-series standard primes (24/35/50/85) that are intended for very large MP sensors.  I think we are all waiting for those.

- A


13
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:50:25 AM »
85 wont come until after Sigma's offering....

I expect the 35 II & the 50 II to wipe Sigmas eye on their comparable offerings. If it doesn't, will be very dissapointed.

It depends on what you want.  I'm not convinced Canon can just burp out a 35L II or new 50L that handily beats Sigma on the resolution side of things -- Sigma has been formidable on that front. 

But on draw, weather sealing, color, etc. Canon historically does well here.  We'll see.  Competition in the lens world is always a good thing.

- A


14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:47:58 AM »
Great review, thanks for posting.

Unfortunately, I see this as a stellar lens I'll never use.  Large aperture glass simply has to have AF in my hands or the value of that huge opening is lost on anything I shoot that is moving (even slowly).  I'd end up stopping it down just to avoid missing with manual focusing. 

As such, I'd only opt for an MF lens if it were on a tripod for landscape work.  And as much as 135mm certainly has a place in landscape work, it's not a focal length I reach for enough to justify $2k out of pocket.

So I flag stellar lenses like these in the 'win the lottery / when-I-retire bucket': magical, but not a priority for what I shoot.  Keep in mind that I am an enthusiast who has only grown up on having AF on everything I've shot -- pros or folks with significant rangefinder / MF lens experience may be able to net a high percentage of keepers with it.

- A

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:29:43 AM »

Neg-li-gi-ble.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53