July 29, 2014, 09:49:31 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 897
6541
The only people that need high FPS are those that "spray shoot". Lots of FPS because you don't know if something will happen that you want to capture and it costs less to get an image of something that you don't care about than it does to not get an image of something that you do care about. Mostly this is professional photographers. There are also amateurs that "spray shoot" brick walls, etc, but that's because they don't have any technique to speak of, nor an understanding of what they're shooting.

Seriously?  So...anyone who buys a camera with a fast frame rate is either a pro or a clueless buffoon with no photography skill.   Talk about having no understanding...

Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

Hmm, that's not really clear to me.

If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.

The 24-105 has more barrel distortion (40% more, relative to the 24-85) at the wide end as a result of it being a 4.4x zoom vs. 3.5x zoom.  But the 24-85mm has more pincushion distortion at the long end - 83% more relative to the 24-105.   So across the zoom ranges, the 24-85mm actually has more distortion than the 24-105mm. 

You can't directly compare the MTF graphs directly - maybe you missed Klaus' blue banner stating, "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems."  Canon FF tests are on the 21 MP 5DII, Nikon FF tests are on the 24 MP D3x and will therefore give higher values for lw/ph across the board.  The 24-85mm is sharper in the center (excellent/very good) but worse in the borders and corners (good to fair, and down close to poor in the 24mm corners), whereas the 24-105mm is very good to good throughout the field and range, dipping down into fair only in the 70m corners.  So, I'd say that for overall sharpness, the 24-105L is the better lens.  The CA on the 24-85mm is also pretty bad, but that seems fairly typical for Nikkor lenses.

Overall, the 24-105L is better lens, and Klaus, at least, agrees...which is why it gets a half-star higher rating in all categories.  Importantly, the 24-105mm gets a better price/performance ranking, despite being a much more expensive lens.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

Many of your posts here are consistent with the idea that the sensor in a camera is the sum total of that camera's performance, and sensor-based IQ is the only important thing to consider.  Much like beer-goggles can make repugnant members of your gender-of-preference seem attractive, DxOMark-goggles can blind one to meaningful differences in cameras

6542
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III

6543
You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

6 fps in DX mode only - 1.5x crop FoV and 16 MP. 

6544
Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.

Yes, those are the exact sort of incremental improvements I was talking about.  Or, if you prefer, the 5D Mark II was just as revolutionary, or at least, as revolutionary as 20D with a FF sensor can be.  ::)

6545
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.

In the context of this thread, do you pay $2300 for a 36MP D800 that has second-to-none IQ or a $2100 6D that has by comparison rather average IQ?

That depends. I can get a high quality lens (24-105) with the 6D for an extra $600, $2700 total.  How much more than that do I need to spend to buy a high enough quality Nikkor FX lens so I don't handicap that high-resolution second-to-none IQ sensor?

Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices.

Wow, your 24-105L must be a lot different to mine 'cause while the center is good on the 24-105, the corners are rubbish at 24mm. Same with the 16-35 and 17-40.

It does sound like you may have a bad copy.  My 24-105L's (I've had two) have both been sharp in the corners, and even sharper in the center.  Not as sharp as my 70-200 II, of course, but plenty sharp.

6546
Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?
« on: January 02, 2013, 06:59:08 PM »
Quote
I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.

For sure! I bet a lot of people are turned off by the 6D because most of their lens options are 1K+. Canon won't be able to keep up with the D600 because of A) "non full frame" nikkor lenses can be used on full frame cameras. and B) canon doesn't have an affordable mid range zoom, among other ranges. I doubt canon will create a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5L anytime soon, they aready make gobs of money from current version.

Did the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS cease to exist while I wasn't looking?

FYI, since we're talking about FF bodies, the 17-40mm is an ultrawide zoom, not a mid range zoom, unless you meant mid-range in terms of price, which describes the 28-135mm accurately.

6547
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

6548
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D Bg-E13 Discrepancies
« on: January 02, 2013, 06:34:57 PM »
Thanks for the clarification, aalbert.

Looks like Canon USA messed up and re-used the description from the 5DIII's BG-E11.  The 6D doesn't have a multicontroller on the body, I would not expect one on the grip...and the pics confirm that.

I emailed Canon and they confirmed that the grip DOES CURRENTLY HAVE both a multi controller, as well as a M.FN button.

The CSR that responded...

CSR = canned, stupid response.   :P

6549
I did not make such a claim


well ... but i answerd such a claim....  ::) 

Quote from: Sony
Nikon lenses arent as good as Canon's.

Fair enough - yes, that was an absurd claim. Sorry!

But I'd still say that Canon lenses are better than the Nikon counterpart more often than the reverse.  :P

6550
and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

Which ones?  24-70?  Canon wins (with the MkII, that is).  24-105?  Canon wins.  70-200/2.8?  Canon wins.  TS-E/PC-E 24mm?  Canon wins.  Pretty much the entire supertele lineup?  Canon wins.  UWA zoom?  Nikon wins.  Macro lenses?  Toss-up on quality, Canon wins on variety.  Fast primes?  About an even split.

So, where's the list of 'often better' Nikkors?

if i had so much time at hand as you seem to have i would copy a few reviews from magazines where nikkors where placed on no.1 and canon are behind them.

but the the claim that all nikon lenses are inferior is so wrong... im not wasting my time on such a stupid discussion.

I did not make such a claim, but I feel the same way about your claim that most Nikon lenses are better than the Canon equivalent.  Especially when that claim is completely unsubstantiated. 

"What I say is true."

"Can you back that up with some evidence?"

"I could if I wanted to, but I don't have time."


Thanks for that cogent and very convincing argument. I bet you were a real asset to your secondary school's debating team...   ::)

6551
6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...

Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.

Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc. 

6552
and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

Which ones?  24-70?  Canon wins (with the MkII, that is).  24-105?  Canon wins.  70-200/2.8?  Canon wins.  TS-E/PC-E 24mm?  Canon wins.  Pretty much the entire supertele lineup?  Canon wins.  UWA zoom?  Nikon wins.  Macro lenses?  Toss-up on quality, Canon wins on variety.  Fast primes?  About an even split.

So, where's the list of 'often better' Nikkors?

6553
Lenses / Re: Ipad app by Canon
« on: January 02, 2013, 12:03:17 PM »
I like it, and there's also a 3rd party iPhone app (also free) called Canon Lenses that lists the lenses with links to many of the reviews of each lens.  Quite useful.

6554
Though it makes F2.8 lenses essential to have cross-type AF points available when using the EOS body of 1D MK4, in final using it, almost every point can been used for accurate focusing.

This is really what it boils down to...the 1D X (and 5DIII) offers more cross-type points with slower lenses.  For many people, that's a significant advantage.

6555
I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices. 

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 897