December 28, 2014, 12:15:45 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 - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17
151
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II
« on: March 29, 2012, 07:43:02 PM »
Since you're not in a rush, and since you're considering spending over five figures on a lens...I'd suggest budgeting an extra grand (total) to rent each before you buy (based on a guesstimate of a few hundred each for a four-day rental). Or, at least, go to your local pro camera shop (if you have one) and play with them in person.

Either that, or figure out how much of a hit you'd take to sell one and factor that into your budget. Buy the one you think you're most likely to want, but don't worry about selling it and buying the second on your list if you're not happy (because you've already set that money aside); think of the loss for selling it as the rental price.

And, I gotta tell you...the 400 and the 600 most emphatically are not the sorts of lenses you just toss in a bag with the rest of your gear. They come with hard-shell cases big enough to fit at least a couple dozen laptops, and I wouldn't recommend transporting the lens outside the case. Think of them as watermelon-sized faberge eggs, though their fragility is more like that of the watermelon than the egg.

Frankly, there's no way I'd even think of taking my 400 anywhere unless I knew I was going to be shooting with it, and I doubt I'd be shooting with it on my lunch breaks unless it was part of a paying gig. Don't get me worng -- it's a hella fun lens, and I'm always looking forward to using it. But, at the same time, it's not something to take lightly (so to speak).

Cheers,

b&
I take mine (500mm IS) in a Lowepro bag and the only time I use the (original) case is when I'm at home.... Oh and for the 500mm, could not fit one of my laptops in there - can't speak for the 400 / 600mm versions :)

152
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II
« on: March 29, 2012, 07:02:18 PM »
Thank you for all the replies.  The 400/2.8 II is definitely another strong option that I should consider.  Interestingly my main concern was that the 400/2.8 II + 2x extender would be considerably less sharp than the 600/4 + 1.4x but at least with the current 600 that does not appear to be the case - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 One advantage that the 600/4 II does have though is it makes a nice 1200/8 - which perhaps will be more useful in the future when Canon releases a 1 series body again capable of focusing at F8.

Note that I currently own a 300/4 and a 70-200/2.8 II.  I plan to sell the 300/4 to help fund whatever I buy.  However, the earliest I will purchase something is the end of the year as I have quite a bit of saving to do (the 5D3 did not help here :))

In terms of lugging gear to work, I already lug a bag with a 7D, 5D3, 70-200/2.8 II, and six other L lenses to work every day.  I will need a bigger bag for either lens, but it isn't a big deal.
If birding priority has a significant gap over wildlife, then the 600mm is your choice. Not sure why you would sell the 7D unless you were considering a 1D IV, as the effective reach is better.

The 200-400 appeals more for when you want to frame the wildlife and you have more opportunity to. I find I have more time with animals than birds, unless you have some lure for them (ie food). Currently I have a 500mm and 70-300mm. I might supplement with a 300mm f/2.8 but the 200-400mm is a rental option only for me I think.

You're biggest gap appears to be the longer reach, so 600mm, 1.4x and 7D. Unless you find you need higher ISO capability than the 7D delivers for you. Rent the 200-400 for Safari's if you're not happy with the 70-200mm.

153
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 06:47:42 PM »
Quote
The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.


Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.

Yes, this is the industry standard.

Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.

But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.

High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?

The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."
Canon delivered what most of their users indicated they wanted, and where they thought the market was going. Whether there was some technical reasoning behind that we can't tell.

3 months ago, Nikon had the 24MP 3DX. Then they released a 36MP monster. Canon has not said they will not release such a camera (after all a 7D @ FF is > 45MP), but right now they have released what they thought the market wanted / needed 2-3 years ago.

I understand your frustration, but your phrasing appears to indicate game over, just 'cause Canon did not know Nikon would release a high MP camera... There is a short term game, which a lot of people here seem to be worried over, and thus are considering a switch. There's a longer term game also and by the end of the year, we will hopefully know where Canon thinks it will make the most impact (financially...), and can then see if it still aligns with our needs. If I switch, it won't be because I don't think Canon can deliver, but I do think they are somewhat conservative.

AnselA wrote a good piece which resonated with many members. Having an "outside / less regular" posters' perspective is good to make people step back and think. Maybe we should have a "Vent" category, where people can airs their gripes, irrespective of their abilities and everyone knows what these posts will contain.

For me, I get a lot of benefit from the site, and have learnt a lot of tech from people far more knowledgeable than I. And for me, that's why I frequent the site.... The flotsam is well... just that :)

155
1DX Sensor 18MP
7D AF
7D Body
Digic V not+
<$1999K

I would guess Canon will see how the market responds. Sub $2K vs high MP. Higher volume and Canon's own response to Nikon's disruptive 36MP, while they develop their own MP monster for 2013.

They've already shown they will encroach on the 1DX by putting the AF into the 5D MK III, so I don't think they will worry about using the sensor in a cheaper body. But I think they will want to protect their MK III sales. So it will have a lower MP than the MK III

I think this will mark the end of the APS-C with a xD numbering and there will be no 7D MK II, this will be handled by a 70D in 2013. With Canon shifting their prices up, then the xxD range will come in at the old price of the xD.

156
I don't find this review to be accurate, and some of the information in it is actual false.  Also, it is very emotional - why?  It's just a camera review for goodness sake.

The review is comparing a 5D3 out of the box to a GH2 that has been hacked... great review (i hope my sarcasm is coming through) ;-). 

It seems like the author is mostly upset about the price (as are lots of people).  He is mainly stating that, for the money, there are a bunch of different features that you can get on different cameras.  IE - Uncompressed 4:2:2 via HDMI.  I'm not saying I wouldn't want that in my 5D3, but add another $3000 to your GH2 set up for the AJA.  *Oh, you'll also be needing a rail support system and some Anton Bauer batteries to power the external recorder.

Also, he makes no statement as to the lenses he is using for the GH2/5D3 comparison.

I'm not going to lie, I personally would love a 1.6X crop from the sensor like on the Nikon.  That is a bummer.  But if that means I have to use Nikon glass... for get it.

Furthermore, as someone who used the 5D2 a lot for macro videography for the last 3 1/2 years...  I can say without a doubt that the "jello" rolling shutter issue is vastly VASTLY improved on the camera.

And shooting super clean 6400iso footage with the CineStyle gamma setting is great!

Go Canon! 

Harold.

i agree, but I'm also talking about the other review, i was so surprised how he jumped all over the 5D with out of the box settings and all. to get what we are getting today from the 5D and GH2 they are both essentially hacked, the 5D with the technicolor picture setting and the RGB transcoding software is the standard for professional use, do we forget that camera was delivered to us with no manual video settings and no 24p! and the GH2, well we all know how bad that delivery was, bottom line is it takes US to make them perform well, what we do with them and and what we make of them. out of the box no dslr is going to perform great, you have to know what do with all the settings for you particular application. seems to me he deliberately set off to write a bad review and purposely shot an out of the box factory settings dslr against a completely hacked camera. my first response is yeah i see that too, but i turn this off, disable this, customize my personal settings and the video seemed much better than any of the 30ish projects i shot on the previous version,no moire either... and stills, with HDR and 61 point auto focus, simply an amazing upgrade.
I think the other point to make, be it Nikon, Canon or whoever, is that they should open up the operations of both video and stills in their cameras, rather than have the tech community have to hack them to make changes. If Nikon & Canon differentiated their products based on the HW capability, and left the software features to software devs, then we would have a far richer feature set to leverage....

157
there is no question the D800 is an awesome camera.  I am still waiting for the side by side comparison with the 5DIII. I think all of us professional photographers are...

Really? Professional photographers waiting for internet reviews on 2 new bodies which will be out of date in 3 years time?

What about the lenses?

If youre invested in Canon lenses and flashes the 5D3 would have to be pretty crap to make you sell all your gear and start again with another system surely?
Surely every owner of Canon who has invested a lot in lenses needs to look at the long term, not the short? By that I mean where do you think both Nikon and Canon will be in 5+ years. If you think that Nikon will continue with their "lead" over Canon then the lens investment should not be a barrier if you migrate over time. And by "lead" I mean whatever features you value in a dSLR, be that video, high fps, AF, sensor res, low light capabilities etc.

So for me it is the longer term view and looking at 2 generations of Nikon and Canon (MK II / D700 and MK III/D800). If I believe that Nikon has more of what I want, and Canon will never close that gap, then I don't think swapping is as big as some people may believe so long as you do it over time.

I think quite a few people here will change / increase their lens collection over time. I'm certainly looking at the 24-70 and the 70-200. So if I picked them up for Nikon rather than Canon, paired it with a D800 then I would keep my 1Ds with the 500mm etc for wildlife until such time as I could swap those out.

No way would I make that decision until the year is out, and the full Canon / Nikon line up is released....

And now to contradict myself (such is my dilemma  :P)

If you go over to Tom Hogan's site and look at his commentary in March, I think he nails it pretty much spot on. Whether you have a D800/D4/5DMK IIII/1DX, it won't matter - you'll be able to take great photos in different conditions and know that the camera will produce the results.

And I think that is the case. I think the current sensor design is reaching a plateau in terms of what it can squeeze out of a bayer arrangement, and I think there needs to be a tech leap to a different design before this will yield a significant change. Hence why there is not a significant difference between this generation and the previous one (evolution not revolution). But again, the results from either system (N or C) will satisfy the large majority of shooters.

Finally, I'm reminded of an article a while back on Lu La which talked about the days where a lot of Hi Fi manufacturers desired the lowest THD on their equipment, and were in competition to get the lowest value. Ignoring the fact that the final sound it made was not to the taste of many people as it was too sterile. Translate therefore into DxO benchmarks... Sure they give an indication of the quality of the sensor, but no more. Compare a picture from a latest gen DSLR with a Phase One MF and I don't think anyone would doubt the Phase One is a lot better (ignoring low light / high iso). And so it should be for the cost  :)

Similarly between Canon and Nikon, since you will never be able to eliminate the glass used, with an A:B print comparison, if you like the results from Nikon enough then you have your answer for this generation. Now you have to decide whether Nikon will maintain that "lead" for you and then figure out how to migrate (slowly or big bang)...

158
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7590/first-truly-representative-nikon-d800-video-footage-dxomark-says-sensor-is-best-ever


EDIT: For all the people blabbing about photographers not needing one more than the other, I ONLY SHOOT VIDEO!
I'm curious.... why have you jumped for a MK III if video was a priority for you? Did you order before any reviews came out? If you have a heavy investment in Canon lenses, then would you not wait to see what the 4K video is, or the "other" body which may be released in the Autumn??

159
Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« on: March 21, 2012, 08:57:45 PM »
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter.  I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one.  Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens.  Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc.  Highly recommended for the right person.  For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome.  I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF).  In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did.  Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.
Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition  :D

Thanks again.

160
Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:44:36 PM »
I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2.  I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with  adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II.  The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off.  My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners.  My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable).  The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but  PTLens deals with it just fine.  Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind.  Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm.  But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8?  That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

161
Software & Accessories / Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB
« on: March 18, 2012, 08:16:00 PM »
Lightroom is prophoto color space.  I set my cameras to Adobe RGB because my printer has a wide enough gamut to handle it pretty well, and i prefer to edit in the widest possible color space.
 
However, if you are producing web pages, SRGB is the setting to use.
 
LR4 now finally has soft proofing, which allows you to control your edits to work with your choice of printers.  I have seldom seen any of my images that were out of gamut for my Epson 3880.
 
It is a comples subject, so until you are ready, use SRGB and simplify your life.
 
Highly recommended is the articles about color management at Northlight Images.  Don't forget to calibrate your monitor, or prints will seldom match what you see on the monitor.
+1

162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D cameras for walk-around and traveling
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:14:47 PM »
i've used everything from a 10D walkabout to a 20D & 5D and currently a pair of 1Ds with 2 lenses so I don't have to swap.

The simple truth for me it depends on what you're doing, your age, your fitness etc.

I'm currently just coming back from Arizona and Utah, and I was happy walking around with both bodies for the day. Not hard core, walking, walking, photos etc, but still with no problem. And that's with a tripod....

When I did India, I took a single body, and a Lowepro side bag for the shoulder, but most of the time I just had the camera in my hand, lens pointing down and holding it by the grip. For me I can walk around all day like this and not feel tired.

From a security perspective, any dSLR atttracts attention in my experience. I think it depends on where you are. I've done north Cambodia and had no issues, in the south I had a single iffy experience with a couple of guys. I don't think a pro camera makes much difference in terms of attention in comparison to a pro-am camera like the 5x/7x....

163
EOS Bodies / Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
« on: February 24, 2012, 05:41:58 PM »
Interesting if you go across to Nikon Rumors that the poll has their readerbase 58:42% in favour of the D800 having the same sensor as the D4 at 16MP. So much for research !?!?!

164
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next 5D on February 27/28, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 22, 2012, 05:35:14 PM »
Not to fuel the fire, but there has been reports recently that the 5D2 having prices increases over the last few days....  perhaps if this camera gets announced/released at $3500, any takers the retail 5d2 price jumps back up to the original $2699 it debuted at?
companies will price at whatever they think they can get away with ;) I guess it depends on how much distributor stock there is on the MK II, but it would not surprise me.

165
Lenses / Re: How to get / test a good copy of a L lens?
« on: February 22, 2012, 03:55:54 PM »
Marsu42 asked,

...-what is Canon service actually able to do?
* AF adjustment (Do I have to turn in my non-afma body with my lens)?
* sharpness / ca-improvments?
* Do they do it for free on warranty / how bad does a problem have to be to make them do it for free?

I've wondered about that also -- since they took the trouble to remove afma from our 60Ds, can and will they correct a mismatch, and at what cost, post-warranty?

In the UK, when I have my lenses adjusted to the body (started when I had the 5D), Canon do adjustments in the lab which stores it separate to the AFMA data. The technician I spoke to claimed it is more accurate. I can't speak for the lens adjustments as frankly I've only ever asked on one, and it was still rubbish after :-)

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17