October 25, 2014, 02:28:24 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 - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17
151
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....

152
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)...

153
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??

154
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.

155
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?

156
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

157
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....

158
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 !?!?!

159
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.

160
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 :-)

161
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next 5D on February 27/28, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 22, 2012, 03:47:32 PM »
I'm always amused by the fact that as buyers, we often think we're being ripped off by the vendors. And yet probably everyone on this forum works for a company (even their own), which sells something, be it a product or a service. How many of us complain to our company that we might be slightly over-egging our position / price point?

Every year, we expect our companies to pay us a bonus and a pay hike, no doubt Canon employees expect the same. Is Canon any different in terms of it's pricing? It basically prices it's products at whatever it thinks it can get away with. I'm sure the companies we all work for, do similarly....

A combination of market forces and economic recovery may help to reduce the price in time. Early adopters always pay a premium. I just upgraded my PC to Sandy Bridge, having skipped the previous gen, and expecting to skip the next gen in H2. Sure I could have waited for Ivy bridge to knock down pricing further, but it hit my price point, and I bought.

If you want to upgrade when it is first released, you'll have to pay the premium. Those looking at the 1Dx may however be looking at a bargain.... :D interesting times.


162
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm f4 lens - worth waiting for?
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:17:52 PM »
From what I've seen out of the N***n 200-400, it's pretty awesome. I wonder how many pro N***n shooters use this lens? Can anyone shed any light on that?

I suppose if it was that big a deal to Canon, they wouldn't have let N***n have complete share of that market for so long. Same might be said for the 14-24/2.8. I'd sure love to have four lenses to cover 14-200 at f/2.8 and up to 400 at f/4.
Andy Biggs and Andy Rouse (both wildlife Pros) swear by the lens for a lot of their work I believe, based on the quality and range being appropriate for a lot of their work. They also used to both be Canon users.

Having said that Tom Hogan indicates that the Nikon is not without some shortfalls. I believe Tom has one as well.

163
Lenses / Re: How to get / test a good copy of a L lens?
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:11:12 PM »
Well, I still don't get it. I guess it's just a difference in perspective. Not saying your wrong. It's your money and if this is really important to you, then by all means, go for it. You might as well get your money's worth out of something, before it all gets spent propping up the rest of Europe.
Having bought a 100-400mm L as my "joint 1st" L lens for my canon and it being a "lemon" then I well sympathize with the OP wanting to ensure he gets a good copy. Back then, I was completely ignorant about differences between lenses, the chance of a poor copy etc, and only through research on various websites and forums did I start to learn there's a lot more to consider. But the bottom line for me, if you are paying for quality, you expect quality (within tolerances). I've had "that" lens in with Canon 3 times, always with the body I shoot it on, and frankly it's still soft as hell but it's so far out of warranty that it's basically not much better than a doorstop.

Point number 2, and this also goes back to my earliest dSLRs, but I remember comparing my 16-35mm to a friends 17-40mm and being disappointed at how his picture (same body) was sharper than mine. Yes, up to that point, I was happy. Then I found there was better. Granted it was a different lens, but if you don't know what "best" is and I would guess most people on here aren't involved in lens manufacturer or testing & therefore wouldn't, then it's not unreasonable to seek guidance on forums like this.

Finally, returning any lens under warranty is just a right pain in the butt, and costly for insurance, especially if you send back you body as well. In fact, I would have to arrange a special courier as returning just a single body & L lens exceeds most standard insurance. I'm just lucky to be an hours' drive from Canon CPS.

Marsu42 - would be interested on how you get on...


164
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 20, 2012, 05:50:59 PM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

Plus the fact that with Nikon's decision to make you send your camera in to one of a small handfull of service centers to get somthing as simple as a battery cover replaced, I wouldn't use Nikon if they were giving them away. Support the company that supports you and your right to get is serviced where you want, Buy Canon!!!
To be honest, never had to deal with Nikon in the UK. My experience with Canon is mixed. Through CPS is largely good. Prior to that, not so good. But either way I have had to pay handsomely each time....

- One of the posts broke on the IS unit - which holds it in place. They have to replace the whole IS unit.
- I dropped an L lens (70-300) from no more than 2 ft onto relatively soft ground, broke the focusing. I'd argue that's not really "build like a tank quality!"
- On the 1Ds, the AA filter cannot be replaced separately from the sensor. So the tiny scratch on it, can't be seen, but if I wanted it replaced then that's a few hundred notes...
- Every lens calibration - £30 - although I think they do both bodies
- Try and fix the softness on a 100-400mm (they've tried 3 times and still won't admit it's a lemon!)

The upside is that the Canon repair centre is an hour by car, as frankly there's no way I would use any courier / postal system, based on costs of insurance and complete distrust in their quality of handling.

I can't tell you about Nikon and how they make their kit, but some of the "design" decisions Canon make are dubious in terms of fairness to the customer. Reminds me somewhat of car manufacturers. Which is kind of appropriate as Honda has just tripled my service bill with the "this needs replacement after 2 years" if you want to keep a full service history >:(

165
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 20, 2012, 05:37:40 PM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

+1 - well said that chap. Mauritius and the Maldives are places i will never see again - nor the World Trade center in New York. I will never see a Space Shuttle take lift off nor Concorde in all its glory.
I will never see a child of mine born again, and never get the chance to watch them grow up and witness the dissolving of the innocence as they do.

My pictures portray my life in so many way. So i might as well have the best kit i can afford to record it all.

The 5D2 was the first camera to stop me wanting to go back to Canon A1's with add on grip. Nikon have never really got my attention, even though i may have occasionally 'threatened' to jump ship out of frustration.
You've already seen things that are now part of our history (WTC & Shuttle), so I definitely envy that you were able to capture those events, and as you say, capturing your life's experience, for you and for future generations is just priceless IMHO...

Mauritius & Maldives - bet you have some great stuff from there.

Alas out of your list, I've only done Concord, and on slides  :-[ - so they're more nostalgia than anything aesthetic.

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