February 28, 2015, 10:27:23 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 38
Sorry, that was rude of me. This needs to be an open place for people of all skill levels to ask questions.

Also, on your 60D, use the directional buttons inside the rear dial to move the live view rectangle around...that determines where it magnifies when you zoom in.

Have you never wondered if a still image DSLR would be better or cheaper?

I answered that question. It could be very slightly better, but it would not be cheaper as the market for such a camera would be much smaller.

This is a purely hypothetical question but I'm guessing many of you have thought about it once or twice.

I'm curious if anyone else would consider a DSLR designed, dedicated and optimized solely for still photography  worthwhile / desirable?

Quite simply: If you could get better still images from a camera without video, would you buy it?

-  Would you buy it instead of a hybrid model with video features if it produced better still images?
-  Would you buy it if the images were the same but it was designed differently for still photography use?

Does anyone else think compromises might exist in hybrid DSLR designs in order to offer HD video on the same sensor?

-  Would a sensor designed for dedicated still photography perhaps offer better specs, IQ, sensitivity, speed, [insert other perceived benefit here]?
-  How much better would a dedicated still photography camera perform if it didn't have to produce video as well?
-  Would the CPU, processing and firmware possibly be less complex, more efficient and stable?
-  Would the control layout and ergonomics, menus, etc be easier to use and offer more versatility and/or control?
-  Is it possible that video features have delayed R&D while engineers work out new challenges due to the hybrid designs?
-  Do you think video increases the price of the camera?  Is it logical to think a dedicated still camera might cost slightly less while still offering better images?

Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.  Might make an interesting discussion.  Thanks for your time.

I'm sure that a hybrid camera like Sony makes takes a hit in sensor performance due to the translucent mirror technology. I don't believe they use that just for video though. I think it helps them reduce the number of moving parts (mirror box, etc.)

As far as the sensor in the new T4i which has embedded phase detect points built in goes... I don't know... maybe it has an impact. Those consumer cameras are a compromise anyway. No one buys them thinking they are getting the best IQ Canon can offer.

For a traditional DSLR like the 5D Mk III, there was discussion that Canon used a stronger anti-alias filter in front of the sensor to combat the aliasing problems of the Mk 2 when shooting video. A stronger anti-aliasing filter certainly would have an impact on still image quality. How much? A smidgen. DPreview compared the D800 with AA filter to its AA-less D800E brother and found that the D800E was slightly sharper between f/4 and f/5.6 under lab conditions. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22 So, did Canon's decision to use a stronger AA filter to help video users have a real impact on still IQ...probably not.

If you want the absolute in IQ, pay $43,000 for a Hasselblad. Don't have that kind of money? Buy the D800E and pick a lens that can deliver enough resolving power. Could that camera be manufactured cheaper if it didn't have the video features? For sure, but the price they charge for a body is not strictly tied to manufacturing cost. They have to consider development cost and expected sales as well. The 5D Mk 2 showed the world that adding video boosts sales in a major way. Building a body that lacked video means fewer sales, so the sale price goes up even though it might cost them less to manufacture each body. Everything is a trade off.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade advice: 6D or 5D2/3?
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:18:32 PM »
My upgrade path has been 7D, 5D Mk 2, and finally 5D Mk 3. My brother owns a 60D and I have used it a few times.

It really sounds like from what you describe the 6D would be the way to go based on your current needs. If you think the extra speed and AF performance of the Mk 3 could come in handy at some point, it might be worth it to wait for another $2900-ish deal to come along. The Mk 2 is a good camera, but you never really mentioned a cost concern, so I would say the newer feature set of the 6D would outweigh the cost savings. The smaller size of the 6D is probably nice too. Of course since you sold your 60D already, finding a Mk 2 would get you back in the game sooner.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Conversion to Nikon
« on: November 14, 2012, 11:37:39 AM »

EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 12:42:03 PM »
On the side note, This is post # 1337.  ;D

Time to hack the Gibson.

Lenses / Re: Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?
« on: November 13, 2012, 12:15:56 PM »
I can imagine the AF/MF and AF range limiter switches are a little hard to get to in a hurry, esp on a pro body?

I think you nailed it.

Lenses / Re: Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?
« on: November 13, 2012, 11:00:04 AM »
Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ?  (Unless they can afford both...  :P )

200-400 would be a very useful zoom range to have on the sidelines of a basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc game. That being said, 168-420mm f/4 is better (Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + 1.4x) and a helluva lot cheaper. Will it be as sharp? No. Good enough for the online and print media who buy such images? For sure. Will it focus fast or accurately enough? That's the question.

Lenses / Re: Why The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Delay?
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:38:59 AM »
I imagine that perfectly centering the extender when swung in from the side was a decent engineering challenge.

It would also have to be user-proof such that if the user believed they had engaged the extender, that it did engage and was perfectly aligned and couldn't move on its own even when the lens was bumped around.

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L 1.2 vs Sigma 85 1.4... Has anyone tried both?
« on: November 10, 2012, 09:23:31 AM »
Thanks a lot!!! those sigma files looks pretty well!!

Btw. I already have seen the photo of the redhead girl making the funny face elsewhere, did you make an review of the lens?? or post it on flickr???

She's my fiance and I've probably posted that picture on here before. Speaking of that picture, we were walking on the beach and spun around and made that face. You can see that I didn't get the focus perfect, but at least it was usable. If I had the Canon there is no way it would have focused in time to catch the moment.

There is one factor regarding the Canon that you might consider...the warm, special feeling of knowing and being able to say that you own one of the most highly regarded lenses in the world.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:46:35 PM »
Very easy to touch up onion bokeh in Photoshop
Quite, but do that on hundreds of pictures after returning from a shot?

No, only the keepers that are going to be printed or viewed large.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:11:42 PM »
I know what bokeh is, I know and enjoy onions to the dismay of others, but what is onion bokeh?  I know I could google it, but that's too easy.

Ok, I didn't expect you to be *that* lazy :-p ... the Tamron has it, the Canon to a lesser extent: point light sources in the bokeh have rings like you cut an onion in half. Samples:



Very easy to touch up onion bokeh in Photoshop

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L 1.2 vs Sigma 85 1.4... Has anyone tried both?
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:45:11 PM »
Here's a natural light portrait at f/2. Notice the detail in her face. Incredibly sharp:

Here's a shot from a concert at f/1.4 under stage lighting (also shows off 5D Mk 3 ISO 6400 performance):

Here's a shot at f/2 showing nice circular bokeh of lights in the background:

Here's a shot at f/1.4 showing smoothly rendered out of focus areas:

Finally for the Sigma, here's a f/2 shot showing great color and contrast rendering in natural light:

Here's one from the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II:

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L 1.2 vs Sigma 85 1.4... Has anyone tried both?
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:08:44 PM »
I will be happy to post some RAW images taken with the Sigma and 5D Mk III when I get home from work...maybe 2 hours.

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L 1.2 vs Sigma 85 1.4... Has anyone tried both?
« on: November 08, 2012, 12:58:00 PM »
One thing I don't like is the filter size. I really wish all my pro lenses would use the same filter size. I like to use ND and Pol filters and it is PITA to deal with the different sizes while shooting.

I don't understand. The Sigma 85 uses a 77mm filter, the same as your other lenses. Or are you referring to the smaller filter on the new 35mm?

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 38