March 04, 2015, 04:07:18 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
Lenses / Re: DANGIT! I rented the 85 1.2ii
« on: December 19, 2014, 01:14:55 AM »
I too rented the 85 1.2.
Sadly I found it meh for the work I do.
Sharp it is but so is my 1.8/ 85.

Narrow DOF but unless one is right up close the effect is not remarkable and is actually too shallow at 1.2 up close.
In the end I get results far more usable with the 1.8. Lens is lighter and sharp. Bokeh still excellent and portraits work fine.
Put the savings in to lights.

EOS Bodies / Re: A new high end camera
« on: December 09, 2014, 07:42:06 PM »
We have been living on rumors for a very long time. The 7DmkII is the only thing that Canon has shown for enthusiasts.

Not a bad camera but not as pulse quickening as the competition.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 06:12:03 PM »
Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same
As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.

This gets to market segmentation.  You have multiple users of mirrorless with different needs.  Consider just two (of many) groups coming to mirrorless from SLRs:

1) People who love the small form factor for carrying or discretion reasons — street, reportage, travel shooters and such. They *don’t* want big lenses, huge grips and such. They want 90% the IQ/features of a same-sensor-sized-SLR in 50% of the size.

2) People who are migrating to mirrorless from DSLRs simply for the best IQ they can get (i.e. people buying the various a7 Sony models) — a good example would be Canon landscape shooters wanting more MP or more DR. These folks don’t give a damn about form factor and are bolting big L lenses on to these bodies with adaptors. Effectively, they *aren’t* mirrorless devotees so much as fans of wonderful sensors and don’t mind fighting through the limitations (battery life, AF, etc.) of today’s mirrorless rigs.  An A7R and an adapter is a much cheaper way to upgrade your sensor than buying a D810 and new lenses.

Normalnorm, it appears to me that Group 1 above really cares about size, and Group 2 couldn't give a damn if it takes the best shot (and, bonus, lets them keep using their old glass).
- A
I agree completely. It seems that most seem to focus on the size thus Canon hears a lot about small bodies and gives us the M to see if that will suffice.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:29:20 PM »
Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same
I think the advantages of an advanced EVF and lack of an expensive mirror and its attendant calibration of AF would swing the decision irrespective of size/packaging issues. Marketing pressure adding the rest. They can also make the argument that a pro body needs to have a certain size/heft for handling.

As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.

In 10th grade I sold 85 8x10 prints of the football team for $1.25 each.
Chems were free. Agfa 8x10 Brovira DW fiber was $4. Labor was considerable. Pride....priceless.

EOS Bodies / Re: Modular DSLR Coming from Canon? [CR2]
« on: October 30, 2014, 08:04:39 PM »
<p>All we were told is that the viewfinder will be interchangeable, as well as “other parts of the camera”. 

So.. like the old F-1? or the Nikon F- series?

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:19:05 PM »
$3000 is fine IMO.
My 17TS-E was ~$2500 and I feel it was worth every penny.

For me it is a business decision. I can make good money with this lens.
I presume it will be an excellent performer given the recent track record of Canon's lenses.  As for distortion LR will have a profile.
F4 is no problem at all. Most of my work is on a tripod and even if it is handheld the WA will mask a LOT of motion.

And seriously, how many people here regularly use lenses wider than 16mm? If you do you know that the AOVs we are discussing with this lens go way beyond the experience of most. For many the AOV will be the main attraction. Sharpness and distortion will be ignored by the average viewer.

If anything, I've learned that, despite trying to ETTR by looking at the histogram on the camera, I can overexpose even more than I imagined. I knew that the histogram was only based on the jpg-thumbnails, just as the image I see on the display, and that it is a result of the PictureStyle and Colourspace.

The use of ML's Auto-ETTR and the RAW-based histograms have shown that I can be a lot more brutal when I choose my exposure. But the limiting parameter are the widest aperture of the chosen lens, and it dictates the combinations of shutter times and ISO I can pick to get my desired/needed exposure. I've learned that I, most of the time, need rather short shutter times to not introduce shake, and then I end up needing to increase the ISO to get my histogram to crawl over more to the right.

I think we could all benefit from a redesign of the Canon sensors. A redesign that incorporates deeper photon wells (more electrons can be stored and thus giving us a greater dynamic range), and measures taken to lessen the banding tendency. From texts I've read, by Stanford university researchers, the A/D-converters are less crucial for a high DR in optical sensors.

Actually what that tells me is that I want an EVF with a live histogram so that I can optimize before I take the shot.
Virtually all final images will have data that is eliminated on purpose to create the final image. Optimizing capture is what we always did with film.
Yes, we fiddled in the darkroom but if we knew we wanted shadow detail we exposed for shadows, if we wanted highlights we exposed of them. When using transparency film this meant we bracketed.

I received my A7r rental from LensRentals today. I've been working, but I took a few minutes to snap some quick shots of my living room,

If you fixed the verticals your house will sell faster. ;)

Actually thanks for the comparison. I can see a difference but I am not sure if it means much to me. When I started photography transparency films gave us a rather compressed range that we opened up or compressed as needed with lighting, reflectors, scrims etc.. It was really a matter of selecting what range we wanted to have reproduced and the mood that the reproduction would carry.
A very long tonal range compressed into a print that revealed ALL the detail in highlights and shadow leaves us with a flat image. The flat image may be delightful in and of itself but if drama and contrast is what you want then one must choose what will be dropped in favor of the impact of the image.
So while I would be happy to get more DR, the fact that the A7 gives incrementally more is scarcely reason to abandon my tools. The fact that it has a small form, lens adaptability and high resolution are far more compelling reasons for me. The poor battery life is a very real drawback.

Help me is a mirrorless camera better? 

In the article he says the Sony is good up to 1600 ISO? old 7D was good up to 1600 ISO!

Needs an adapter to use larger full frame sized lenses?  What is the advantage of the small sized mirror-less camera if you don't have all the small sized lenses to go with it?  Seems like a kludge!

So you prefer the electric shutter rather than a mirror and mechanical shutter assembly? least when the mechanical one wears out, it can be easily replaced.  Good luck with the electrical equivalent goes out!

These arguments seem to have little merit and only serve to justify his idiotic abandonment of truly renowned systems: those being from Canon and Nikon.


He mentioned the advantages in weight, size and silence. The electronic shutter cannot wear out as it is a function of sensor readout. For his work the tilt screen and variety of lenses available via adapters make it a happy choice for him.
I have all Canon gear and a Panasonic GX-7 and I have to say I really like silent shutter and an EVF. The camera is actually a bit too small for my hands but it makes images that are startlingly good even in comparison to my FF gear. The biggest challenge for ML users IMO is battery life. Small cameras mean small batteries in a high electrical demand device.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 20, 2014, 09:03:03 PM »
Why would you use a 7DmkII more than the 5D?
They are similar in size and handling and while both will yield excellent IQ I scarcely see a reason to move given your situation.
You said you only use it occasionally so why would you even buy another lens?

I've never heard of the brand prior to this press release.

What do the young people learn today? ;)

Back, when I was young...
And apertures were round...

EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:17:49 AM »

Remember the rumored price range is eight to nine THOUSAND. You could pick up a D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 for six grand, and pocket the extra two grand.

If this rumor is true, then this definitely is not a D800 series competitor. If anything, given the price, this sounds more along the lines of one of those Canon medium format rumors than anything...price wise it sounds like it would compete with the Pentax MFDs.

I was going to say at that price I might as well go for the Pentax 645z and a few lenses. For me high res is always on a  tripod with LV focus. A 1D series body would have little benefit to me.

Lenses / Re: DXOMark Reviews Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:29:37 PM »

I'd only get one if I were a full-time professional and using a Nikon D810.
While I admire the quality of the lens I can scarcely imagine a full time pro wanting to buy one. Manual focus for what is a portrait lens seems to be a recipe for frustration.
The other reason a pro would not buy it is because $4500 is a lot of working capital tied up in a tool that no client will appreciate.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14