January 30, 2015, 11:17:08 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
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 understand...how is a mirrorless camera better? 

In the article he says the Sony is good up to 1600 ISO?  Really...my 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?  Well...at 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.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:25:21 PM »
I know the Sony A7R is a hit.  But I haven't seen any professional wedding photographers using this camera on location. Are they still prefer using the DSLR like the Canon 5DM3.......if this camera is light weight and good quality, why don't they use it ?   I myself is a Canon shooter with the 1DX.   Tried the Sony once just find it complicated LOL plus the LCD in the back can't turn off.  It bothers !

Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?

 Buying new gear is NOT what pros spend their time doing. It is what amateurs do.

It is just not prudent for a person who depends on their tools to pitch them for an entire new set just because of web buzz.
Sure, the gear may be good but a pro has specific needs and the last increment of putative IQ is not one of them despite what you may think.

That would make me buy an a7. Really? 50mp? This is madness...

Then you would have to use a Sony.   :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:23:55 PM »
29 pages now...

Any body actually making prints that can demonstrate the "obsolescence" of Canon?
I can agree that on screen various bodies will show some differences but I have not seen prints from anyone where I could say "Ahhh, clearly this fellow used a (insert favorite hot camera here).

Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:55:56 PM »
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop.  With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap).  Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc.  You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph.  I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer. 

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???"  They claim those lenses are great for background separation.  You know what else is?  ANY lens and a knowledge of composition.  I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens.  You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end.  But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a S___ty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider.  You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things.  Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more. 

Think about it this way.  You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus.  Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens.  Super thin DOF/background separation.

Thank you. Excellent post. Way too much time spent looking for the "magic bullet" that will make fantasy photos when the truth is that hard work and practice is what gets it done.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 10:13:21 AM »
oh and my two cents about the ongoing DR debate here:

1) for me it appears to be mainly some swaggering by different sides about who knows most about signal processing or on-chip circuitry. My "blabla indicator" beeps all the time while reading these posts.
2) this debate has nothing to do with the actual discussing of 7D rumors
3) the whining about "I'm not able to get decent photos until the DR finally improves... :'( :'( :'(" sssh! If the professional photographers get to know about the horrific DR issue with canon cameras, they will move to Nikon or Sony! AAAH! (For some reaons, they still stick to Canon despite this horrible horrible low DR...). Go outside, take beautiful pictures, be happy. Don't ever waste a thought about DR. I presume limited DR is not the reason if your pictures look bad for 95% of your pictures...


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 08:39:57 PM »

I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

If one listened to the noise on the forums it would seem that this is exactly what the public is clamoring for. I see almost nothing but "What we need is a FF (insert camera here) and sell it for $1200."

Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 12:23:19 PM »
The only scenario I can see this working is if Nikon is ignoring the other MF players altogether and taking aim at Canon's top end customer base of wealthy hobbyists.

 The notion that there are legions of pros snapping up vast quantities of high end gear is false. Nikon is not unaware of the many converts from Canon to the D800 because of the additional resolution and the predilection to pixel peeping.

But in the end it would seem that Nikon lacks the resources to assemble a system that even matches Leica's S system much less Hasselblad and Mamiya/ Phase.

OTOH maybe this is a front for Sony' s purchase of Nikon.  :o

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13