August 20, 2014, 11:10:31 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.


Topics - traveller

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Lenses / Lensrentals Canon UWA FF lens comparison
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:49:46 AM »
Roger Cicala does another short comparison  ;)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog

2
Lenses / Photozone review of EF-S 10-18mm is online
« on: June 08, 2014, 05:15:22 AM »

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/874-canon_1018_4556is

This has actually been online for two days, but doesn't seem to have its own thread yet (unless I've missed it,  in which case please accept my apologies), despite having been mentioned in at least one thread already. 

It looks like a great lens,  with vignetting and the plastic mount bayonet being the only real weaknesses. 

3
Lenses / Roger Cicala's initial Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art results
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:46:34 PM »
He's done some multiple sample tests against the Zeiss Otus and Canon 50mm f/1.2L, though he isn't confident enough in his sample size to give too many definitive conclusions (he only tested seven   ;) )!

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog

4
Lenses / The-Digital-Picture Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art" lens review posted
« on: April 22, 2014, 09:39:42 AM »
Bryan has posted his review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art"

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

The verdict:

"With excellent image quality and great design, this lens becomes the easy 50mm AF lens choice. AF consistency remains this lens' biggest weakness."

5
Lenses / 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 04, 2014, 08:38:15 AM »
I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?

6
Lenses / Photozone's review of the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art is online
« on: February 02, 2014, 02:47:22 PM »
Pretty similar to the Canon 24-105 L, but with better centre resolution...

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to post the link -how rude of me!

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/864-sigma24105f4eos

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Sony to revolutionize our lives!
« on: November 27, 2013, 08:27:06 AM »
Take that Canon and Nikon, Sony are about to revolutionize our lives with this!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25099262

And to think that people made fun of that Canon calculator mouse!

8
Third Party Manufacturers / How does Olympus get away with this?
« on: November 16, 2013, 07:25:25 AM »
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/909%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/895%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/793%7C0/(brand3)/Olympus

Take a look at the SNR 18% graph on the Measurements tab: neither Canon's nor Olympus' measured ISO values are anything near what the user believes they have set. DXO Mark's explanation is that: 

"This difference stems from design choices, in particular the choice to keep some “headroom” to avoid saturation in the higher exposures to make it possible to recover from blown highlights." [http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity]

The 70D reports ISO at about 1/4 stop over measured, but the EM5 reports it at a whole stop greater!

Presumably, both manufacturers deliberately underexpose the image and then leave instructions in the RAW file (or jpeg engine) to boost exposure by the requisite amount? This would allow extensive highlight recovery, but may also lead to greater shadow noise than necessary. Doesn't this simply mean that photographers who shoot RAW and know what the exposure histogram shows, have to factor even more ETTR into their calculations? If so, this makes the histogram even more misleading than it already is.

Has this trend been getting worse? Compare:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/753%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/516%7C0/(brand2)/Canon

The old 1Ds is reporting ISO pretty accurately (at least at the lower values), whereas the 1D X is now at the seemingly standard for Canon, 1/4 stop overstated. Perhaps there is a technical reason why this is now the case that I don't understand. I believe that this makes it dangerous to rely on user reviews that make claims like "camera X produces very clean files up to ISO3200", as you now cannot compare this ISO rating (irony noted!) across brands.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Canon EOS 5D Mk III handling annoyances
« on: November 14, 2013, 08:47:59 AM »
I’ve owned the 5D Mk III for about nine moths, so I'm using it as an example, but these issues apply to a greater or lesser degree to all the mid-range bodies. I am aware the others have made most of these points before, but I still wish to add my (albeit humble) voice to their cause.

  • The meter is biased too strongly towards the active AF point. How about a separate metering mode or a custom feature to allow this to be changed, like the AF system's menus?
  • The control layout is not well designed for use with camera to the eye; (unlike the 1DX or D800) it lacks enough displays in the viewfinder to allow easy changing of metering mode; white balance; AF mode and drive mode. Somewhat perversely, you have to look back through the viewfinder to change the AF points and area options, as there is no display for these on either the top LCD or Q-Menu. It also places too many buttons in a line: i.e. meter/white balance; AF/drive mode; ISO/flash exposure compensation and display light. As the buttons are all of a similar size, this makes it very difficult to make adjustments by feel with the camera to your eye1.  I might also make this argument about the AF-ON, exposure lock and AF point select buttons.
  • With the custom modes (C1-C3), there are two options: enable or disable auto updating of custom setting. Neither of these options is optimal; if you enable, the risk is that you change mode, or use the camera on a different occasion and easily forget that you made changes last time. If you disable auto updating, then as soon as the camera goes to sleep, you lose the changes that you made to the settings –just marvellous when you’re waiting for the light or trying to put a filter on! The simple solution would be to have the camera able to distinguish between ‘sleep’ mode and hard shutdown with the ON/OFF switch used.
  • The histogram and highlight alerts (“blinkies”) are not as useful as they could be. For a start, they need to be on a different colour background to the rest of the screen, so that you can see where the scale ends. For RAW shooters, there must be some way of basing the histogram on something other than an 8-bit jpeg output. Canon must be aware that RAW conversion software (including their own) is capable of recovering more highlight information; we need a bigger histogram with a scale in EV that better reflects what the sensor is recording.
  • The ON/OFF switch is still in a sub-optimal position (although better than on the 5D Mk II); Nikon, Sony and Pentax all put it around the shutter release… Come on Canon, take a hint!

1(OK, ISO/flash exp comp has a nipple –but it isn’t exactly easy to feel the difference, especially when wearing gloves).

Does anyone else find these annoying? Do you know of any settings changes that would help that I may have missed (before anyone asks: no, I haven’t read the entire 404 pages of the user manual front to back!)? Are there any other handling issues that get in the way of your shooting?

10
Lighting / 430EX II for £155 delivered (after rebate)
« on: June 20, 2013, 06:20:03 AM »
Hello all,

For anyone interested in the UK/EU, I've just bought a new 430EX II speedlight from Asda Direct for £175.45
(incl. delivery - use the discount code "camera10" to get this price).  - compare:

http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=CanonSpeedlite430EXII&p=717

You can them claim £20 cashback from Canon http://www.canon.co.uk/summercashback/index.html (scroll along the lenses section). 

Hope this helps someone!  :)

11
EOS Bodies / Canon are you listening?
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:14:48 AM »
We want more, MOAR!!!

Build us a camera that has more of this and less of that, and much more of this, and could do this with only a little bit of that, and doesn’t need that in order to do this.  And it must cost less than this and definitely less than that…  And another thing: we want it now, we want it yesterday and we will want more tomorrow, and all the demands will have changed by then so stay awake!

[With apologies to Billy Connolly!]

13
Site Information / Site issues, or my computer?
« on: February 01, 2013, 01:39:57 PM »
Is anyone else having trouble accessing the Canon Rumors homepage? I keep getting an "error - no site configured for this address" message. 

I'm using a PC with Firefox 18.0.1 with AVG Safesearch; I've tried IE (an old version) and the last post is 30th January, plus it doesn't load up very well. 

Is it the site, my ISP, or my software?

14
Lenses / DXO Mark review the 28mm f/2.8 IS...
« on: January 03, 2013, 08:26:15 AM »
FWIW:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f2.8-IS-USM

I'm puzzled as to how an f/2.8 lens manages to achieve a measured T-stop of 2.7; doesn't that violate the laws of physics? I'm guessing that either Canon are being very conservative with their f/2.8 rating, or DXO Mark has made a cock-up... I wonder which  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3