March 03, 2015, 03:27:47 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 49
EOS-M / Re: EOS-M with Rokinon 300mm EF-M lens
« on: July 01, 2014, 02:37:30 AM »
The bokeh in that first shot is fairly typical for a mirror lens, but it is largely or completely a non issue in your other shots. It seems like avoiding high contrast detail not too far away from the plane of focus is the key to pulling off those great images with that lens.

Nice work!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:41:03 PM »
Also see the review on the Photography Blog website.
They come to the same conclusions. Enjoy

I'm confused. I thought it was an EF mount lens:

Quote from:
It has no aperture ring, which is no big deal unless you wanted to use it on a very old film body.


Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 29, 2014, 02:06:25 AM »
Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?

Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands.  What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.
If you want telephoto, the A7 cameras don't make much sense. Take the Sony 70-200/4 OSS, and compare it to the Canon 70-200/4 IS. The Canon is shorter, narrower, lighter, and under half the price!

At least my proposed APS-H have a chance to beat or equal to the 1DX in terms of low light and frame rate with the portability of the 6D. What more can I ask for? Only draw back is that it has a low MP count. But Sony has just done  that. There must be someone out there want such type of camera. The existing APS-C cannot match the FF in low light is due to the MP race. With the same technology and same pixel density( read it as pixel size), the APS-C will equal the FF in low light.
It depends upon whether you are going to compare a 100% crop of each camera and look for noise, or compare the image as a whole (or even an equal crop of each).

If you chose to do the sensible comparison (images as a whole, or crop into the same section of each frame), then with equal technology between the formats, the bigger sensor wins every time.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:48:26 AM »
I had the mk I. Excellent lens, but if you don't stop it down to f4 or smaller, the micro contrast and detail is very disappointing, unless you only view the images on a small screen or print small.

After some time of using the lens, and getting frustrated by this, I started wondering why I didn't just have the f4 IS version - slightly sharper at f4, half the weight, and at the time, half the price. Plus it would be a perfect way to avoid Tv mode selecting a detail destroying aperture.

Anyway, I've upgraded to the mk II, and the differences I've noticed are dramatically improved wide open sharpness, even more dramatic improvement with TC's, and the IS is much more effective. Other than that it's the same bullet proof construction and exemplary handling.

Having owned the mk II, I wouldn't dream of going back to the mk I.

Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:20:14 AM »
What lenses do you use? Flashes? Typical subjects?

From your one post it seems like landscapes and the 24 TS-E are quite high up your list. Judging by your lack of faith in the EOS M, I'd suggest a 100D or indeed any less than FF mirrorless won't be suitable. And if you can't bare to leave the 24 TS-E behind, there are no worthy alternatives to that and one of Canon's FF from any system short of medium format.

I'd suggest a 6D, reduce the number of lenses, and replace any large lenses with smaller equivalents. I have no idea what you shoot, but tele lenses could potentially be replaced with a 70-300L, and mid range lenses or zooms could be replaced with a 40/2.8.

Failing that, just buy a much larger rucksack!

Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 IS Mk1 v Mk2
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:23:45 AM »
According to test charts there's not a massive difference. In terms of resolving power, the mk II with a 2x TC is reasonably close to perfection. The mk I is just a touch worse:

Compare either to the 600/4 II, and you'll see that the two 300/2.8's with 2x TC's are more similar than you'd imagine.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: June 25, 2014, 10:58:45 AM »
It looks like it's going to be announced imminently, and named the D810:

Without meaning to repeat a question from earlier on in this thread - why?

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 03:06:43 AM »
See the 24-70 IS L II or the 70-200 IS L II.
I though we're still on the first version of that f4 lens?  ::)

The FD mount has a shorter flange distance than EF - 42mm vs 44mm - so by the time you've added physical mount adapter to the 44mm, you end up with a total lens flange to sensor distance much greater than 42mm. Either you lose infinity focus, or there are optical elements (much like a mild TC) which further degrade the image quality of these old lenses.

In short, nothing works, bar one ingenious solution made by Ed Mika (who is also a member on this forum)

His solution is custom made for each lens. Not all lenses can be adapted, and the cost makes it pointless on a cheap lens. Good L FD lenses are worth converting.

Lenses / Re: Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:43:48 AM »
This is about "the look" of the images mainly. I'd used my 100/f2 on Sony apsc a700 at f/2.2 quite a bit for a wedding and other people specific shooting and really liked that space. And it was even better on full-frame a800.

100/2 on a Sony (1.5x) crop behaves much like a 150/3 lens on your 6D. F2.8 on FF is slightly better, but throw in the wider angle of view and things change again.

I'd say you've made an excellent choice going with the 100L - mine is simply great. Light, compact, solid, great IS, fast AF (with the focus limiter on), very sharp and great bokeh.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 20, 2014, 03:26:13 AM »
On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact.  However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses.  Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.

Are you talking Pentax K01 or one of the many Sony DSLT's?

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 03:24:19 PM »
So, you never know. The 7DII could have the first non-Bayer sensor in a DSLR.

Sigma beat them to it back in 2002 with the SD9 and it's foveon sensor. And the many models which have superseded it. But even they were beaten to market by the Fuji S1 Pro of 2000 with its Super CCD arrangement.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 19, 2014, 07:40:15 AM »
For your needs now, it depends upon what you want.

Are the current generation EVF's good enough for you, or will only OVF's do?

And then as for the size of the body and the lenses, yes, mirrorless are typically smaller. But once you get over the more extreme retrofocus lens design required on wide angle lenses to accommodate the mirror assembly, there really isn't much in it with like for like lenses.

If you want to have the best low light performance and/or a really shallow depth of field, there's only one way to get it - a lens with a huge entrance pupil. That means the glass will be equally big on either system - and something the size of an 85L on a tiny m43 body doesn't make much sense. There again, if you only have lenses the size the 40/2.8, a smaller body with an equivalent lens (if a 20/1.4 pancake existed) might make a lot more sense.

And as for which system will be around in the future and worth sinking your money into, look at sales of DSLR's vs mirrorless. DSLR's seem to be a lot more buoyant right now. And then also look at how some manufacturers are willing to drop mounts, leaving people with a load of expensive lenses and no new bodies. For example, Panasonic/Olympus with four thirds, Samsung with the K mount (although Pentax still use that), and Sony look set to drop the A mount. Yes, Canon did it back in '87, but they look set to stick with the EF mount long term.

Obviously it's your choice, but after a lot of careful deliberation I did what almost everyone else on this forum has done - invested my money into the Canon system.

Someone mentioned that if I go with the 70D that my L series lenses might not be a good choice with that camera. Does the 24-105mm 4.0 and the 70-200mm 2.8 not work well with the 70D? I also have a Canon 50 mm AF 2.5 macro lens I could use as well.

That was me. One of the criteria you added as an advantage of the 70D was its video AF. That particular feature will be a real let down if you stick with your L lenses (or any non STM lens):

As good as the 70D's video AF is, using it with anything but an STM lens will leave you selecting manual focus every time - USM lenses have AF which is far too fast for smooth focus, and the end result is choppy AF which not only looks bad, but gets loud as it stops/starts all the time:

Plus of course the angle of view will change with the crop, so your primes and zooms will all frame very differently. In other words, if you swap out your 5D mk II for a 70D, you'll also need to swap all your nice L lenses for cheaper, slower STM lenses to utilise it to its full potential.

Get a 6D, and you'll not lose out on any cutting edge features (or framing) you're paying for by sticking with your current lenses.

For stills and for manual focus video, the L lenses and the 70D are great. Just don't expect video AF to be anything you'd use in reality with USM lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 49