September 19, 2014, 08:15:46 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 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 43
346
Lenses / Re: Stabilization for IS lenses?
« on: August 18, 2013, 09:34:46 AM »
The mk II Canon super tele's have mode 3 IS - this leaves it off for composing so you can more easily track erratically moving subjects, and then powers on in an instant to stabilise the lens for the shot:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS

I'd guess if this can power up and be effective that quick, at least some Canon lenses don't suffer from this two second rule.

347
Software & Accessories / Re: Searching alternativ remote app for 6D
« on: August 18, 2013, 09:30:34 AM »
Timelapse photography usually involves lots of photos being taken over a long period of time. I would have thought leaving wifi powered up on the camera (and phone) to operate this is just begging for a flat battery. Delayed remote shooting again isn't anything which strikes me as requiring a wifi connection, as you're unlikely to be looking at the phones display while the photo is being taken.

Therefore I'd suggest physical hardware instead of an app - something such as the Hahnel Giga T Pro II - it'll do everything you're after, including (wired) timelapse shooting, and wireless delayed shooting (simply turn on the 2 or 10 sec timer on the camera, and press the shutter on the remote).

348
Lenses / Re: Telephoto for 6D?
« on: August 18, 2013, 05:35:55 AM »
Even the 70-200 f4 non-IS or the 200 2.8 are priced north of your budget. So it's maybe better to save a bit more before you buy.

+1

The 70-300 (non L) is nothing special. Take a look at this to compare it to your 55-250:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=456&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I'd strongly recommend saving a bit more for the 70-200/4 or 200/2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

However, if you need more reach than 200mm, and you could stretch to affording it in the not too distant future, aim the for 70-300L. Just crop your 24-105 images in the meantime. The L version is a huge upgrade:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

349
If you want macro, and it'll only ever be tripod mounted, get the non L version of the 100 - it's virtually identical to the L wide open, and it'll be used stopped down a lot. Weather sealing and IS are irrelevant in this scenario. A 45 or preferably 90 TS-E, possibly with extension tubes does sound more suitable due to the potential gains in DoF, but it's a much steeper learning curve.

If you absolutely need FF (tripod mounted and stationary objects means no need for any high ISO's, or good high ISO performance), the cheapest body with remote live view is a second hand 5D2. If you struggle to find one at a good price, get a 6D instead. No need for the extra features of the 5D3 if you're only ever shooting with manual focus, indoors, remotely. However, any crop camera with remote live view will do the trick - and there are plenty of those to choose from.

350
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon 24-70 F4 worth the price?
« on: August 16, 2013, 07:52:36 AM »
I concur, I don't see any advantage to the 24-70 f/4 versus the 24-105 f/4.  I will admit I have never shot with the 24-70 f/4, so I can't say how IQ compares between the lenses, but I'll take the 24-105 f/4 is I'm using an f/4 lens.

How about this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
24mm is the only focal length where the new 24-70/4 appears to be better than the 24-105/4 in that comparison. At 50mm the older lens appears to be the better of the two samples tested.

It really depends on whether you value some compromised but improved macro capability and better IS, or prefer an extra 50% telephoto reach and a big cash saving. If I was choosing between them, I'd rightly or wrongly go for the 24-105.

351
Lenses / Re: What lens for panoramic tour + what software?
« on: August 16, 2013, 06:16:27 AM »
i suppose no one here has used or heard of 360 degree lenses?
It's more than just a lens, but take a look at this for a quick and dirty way of getting what you're after:
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/05/ricoh-shows-off-camera-that-captures-a-360-degree-photo-in-one-shot/

352
And do you also know the 5D mk II is discontinued?

353
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:44:56 PM »
It's not just an investment in EF-S lenses that won't migrate.  While my EF lenses will work on both crop and ff bodies, effectively they will be different lenses.  In actual use, migration doesn't have to just mean that the lenses can be mounted on both body types.

I use a 70-200/2.8 all the time.  The focal length range works very well for me with a crop body.  That lens will not be the same if I switch to FF.  In this sense, it will not migrate.  If I want the same range and aperture, I would need to buy a new lens.

Yes, I can always crop the images in post.  But that doesn't change the fact that what I see through the viewfinder will be significantly different and will change the way I shoot.  It will also complicate my workflow.

Agreed - lenses behave differently on the different bodies.  Interestingly, I had the opposite experience.  I got the 70-200/2.8L IS II when I had the 7D, and I found the focal length very awkward for me - too long indoors, not long enough when I needed reach outdoors (I have the 100-400, as well).  After getting the 5DII, the 70-200/2.8 rapidly became my second most-used lens. 

At least in your case, starting from the 70-200/2.8 on APS-C, the FF equivalent is 112-320mm f/4.5 so you could get pretty close with the 70-300L, and have better overall IQ than on the APS-C.
I had the exact same experience with the 70-200 when moving to FF - a much more usable range. Plus I have the 1.4x TC for the times I want to regain the narrow angle of view crop gives.

354
Pricewatch Deals / New Canon cashback in the UK
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:28:11 AM »
http://www.canon.co.uk/autumncashback/

Unfortunately I can't afford anything right now  :-\

355
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 15, 2013, 04:36:40 AM »

I disagree. Resolution is not measured by the number of pixels.


So i can say a FF sensor with 300 pixels and a FF sensor with 21 MegaPixels have the same resolution if its not about the pixels.
The camera sensors are made out of pixels so how u wanna measure resolution in another way if the camera sees the world all in pixels and nothing else?!
I believe his point is MP alone does not provide a clear cut answer to how much detail is resolved by a camera. For instance, compare a picture taken with a perfect lens and a foveon sensor to a picture taken with that same lens and a bayer sensor with a heavy AA filter - even if they have the same MP, there will be a difference in what's resolved. Also, how about a 36MP D800 with a Nikon 500/4 compared to lowly 22MP 5D3 and a Canon 500/4 - The Canon system resolves more detail despite a lower number of MP.

Obviously it'd take a phenomenally bad lens (or AF system) to equal the gap between a 21 million pixel sensor and a 300 pixel sensor. The number of MP a sensor has sets a ceiling on the resolving power of a camera system, but many other parts of the system can work against realising that theoretical maximum. Like anything, its all down to the weakest link in the chain.

356
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:55:59 PM »
no my friend
these pictures are matched and measured from the whitest to the darkest and the same curve , the white point is the same,  but Im looking after resolution
and if you do not se any difference in resolution you have some problem
se the wall at the X

and yes you se some more noise because of 36Mp and 100%
Stronger, direct light, resulting in stronger, harsher shadows in the details of that wall. How can that form the basis of a comparison?

357
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:36:02 PM »
I looked at 80-400VR from Nikon and F-8 together with d800 and compared it to my bellowed lens 70-200/2,8ISMK2 from Canon together with 5dmk2
No problems to se that 80-400 at 200mm together with d800 is a lot sharper
I can see the boards in the wall with the Nikon combo, there are also a different color depth in Nikon, using the same profile in Camera Raw. This due the CFA, in this case it shows most in the green color and nuances
That's in very different light (just look at the brightness of the walls facing to the right), so any colour comparisons don't hold up. To my eyes, even with the destructively large dose of sharpening on the Canon shot, the Nikon doesn't reveal any more detail.

And yes, that is noise in the sky in the D800 shot.

358
What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

Never tried it for myself, never claimed I did...but have read what Lensrentals had to say, as well as the reviews...as well as Sigma's own MTF chart of the lens in their display of the product on their own website...which clearly shows a steep dropoff in sharpness in the image even before the aps-c crop ends...let alone to the corners on full frame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

"
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

It’s become apparent through many tests and online forums that the Sigma 50 is a ‘special’ lens. I was glad to find this out because it was driving me nuts. It’s a very nice lens when you use it just right, with superb sharpness and smooth bokeh. But here’s the summary:

1) It works very well on crop frame cameras and at middle (5 to 15 feet) distance, so its a wonderful indoor lens.

2) On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term ‘schizophrenic autofocus’: Closer than 5 feet it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, its just how it is."


Apparently yours differs from the normal production?
There is a definite QC issue with this Sigma lens. I exchanged my first copy because it had terribly inaccurate AF. It showed signs of brilliance though because manually focusing it produced some amazing results. I was expecting a similarly bad experience with the second lens, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it is consistently accurate with its AF. I do admit this is performing beyond my expectations set by reading reviews, but I certainly can't complain about owning a lens this good.

359
Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the  review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens,  and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST  as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely.  I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks.  Great image quality, solid build, good AF.  In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack.  I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

So your Sigma 50mm somehow has no AF issues at all, and is sharp to the full frame corners?  Hard to believe, but ok.
Mine has reliable, accurate AF. And wide open at f1.4, the corners are more than usable on FF. Stopped down a little, they are very sharp. The sharpness and the creamy smoothness of the bokeh put it leagues ahead of the Canon 50/1.4.

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

360
Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the  review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens,  and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST  as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.
I'm very happy with my Sigma 50/1.4. It's up there with my three L lenses, and easily beats them with regards to the quality of the bokeh.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 43