September 02, 2014, 07:58:44 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 - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 41
EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 28, 2013, 03:29:41 PM »
A big issue with the M and Manual focus is that there is no way to turn off Auto focus.  I ran into a problem the other day were it would not focus where I wanted it to zoomed in all the way.  I had to half press the shutter and focus manual. M lens do not have auto-manual switch.

Use the C.Fn. that lets you move AF off the shutter button and onto the AE Lock button. At first I was hesitant to do this because I didn't like the button location for AF, but you get used to it. I generally hate AF on the shutter button and change that on every camera that I can. I just wish on the M that I could have put it on the movie record button, which does nothing in stills mode. It's in the perfect spot.

That are correct that there should be an auto/manual switch. I assume Canon would want or have to put this in the on screen controls, which is fine. I can actually work pretty quickly with the screen, I just wish some of the options didn't require confirmation.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 26, 2013, 02:41:01 PM »
What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

It's simply that the M works pretty darn well.

It works the same now as when it was released ( except for any firmware upgrades of course)

Which is an important point, since the big sale occurred very soon after the firmware update which dramatically sped up AF (one of the biggest complaints about the camera from reviewers/users).  Cameras sold at sale prices seemed to mostly come with the new firmware, too.

$299 seems to be a bigger reason for buying from the people I know who have bought it than a faster AF system.

I specifically checked the AF videos here before buying even at the $299 price.

Aside from AF, I was pleasantly surprised by the touch screen UI and do not miss a VF, two things I thought I would hate before actually using one.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 26, 2013, 02:38:30 PM »
For example it takes about 3 seconds before you can shoot again even when you change from AE to M mode. Getting out of menu to shoot again is also slow.

Can you elaborate? I have experienced no delays after changing exposure mode or leaving a menu.

Speaking about the technical IQ only, it is what you can expect from a crop camera and the kit lens. Not bad at all, but... something is not there.

And that has nothing to do with crop, and everything to do with lighting / exposure / post processing. Which we know was not setup or done for the stills.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M and Vintage Glass
« on: August 25, 2013, 11:52:07 PM »
pehaps a canon blessed and manufactured FD lens adapter would help this sick puppy and give people a reason to buy one.

There's nothing wrong with the FD adapters available on Amazon and eBay. Well machined, infinity focus, no optical degradation (no glass elements). I use one with a 55mm FL macro I picked up for nothing on eBay.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 25, 2013, 11:46:16 PM »
What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

It's simply that the M works pretty darn well.

Canon General / Re: Canon Targets Security Camera Market for Growth
« on: August 25, 2013, 11:45:00 PM »
Does this mean the NSA will start using red ringed lenses?

Nice photos!  Proving once again that it is the operator, not the equipment, that rules in the end.

Now, you owe it to those girls to take the money you saved by buying the M instead of another DSLR and get them each a cheeseburger.  They all look like they could use it.

Completely agree to both points.

Was this a shoot for a warning ad against anorexia? Or was it for a remake of Schindler's List with a more authentic looking cast?

One thing is for certain, taking pictures of anorexic models is very popular with readers on canonrumors - over 1500 downloads on most of the images. So to use that metric as a basis point, the girls' decision to look anorexic is a winner, so how can you blame them?

They're not anorexic. You haven't actually seen or known an anorexic girl if you think so.

They are definitely thin/petite. And yes, most men either like that, or it's within the range of what they like.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 25, 2013, 10:14:46 PM »
It's functions is annoying and especially with larger lenses than... Even the 22mm. 

What functions are annoying? I can tell you right now for street photography I enjoy using the M more then a DSLR. I didn't think I would like the touch screen UI and bought the M because of the $299 deal, and reluctantly at that because of the negative reviews. Now you couldn't pry it from me. I love being able to touch select AF points, love live view exposure simulation, and I find I like the touch screen. And while I would add a dial or two and tweak the UI if I could, overall I find it to be fluid and easy to use. Oh least with single point AF set to the AE lock button rather then the shutter, I find AF to be quick, sure, and accurate, and the overall shooting experience to be responsive.

It certainly doesn't replace a DSLR for everything. And I do think larger lenses are awkward on it. But the EF-M 18-55 is well balanced and Canon's smaller EF primes also work well.

You don't find it cumbersome/awkward? One of the reasons why people like FF is the size and grip feel in the hands etc. You put a nice tele lens or even a 24-70mm on a FF and it feels right.

And it's heavy. For some lenses and types of photography I absolutely want a DSLR with a viewfinder and the camera braced against my face. For other types I'm thrilled with the small, light M.

Better sensor than the 7D, okay. Still that doesn't mean much of anything. How many cameras have a better sensor than the 7D?

Out of the history of DSLRs? Not many. Like the 7D the M will pull off a 24" fine art landscape print at low/mid ISO and still produce good 8x10's and even 13x19's at ISO 3200. It's better then the 7D at high ISO, especially shooting JPEGs.

The fact that you can buy an adapter and use your other canon and canon mount lenses is cool... But why is my question.  If they could make a 24-70mm or even an 18-55mm pancake, then ill sell all my gear and jump for it. :D

The existing 18-55 IS is small, light, and offers very good IQ. The only reason I think I would upgrade is if Canon offered a faster or constant aperture version.

The M is a very competent camera and I'm enjoying it so much for some types of photography that I added the 18-55, a flash, and will be adding the 11-22.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:50:20 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong but would you trust it to take images that you would sell to your clients?


I hope not. I'd rather have a 50D or even a t2i as a backup.

You would rather have an inferior sensor as a backup?

Having something reliable and good is better than smaller/cheaper.

Who told you the M was unreliable or not good?

Any question like this is going to attract lots of heated debate, that will deteriorate into Drivel with lots of quotes and comparisons that the author is absolutely convinced makes perfect sense.

Ultimately you will be able to take good pictures with either camera. If you work with the limitations of either you will be able to take great pictures, if you are capable.

I'm a canon user and very pleased with the equipment I have. But I have no doubts that if I used nikon no one who looked at my images could tell the difference.

The differences are not very significant. Use what you like, and don't listen to the pixel peepers or the people who play top trumps with spec sheets.

Couldn't have said it better.

No they don't hit that tonality at the same time.

Yeah, they pretty much do. Compare shots with lifted shadow detail to shots exposed for the shadow detail. In terms of tone they both start to look like trash vs. the shadow exposed frame at about the same time. Geeks arguing in forums never notice this because they just shove the shadow slider all the way to the right and then cry about pattern noise.

Don't get me wrong. It's amazing what modern sensors and RAW processors can do. But past a certain point you are better off to expose and blend two frames. That point is not strictly determined by noise IMHO, and it's pretty close to the same for the sensors in question.

The Canon, at low ISO only, hits it a good 2 full stops sooner.

I don't see a 2 stop difference even ignoring tone and focusing only on noise. But I'm sure there's a ridiculous DxO graph some where that "proves" me wrong.

Funny that is meaningless and yet a 1/2 stop plus at the high-end is a radical advantage....

Who said that? Oh yeah...nobody.

let's be fair and honest about things, there is no need to insist that the cam you have has to be the single best at every last thing, if it is not at something, it is not.

And who said that? Oh right...nobody.

As I recall I painted the differences as minor and basically said it comes down to the photographer. Yet some how that triggered a defensive "Nikon be best!" rant.

The DR difference is exaggerated in online forums. If you want to fight in forums, Canon sensors have more shadow pattern noise at 100% on screen. If you want to make normal sized prints, the latest version of ACR lets you recover a great deal of shadow detail. IMHO the ability to recover shadow detail is limited by the tonality of said detail, and both cameras hit that limit at the same time. But that's the difference between someone who makes prints and someone who scrutinizes 100% crops and DxO graphs in forums.

Based on the samples I've seen I would say the 6D looks better at high ISO by a stop.

Other then that it comes down to the photographer.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D III?
« on: August 10, 2013, 06:22:26 PM »
I'm the guy on this forum who will gladly challenge the "FF is SOOO much better" crowd to actually prove it with tests. At low to mid ISO, after post processing, I don't see the difference in 24" prints. And the test images / IQ measurements at places like Imaging Resource and DPReview don't detect it or show it either.

I'm also a huge fan of the 7D and think it's one of the best all around small format cameras ever produced. Literally. Before the 7D you could choose high resolution IQ (i.e. 5D) or responsive, high speed sports performance (1D series), but not really both. The 7D can make a 30" landscape print shot, then turn around and track a sprinter at 8 fps. Other cameras were a little better at one or the other, but the 7D was unique in the level of both at introduction. Sensor, features, body and rocks.

That said: at high ISO the latest FF is much better. It's not that the 7D is bad. It can do 8x12 and even 13x19 at ISO 1600 and 3200. A 5D3 or 6D will do 30" at those ISOs. It's almost like you're not at high ISO yet. If you want to do some work in PS and will be printing smaller, 25,600 is usable. That's insane.

And the 5D3's AF is better. I don't think it's dramatically better as some here claim, but it is better.

Also: I don't see a crop magnification advantage unless I'm cropping even further then APS-C. A 7D shot next to a 6D or 5D3 shot cropped to real difference. Now if I have to crop the 7D to, say, 9 MP to get the magnification I want the FF can't keep up. But how often is that necessary?

You won't be disappointed with the 7D. But if you have the budget, the 5D3 would be the first choice.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: advice appreciated
« on: August 08, 2013, 01:47:20 AM »
FF is not necessarily more forgiving of lens flaws, and you do not get more resolution from a lens on FF. You cannot compare lens test results across sensors or formats, and this is noted at both DxO and (It's also why typically has a rating scale next to the raw numbers.)

APS-C demands higher center sharpness but literally crops out the sides and corners. FF doesn't demand as much center sharpness but will capture any ugly flaws at the sides/corners, including vignetting. Therefore which is more forgiving depends entirely on the lens.


* Out of camera FF images will be sharper with higher contrast. After processing...or with proper camera style settings...this disappears. (Put another way, given sensors of equal MP, FF doesn't have a real resolution advantage, but it does have a sharpness/contrast advantage. As long as the image is clean this is something that can be processed away.)

* FF will have less noise with greater detail and color retention at high ISO. There is no processing this away.

* With proper processing, there's nothing to differentiate 24" prints from crop and FF at ISO 100-800. At higher ISOs, large prints from FF easily pull away. At 8x10 it's still a wash through about 3200, then FF pulls away.

* FF has a better selection of fast wide primes and T/S lenses. (Though Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8 will nullify some of this advantage.)

* APS-C has a lower cost selection of superb UWA zooms and, to a lesser extent, general zooms.

* For telephoto a given FoV is cheaper on APS-C. Put another way, APS-C puts more pixels on target. However, this is almost a non-issue with today's sensors. I only see a crop advantage here if I'm cropping even further into the image and printing large. If I'm cropping a 7D file to 9 MP then that means for the same FoV a FF file would be down to 3-4 MP and it can't compete. But if you're just cropping a 6D image to the equivalent APS-C view for a bit more telephoto reach, the IQ is still excellent. It's not often you have to go much deeper into a file. (If you do, you probably need a longer lens.)

The 7D is still decent at 3200 and usable in a pinch at 6400. The 6D is decent at 25600 and usable in a pinch at 51200. I don't see a real advantage at lower ISOs, but at high ISO Canon's current FF sensors rock. mention wildlife and racing. Unless it's nearly dark I grab the 7D for any action, no question.

I guess it comes down to which you think you will value more: action or low light. (Unless of course you just want to spring for the 5D3 and have both.)

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 41