April 18, 2014, 06:12:09 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 - dtaylor

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 30
Lenses / Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« on: November 11, 2013, 12:55:36 AM »
Hoya S-HMC and HD filters do not degrade IQ or cause flare. Most other filters do. (B+W has a reputation for not degrading IQ, but I've never used or tested them to know for sure.) How much degradation depends on the filter.

Filters complete weather sealing on some lenses and offer some scratch/impact protection. Any impact strong enough to shatter the filter and shove the glass into the front element, thereby damaging the front element, would have shattered the front element any way without the filter. Unless we're talking about one of the handful of lenses with really deep, recessed front elements (i.e. some macros come to mind).

Some hoods are deep and offer good impact resistance. Others are useless for this.

I leave filters on everything except my EF-M 22mm (cost/benefit is low plus the front element is tiny). I generally use hoods except on my M lenses (they don't seem to offer much protection or shading).

I would be in the camp that says only use filters when necessary if all filters degraded IQ. But I can't make my Hoya S-HMC and HD filters degrade IQ. Every time I've thought one of those filters was contributing to an IQ issue such as flare and removed it, I've realized that I only wasted my time taking it off. It has never made a bit of difference in IQ.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 06:24:51 AM »
* ff has more leverage for postprocessing, this is what matters the most to me. If you try to raise one color channel on a gradient (say lessen or intensify blue on a partly cloudy sky) the crop shot will immediately fall apart while the bigger ff pixels allow for more postprocessing creativity or fixing.

This is true but an exaggeration. Crop images do not 'immediately fall apart.' You have to push to see the difference.

Also the ff has less problems on the red color channel on plain surfaces, a known issue with Canon sensors, try shooting a red mushroom if you don't know what I'm talking about.

This is true at anything other then the lowest ISOs. But it's true for most (all?) crop sensors, and even the FF ones as the ISOs climb. You just have more ISOs where red doesn't suck on FF.

In reality, I find the ff has a 2-3 stop advantage over crop because with crop iso800 is the highest "safe" setting while with the 6d it's iso6400, and truth to be told I'd still prefer the latter if the dr is low.

The crop sensors are fine to about 3200, though I agree that Canon's FF sensors are 2+ stops better at high ISO.

* Viewfinder: Not directly sensor-iq related and last, but not least - the more expensive crop cameras have an somewhat ok vf, but with ff you see more of what you're shooting due to the larger mirror which is a reason for ff on its own as in "iq for your eye".

I don't notice a significant difference vs. the 7D, though what you say is true for the other crop models.

and of course for tele shots with 300mm * 1.6x crop factor which makes a decisive difference for wildlife.

It's hard to beat a "built in" 1.6x teleconverter  :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 06:16:43 AM »
3) FF gives less distortion with wide angles while crop gives more pixels on target for distant objects.

First part is false. Distortion is the same for the FoV (assuming equal lens IQ).

4) FF is more forgiving of lens limitations than crop. (Kit lenses on a crop camera give poor sharpness, but a quality lens is good on FF and crop)

FF is more forgiving of lens sharpness, but less forgiving of side and corner performance.

From the site: In fact, others like phototheology on youtube showed the K-5 IIs dominating the Canon 5D Mark III,

* Go to Imaging Resource comparometer.
* Pull up 5D3 and K52.
* 5D3 shows small advantage at low ISO.
* 5D3 easily beats the K52 at high ISO. (5D3 @ 12800 is better then K52 @ 3200.)

* Pull up 5D3 and K3.
* No advantage at low ISO.
* 5D3 easily beats the K3 at high ISO. (5D3 @ 12800 just edges out K3 @ 3200.)

From the site: Our testing shows that the Pentax K-3 swept the Nikon D600 in almost every image we took. Even at high ISOs the Pentax held its own against the full frame sensor!

* Pull up D600 and K3.
* No advantage at low ISO.
* D600 clearly beats the K3 at high ISO. (D600 @ 12800 is better then K3 @ 6400.)

You'll get the same results looking at DPReview tests.

I will say...again...that the FF advantage lies at high ISO. At low ISO there's little or no real world difference.

As for their D600 vs. K3 tests...the two look about 1 to 1.3 stops apart at high ISO. That's close enough to easily screw up the exposure in the tests such that they look the same.

Again from their site: In our testing, we used various apertures, but did not use the maximum aperture for either lens to account for the variation between the two.

T-stop (i.e. actual light transmission) can vary between lenses at all apertures.

We set each camera to the aperture priority mode and allowed the cameras to choose the most appropriate shutter speed for the situation.

Camera meters most certainly vary.

Each image was taken in a RAW format then converted to JPGs through Lightroom. No adjustments were made to the images before publishing this article.

"No adjustments" does not mean "equal" as ACR applies a profile out of the gate.

In almost every shot, the Pentax K-3 had much better color quality than the Nikon D600.

Color varies with exposure, lenses, and...most importantly...RAW conversion. Again, "no adjustments" != "equal." And even cameras with quirky color given default RAW settings are easily profiled to give whatever you want.

Same with their statements on contrast and sharpness. Tweaking settings is all that's required.

I'll be the first to say that if you don't need large prints at high ISO then get whatever APS-C body you want. But when you push ISO, there's no crop camera on the market that can match current FF cameras. I especially like what I see from Canon's latest FF bodies (even though DxOJoke claims they are worse then the competition). These guys just screwed up their tests.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 58/1.4 - $1,700!!!
« on: October 19, 2013, 09:50:54 PM »
Well, about the same price as the 50mm 1.2L, isn't it?

And the Sigma 50 f/1.4 beats them both for $400.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8 vs 70-200 4 on 650D
« on: October 17, 2013, 06:55:04 PM »
Assuming you're on about the 70-200/4 L IS and the 16-35/2.8 L II, here is a comparison of IQ on an 18MP crop camera - showing the 16-35 at its worst ( 28mm, f2.8 ):

I would say there's something obviously wrong with the 16-35 sample he tested on the 60D.

I love TDP and their lens comparison tool is one of the most useful tools on the web. But sometimes bad samples do slip in, and you have to watch for that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High-ISO confusion
« on: October 17, 2013, 02:57:09 PM »
I would have sworn that my EOS M was producing better RAW high ISO shots then my 7D, yet comparisons at DPReview and Imaging Resource do not confirm this. So it looks like there really isn't much change among the 18 MP sensors from Canon. (My initial impression was probably due to the exposure being consistently optimal on the M. I shoot manual on the M and it is incredibly fast and simple to ETTR off the screen.)

The 70D is Canon's first truly new APS-C sensor in a while, and to me it does look a bit better in RAW. But not by much, maybe 2/3 stop?

On the flip side, for all the wild claims about Sony and Nikon sensors, they look no better. And they also show no difference as you flip through recent camera model iterations. Yet we constantly hear how Canon is "stuck" with old sensors, and how much better Sony/Nikon sensors are at high ISO. The comparison images expose the myth. A myth which is driven entirely by DxO nonsense.

I think the whole industry is at a point of diminishing returns on high ISO when it comes to crop sensors, though a new fabrication technique or other technology could change that in the future.

To be honest...and this is going to ruffle feathers...there isn't that much difference between the crop sensors and the 5D2 either. It's there, but not huge. The IR samples show it better then the DPReview samples (not sure why). From the times I've shot with a 5D2, the difference is amplified if exposure is less then optimal. And 5D2 RAW files are able to take more NR at high ISO.

The 5D3 and 6D improve on the 5D2, and to me the jump from crop to 5D3/6D is much more substantial in terms of high ISO. For that reason I tell crop shooters who want better high ISO to skip used 5D2's and go straight for the newer models.

EOS-M / Re: 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:53:44 PM »
Low light focusing is extremely limited on the 18-55, where on the 22mm, it was hard to find something I couldn't focus on.  AF seems kinda... uh, laggy?  When you half press the shutter button, there's a slight hesitation that's not on the 22mm.

This is the opposite of my experience. BUT...I have AF on the rear button, use single point mode, and I always put my AF point over an area of strong contrast. I actually feel that the 18-55 is quick in this configuration, i.e. comparable to similar DSLR lenses.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where is the Canon 7D successor?
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:39:59 PM »
Pentax's latest toy, the K-3 has more fps, more AF points, more MP, better metering, better viewfinder, USB 3.0, new AA feature ...

* 0.3 more fps? Hardly worth worrying about. What's the RAW buffer like?

* More AF points are not what's important. The D7x00 has more AF points, and I'll take the 7D's AF any day. How well does the AF track and drive lenses? What are the modes and preferences? And since the lens is every bit as important as the AF module, can Pentax lenses focus as quickly as equivalent Canon lenses?

I don't know the answers, and maybe at the end of it all the K-3 does have better AF. But I do know you can't tell without extensive time on both bodies.

* Most people would say they could care less about 18 vs. 24 MP, they just want less noise and more DR.

* How do you figure it has better metering? You couldn't know this without putting hundreds of shots (minimum) through each.

* How does the K-3 have a better VF? 0.95x vs. 1x, looks like the 7D's is better.

* New AA filter...OK, that's cool.

The K-3 looks like a great camera. I imagine the sensor, being newer, will have better IQ (though not dramatically so). And I wish Canon would release a 7D2.

But I don't think the gap is quite what you imagine it to be.

Software & Accessories / Re: Cheap UV filters: are they worth it?
« on: October 05, 2013, 08:48:34 PM »
I'm a big fan of Hoya's S-HMC and HD filters. I've taken plenty of with/without shots, and I've never seen any IQ degradation or additional flare. This includes test shots at night with longer exposures and plenty of light sources in the frame.

I have them on every lens for protection except my EF-M 22mm. (Tiny element on a low cost lens.)

Canon General / Re: Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O
« on: September 30, 2013, 04:40:16 PM »
Perhaps the Priest could have handled things better, but I wouldn't have.

Here's the rub.

Wedding first.  The couple are there to get MARRIED.  Thats kind of important to everybody.

You just contradicted yourself. If the bride and groom are really what's important, then you as the priest would either a) keep your mouth shut until after the ceremony, or b) calmly and quietly ask the photographer to move (i.e. no one else in the audience should have been privy to what was going on). Look at the bride and groom before and after the priest blew up. They were not bothered by the photographer. They WERE bothered by what the priest did.

Agreed that rules and expectations should have been established before hand; the photographers setup the situation; the photographer got too close and that bothered the priest; the photographer injected himself into the scene (idiot); etc.

But if any person except the bride or groom is upset about something and has it within their power to keep quiet until afterwards, by God you keep your mouth shut and keep the ceremony progressing smoothly for the bride and groom. This applies to relatives, friends, in laws, kids, hired help, etc, etc. You better be dying if you interrupt a ceremony like that priest did. Because if you're not and you're working for me, you will be dying later.

To be fair to the priest, when he turned around and said move the photographer should not have responded at all. He simply should have moved. "Where should I stand?" The unemployment line buddy.

I'm going to bookmark this video to show it to any future assistants as an example of what you never, ever do.

Canon General / Re: Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:10:54 PM »
I will not call it a meltdown. The priest is very calm.

No he wasn't. His tone and jarring interruption of the most important part of the day were anything but calm.

We do not know whether the photographer has asked the priest's consent BEFORE the ceremony or not. Even worst, the priest may have announce that no photographer is allow in the alter area and the photographer has ignored it.  Most of the priest will not allow photography during the ceremony no matter whether it is inside of the church or outdoor. If the photographer is a professional,   he should know better.

Irrelevant. If the activity is not upsetting the bride and groom or otherwise wrecking the ceremony (and by wrecking I mean the priest literally cannot continue speaking), then you deal with it afterwards. You don't air it out in front of everyone drawing attention away from the wedding.

The priest has the right to ask him to leave whether the photographer is hire by the groom or not.

Nope. It's not about the priest.

Canon General / Re: Priest meltdown over photographer at wedding. Ouch!! :O
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:04:31 PM »
I read one quote someone made on YouTube that I agreed with.  The groom should have leaned into the priests ear and said something like "I'm paying the photographers much like I'm paying you, please continue. And..if you do walk out, I'll sue your ass off, now, please get back to marrying us..."

Yep. Completely unprofessional behavior on the part of the priest. No one has a right to do what he did except the bride and groom. Doesn't matter if we think the photographers were or were not over stepping their bounds. That's up to only two people, and only those two people have a right to say anything.

If the bride and/or groom are not visibly annoyed or saying something, keep it to yourself and keep the ceremony moving smoothly forward.

EOS-M / Re: 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences
« on: September 27, 2013, 11:14:49 AM »
IQ is very good. A little soft in the corners wide open and some flare with intense light sources in the frame. But impressive overall.

IS is great and easily gets you 3 stops, 4 if you're careful. For that reason the 22mm is not necessarily the low light king. If motion is not an issue, the IS trumps it.

It seems to be the perfect mix of size/weight and zoom range for casual vacation and street shots.

Still love the 22mm, but I'm glad I got the 18-55.

Dear Drio, my friend. Yes, I will try.

Don't be too enthusiastic, it's really a specialized product for old-school film simulation with some other mixed presets added - it's beyond me how anyone paid $80 for this unless required for a specific purpose.

Have you seen what VSCO is charging?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 30