Messages

16

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?

« on: February 11, 2013, 12:56:54 PM »

Pro is when people pay you for your services. Period.

You don't have to think the person is good, or even very talented, but they satisfy a business need and are compensated.

The End.


Cheers and beers 

17

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 30, 2013, 01:41:07 PM »

I chose canon because they are designed by someone with common sense.

We are all visual people, some moreso than others. Personally i find nikons style clashes with my own- especially their UGLY  interfaces on the lower end bodies. The nikon menu system looks like something out of the stone age, and i ddi not want to deal with the AF/no Af motor nonsense.

More importantly, comes down to the glass- and some canon L glass is just too delicious not to own.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?

« on: January 25, 2013, 11:44:31 AM »

As far as noise profiles, the 7d and t4i are NOT the same.

Look at some of the images posted earlier in this thread...the iso noise is deplorable, well hidden with the web file sizes. Zoom in and check the clarity. Unless you have perfect light, the 7d is likely to give you a headache.

Pixel peepers should stay away from this body. I found it totally unacceptable for portrait work, unless you 'really work hard' to get the best light possible. Going from a xsi- known for its pixel level sharpness - to a 7d, the difference was like WTF?

Downsized, cleaned up images are not a way to show what images come out of the camera. I feel like its disingenuous. My goal is for hardware to produce the most incredible images possible. The 7d creates mush-tastic images. Also, the 7d's atrocious iso 100 noise is nothing like ive seen on any other canon camera. Not to kick the horse, but the sensor can also exhibit mosquito noise, which according to canon is not proper. my 7d came down with it twice.

The t2i version of this 18mp sensor kills the 7d version in terms of sharpness AND especially noise. And hopefully you dont run into the 7d's Af issues like i did...canon was never able to fix mine after 4 tries, and i had to take a big loss on that body.

get a t4i and enjoy it while you save up for a full frame, i would say.

The more info the better. I dont even bother listening to photogs when they say they are not pixel peepers.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D kit with 24-105 F4L for $2499 at Amazon

« on: January 24, 2013, 07:26:10 AM »

Congrats on the 6D purchase, I have been looking at taking advantage of this price as well, pickup a backup lens for a steal.

As for the 24-105L, there is a fair amount of distortion at 24, but otherwise it's a stellar lens. It's a little bit older lens now, not quite as good as the new 24-70L (either the mkII or IS) most likely, but still a great lens, and probably the best deal to be had in Canon glass for this price.

As for wide angles, I can't comment on the 35/2.0, but I do have the 28/1.8 which is quite good on full frame. I also have the 17-40L and would recommend that if f/4.0 is sufficient.

Testing by lens rentals and tdp show that the 24-70 is isn't better than anything. Check for yourself. It's the most ridiculous lens release in years.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?

« on: January 24, 2013, 07:23:12 AM »

I think they're trying to get some sort of record for wringing the most profit from a sensor, over the longest lifespan

+1

Although, from a business perspective, I gotta hand it to Canon for actually achieving that. That IS kind of the holy grail of business...to make a product that lasts forever.

the most impressive part is how they are wringing such a lot of profit / life out of such a BAD sensor

I wouldn't call it a "bad" sensor. Roger Clark has some interesting comparisons of IQ between the 7D and a number of other cameras, including the 5D II, 1D IV, etc. The 7D in those comparisons is actually good, captures more detail, just as much if not more light, all despite the added noise. On a size-normal basis, the 7D tends to outperform even the 1D IV until higher ISO settings.

It is not a "great" sensor, but technically and statistically speaking neither is it a "bad" sensor...it is just a middle-ground sensor that neither "wows" like the D800 nor truly sucks like a cheap P&S with a 16mp microsensor with pixels barely large enough to accommodate the wavelengths of light its supposed to be capturing. I don't think any of that actually changes your point, however... ;P

Nope, that terrible 7d sensor doesn't outperform anything. T2i had the best implementation out of all of the uses of this sensor, save for the sharpness of the t4i. 7d sensor is just too noisy

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D test data and further impressions on DPreview

« on: January 18, 2013, 01:02:38 PM »

from the dxo mark data. they judge cameras solely on the sensor ability alone.

and dpreview is getting killed on this cameras still lack of a review- they are really in a tough spot with the latest review of all major photo sites- and they are supposed to be the big review boys. the forums over there, is not pretty.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: New Rebel T4i vs 60d/7D

« on: January 18, 2013, 12:59:32 PM »

Apart from the extra noise, the t4i should have better image quality than all of them. the 7d suffers from softness and too much noise. the t4i has correction data for chromatic aberrations and such that neither the 7d nor 60d have (if im not mistaken). The t4i was found to have a much sharper image  than those others as well. (thus, more noise)

The xsi was well renowned for its pixel level sharpness. I still reach for it when i need razor sharp pic, though the metering is very old hat and can be an image detriment compared to t2i (especially) and up.

see the sharpness comparison tool here- its pretty dramatic.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6&Camera=474&CameraComp=474&Sample=0&SampleComp=0

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just Got Camera Back from Canon Service and the Graininess is unnacceptable

« on: January 14, 2013, 11:06:19 PM »

Did the revup  ever say what camera body we are discussing on this thread?  The signature says both 5d3 and 7d so is it one of these?

I ask b/c I just sent a 7d for canon service for high noise but it also had grain in excess.

I'd bet it was the 7d. I hate that sensor, personally.

24

Lenses / Re: How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?

« on: January 11, 2013, 12:24:27 PM »

I wonder how many people were shooting test charts and returning lenses in the film era.

I think it's crazy when people say things like, "my lens was a little soft at f/1.4 so I exchanged it", or "my ultra wide-angle lens' edges are soft wide open".  At what point are people chasing unrealistic and unnecessary expectations?

I really dilsike this argument. Lenses should be sharp, unless they are just not made that way. Period. At these prices? Cmon man. What possibly could be unrealistic about that? Who cares if others are not pixel peepers, or if soft i okay for some...that isnt nor should be the standard to judge by.

It took 4 copies for me to find a 50 1.4 that could focus consistently/beyond 10 feet. 2 from canon refurb, 2 from the shop. Ridiculous.  Even now, its temperamental...someday it behaves, other days its so off that i just put it away.

25

Lenses / Re: How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?

« on: January 11, 2013, 12:18:54 PM »

Once for my beloved 70-200 mk2. Ill be damned if im paying thousands for anything and its only 'okay'. Not happening.

Twice for my 24-105 but the first two copies were from the used section, then i just exchanged for a new, superior sharpness copy.

I need more L's

PS- I rented a 24-70mk2 to shoot a show as a press guy- and it sucked in sharpness. Never again considered it. Yuck.

26

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Reikan Focal Mac Client is NOT native

« on: January 09, 2013, 01:06:22 PM »

I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

Lazy port? So you are paying only for the port not the developing of the algorithms to make it work? And how you know it is lazy? How many hours took him?

"Lazy" all depends if the dev went for the easiest option at the expense of how well the app runs in the mac environment. Im not saying either or, thats on them- but native will ALWAYS be better, regardless of any circumstances.

Personally, Im always curious about visual related software not appearing on macs first- osx is still the lead content creation platform for most creatives. Photography, i would think, falls under that realm.

27

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Reikan Focal Mac Client is NOT native

« on: January 09, 2013, 08:08:10 AM »

I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

28

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?

« on: January 08, 2013, 11:36:26 AM »

.................

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pipoujid/popular-interesting/

Great portfolio with stunning photos. I like them

I agree, very neat shots, cool, fun.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you own a macro lens and somehow got attached to it!   

+3

these pics rock. Gotta love macro!

29

Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?

« on: January 08, 2013, 11:14:39 AM »

I would save my:

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
75-300mm f/4-5.6 III

Now that is some sweet glass there and I have just about all of the focal lengths covered!   

ROFL nice one there

30

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: January 08, 2013, 11:14:05 AM »

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer.  the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks