Messages

781

Lenses / Re: Canon vs. Tamron

« on: January 30, 2012, 06:16:16 PM »

In the UK at least, some dealers promote Tamron Zooms as ideal second "kit" lenses at entry level. By that I mean, they promote them as a second lens to buy at the same time as buying the DSLR kit. If that also happens in other countries and still happens now, then, I could see how they could sell large volumes. I was sold a Tamron 55-200 when I bought my 400D and while the build quality was non-existent and the manual focus ring was close to unusable, the image quality punched way above it's weight for the price, which was cheap, at £99 (increased now) if bought with the kit, otherwise I think it was £199.

782

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 30, 2012, 06:08:14 PM »

Can anyone guess at the required focal length for this shot?  Maybe a 500mm f/4 and 2x?

Several years ago, when I first got my 400D, I tried a few shots of the moon with an old M42 screwmount Carl Zeiss Jena 70-300, with a Helios 3x teleconverter and it filled the frame to a similar degree. Judging by that, assuming the image is uncropped, then it would work out to around 1400mm on a full frame sensor.

783

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 30, 2012, 05:58:04 PM »

In sub-zero temperatures on clear, cloudless nights, moisture in the air becomes heavier and drops (forming dew/frost etc.). Cold, clear nights are always much clearer, the stars look brighter and don't seem to shimmer, so does the moon. The desert would naturally have less pollution (and moisture), removing that from the equation too to a large degree. Also, at the relatively low resolution, any imperfections wouldn't show up. I think on that score, it can't be debunked. However, the differences in exposure between the moon and stars are problematic. It isn't something I've tried, so I don't know if there would be enough dynamic range to show both or not, but post-processing would help to even up the differences too. Without trying, I don't know whether it is possible to even up the exposures or not. Another possibility is a blend of two TIFFs from a single RAW file.

784

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* New High-End DSLR Later in February [CR3]

« on: January 30, 2012, 05:37:46 PM »

Does anyone have any info on if CPS platinum members have been invited to the mentioned priority purchase? I called CPS membership services and they had no information on such a thing going on

Judging by the comments in this thread, it appears to be only in certain countries.

785

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 30, 2012, 05:33:30 PM »

The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores          5DII         7D     Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score           79            66

Color Depth (bits)     23.7        22

Dynamic Range       11.9        11.7

Low Light ISO          1815        854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

Please educate yourself before you write about things you dont understand. Look at the nosie dxomark SNR graph and you will se that the 7D sensor outperforms the 5Dmk2 sensor per area unit.

Photography isn't just about technical specifications. I just read an article on Luminous Landscape that someone linked to in one of these threads and it reaffirmed some of my thoughts over the years. Lens reviews often don't show the real world, they may comment on how sharp lens x is compared to lens y, but they don't always look at real world images and other equally (sometimes moreso) important aspects of lens characteristics, such as bokeh and contrast (especially where it counts). To paraphrase the article, why have a sharp lens, if it makes the out of focus areas look even worse than they are already. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal, but the bokeh on the 100-400 makes me feel ill when I look at certain backgrounds (green woodland for example), that is rarely mentioned in the reviews and you find out when you try it for yourself. That is the important thing. Taking that onto the differences between the 7d and the 5d MkII, the facts and figures don't always match what I see and I think even the DxO stats don't do the 5D justice. To my eye, the usable dynamic range is significantly greater in the 5D MkII than the 7D. What the stats don't show, is that when the highlights on the 7D are blown, they start to get a colour cast, granted, it was improved by an early firmware update, but it isn't completely fixed. Likewise, the shadow detail might show lower noise in the stats, but the detail is greater on the 5D MkII. Conversely, the DxO technical data shows that the 5D MkII has a greater usable ISO, however, it doesn't show the quality of the noise. Yes, the 7D is noiser to my eye, but up to a point (i.e. when there is a lot of it or the detail is being lost), that noise is more pleasing to the eye. Many have described the noise on the 7D as more film like and while not completely accurate, it does have some truth. On a related note, when the noise gets too high on the 5D MkII, you get banding, which has been pretty much eliminated on the 7D. Banding looks pretty awful and is unusable, it was something I used to hate about the 40D, which suffered from the same problem. Again, when compared to the 1D MkIV, this is missed on the technical data. DxO shows that the 5D MkII has less noise than the 1D MkIV, yet many reviews when the 1D MkIV was released indicated there was little in it. Again, while I haven't used the 1D MkIV, so can't comment personally, the technical data doesn't seem to indicate what is seen in real life, based on those reviews.
In summary, what I'm basically saying is, don't always believe the technical data that is available, it may not tell the whole story or it may be of little relevance in the real world. Look at the technical data by all means as a guide, but then see things for yourself to see if a) it matters to you and b) your eyes see the same problem (or advantage) that the technical data might show.

786

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

« on: January 30, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

Smile by afiradr, on Flickr

I find using my 100 for close up portraits is amazing, but you have to be careful, a lot of women don't like seeing everything in fine detail!

I'm not surprised if your lens turns them into a frog .

787

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 05:43:10 PM »

22MP is really horrifying news. I will not buy that. Compared to my mk2 I need higher dynamic range, better high ISO performance and higher resolution. I think 48 MP would have been a good choice. Perhaps I will have to consider to switch to D800 if it is really 36MP.
I have no understanding what so ever for those who wants better dynamics and ISO performance but not higher resolution when it's clearly better with the better dynamics, ISO performance AND higher resolution. You must be stupid if you want 2 of 3 improvements instead of all 3.

The specification also doesn't make sense. I don't see the market segment between 1DX and 7D. What we need is high resolution, high dynamic range, high ISO performance and no banding. Of couse also improved AF compared to mk2. High speed isn't important since that area is covered by 1DX and 7D. Anyway with 48MP (or 36MP) there would have been possible to make a crop mode with higher speed.

So how horrified were you when the 1DX was only 18MP?

Very! But would not have bought it anyway because of cost.

Increased resolution results in increased noise. While technology has resulted in improvements with each sensor generation, there are limits. Most people are looking at full frame sensors for cleaner and sharper images. Another disadvantage of 48MP, would be the high pixel density (higher than the 7D). Higher pixel densities result in greater diffraction limitations, due to the effect of Airy Disks, which cause interference with small pixels, resulting in increased affects by diffraction, which softens the image at smaller apertures. Landscape photographers in particular use smaller apertures, so the diffraction limit starts affecting overall image quality, thus negating one of the important reasons for them going with a full frame sensor. Even medium format cameras, with their larger sensors are only around 40MP, so 46MP in a DSLR would be pusing the boundaries.

788

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 08:46:23 AM »

OK, let's put some of this 7th Feb stuff to bed, or seriously discredit it.

Focus on Imaging 2012
   
Sunday 4th- Wednesday 7th March
109 We are pleased to announce that Canon will be exhibiting at Focus on Imaging 2012.

Come and visit us on stand L26, where we will be showcasing our fantastic range of Digital SLR cameras, including the recently launched EOS-1D X and the award winning and highly coveted EOS 5D Mark II.

Note the above from the Canon UK site about its appearance at Focus in March?

They make a big issue of 'showcasing the 5DII

They put it on a par with the 1DX, (which should have open CF slots to get sample images with)

Either Canon are very good with their keeping a secret, or they are not about to make an announcement any time soon. If they are - it will be the outline specs of the 5D2/ 7D replacement, nothing to actually show.

Assuming the media person who wrote that knows of course, who knows where they are in the Canon pecking order or if it was even written by a Canon employee. Also, it doesn't preclude the announcement of a new line. There have been a number of examples in the last couple of years where the old model has remained as an active product for a while after a new model is released. Again, until we hear otherwise it's all speculation either way.

789

EOS Bodies / Re: Lotto Winner Cameras?

« on: January 29, 2012, 08:28:13 AM »

You only need to register for VAT if your turnover is over a certain amount and if profit is less than 50% of your overall earnings, then in theory, you don't need professional indemnity insureance, although if you're shooting something like weddings, then it's probably a good idea anyway. Although I make a loss overall, the fact that I sell a few images means I have to fill in a tax return every year, which is a pain and my marketing is almost non-existent, because of the time factor (and lack of experience in business).

Thank you for your advice.

Unfortunately my finances are very complicated already. I do perhaps 10 weddings/christenings/burials a year nowadays and to get the insurance plus expenses would take most of the fees.

As I dont need the income it is easier to have absolutely nothing.

My next shoot is 5 days covering the Dickens Bicentennial in Rochester, Kent covering all events including the theatre http://www.dickensfellowship.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Dickens%20Bicentenary%20Flyer.jpg

I know what you mean about complicated, selling a few pictures on the side has definitely complicated things for me. If only governments could come with a way to make finances simple . Good luck with the shoot.

790

EOS Bodies / Re: Lotto Winner Cameras?

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:25:27 AM »

You only need to register for VAT if your turnover is over a certain amount and if profit is less than 50% of your overall earnings, then in theory, you don't need professional indemnity insureance, although if you're shooting something like weddings, then it's probably a good idea anyway. Although I make a loss overall, the fact that I sell a few images means I have to fill in a tax return every year, which is a pain and my marketing is almost non-existent, because of the time factor (and lack of experience in business).

791

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:06:41 AM »

Just to remind everyone:

1Ds3 specs:

45 point AF (not quite 1D4 level but close)
21mp ff (same as 5DII)
5fps

If this was in the 5DII (with its superior high ISO - 1DS3 max is 1600) that would make a very nice camera. It would take little development to implement (essentially engineering and firmware) - and not treading on any other cameras market place.

Which is why a number of the higher profile wildlife photographers had both the 1D MkIII/IV and 1Ds MkIII, so that they had the option of better image quality/size, when the reach wasn't a problem. I know of one Pro Nikon photgrapher who got the D300 for the reverse reason, but expressed irritation that the full frame rate wasn't available without the battery grip and that he wouldn't have bothered if he'd realised.

792

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: January 29, 2012, 06:45:34 AM »

It's clear to me that even the fools who are trolling these rumors are out of touch with the market.  Let's face it, the market for a 5DII replacement consists primarily of wedding, studio, or landscape/travel photographers and videographers.  These people don't care about fps or Servo AI focus (which requires 50+ AF points)!  No... these folks need ISO, dynamic range, and a few focus points spread out on the rule of thirds that work in low light.  So, either the rumor trolls, Canon, or both, are completely out of touch with the market for a 5DII replacement. I personally hope it's just the rumor trolls that have it all wrong. 

At the moment, the main photographers are wedding, studio and landscape/travel, but the main repeating complaint is the autofocus and how it is so much worse than the D700. If Canon correct this and up the frame rate, the improved image quality of the full frame sensor over crop opens up the market for sports and wildlife too. At the moment, I use the 7D for wildlife and the 5D MkII where image quality is more important, i.e. landscape and macro and where I have low light. If the focus and frame rate was improved by the 5D MkIII (or by another line), then I would use that for most things, unless I needed the extra reach provided by the 7D. The 1D-X has already shown how Canon are willing to move the sports and wildlife photography from a 1.3x crop to full frame, so it's a logical progression. However, that doesn't mean they will actually do that, only time will tell.

793

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: January 28, 2012, 05:36:43 PM »

A couple from this evening.


Kilve Pill Rush by Kernuak, on Flickr


Kilve Pill under a Mackerel Sky by Kernuak, on Flickr

794

United States / Re: Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?

« on: January 28, 2012, 04:26:52 PM »

My main reason for getting the 135 was to photograph pine martens, where f/2 really comes in handy, but I have also taken some candid portraits in a poorly lit pub (not really my forte but it worked). I use it mainly on the 5d MKII, but if the light is slightly higher, then it would also work on the 7D in the right circumstances, it just depends on how far away your chosen subject is. Also, while I mainly use the non-IS 100 for macro work, with a full set of Kenko extension tubes, you can get close to half life size and it would effectively be more on the crop sensor of the 7D. Also, the extreme depth of field at f/2 at near macro gives a distinctive appearance, that you just can't get with a normal macro lens. It isn't to everyone's taste, but it opens up a whole new area of creativity. The tonality and contrast of the 135 also helps with the distinctive look.
Basically, you need to decide on your main reason for the lens. Do you want street portraits at a distance lon enough to merit the 135 or macro the most? The answer will probably determine the best lens.

795

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?

« on: January 28, 2012, 06:36:56 AM »

They are both 1:1 macro lenses, so should give equivalent amounts of detail. I haven't used the 60mm, but the non-IS version of the 100mm is very sharp. That said, reviews suggests there's nothing in it in terms of sharpness and I'm yet to hear of a bad macro lens. THe main advantage of the 100mm is the longer working distance (which may not be relevent to your needs) and less potential for intruding background elements, due to the longer focal length (the blur will be the ame though) giving a narrower field of view. The advantage of the 60mm, is that you could add extension and get higher levels of magnification if required, without any loss of image quality (although you will get light fall-off).