January 25, 2015, 09:37:55 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 - elflord

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 47
EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?
« on: January 01, 2012, 08:25:22 PM »
Then a reputable seller like KEH, Adorama, B&H, there are lots of them.  last on my list is Ebay then Fred Miranda.  There is absolutely no buyer protection on Fred Miranda, at least ebay will refund most of your purchase price if you get cheated.

Nearly all sellers on fredmiranda accept paypal. This gives you the same protection you would have if you used ebay (provided you use the non-gift option, of course.)

Not true!!  He can send you a box of dirt, and as long as he has the signature confirmation, you are screwed.  If I get a box of dirt using a credit card, my bank will chargeback, but PayPal does not cover you unless you purchase buyer protection.

Ebay will refund you if the item is substantially different from the description, but not PayPal.  You can buy a moneyback guarantee from PayPal, but how many are aware that you have to pay to get a guarantee??


paypal have a "buyer protection" program that by my reading of the description does not require an additional fee (besides the standard paypal charge)  I hadn't seen the "money back guarantee" thing you linked to before, so I can't really comment on it.

So no, you are not screwed if they send you a box of dirt. They do have a process that ends with you getting your money back in that scenario (in addition to the recourse your credit card provider offers)

EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?
« on: January 01, 2012, 06:27:55 PM »
I am in the midst of shopping for a 5Dc ... and trying to decide if I should just wait until I can get the 5DMII. Seems like if a good enough deal came along, I'd hop on it.

As much as I sometimes like private sales (because the prices can be better), adorama have several used 5Dc in their inventory, at prices competitive with fredmiranda listings, so that's probably where I'd go if I wanted a used one now.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?
« on: January 01, 2012, 04:00:42 PM »
Assuming tha the OP is talking about buying and not selling ::) , a reputable reseller/dealer (with standard consumer protections)
versus an anonymous person (caveat emptor) seems like an obvious choice. 

If we follow that line of reasoning, getting the new item with a manufacturer warranty versus buying used seems like an obvious choice, so why buy used at all ?

Markets have a way of figuring out obvious choices, and the result is that options that are obviously better for the buyer are priced accordingly. That is, buyers will pay more for the same item if it's sold by a reputable dealer. Reputable dealers will generally charge more because they are not liquidating consumption assets, but acting as an intermediary between a buyer and seller and hence need to be compensated for the risk and expense that entails.

It is not quite correct to assert that transactions on fredmiranda (or ebay for that matter) are to an "anonymous person" for two reasons -- one is that some of the private parties have easily verifiable identities, the other is that paypal accounts are not anonymous.

In terms of which one is a "better deal" (e.g. whether you can buy from the reputable seller and still get a good price), there are some occasions where canon's refurbs are very good deals (e.g. when they have 15% off the refurb price which is already 20% off the new price for a markdown of about 32%). Sometimes you can land a deal on craigslist. Otherwise it just boils down to individual risk preferences (and again, if you are very risk averse, buying new is the best choice)

Sometimes private party transactions on fredmiranda are the way to go because the dealers simply don't have the item you're looking for, or they have the item but are pricing it a long way from the market.

Lenses / Re: Is this about Normal for Canon 15-85
« on: January 01, 2012, 03:03:05 PM »
I am sorry I should of been more specific.  I was only trying state that was not shooting the lens wide open and had it stop down a few f stops.

The reply I gave was to Elford when he was wondering what focal lengths I was shooting at,  this is where the 19mm and 50mm focal lengths came.  Sounds like I may have to use a stop this lens down to a f11 to get rid of that fringing

No, if you read the photozone review, you will see that stopping down does not substantially improve CA when shooting at around 15mm or 85mm. If you look at the picture (100 percent crop from the corner of the frame)  I posted, you will see that it shows substantial CA even though it was taken at f/11.

The conclusion is that to get rid of that fringing, you either need to shoot raw and use software to get rid of it, or stay away from the extremes of the focal length range when taking this kind of shot.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?
« on: January 01, 2012, 03:00:33 PM »
Then a reputable seller like KEH, Adorama, B&H, there are lots of them.  last on my list is Ebay then Fred Miranda.  There is absolutely no buyer protection on Fred Miranda, at least ebay will refund most of your purchase price if you get cheated.

Nearly all sellers on fredmiranda accept paypal. This gives you the same protection you would have if you used ebay (provided you use the non-gift option, of course.)

Lenses / Re: Is this about Normal for Canon 15-85
« on: January 01, 2012, 02:28:25 PM »
The first one was at 19mm

The second shot was at 50mm

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it's  these are scaled down jpegs and not 100% crops -- but I see a kind of blue haloing in the 19mm shot (maybe that's CA after you rescale the jpeg ?) but I don't see much evidence of CA in the second shot. 

Anyway, I would expect visible CA for a shot like this.

Here's a 100% crop of a shot I took, 15mm at f/11

Lenses / Re: Is this about Normal for Canon 15-85
« on: January 01, 2012, 12:51:46 PM »
These were taken about a 45 degrees from where the sum was coming down.  There is quite a bit of purple fringing on the tree's. I am shooting them stop down at least 1 stop some 2 from maximum aperture.  Could be that use to of the 70-300l is and it being able to shoot wide open

Depending on the focal length you're shooting at, you could get substantial CA. I would notice this when shooting trees at 15mm  against the sky as in your pictures. According to photozone's testing, the effect is most pronounced at both extremes of the focal length range and stopping down doesn't make a whole lot of difference. All the more reason to shoot raw.


EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?
« on: January 01, 2012, 12:09:12 PM »
Am I better off going with Ebay or Adorama Used for used equipment? Any advice?
Reputable dealers for used equipment: bhphotovideo.com, adorama, keh.com. The latter have a really good selection of older equipment (film cameras and lenses)

ebay is one place to buy from private sellers though some dealers also list there.

For buying from private sellers, I'd enthusiastically recommend fred miranda forums (fredmiranda.com).

For selling, the dealers will not offer you a very good price -- you are better off selling it yourself to a private party. I'd recommend fredmiranda for this.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview
« on: January 01, 2012, 10:00:08 AM »
You're missing the point. The MFT being better than the 5d2 , lol. This depends on a lot of other things than the sensor, how about the rest of the computing in camera? Do you really think they use the same software and the same computing power in a $300 compact as they do in a flagship pro-body?

I did say the 5D (classic), not the Mark II. Processing power is an example of something that really does follow Moore's law (computer processors have doubled in speed every 2 years for the last 40 years). So yes, you would expect the processors in a consumer level 2011 camera to beat the processors in a 2005 pro level camera.

But I don't believe this should matter a whole lot anyway -- DxOMark looks at the raw files, not jpegs.

Anyway, for better or worse, the overwhelming pattern is that newer small sensor cameras don't beat older big sensor cameras.

The overwhelming trend is that ISO performance is more or less directly proportional to sensor area -- so a full frame camera will be about 2 stops better than a micro 4/3 camera and 1-and-some stops better than APS-C. It takes a long time to close that gap -- even the best APS-C sensors (e.g. the new Nikons and the Sonys) still can't beat the 5D classic in DxOMarks ISO test.

So maybe you know something that I don't, but whenever I hear someone talk about how the new camera is 2 or 3 stops "better" than the old one, an alarm bell goes off (especially when the new camera has yet to be run through objective benchmarks).

You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,

For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview
« on: January 01, 2012, 08:46:32 AM »
Again, the mk4 and mk3 have the same size sensor, way smaller than FF. So based on previous cameras two stops is what you get from the next generation with the SAME SENSORSIZE.

Where do you get this from ? According to the DxOMark numbers, the difference is less than 1 stop: 1078 and 1320 for the 1D Mark III and IV, 1480 and 1663 for the 1Ds Mark II and III. If Moore's law really held for camera sensors, the rebel T3 would handily beat the 5D Mark II.

That is NOT the case here. It also states that the microlenses is used for the first time on a FF sensor, which must be to better the lightgathering to each pixel, now, with a fraction higher res, and less than on the 1ds3 and 5d sensor, it seems the microlens stuff could just as well have been skipped. Look at the 5d and the 5d2, same size sensor, no microlens, yet the 5d2 is WAAAAY better at higher iso's AND with nearly TWICE the res.

The 5D classic is 6 years old. If it works the way you say it does, with a stop improvement every two years, it should be getting handily beaten by micro 4/3 cameras.

Lenses / Re: Extending my options
« on: December 31, 2011, 09:39:16 AM »
because all the reviews said that if you can deal with a non-Canon lens, it is better than the 35 f/2 or 24 f/2.8.

It's quite a different package compared to the 35/2.

35/2 pro: sharp across the (APS-C) frame, works on full frame cameras, accurate AF, high maximum magnification for a non macro lens  (about .25, I think it's the highest max magnification of the non macro canon lenses)
35/2 con: old AF system (sometimes noisy), 5 blade aperture (not as nice bokeh), can't manually adjust focus in auto mode

30 f/1.4 pro: a stop faster, modern AF system, wider angle (closer to 50mm equivalent) than the 35/2, 8 blade aperture, comes with hood, sharp in the center
30 f/1.4 con: APS-C only, some users have AF issues (which means either you return it, get sigma to recalibrate it or use micro focus adjust if your camera has it), borders are quite soft even when stopped down

overall, the sigma seems designed for a specific function -- shallow depth of field and/or low light photography on APS-C -- faster f stop and better bokeh really help here. For this purpose, soft corners don't hurt as much because usually that part of the image is out of focus anyway. The Canon looks more like a "walk around" lens -- good performance across the frame, can also serve as a poor mans macro lens.


Lenses / Re: Extending my options
« on: December 30, 2011, 09:17:46 PM »
Whats the feelings on here, anyone own either, good/bad experiences...  Is the Sigma 30mm better, would a 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4x be better ?  I just don't think that a 17-55mm f2.8 will cut it in the low light I'm taking photos in and struggling to justify £2k extra on a 5DII/III, plus the 400mm I want in the longer term.

I was looking for a normal length prime for APS-C and rented the 28mm f/1.8, and both 35mm lenses. The 28mm f/1.8 was by far the weakest in image quality -- very soft wide open (though it is quite decent stopped down a bit). The 35mm f/2 is an excellent lens if you can live with its quirks -- lack of FTM focus, focus motor can be noisy when it hunts or needs to rapidly change from infinity to close or the other way around, and there are 5 blades on the aperture which results in pentagonal bokeh when stopped down (wide open of course oof highlights are circular)

Keep in mind that for wide shots, you might not always want the shallow depth of field that comes with a wider aperture -- depending on the shot you may need to stop down to get the depth of field that you want. Have you considered getting a flash ?

Lenses / Re: Canon 15-85 for a walk around lens
« on: December 29, 2011, 10:21:10 PM »
The 4-stop IS makes up for a lot of light-gathering deficiency.

The IS will help you shoot at a lower ISO setting, but you're still stuck f/5.6  depth of field (again, that's ff equivalent to f/9!). With indoor shots, shallow depth of field is much more critical than outdoor shots because you can't frame the picture in such a way as to get the background 60ft behind the subject.

I tried a little experiment recently. For Thanksgiving, I shot all my indoor stuff with the 15-85. Usual late afternoon and night lighting inside a home. For Christmas, I used only a 50mm 1.8 shooting mostly at 1.8 and 2.0 (no IS, obviously). Well, the 15-85 dramatically outperformed the 50 in image quality overall.

While I don't know the details of this experiment, it doesn't strike me as a fair test -- you are shooting the prime at f/2 and f/1.8 and then comparing it with the zoom shot at f/5 or slower.

The prime is at its sharpest around f/5.6-f/8 , and gets substantially sharper from f/1.8 to f/2.8,  see photozone
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review?start=1, the zoom is already close to its peak at maximum aperture (  http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1). 

Lenses / Re: Canon 15-85 for a walk around lens
« on: December 29, 2011, 09:13:13 PM »
Given its very uninspiring spec (it's a slow zoom -- equivalent to 24mm-136mm f/5.6-f/9) , it is quite good. It has substantial barrel distortion at 15mm, but that levels off pretty quickly. It is very useful at the wider end of its focal range. The tele end of the range makes it somewhat usable outdoor portraits (provided the background is a long way from the subject), but the fact that it's a slow f/5.6 (that's f/9 equivalent) makes it  less than ideal as an indoor portrait lens. Since I use the 50-85mm range primarily for portraits, I didn't find the extra range that useful and used it mostly in the 15-35mm range.

I'd recommend thinking about what you want it for (walk around means lots of different things -- but what does it mean to you ?) and considering a constant f/2.8 lens or an ultra wide.

I am once again looking for advice.

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon 15-85 Lens and am wondering someone has some hands on experience as far as Image quality goes

My present equipment is
Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L Is
Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens
Canon 50 1.8

I am thinking of the 15-85 to replace my 18-55

Also considered the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS,  which would give me a constant 2.8 but shorter focal range.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is out of my  budget

Any thoughts

Thank You

No one can view the source of Karma.  Thats how it should be, we don't want retaliation or Karma wars.

I think we all agree that no one should be able to view who awarded karma.

But he wants to know which post resulted in karma. How would knowing which posts where rewarded karma invite retaliation or karma wars ? (btw, retaliation and "karma wars" would be very inconvenient to wage if it were not possible to award karma and post in the same thread!)

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 47