November 25, 2014, 05:23:32 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32
16
Reviews / Re: Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift Review (Text + Video)
« on: November 20, 2014, 12:38:00 PM »
Sort of disappointed.

Did not expect the build quality, but was hopping would not have to be stopped down quite so much. 

This to me is a nice to have lens, so right now no sense investing in one of the better Canons but if it has so much softness opened up, cutting corners to add this does not make sense either

17
Sony entered the market with little to nothing.  They had no market share.  Commercial pros (sports, wildlife, illustration, corporate, wedding, portrait) and imaging artists could buy "better" gear from Canon or Nikon.  Sony acquired Minolta/Konica and with them came certain technologies that Sony didn't have to develop in-house.  Meanwhile, Sony put what appears to be a significant investment in sensor technologies.  Finally, when Olympus' management team screwed up and had to sell the imaging group, Sony was able to pick up yet more technology.

At some point Sony would have to surpass the traditional camera manufacturers somehow, someway, right?

Sony's marketing team must be going nuts! with all this great "sizzle" they can sell.  This kind of stuff is good attention grabbing material.

Perhaps more importantly, these things are actually useful technologies and can help solve a number of problems for Sony and bring them level with Nikon and Canon.  I'm thinking in terms of Sony not having to invest in OSS development for their 70-400mm competitor to Canon's much-loved 100-400L.  I'm thinking of all the vintage glass that now has image stabilization (as noted below).

NOW we're getting somewhere!  A machine like this will temp even me to try out a Sony body... with lots of lens adapters...

...for those who haven't experienced IBIS in a Pentax or Olympus body, it can work very well.  Makes nearly every lens you have stabilized, even classic old primes...

Higher-end A-9 model still rumored for early 2015,  Hmmm...

My biggest question remains, given Sony's financial troubles and how in recent years they have sold off Laptops, TV and other electronics, who will be Sony selling there camera business to in 2015

18
Lenses / Re: What's your favourite focal length?
« on: November 19, 2014, 07:15:13 AM »
is that a 600mm on your body, or are you just happy to see me?  :D

19
Post Processing / Re: 16 bit vs 8 bit
« on: November 18, 2014, 05:33:21 PM »
I'm shooting RAW with a 7D2 and 5DM3 ... when I do the conversion, it asks me which one to convert into ... 16 bit Tiff or 8 bit Tiff ---

Imho your best bet is not to convert raw at all until the last possible moment. For this, use ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) which is Lightroom and part of Photoshop. The advantage of this workflow is that it's non-destructive and you can revert anything at any moment. Last not least, you might profit from future developments in the raw conversion process (esp. denoising).

Can anyone explain which one and what is the difference - I mean, I can see 8 - 16 is twice the size (or is it depth) ... I'm not very tech smart, so please explain this in lay terms, basically -- thanks ... BD

The current Canon resolution is 14bits, i.e. with 16bits you're wasting two bits - doesn't matter if you compress the tiff file though. The largest difference you'll see is in gradients, for example an evening sky going from somewhat blue-ish to something red-ish. Using only 8 bits will introduce nasty color steps and make your precious dslr look like a mobile phone.

Note that 16bit files need more memory when editing and more hard disk space, but in the year 2015 of our lord (other year number for followers of other lords) this shouldn't matter unless you're stacking a lot of layers in Photoshop.

I disagree with how you look at it. 

For me, if I am shooting 14-bit and my editing platform handles 16-bit, chances are quite high that every color my camera shot is represented in the editing program

If I downsample to 8-bit, then 6-bits of colors need to be mapped to a different color.

I just don't think I am throwing away 2-bits of color, rather I have 2-bits of color more to assure I am as accurate as I can be (i.e. better to have more room) 

20
Dear Teachers and Friends.
Form all the Details that Indicate = Sigma  150-600mm. is better than Tamron 150-600 mm.
My stupid question is =  Do the better /sharper Lens of Sigma worth $ 1,000 US Dollars more than Tamron ( Which Better AF for all of my Canon Camerta bodies ???)
$ 1999  Sigma VS $ 1199 US Dollars of Tamron.
Thank you, Sir/ Madam.
Have a great Weekend.
Surapon.
PS. Yes, I already have Canon 600mm. / The Great Lens for Birds, But  too big to carry on the small airplane= Yes, I will need  smaller 600 mm.  Lens soon. Yes, I  use 100-400 mm L + 1.4X and 2X all of my trip, and worth it too.

It is $800 difference... Not $1000

May not seem like a lot, but it is around 65% more expensive, not double.

In these areas, I opt for better.  It may be marginally different, but I don't mind spending $800 for get a faster, better build lens that has better performance and sharpness, over a manufacturer I generally don't trust as much. 

I would also expect the Sigma to hold its value a little better, so if you go to sell this lens in 4 years, I think you will still get a decent return, where a lot of people with the Tamron may suffer from the "economical" version. 

I have only used a few Sigma lenses.  I like them in general.  Still like the Canon's better, but I have been on the fence and came close to picking up the Tamron earlier but they were out of stock and since the Sigmas were announced, have not even thought twice about the Tamrons.

$800 is a lot of money.  The Sigma is a serious lens, may be a little heavy for some, but I expect that for a 150-600 zoom.

While the 300 F/4 L of Canon with a 2X may be slightly better, I do know AF will be 2 times as long as well, so would be interested in really seeing performance of the Canon 300 with 2x III versus the Sigma S in terms of AF speed.  I have shot the Canon with 2x before and while it gave good results, the AF bugged me

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: YN 600EX-RT - my review
« on: November 18, 2014, 08:53:30 AM »
Any updates?

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How long until the next FF body? Or buy now?
« on: November 18, 2014, 08:52:22 AM »

Remember that the vast majority (around 95%) of people never buy another lens after their original purchase of a DSLR.


Please provide a legitimate survey/research to this fact.

I believe if you are talking CAMERAS as a whole, that may be true since Point and Shoots do not take other lenses (though some will take adapters for macro, etc)

Empirically, the stat in my own experience is utter bulls^&*t.

For myself, multiple bodies and lenses.
My father, more a hobbiest, multiple lenses
My sister, more to take pics of the kids, even with a T5i she has 3 lenses
A Doctor friend - has about 4 lenses
Another racing friend - 4 lenses

Ironically, my sister and myself are the only Canon shooters in that crowd, the rest Nikon, but I can't think of a person I know casually who owns a DSLR body and does not own multiple lenses

I am excluding others I know who are professional or semi-Professional (actually on that side I know about 75% Canon shooters).  If I go into that realm, of those I personally know, I am at about 65 - 70

So statistically, as I approach 100 people (at least 70% the way there) I cannot think of one person I know or have met who owns a Dslr and does not have at least one more lense, and the average number is somewhere between 3 and 4  (I am at 7 and soon to be 8) 

I deliberately tried to go into thinking about more family, non photographers, non hobbiest, but, those folks tended to break into more point and shoot or camera phone. 

Seriously

I would be more surprised if 50% of those who buy a DSLR do not by at least one additional lens with 12 months of getting their camera. 

I have a proposition for you...

Lets do this.

For every DSLR owner you find that has owned their camera more than a year and has only used a kit lens, I will give you $1

For every DSLR owner I find that has owned their camera and have purchased at least one or more lenses beyond what came with that camera (including those who purchased body only because they wanted a better lens ) you will give me $20. 

By your statistics, this gives me a slight edge of $5 per $100

Professional and Hobbyiest shooters can be included. 

I would like to also give a warning... if you look at polls like this:  http://digital-photography-school.com/how-many-lenses-do-you-own-poll/

9% say they do not own DSLRs
9% say they only own one lens
23% own 2
59% own 3 or more.

Out of 36244
3247 are excluded because they do not own a DSLR

Congratulations, 3263 own only one lens.. I owe you $3263... but

29522 own more than one lens.... OUCH

You owe me $590,440, minus the $3263 I owe you...

I will give you a little break and lets just call it $585,000

By that poll, about 10% own only a kit lens, and in fact 3x as many people own 5 or more lenses.

And given who you are... I would prefer CASH.



23
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Inconsistent Pricing for 7D Mark ii
« on: November 15, 2014, 06:50:53 AM »
I for one and hoping for a nice Black Friday / Holiday drop on the 7D MK II.  Will likely be limited quantities and lowest prices over the next 6 months. 

24
EOS Bodies / Re: I killed my brand new 7D MK2 today
« on: November 13, 2014, 09:53:56 PM »
Actually it would be a flaw of the CF standard, not Canon.  I am sure there are some tolerance and ranges with cars and deviation for thickness, and while there is a little lip on the end, I can see where this lip is not enough to present insertion.

To truly be safe, there should be a guide or from on the CF card, such as a channel that presents a card being inserted backwards, upside down, or in this case sideways

Notice on the SD cards, there is a notch, which while you can insert backwards, it will only go in so far

25
Theater, Concert and Event / Re: The Joy Formidable - Malmoe 2013
« on: November 13, 2014, 09:40:48 AM »
Nice job.  One of my fav bands too!

26
Buy a Sony today, in a year it's 5 models old and worth absolute squat. No thanks..

When VCR's first came out, research revealed that the Sony Betamax was better in many ways than the competing VHS. So around 1986 I bought the top model Sony Betamax and a lot of Betamax cassettes. After several years, Betamax disappeared and all you could find was VHS. My Sony was worthless.

The best technology doesn't always win.

And now, the old Betamax VCR's are worth more than VHS.  I have 4 of them, and lots of tapes.  They were superior in every way as far as recording quality, but the first tapes were not long enough to record a 2 hour movie, you had to use the slow speed and lose quality.  Then, Sony marketing was na├»ve and suddenly, they were out.  They learned their lesson with Blu-Ray, and this time made a inferior product successful.

Yeah.  That is not the reason.  It was licensing, and Sony wanted control and more vendors went VHS and more studios released movies that format because of the numbers.  Blockbuster killed BetaMax more than the 2 hr tape.

Betamax
Walkman
Vaio
XBR TVs

Sony has been topped rank in all of these. and because of economy, market, and demand, these product lines died or sold off. 

In the Blu-Ray Arena, Sony is middling and Oppo is the king.

When it comes to the photography business... Can Sony make enough money to pay for the R&D.

Will Canon, Nikon, Pentax or who ever dump their gear and often superior lenses for a better sensor, some nice features but limited glass?

Sony will be out of the photo business in 5 years.  The question is whether they stay in the sensor business.

Sony is bleeding money.  Their debt is rated as JUNK and there is only so long they can go. 

More then likely they will jetison the photo business and double down on game consoles. 

27
I have shot next to a Nikon shooter in the same light, same set up and pretty much similar lens, and always liked how Canon shoots skin tones over Nikon.

Were you chimping the Jpegs on the LCD or did you take the raw files from both systems and process them identically?

Raw files.  This was part of a Shootout / seminar which included a later review of images, etc - so these were all raw, unprocessed images / Photoshop

28
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:34:15 PM »
... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides.  This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens.  Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II  8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.  :)

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

29
I don't think he's lambasting DXO. He's merely pointing out the obvious in a very articulate manner :)

DXO's individual test metrics are as useful as their overall sensor score is useless ;D Why they can't disclose how they weight their individual test metrics against each other to arrive at a final overall sensor rating continues to be the biggest mystery in the land of pixel-peeping and measurebating :o

In the meantime, the rioting over sensor scores ensues.

They somewhat do.  It is clear that they weight DR far over noise / ISO. 

You could create a camera that has DR of 14 for Portrait, 14 for Landscape and ISO score of 320 (Pretty much sucks in even moderate light, horrible in low light) and then another that had DR of 13 Portrait, 12.7 landscape and ISO of 1600 (Low light monster ) 

Where they also likely fall down is in how they gather DR.  They have their own testing methodologies, but any bias or weight in how they calculate this is then further amplified. 

What is funny is how useless DXOmarks are.  Especially when you look at the build up to the 7D MK II, everyone was so concerned on low light, low light, sensor size, low light. 

Sensor size has no real roll in DXO - they will "rank" a 12 MP in the same as a 36 MP, etc, which obviously a score of 80 is quite different, as well as the least ranked criteria is Noise and ISO where to many that is one of their chief concerns. 

Another factor that I do not see is the faithfulness of colors.  I have shot next to a Nikon shooter in the same light, same set up and pretty much similar lens, and always liked how Canon shoots skin tones over Nikon.    Just a preference, but something to me that matters more than whether one gets 12.8 DR and another 12.6


30
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 10, 2014, 08:53:01 PM »
In my limited experience, that "remove food from face" function can't keep up with human faces of under 4 years of age.

You have to add the NyQuil filter... That really seems to slow down the action and get everything clean and tack sharp

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32