November 25, 2014, 04:16:33 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 32

Now if this lens had IS I would consider buying it since I use my camera to make/record videos as well. But $2399 USD? I would like the lens but way too expensive. What the hell were canon thinking?

For one, there is nothing that says IS will IMPROVE IQ.  IS may help improve the keeper rate, but IS may also add defects to the lens in other areas. 

Second, though the graphs are from Canon, what I have seen and the trickle of people who have played with it, this is a sharp lens, a very sharp lens and stellar performance through out from wide open to at both ends of the focal length.  The CA performance I saw in some of the test images of this were fantastic.  My personal belief is that IS is not the end all, be all.  There are a lot of great benefits to it, but there can be many situations, as enumerated through out these threads where IS causes issues and is better to have off.  Yes. Nice to have the option, but I think what we don't always see is is there a trade off on lenses WITH IS versus WITHOUT when it comes to IQ.  This is extremely hard to measure, because even with say the 70-200 F/2.8L and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II... they are different generation lenses, so trying to compare the sharpness is not really relevant, but would be if Canon had produces say a 70-200 F/2.8L II (Non-IS)  I don't see them doing that, because IS is extremely helpful at longer focal lengths... much more so than Wide Angle and Standard Zoom ranges. 

The EF 85 F/1.2L II is over $2000 as well is the EF 14 F/2.8L II.  These are just PRIME lenses, and they are over $2000.  While the 24 is more reasonable at $1600, it still would cost you almost $5000 to purchase the 24, 50 and 85, and while some of these may go down to F/1.2, not one of those lenses has IS. 

What I see Canon doing is creating a Standard Zoom lens that has favorable and comparable performance to their top prime lenses in a range.  The primes will almost always be better, but also at least double the price to own across the range. 

Canon really makes no L lens that is 70mm and below only.  All the other L lenses with IS push to 100mm and beyond.  You will find many of the EF-S lenses that will have IS in shorter ranges, but the IQ is poorer on these, and they are over all cheaper lenses focused on people who are more interested in just getting the shot that top image quality. 

I pose you this question... Would you be happy to have the current 24-40 with IS and the same performance and defects, or would you prefer to have a much improved lens that seems to be a huge upgrade across the whole lens without IS for the same price. 

In a long telephoto... Without a doubt I think IS makes a difference because of distance. 

In a short lens, I will take sick IQ performance because IS is less needed up close in most situations.

That is what Canon was thinking. 

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 05:38:09 PM »

The 70D will essentially be a 7DII  - ie a 7D with improved features, like a Digic 5, maybe even 10fps. But dont expect twin cards and pro AF for $1500

Wait, you mean the 7D MKII will not be a 24 MP APS-C, with 61 point AF, 51200 Native ISO, weather sealed, Dual CF Card, Built-in Wireless, 10 FPS for $1200?????????

You mean I have been waiting for nothing?????

I thought the 7D MK II was basically the 1DX, just with an APS-C sensor, and since crop sensors are so cheap, they can sell it for around $1200 and still make a huge mark-up....

EOS Bodies / Re: IS vs IQ
« on: February 14, 2012, 01:19:04 PM »

IS gives more good shots, nothing more - or said the other way round: If you have enough time you can just take a picture burst, one of them usually will be sharp. With a lens w/o IS you can get crystal sharp images, because your hands move from one point and back - at the peak of this sine curve your hand is steady like a tripod.  If the shot is steady, only the lens sharpness matters (if you've got a good copy, that is).

But at what cost? 

Part of what you are missing is the point I was trying to make, which is can a lens with NO IS be inherently SHARPER, with less CA and other defects across ranges. 

So yes, IS may help you capture a shot, but if it introduces other flaws to a lens, even minor ones, then potentially every image is lesser than the ones without.

Yes, a keeper image, no matter what is better than one with motion blur, but with fast glass and short focal lengths that tend to be shot at decent shutter speeds because of the combo, the advantages IS are possibly diminished compared to trade off in overall image quality.

there are some freakishly sharp IS lenses, but again, like the 70 - 200, they tend to be longer in which case IS has a much greater need and benefit. 

So the question I pose back to you, if the inclusion of IS causes a slight degradation of IQ, say in the MTF chart, especially issues wide open, or at the ends of the zoom focal length, is reduction of IQ?

I say it is.  IS may help you get more keepers when you start getting to slower shutter speed or dimmer light, but for cases when you have light, and have plenty of shutter, if your image is lessened because of the inclusion of IS affects the overall lens compared to the same lens without, there is a trade off. 

So if you have two 24-70 II lenses, IS and Non-IS, and the IS lens is softer on the edges and more CA throughout do you go with the sharper, better performing lens, or do you go to the lens with IS?

EOS Bodies / Re: IS vs IQ
« on: February 14, 2012, 11:51:24 AM »
Let me ask this: are there any Canon lenses with IS (old or new system) that produce a less sharp image when hand-held (excluding, of course, someone who can hold freakishly still)?

I have to say, in the Canon P&S world, I was simply amazed by the images when IS was introduced . . .

Better question. 

Does IS make a noticeable difference shooting hand held at above 1/60th at a distance of under 20 feet with a focal length of under 70? 

Related to the same question, what is the cost related to implementing IS, the increased defect rate (i.e. more to go wrong) as well as in the manufacturing, design, and other implementations, what is the reduced image quality?

Are the better Prime lenses sharper than their general zoom counterparts? 

I think for fast glass and short glass, the potential for IS to hurt IQ, both in the manufacturer and implementation, not to mention cost and defects probably outweighs the usefulness. 

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 11:43:59 AM »
Now 5D2 focus, shutter lag, shutter noise, these are other issue altogether... the 7D is a real upgrade in each of these, which is why a FF 5D/7D merge makes so much sense!

I can't say I really understand this at all. Why does the 7D line need to be deleted in order to improve the next 5D? Surely it would make more sense to just... improve the next 5D. I don't see how certain features in the 7D line precludes them from being in any future 5D. Most of these features are simply because the camera is newer.

I see it as this... To make improvements, really solid improvements to the 7D, it likely should push it closer to the 2000 - 2200 range... Even as so, with the sensor side being so close, and if the next 5D does get higher FPS and AF, then it becomes the question of is it worth Canon having a $3K FF and a $2K or so crop that are pretty much identical other then one is crop and one is FF...

At the same time below it you have an $800 or so xxxD series Mid Consumer level camera and I imagine the 70D become more of a $1200 body and gets an upgrade. 

And really... while the 10-22 is a great lens, the 17-40 is pretty much a swap both in price and maybe a slight step down in IQ, but not by much.   

It costs money to produce and manufacture individual lines of lenses, especially if there is a smaller market.  Makes a lot of sense to me for Canon to promote Pro bodies with Pro lenses the L series, have general purpose mid level EF lenses, and then have some more specific EF-S lenses to fill out the crop line. 

I really don't think you will see Pro Level EF-S lenses, and while there are a few good ones out there, makes more sense to produce lenses someone can grow into and continue than to have to sell off when you upgrade. 

EOS Bodies / Re: IS vs IQ
« on: February 14, 2012, 09:48:57 AM »
Ever notice something about all of the IS lenses the OP listed?  Like they are all long and generally also F/4 or more

IS helps a lot more at longer focal lengths and slower shutter speeds than it does at shorter focal lengths and slower shutter speeds.  Makes sense.

One of the reasons I think you don't see the 24-70 with IS is the short range of the lens, as well since it is capable at F/2.8 and looks like it does not have to be stopped down to be affective, it helps address the shutter speed part of the equation. 

As well.  The fractional shake from a hand movement in terms of sharpness at an object 10 feet away is not nearly the difference of say an object 100 feet away.

I am not sure I would agree that IS necessarily affects IQ, but I can see how IS can be like an Anti-Alias filter and when IS is activated, since the lens has to compensate, it may introduce some slight movement or perhaps even OVERCOMPENSATION which could reduce the sharpness of the lens. 

For longer lenses, this over compensation may be mitigated by the correction it enables, i.e. the fractional correction off is much better than the original shake, but in a shorter lens, perhaps in some cases this compensation or over shooting may be equal or greater than the initial shake. 

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 08:17:53 AM »
I think Canon is consolidating their lines slightly which makes sense.

When you look at the previous landscape of the lines (with latest MK #s eliminated)


There is just a huge overlap, especially in the Crop body.  Yes, the 7D was the king of the APS-C, but the total gap between 7D - 60D - and T3i in terms of features, performance, etc was not that great and a $1000 difference... A lot of it came down to the quality of the body as the biggest differences, along with AF and FPS

So what I see

1Dx (and possibly a 1DsX) as the Pro body line.  $6500 Body

5DMKIII  - The Mid Level Pro - Solid all around, $3000 Body - Really becomes a economic win, really a merging of the 5DMKII and 7D lines, so instead of paying $4200 for a 7D and 5D MKII, you save $800 - $1000 and have it all in one body.  Yes, you lose the crop reach, but this will be a SOLID all around camera

2D/3D/4D - This will be the high MP beast.  It is coming, and my guess is Canon is tweaking the hell out of it... In the corporate minds, better to be a few months slower and have a better body for several years, than rush and be mediocre.

70D - Seriously Upgraded line.  Top of the Crop Prosumer Body.  Better construction.  Weather Sealing, this becomes the $1500 - $1700 crop body, probably 18MP still, maybe up to 21MP, Faster FPS, and likely the same AF. 

Rebel T4i - Top Consumer Body.  Same overall sensor as the 70D, great video, less bells and whistles, plastic body, slower FPS, less ISO and likely not as good AF.

The nature of the shift is really 6 lines into 4 lines, or 5 lines into 4 depending on how you look at the 1Ds/1DMK line. 

This is not a bad thing.  I think what this means is an upgrade to the xxD line, and by focusing these bodies a little more, it takes some of the confusion away especially with the T3i / 60D / 7D which are 3 fairly close bodies within $800 - $900 of each other, which then becomes 2 Bodies with in the same range. 

One less body line allows Canon to focus on better improvements for their next generation as well as improve their lenses with more resources. 

Lenses / Re: Is it worth waiting for an upgrade to 24-105?
« on: February 13, 2012, 07:06:45 PM »
Not sure how soon this lens will get updated.  Not a perfect lens, but I think Canon is focusing on ranges, and with the 24-70 and the 70 - 200 they have a nice range, as well as the rumored 200 - 400 coming out as well...

So to me the 24 - 105 seems like an overlap lens.  Don't get me wrong, I use this lens a lot, but I don't see it being addressed anytime soon. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2012, 02:55:00 PM »
You must be on a Mac.  Only costs me about $200 - $400 every couple of years to more than double the speed of my PC and all depends if I have to upgrade my motherboard as well as the CPU. 

I can build an 8-Core 3.3 Mhz, 16 GB RAM, system with decent Graphics Card, case and Power Supply for under $800.

Now if you are throwing on a 30" monitor that handles 1 Billion colors, then I can see an extra $1200 to $2K, but outside of that, most people in the "PC world" can do seriously major upgrades for under $500

Most people in the "Mac World" can do significant upgrades for that much too.

Though I question if you can actually build a 'decent' system with those specs at those prices unless you use really cheap (low MTBF) parts.

Go with any number of AMD chips.  With a little work you can find some of the 8-Core series for well under $300.  The 8150 I have coming in I paid under $250 for.  Oh... Forgot to mention.

Motherboard, I was a little on the cheaper side and went Asus M5A88-V-EVO, still has nice number of SATA connections, decent audio, and tolerable video if you want to cut corners.  My cost was around $105 on a Microcenter sale

I will round out both and make it sit at $400 for MB/CPU.  You do enough hunting and timing (easily can be $350)

I prefer decent amount of Power.  Most people make the mistake on going cheap on Power Supplies.  I can pick up a Rosewill 630 Continuous Watt from New Egg for $60 (normally $90).  My ThermalTake was closer to $100 and is 750 Watts.

So we are up to $500.

Memory, 16GB - I have not been happy with Corsair, and have been going with the G.Skill Ripjaws series, and 16GB can be had for $100 - $110.

Throw in a Video card, like anything from the Radeon 6750 series, and you be easily in the $80 - $90 range (Mine with Rebate was $70 from MicroCenter)

If you re-user your old case and have a decent power supply that does not need things like power for rails on the Video, you can subtract $100 in fact.  Same for now need for case.

So with Case and Power Supply (Basically everything new but HD) it is around $800

Without Case and Power Supply you are looking at $600

Use built in Video or reuse your video, especially if you have a beast like the Quadro, and that is then $100 cheaper of $500.

Already have memory?  Might be slower than the latest and greatest, but down to $400. 

Many of the Intel will be faster than the AMD, but for bench mark to price, AMD generally is much more competitive. 

And if you do it right, you can make a lot of great improvements with little effort. 

When I rebuilt my system last year, I wound up going with the AMD X2 1075 because I got it for around $110, and it was more than half of what the 1100T was.   Actually I mispoke.  AMD was doing a bundle deal, and I got $50 off the combo of ASUS MB and AMD CPU, so I paid about $160 (or the cost of the MB not on sale and the processor for free)

And for being patient and watching, Got the 8150 for $250 with shipping, and am selling my 1075 for around $175, so in the end, my MB / Eight Core Combo will cost me under $250 (and Passmark comparison stepping up from around 5500 to 8200) 

Lots of systems are faster, but I probably average $200 a year on hardware outside of HDs and my PC stays towards the upper end of the curve. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2012, 01:02:07 PM »
I agree with Maui5150. Updateing a PC is relatively inexpensive. I did splurge this year and add an Nvidia 2000D Quadro card to my 3 year old I-920, 12 GB system. This system now batch processes 1DS3 CR2 files in under 2 seconds each. My MBP is now relagated to travel email and skype and my Driod is rapidly replaceing that.

DXO and PS really like using the CPL capability of the Quadro card, probably the best money I've spent on speedup in a long time.
I'm really looking forward to the Canon 45 MP if it materalizes. If not I'm off to the Nikon D800E.

Well the Quadro is definitely a powerhouse of a card.   I am getting excited for the new PS.  I don't have issues with Liquidfy layers as it is, but seeing some of the performance gains they have made, it looks much improved. 

Main reasons I have built my own PCs for close to the last 15 years:
-- Fairly easy to do
-- Pick and chose best equipment
-- Easier upgrading. 
-- Improved access to technology. 

Sort of like why I like MacGururs for external enclosures : They are designed to be upgradeable, so as USB 4.0 or what ever else comes out, they give you the ability to change out the controller and other components and still use hardware, that for the most part does not need discarding. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Book Shows Up at Amazon France
« on: February 13, 2012, 12:39:32 PM »
Given this book has been listed in the past, sounds like things are starting to move and the date is solidifying

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:54:29 AM »
A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

It's not a matter of of too cheap to handle it - its more the matter of being able to handle it all the time, every shot, no option to scale it down without shooting to jpeg which means you loose a lot of options in post process.    As someone in their second year as a tog, I made very little money the first year, and close to 14k the second, i hope to double that this year and be able to afford full frame but - lets add it up - if 75 MB is the only option, to handle, manage and process that your looking at multiple upgrades

$3000 for body
$2000 + to upgrade computer
$400 on hardrives
$400 on CF cards

No thank you (while saying that ---if i could do I would!!!!).  So yeah, give me size options!

Oh, and lets also add to the mix glass.  Many are already stating that a 30+ MP body outclasses even the best glass on the market.  Canon has already put out their new beast of a 24-70 (given the specs and the price, I do believe that the only way you'll get the most out of that is on a 30+ MP body), so to really get the full benefit of all those MP's, time to buy new glass!

You must be on a Mac.  Only costs me about $200 - $400 every couple of years to more than double the speed of my PC and all depends if I have to upgrade my motherboard as well as the CPU. 

I can build an 8-Core 3.3 Mhz, 16 GB RAM, system with decent Graphics Card, case and Power Supply for under $800.

Now if you are throwing on a 30" monitor that handles 1 Billion colors, then I can see an extra $1200 to $2K, but outside of that, most people in the "PC world" can do seriously major upgrades for under $500

EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 11, 2012, 09:06:25 AM »
I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography.  For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape).  For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera?  Just getting people 2  cents

for the sake of argument let's say the noise is the same (which IMO isnt'. the D800 looks cleaner than the 7D). AT 36MP the noise is lost in the sheer resolution when you print compared to the 7D print. Try it. Resize a D800 file to 18MP. So I fully dissagree that the D800 is not suited for landscape even if noise levels are the same as the 7D because at a whoping 2X times the number of pixels, you get someting in return.

If you have to crop it down, that sort of defeats the purpose.  And noise is noise.  It may not be as apparent when cropped, but by the same time, the image will not have nearly the detail it should... i.e. a decent performing 36 MP shot with low noise versus a cropped down 18 MP shot.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 11, 2012, 09:02:16 AM »
Sounds like from the initial impressions it is a solid lens.

-- Sharp at all focal lengths
-- faster focus than 70-200 II

That is pretty fast.  I will take faster focus over IS

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 10, 2012, 10:43:43 AM »
The more I look at those MTF charts, the more I'm amazed by them. My initial response was exactly WTF?!?!? But seriously, look at those charts. It's better all across the way, but at the edges the improvements are monstrous. I'm guessing this will outperform practically every prime that exists. If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.

the 24 f1.4 II
the 35 f1.4
the 50 f1.2

i dunno its hard to make comparisons from charts but it will be interesting to see the pics when they hit the street. Might make me reconsider it as an option if it really is that good. I was never impressed with the original so there was alot of room for improvement

What is the price of those 3 prime lenses?  $4500.  And yes they are all 1.4 or faster versus 2.8, but the majority of the MTF chart I see for this lens is much improved.  Are each of these primes superior in their respective range?  Likely, but if the images from this lens perform like the chart suggests, It looks to me like many people may pay a little more than they would like, but have a lens that COMES CLOSE to each of these primes, and has the advantage of not having to buy 3, swap 3 all the time and also maybe not need the 85, so closer to getting 4 solid primes in 1 zoom. 

May not have IS, but with this 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70 - 200 F/2.8 IS II a lot of photographers could cover MOST of the range they need with TWO LENSES and you pretty much would have to spend 5X as much in primes to better them across the range. 

Time will tell, but I am definitely thinking that swapping out my 50 f/1.4, 85 F/1.8 and 24-105 F/4 and going with the 24-70 F/2.8 II and my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II not only is less to carry, but should even be better performing, and winds up being only about a $500 upgrade.

Granted, having speeds below F/2.8 is nice and can be a necessity, but what I see from Canon with these two lenses is a real solid covering of both range and performance

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 32