December 18, 2014, 07:47:57 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 - vscd

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:17:20 AM »
UK has an other timezone ;)   Literally.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:05:44 AM »
Just thinking out loud, but what do people think of the likelihood that Canon will condense the current 50L and 50 f/1.4 into one L option with a f/1.4 aperture?

Why do you think that a new 50mm 1.4L IS would replace the "normal" 50mm 1.4? Did the 100 2.8L Makro replace the "normal" 100mm 2.8? The L-Version will be weathersealed, with IS, red line, 9 Blades, ETTL-II and sharp wide open.

There are a lot of coexisting focal lenghts with L or Non-L. A further example would be the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5,6L IS USM vs. the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5,6 IS USM.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 07:57:57 AM »
As the old link is really not only broken, but deleted, I think there will be a new 50mm 1.4L IS @Photokina this year ;)    Maybe Canon could even do a 50mm L 1.2 II IS, which would be the only real answer to the OTUS or Sigma. They're able to do so...

...I would consider buying one if the price is below 1500€.

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:07:52 PM »
In my point of view a good 50 1.4L IS would be a great lense in the lineup or maybe a 1.8L IS. The 1.2L could exist for artistic purposes and the plastic 50mm 1.8 II is still a cheap entrypoint. The 50mm 1.4 would be replaced.

For me it's far more important to get a smaller fast standard-prime. I could easily skip one or two lines of MTF... the pixelpeeping with an Zeiss OTUS is fantastic, but I don't want to carry 2 pounds of 12 lenses in 10 groups.

I don't need a lense longer than a 100mm L Makro for daily use...

Better a 50mm, sharp wide open @f1.8 or f2 than a 1.2/1.4, which is usable after stepping 2 stops down. That's the reason why I like the 40mm STM. It's just f2.8 which is sad for separating objects, but those f2.8 are just awesome and useable. A good lense is a lense you're willing to carry with you.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji Full Frame X-PRO2 coming 2015
« on: July 10, 2014, 05:54:17 PM »
Fuji's advantage over the µ4/3 proposition is that their larger APS-C sensor and optimal in-camera data processing result in very good image quality up to ISO 6400 while µ4/3 are good only up to ISO1600.

There is so much wrong in this sentence that I have to quote it. The APS-C Size is exactly between the MFT and the FF. So you blow up the advantage to MFT by 2 stops but you can't accept any advantage to the equally higher FF-Sensor? What is wrong with you Fuji-Fanboys? There are so many good competitors like f.e. Pentax which can easily compete with Canon/Nikon but the users just use them and live in coexistence. Do you have to prove something? To compensate? Just make pictures and prove everyone wrong with the results.

I like Fuji, infact, I love my GX680. I adore Velvia and the X100S is one of the beste cams in the last half Decade but please read the facts, too. Fact is that Fuji X-Trans Sensors are cheating on the ISO. ISO6400 on a X-T1 is nearly a real ISO3200. This is even the highest (real) ISO you can get with shooting RAW. You can't even shoot RAW with more than (fake-)ISO 6400, just JPEGs. A Fullframe 5DM3 is clean and useable @real ISO12800. This is your 2stop difference. Do we need this? Maybe. But please compare fair, ok?

I think Fuji has already realized that they are better served by sticking to their APS-C X-mount platform, where they can deliver on those unique value propositions as long as CaNicon keep on feeding APS-C photographers with second-rate equipment.

This is bull, too. You can use every fullframelense on the Canon APS-Cams. So just grab a decent L-Lense and go out with it. You can use the Canon 35mm f2 IS as Standard, getting Images on par with the fujilense. Cheaper and with Image Stabilisation. You don't have to use the cheap Kit-Lenses or EF-S... but you could. And if you want to get serious on APS-C, just take a 7D.

In the mean time they can work at converting more and more DSLR customers to mirrorless by releasing more top-class lenses and improving further the performances and specs of cameras to come.

No one convinced me for mirrorless systemcameras until now. I just heard marketing-blah-blah. The important and good X-lenses are as pricey and heavy as the Canon-ones and why do I need a small camera, which is lying in my hand like a toy? I can't nail a pin with a spoon.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji Full Frame X-PRO2 coming 2015
« on: July 10, 2014, 04:59:36 AM »
There are rumours about problems with Fuji X-Trans and portraits @ISO400 or above (see picture). I've heard Fuji is working on something new, maybe a Sony-Coop. As long as they don't fix it I'll stay with Canon.  8)

The difference between a 14mm and 17mm is huge, don't underestimate this. Fixing the distortion in post is of course possible, but As I told, I'm working with film, so the lens has to be good, not lightroom ;)

Yepp, the samyang 14mm lens is a hell of a lens for the price. Sharp and nice build. Just the barreldistortion is really strong. So don't try to make architectural pictures with it, at least no on film ;)

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: June 28, 2014, 03:45:14 PM »
Nice pictures... the HDR is not the maineffect but just a way to get more details into the shadows. Great work.

are you still glad when you're pushing out the shadows in post processing knowing that you've spent a fortune on buying a great camera with almost the same sensor as the previous model?
It's not the same sensor, you gained a lot more ISO-performance. Canon had just another approach for their new sensors. While Nikon (=Sony) tried to improve the dynamic range and resolution, Canon was into the ISO-direction the last few years. The next step for Canon will be the DR again, I guess.

>Doesn't canon sensors need improvements?
They did, but not in your wanted direction. They invented the DPAF on the 70D for example... an invention which easily catches a lot of engineers. As a company you have ressources for innovation, but you have to choose your next steps. A DR of maybe 11.5-12 stops should be enough for the moment, ISO 1600 wasn't at that time.

>I don't care who makes it, i care on doing my job better.
Your job depends on 1 or 2 stops of DR? Did you try to use HDR or gradient Filters? I know that a better sensor can save a lot of work, but I can't imagine that there are unresolveable jobs for a 1DX/5D3.

Don't complain if canon re-sells the same sensor in the next model with USB3 and 4k as a new feature which is useless for photographers.
I'm not too lucky with Canon in the last few years, but remember that there was a tsunami, a radioactive fallout (especially for canon-locations) and a cut down power-support for companies. Let them come out with a new performance next year and everyone is happy again. Sigma is a good example for that.

By the way, canon is still selling more bodies than anyone else... they make something right, I think. And their sensors aren't oily  ;D

- faster SD card slot
- dual SD (get rid of that ancient and expensive CF)

Your position. Hopefully they won't do that.

- and yes.. MORE DR please.. kill that banding in the shadows, buy sensors from Sony for Christ sake as nikon does.
- more mp like 40mp (and 20mp mRAW) that those great lenses such as 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 can handle!

Why do you need a Canon, just grab the latest Nikon with your fancy Toshiba/Sony/Whatsoever-Sensor and get lucky. I don't understand why you bought a 5DM3 when everything inside is wrong for you, even the Memorycard.

You'll get an equally good 24-70 or 70-200@Nikon. And who needs 40MPixel? Get a Pano-tool. Understand it. Use it.

P.S. I'm glad that there are companies out there who invent their own sensors, like Sigma or Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 07:24:48 PM »
Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?

Hmm, I just had one for 2 weeks... and was surprised about the quality. No, I like the Fuji-System, especially the X100S. I use Fuji since my GX680 and my first roll of Velvia. But I don't like the people, who go to the new system and nag on every older DSLR they see. Why can't they live in coexistance? Why do we all need mirrorless boxes? Why electronic viewfinders? Why do they have to masturbate with their 56mm 1.2 under my nose after they sold their Canon 60D, where they never bought any decent lense to compare with? Of course a new formula of 2014 can perform better than a 85 f1.8, especially for 3 times the price. An OTUS would outrule the Fuji in any point... at another 3 times higher price.

But if you ask...

I don't like the feel of the (X-T1) camera with a longer lense, I need a massive grip. The best one was on my Zenza Bronica ETRSi, the worst on my Merrill DP3. Why should I use a camera with a top-heavy lense attached to it? I fully adore the X100S, the X100S is coherent in itself. The X-T1 is a compromise for me. I don't need a cropped sensor in a smaller body for some nearly uncountable weight-advantage. I use a 1D or 5D for serious pictures and a X100S for street photography. The mirrorless system is a nice step into the right direction, but for MFT or APS-C, only. For Fullframe-Cameras, with natually bigger lightcircles and lenses the whole concept is bully. No one needs a Body in a size of a rear end cover. It's the same horseplay as my 40mm Pancake looks on my EOS-1N HS. It doesn't fit nor makes it sense  ;)

Those are theoretical numbers. Remember the downhill after the Canon 60D got a SD-Card Slot, they never catched up again to his predecessor with CF-Card (Canon 50D). On the Cards I always read high Transferrates, but on the field the CF-Cards never let me down. The SD-Cards did. And they are too fragile.

I think a CFast could be a new standard, but it would be nice if I could use my old Cards in the same slot, too.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 05:29:26 PM »
Hmm, I just see repeated marketingslogans... but let's check some points...

>Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses.
Wrong. The more accurate AF is just because you use contrast based Focus, you can do this with DSLRs, too. It's called liveview. On the 70D even in Dual-AF.

>They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.
Lighter is true, smaller... maybe, with the given limits and a new design. Shock resistant? I guess a 1DX is more shockresistant than any Fuji. Where do you get such claims?
>They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable
The mirror-based technology is grown up since more than a half century. Photographs felt in vietnam, got shocked by earthquakes or took every sport-activity you could imagine. Do you really think it's the weak spot of a camera? Especially with semipro business or amateur? Why is there a shuttercount but no count for a mirrorlifetime? Right, even the shutter dies before a mirror does. And the shutter is still there, most likely a cheap one.
>The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.
Calculate again with the required EVF.

Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image  sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...

First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.

It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Not a problem of the mirrorbox. You can do this with any DSLR, too. A DLSR with Mirror open *is* a mirrorless. The only difference is a blacked out viewfinder, but you could compensate this the same way the mirrorless does (EVF/LV).

Mirrorless has only advantages

I think people are just repeated the Sh*t they read in the magazines. This is just another pig, chases through the village. I'm not of yesterday or want to nag on anyone in this forum, but please open up your mind and think for yourself. Compare the new trends with the translucent mirror of Sony/Canon or Rangefinders. They all prayed their advantages and they truly have. But always see what's the *real* benefit of it. I just see the advantages in weight and maybe the size if you create a new camera with full take of the advantages.

Remember, the size has sideeffects. The accus are small and you carry 2 or 3 of em with you (300 pics CIPA with a Fuji-XT1  is a darned cheek). And if you want a nice handling you make it bigger with a vertical grip. Then count your bag-weight again.

The cam is a tool, not more. If a mirrorless does it for you, you should take it. For me, I'm not convinced. Not after I thought twice.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 12:09:10 PM »
Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.

So, as a photocompany you could invest in a new lens-system, let's say a mirrorless EF like the EF-M, but with fullframe lenses possible. The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R.    Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution.

So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor. The formfactor of a smaller body is something which I like on holydays but hate while working serious. You may laugh, but a Fuji is to small for me...      you don't have back/frontfocus. On this point I'm in, but you have liveview on actual DSLRs, too.

Don't believe the hype. It's a nice idea for smaller Crop-Sensors with new bayonetts... but nothing for a serious fullframe-cam, except a fixed lense (like the Sony RX-1). Even the framerate is nothing to be concerned 'bout, anymore. For me, the work with an optical viewfinder is still the best choice, even good EVF have something like a "DriveByWire". You won't see this on the photo, but for me the future is a mirror/EVF Combination. I would like to see the data projected to the mirror if i need them.

The Fuji-Cams are nice indeed. Fuji prooved for ages that they're capable of doing the finest hardware around, but on the other hand... the fanboys are getting booring. Yepp, the 56mm 1.2 is a hell of a lense, but creating a standard-prime around that focal length with a APS-C lightcircle... is not really that hard. Even not with that pricetag given. Creating a 85mm 1.2 is somewhat harder. And stopped down to the equiv-DOF (@f1.8), the Canonlense should be competing.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13