April 16, 2014, 04:49:48 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 - J.R.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 95
16
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:51:57 AM »
To my mind, you can't have a FF Canon without a 28-70.... It seems like the perfect lens, closely followed by a 70-200..

28-70? Looks like a CR1 to me Don ;)

17
Landscape / Re: Ugly landscapes
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:50:47 AM »
I think any landscape can look prettier or uglier, just changing the lighting. Then the position of the sun cause significant changes in colors and contrasts. A polarizing filter also makes an invaluable benefit for landscapes with water reflecting the sky. Speaking of ugly landscape, if you can make a very ugly picture like the one below, you can sell it for $ 4 million.



 ;D ;D

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7 / A7R Reviewed by Thom Hogan
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:48:56 AM »
But...but...it has oodles and oodles of DR.  And DxO gave it a very high score.  It simply must be a better camera than anything made by Canon.  You se , it is  really about  QE, FWC, and  noise.  All this lossy RAW file compression and posterization can kiss my posterior.   :P

Plus, the D800E is just an antiquated mirrorslapper anyway.  :P :P

Indeed ... another reason why DxO scores are plain simple bull which needs to be ignored. They only take into account the sensor regardless of what the camera does to what is captured!

But then you've made my day with your post above ;D The ABC brigade does exactly that!

19
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:00:04 AM »
I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!

A.

I would have wished you luck had you got the Sigma given the AF performance can be a bit troublesome. With the 24-70 II you shouldn't need luck, it is the as close to a perfect lens you can have in this FL range.

There are quite a few users that would disagree with you :)

I'm sure there will be a few. TBF, I did choose my words carefully ... no?

In fact my comment was about the perfection of the 24-70 II  ;D


Haha ... I thought so too but only later and didn't bother editing my post  ;D

The point though is that you usually suffer "bad luck" if you get a bad Canon lens - a very high percentage of Canon lenses work find right out of the box, but you need "good luck" to get a Sigma lens that works great right out of the box.

Sigma is improving but given that they have to reverse engineer the Canon AF to get their lenses to work on EOS bodies, the AF feels a bit of a let down compared to the Canon lenses.

Additionally, from personal experience, I've found that if a Canon lens does not work properly on a Canon body, I can send both to Canon for calibration. With a third party lens, Canon refuses saying it's the third party problem while the third party blames Canon. So basically, I feel safer with Canon gear :)

20
Third Party Manufacturers / A7 / A7R Reviewed by Thom Hogan
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:41:42 AM »
Thom Hogan has completed his review of the A7 / A7R. This bit of his review stands out for me -

Quote
Image Quality: Okay, we are now in one area where I know I’m going to get a lot of blowback: image quality. The number one thing I heard the fanboys all rejoicing about when the A7r was announced was this: “Yes! D800E quality in a smaller, lighter, less expensive body.” No, the A7r produces less than D800E quality in a less expensive body. If you want a free lunch, I suggest you try the local rescue mission.

The difference isn’t actually easy to describe because it involves what’s going on behind the covers. But let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too.

Let’s start with the 11-bit thing. Sony always uses compression in storing raw files. The way they do that is quite clever. They slice each pixel row into 32 pixel blocks. In a Bayer sensor, that means two colors, each with 16 data points). For each 16 pixels of a color, Sony looks at the minimum and maximum pixel values for each and stores that. For the other 14 pixels they store a 7-bit value that is offset from the minimum value. In essence, they get 32 pixel values stored in 16 bytes, when normally 11-bit storage for that data should take 44 bytes.

This is not lossless compression. It is highly lossy. Nor is it visually lossless. That’s because when you have an extreme set of values in the 32-pixel block (e.g. sun peaking out from behind tree edge), you get posterization of data. Don’t believe me? See this article, which describes it better than I can in the limited space of a review. Indeed, every A7/A7r owner should probably have a copy of RawDigger so that they can understand exactly where the issues in their raw files lay. Even Nikon’s optional visually lossless compression scheme does a better job at this, as it hides its posterization only in very bright values that our eyes just don’t resolve.

This factor alone means that the A7r is not equivalent to a D800E. Sorry fanboys, but those of us who want high performance cameras actually want real performance, not a simulation. (I should point out that this compression scheme is used in most Sony cameras now, including the RX1, which is where I first noticed it.)

Coupled with other issues (see Shutter Slap, below), the A7r simply doesn’t match my D800E in optimal collection of raw data. Remember, I used to write a column called Optimal Data, and that’s my mantra when shooting: collect optimal data.


Full review here ... http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/sony-nex-camera-reviews/sony-a7-and-a7r-review.html

So basically ... no, I'm not considering the A7R any longer.  8)

21
Lenses / Re: 1.4 lenses kwestion
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:05:16 AM »
No, you are confusing sharpness with IQ which don't necessarily mean the same thing.

To most prime users, the other attributes of the lens, bokeh and low light performance are more important than wide open sharpness.

Sharpness isn't everything, neither is bokeh. The decision hinges entirely on how you intend to use the gear.

22
Landscape / Re: Ugly landscapes
« on: March 11, 2014, 05:58:09 AM »
Ugly landscape ... oh yes, I took one with the lens-cap on, looked ugly as hell. Too bad I deleted it!  ;D

23
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 11, 2014, 05:56:33 AM »
I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!

A.

I would have wished you luck had you got the Sigma given the AF performance can be a bit troublesome. With the 24-70 II you shouldn't need luck, it is the as close to a perfect lens you can have in this FL range.

There are quite a few users that would disagree with you :)

I'm sure there will be a few. TBF, I did choose my words carefully ... no?

24
Software & Accessories / Re: BlackRapid FAIL - grrrrrr
« on: March 11, 2014, 04:12:39 AM »
40,000 INR to FIX!!!  :O  :'( (623USD)....

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.....  That strap was not worth it!

Ouch! That's steep!

25
Software & Accessories / Re: BlackRapid FAIL - grrrrrr
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:37:33 AM »
Thanks...  I hope they can fix it soon, i'm going to Kaziranga at the end of next week! :(

Hope to see some photos of the Indian Rhinos soon. Good luck with your trip.

PS: Maybe you could test out the Tamron 150-600 while the 70-200 (+2x TC) is under repair :)

26
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:32:36 AM »
I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!

A.

I would have wished you luck had you got the Sigma given the AF performance can be a bit troublesome. With the 24-70 II you shouldn't need luck, it is the as close to a perfect lens you can have in this FL range.

27
Software & Accessories / Re: BlackRapid FAIL - grrrrrr
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:22:54 AM »
Sorry for your loss. I keep hearing these horror stories of cameras detaching from BR straps and getting wrecked and wonder many times as to why I keep using them. That said, this has happened to me as well (in a sort of way). Fortunately, I had taken Martin Bailey's advice and the gear was unharmed.

http://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2011/05/29/podcast-288-camera-straps-and-safety-measures/

Hope the damage on the 70-200 wasn't too severe and you get your lens back soon. They take too much time repairing lenses here in India.

28
I have a 200-400 on order. I should get it in a few days :) at least when I get bad/average shots with the Canon, I'll only have myself to blame  ;)

29
Photography Technique / Re: How can I get this apple sharp?
« on: March 09, 2014, 07:22:18 AM »
you'll need to focus stack and merge the images, there are various software package out there for focus stacking.

+1 ... Perfect solution

30
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: March 09, 2014, 07:20:07 AM »
Another flower shot with the 135mm ... this one at f/2.8

Great!  What flower is that?

Thanks Carl!

This is commonly known as the bottlebrush flower ... Botanical genus is Callistemon.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 95