Messages

91

Lenses / Re: First Portrait Lens, Need Suggestions

« on: October 10, 2012, 05:32:46 PM »

seriously have a look at the sigma 85 f1.4
at f2 to f2.8 it is super sharp, blows away even the 70-200 mk2

"Blows away"?  Wombat, you been smoking powdered KR rolled in DxOMark papers again?   

I

That would bei THE idea! Someone should tell Canon to add a little bit of LE or angel dust into their rubber grips. The we would all be a little bit more happy and satisfied ba the product Canon sells.
It makes happy, believe.

The Canon 100mm 2.8 is an good lens (850€ L, non L half of it) . Sigma EX 1.4 85mm DG HSM too (1000€). Don´t forget about the Canon 2.8 60mm  (450€)or the Sigma EX 2.8 50mm DG (360€).
Maybe you try one of the cheaper macros. So you get "two for one" (macro too).

If you take the Macros, the filter diameter is quite smaller. So the filters are cheaper - if you want to to do so.

92

Lenses / Re: Which online-test magazine is testing seriosly?

« on: October 09, 2012, 03:23:03 PM »

Much thanks!!
The blog is interresting.
I know photozone, I sent there an lens for testing. And they did, a few years ago.
I knew The digital picture page, but did not recognise all the tests.

Are there any Germans (despite the photographer from Berlin that has never beEn to Garmisch ;-) ) that know Color foto? What du they think about their tests?

93

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 09, 2012, 02:34:44 PM »

I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway.

Ssssssssshh! If Canon hears you the next camera they announce will only have one af point :-p

back to the roots! indeed....

94

Lenses / Which online-test magazine is testing seriosly?

« on: October 09, 2012, 04:36:01 AM »

Which online-testmagazine do you trust in making honest tests?

I often looked at dpreview, or colorfoto (german magazine). But as they are often critizised, they have to much bias in ther tests. But which one to trust? Which one do you prefer?


Color foto often tests the IQ of lenses @ different bodies. I think this helps to find the right lens.

95

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM »

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...

Dear Mr. dtaylor!

Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.

96

Lenses / Re: Switching Canon 70-200 2.8L to Tamron 70-200 2.8 or not?

« on: October 09, 2012, 02:40:01 AM »

Much thanks!

The camera should have an fast AF, for photographing birds and jets. But I see, it would be worth saving more money to buy an 5DIII, Keep working with my old (non IS 70-200 2.8L). Today my limiting factor is the grain/noise of my 7D, maybe it gets better with a new body. Later I can still buy a new 70-200 lens for the 5DIII.

97

Lenses / Re: Switching Canon 70-200 2.8L to Tamron 70-200 2.8 or not?

« on: October 08, 2012, 06:32:29 AM »

i'm thinking about the Tamron, but i wait, because there is comming a VC version soon (so with image stabalizing)

About your 7D i know it is noisy but the only option left is 5d3 or 1d... so... but it sounds like yours is more noisy then mine... maybe your sensor need to be cleaned?

No, this is not the problem. Canon told me, that there could be a problem when the two chips communicate with each other. But this problem can not be solved. And they did not change the whole electronic inside - the IQ is tolerable.

98

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 08, 2012, 05:16:34 AM »

Sometimes you meet somebody thats alcohol level is below 3%o. So you can talk to this person....

Ok, I believe you, I really don't want to bash it. The only time I've been there is when I've been a kid - and of course the media mostly report the spectacular things like drunken persons being dragged away by the police (I recon they've got foreign national policemen there to be able to cope with the tourists :-)).

For my person, I can say that in our fotoclub some owners of an 60D have problems with the noise. @100 iso it is not really present, starting to be visible >400 Iso. This is what we noticed.

High iso noise is just an inherent problem w/ aps-c sensors, no way around this in comparison to ff. The current 18mp sensor imho is ok @iso400, just still usable @iso800 ... but then it's emergency only, you cannot raise shadows and/or have to reduce the mp size in post to cover the noise (or blur generated by nr). But if you look closely, @iso100 there's no iso read noise, but the plain color areas are uneven and just gives the image a "noisy" expression, too.

My 60D is quite ok, some othery would shredder it, if they would have enough money to buy another Camera. But my 7D is catastrophic to similar cameras other persons own. 3 times @ Canon support. Just a little bit an better  IQ.  It was a scorn, when they wrote that I bought a "Montagsgerät" and that they are sorry about that....
I learned, that in future I have to be more careful in selecting the Camera body.


Information: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 - Comparison about noise between different cameras. Interesting

99

Lenses / Re: Switching Canon 70-200 2.8L to Tamron 70-200 2.8 or not?

« on: October 08, 2012, 05:01:55 AM »

Hello, can you be more specific about your IQ problem ? You speak about not being happy with your camera and want to change the lens. These are 2 different problems. I can't talk about the 7D since I don't have one, but I can give you my opinion about the lens.

I am not sure you would improve so much the image quality with the Tamron, you can go here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=470&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

to get an idea about IQ of the 2 lenses compared. Some focals seem to be a bit better with the Tamron, some better with the Canon. The main advantage of the Tamron is it's closer focusing distance, that gives it more possibilities, BUT you would loose the USM AF and the quality construction of the Canon L.

Honestly, I think the Canon 70-200mm L 2.8 is not the issue here. Yes they are newer and slightly sharper lenses nowadays on the market, but unless you would want to upgrade for 70-200mm 2.8 II, (which I agree Canon has once again a bit overpriced), I think you will regret the field qualities of the Canon.

Thousands of pro photographers have found the Canon 70-200 f2.8 being a good enough lens for almost everything, IMO the switch to Tamron won't change much to you IQ. Maybe you got a bad one, but on my own I have the IS version of yours, and I don't think the V2 of this lens would change my IQ in such proportions it's worth the money. To be honest I never thought about replacing it, as it still does the job more than I would have expected.

This being said more information about your IQ problem would help to give more specific answers.

My problem is, that my 7D suffers from much noise (grainy picture) >400 Iso and low contrast. These problems could not be corrected by the Canon support. So I´m looking for another fast Camera.

So, when I buy a new Camera, I am thinking of buying a new 70-200 - if it would improve the IQ of the new Camera. I read about the Tamron, that should have an excellent picture quality - at an low price. So, I posted
my question - maybe one formu customer knows if the Tamron is much better than my old Canon lens.
 
Until now, I don´t know which Camera to buy. Canon does not offer an goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw that you are able to buy. It should have an fast AF and should be usable for landscape too.


Much thanks

100

Lenses / Switching Canon 70-200 2.8L to Tamron 70-200 2.8 or not?

« on: October 08, 2012, 04:02:47 AM »

Dear community!

For more then a decade I´m using an Canon 2.8 70-200mm L lens (sometimes with an 1.4 extender). I´d like to buy a new camera body as an exchange for my unsatisfying 7D. (7DII?, 6D?, 5D3?)

My question is: Is the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 Di SP LD Macro superior to my old Canon 70-200? Could I get an improved IQ with this lens?
Is this newer lens better for am crop sensor or an FF sensor then this old lens? more sharp?

(I do not want to buy an new Canon 70-200 2.8 L  II lens. For me, the 3 times higher price is a "no go" for my wallet. For this money I´d buy other equipment).

Thanks

101

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 08, 2012, 03:52:41 AM »

@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
 

But doesn't conversation on Oktoberfest mainly consist of "Prosit!", "Gsuffa" und "Guäääääää" :->?

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

I'm sure they don't do anything that could ruin their public image when discovered, so "specially adjusted" will mean only that they make sure it's the best "normal" sample of a batch with absolutely no known flaws.

Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

The 7d is known to have a large variance esp. with banding, obviously because of issues with the dual readout channels. But I never read the 60d noise was different across samples? On my 60d the iso100 noise is low, too, it's just that I'd have expected to do better if I've got a tripod and no end of exposure time.

5D3 or bust for me.

...And that's why Canon marketing achieved its goal: Release an entry level ff w/o cannibalizing the 5d3, every person with more than one Canon lens who can somehow cough up €3000 will bit the bullet and save for the (imho still overpriced) 5d3, esp. when the 5d2 is gone.

Sometimes you meet somebody thats alcohol level is below 3%o. So you can talk to this person....

For my person, I can say that in our fotoclub some owners of an 60D have problems with the noise. @100 iso it is not really present, starting to be visible >400 Iso. This is what we noticed.

I´m even not sure, wheter the selection of Cameras that are tested, happens or not. But this problem is present everywhere. Just scour the www. You can find a lot of products where test have been excellent, but useres claim problems....

102

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 08, 2012, 03:07:05 AM »

I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.


[/quote]

That's a fair assessment. I really, really like Canon's lens library and have a significant investment there, so I'll see what the next year or two brings. (I also hate Nikon ergonomics, but I could adapt.) But I'm much more frustrated with their pricing than their products.
[/quote]
+1

103

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 07, 2012, 05:36:05 PM »

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

 

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1

I use Canon since I bought an used A-1 in the middle of the 80ies, before I started flying at the BW. After that I used the T-90 and The Eos 5, 3 and 1V. All very good Cameras. Innovative and worth the money you had to pay for it.
But meanwhile, other competitors are more innovative and producing Cameras that are even cheaper and better than Canon Cameras.

I the company I´m working, we switched to Nikon, and that was the right decision. As I was one of the proponents to buy the EOS 5D Mk3, I was dissatisfied by the IQ. There was an visible difference in the IQ to the D800.

104

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 07, 2012, 01:00:15 PM »

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
 

105

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]

« on: September 27, 2012, 06:32:29 PM »

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.  I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm.  for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6.  why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1.  right behind you on that.

+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...