November 23, 2014, 08:25:21 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 - Apop

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
46
EOS Bodies - For Stills / canon 6d or 7d ?
« on: August 28, 2013, 01:26:42 PM »
Hey all, what would you think as a backup camera, the 6d or 7d.
Does anyone know if the GPS in the 6d works on remote locations (gps devices can sometimes struggle getting alocation).

Most reviews I could find were kind of bashing the 6d autofocus performance.
I am only interested in It's center point performance, if it's capable of focussing with decent speed and accuracy and able to track subjects when I keep the point in them.


Any thoughts on the combo's would be much appreciated,

Goal: wildlife
Primary body : 1dmkiv in case of the 6d, or 5dIII in case of the 7d
lenses : 70-200  / 300
tc's     : 1.4/2.0




47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 26, 2013, 05:35:30 AM »
Good news!, if the 120-300 OS S sharpness and quality (TDP review) is any indication, I am sure that their primes will be winners if they can keep the price reasonable!

Adding a 500 or 600 to my 300 would be lovely, but canon's @ 10k and 11k is too much.
If sigma can pull it off do deliver sharp images and good build quality for 5-7k it might be an interesting alternative.

48
Dust problems or oil problems?,

I think it is pretty clear that the sensor in the nikon d600 is better in almost every aspect?
You could compensate by putting better lenses on your to be 6d than you had on your d600?

49
Lenses / Re: Best telephoto clarity for the money
« on: August 22, 2013, 06:39:51 PM »
The 300 f4 IS, the300 f2.8 IS II is obviously faster, sharper and better with tc's(also is heavier)
But it is not 5-6 times as good..,

 the 600 IS II is sharper, faster and can go to 840 and 1200mm, but it's not twice as sharp as the 300 with converter, and it cannot become f2.8(300mm) or 420mm 1.4,

What is sane?, If you don't earn a living with photography you need to look at the money you be losing when re-selling it in 5-10 years.
 the interest you would have gotten from the bank , and the possibly slightly lower resale value of the lens.

I bought mine for 48 euros, price new is 68 here now, I think i can sell it for 30-40 euros in 5 years.
8 euros + the lost interest i would have gotten on the bank (interest is like 2-3% only here now), makes for a pretty ''cheap'' rent of such a lens. It is the rent I would have to pay to rent it for 4 weeks.

Alternatively you can go for something like the sigma 120-300 Sports, but i suspect that will get a price drop sooner or later.
It might hold on to it's value if sigma will not release another update within 2-3 years.

Beste Telephoto clarity for the money would probably be

300 f4 IS/400 f5.6
70-300 L IS
100-400 IS
Then all the more expensive canon lenses (200 2, 300 2.8,400 2.8,etc etc etc)

50
When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up
That must be the old version.
Actually there are 2:
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM  (around 1350 euro)
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (around 2000 euro)
 
The new version - the sports 120-300 - is for sale around 3500 euro

Jep , but there was discount according to the outside temperature, and it was around 37 degrees Celsius in germany.

This guy practically stole it for 1871 euros :/

51
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 400mm f/5.6 L is not very good with a 1.4xTC, so saying that the Sigma with a 2xTC is on a par with it is not exactly a selling point. 

Ps On checking, I think you need to have the Sigma at f/16 to have it on a par with the Canon at f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=6


I wouldn't use it with the 2x teleconverter, the 300f2.8 IS II is much better with it.

However, the new sigma looks really really good if you don't opt for the 2x converter

With 1.4 converter and 1 stop down, you will have  a 1 stop disadvantage to the canon 200-400, but it's still remarkable for a zoom less than 1/3 the price of the canon

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

Then @ 300mm f4, it looks ''equally good'' as the 200-400 @ 300 f4 ( maybe slightly better than it).
Even on 300 f2.8 it looks close to the 200-400 @ f4

Which is pretty remarkable.
In case of emergency I guess a 2.0 converter could be added, but If you intend on buying the 200-400 with 1.4,
Consider getting the sigma 120-300 S and canon 300 f2.8 IS II and use it with two bodies

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The 300 f2.8@600 6.3, looks slightly better than the 200-400 @ 560(which might be slightly shorter due to breathing).

You would have a
120-300 f2.8 (pretty sharp)
168-420 f4(f5.6 imo) with ;equal' iq to the 200-400
300 f2.8 ( the sharpest, lightest , fastest focussing etc)
420 f4   ( equally good to the 200-400, when the 200-400 breathes you get some extra pixels on targets with the 420 f4 compared to it, similar or faster focussing and much lighter).
600 f5.6 (f6.3-f8 imo) , again more pixels on target than the 200-400 @560.

And instead of a 70-200 on a second body you can put a 24-105 on a third body! ^_^

also price wise, where the 200-400 is 11k euros , you can get the other two for around 9-9.5k, which leaves room for a second body! ( I think most people already have a backup body anyway)

the sigma 120-300 without tc on one body
canon 300 with 1.4 on another body

sigma 120-300 with 1.4 tc (shooting at 5.6) on one body
canon 300 with 2x tc (6.3-f8) on another body.

Im only thinking for wildlife photographers here, it may be cumber stone to walk around with

Or just the sigma 120-300 on one body ,

When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up



52
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New gear.. ultimate combo? :)
« on: August 04, 2013, 10:37:04 AM »
So it's not even new gear? but just different(used) gear :P?

It's like when people say I bought a new car ( second hand ), that is a different car!

But seriously , I really appreciate you posting this

53
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 10, 2013, 06:43:39 PM »
I guarantee you that and shot I take handholding my 600 II with the 1D X would be sharper than an equivalent shot if I handheld the Nikon 600/4 with the D800.

Ah yes, but that could say more about your physical state than the quality of camera/lens :p ( sorry hehe )

The 600 IS II , for me at the moment is still something to work hard for and hopefully own in the future !

54
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 10, 2013, 06:34:06 PM »
This is why DxOmark sucks:

Although the two lenses are extraordinary performers, the Nikon can’t quite match the new $11,999 triple fluorite Canon in sharpness or in lateral chromatic aberration, however overall the two perform very similarly. Both have homogenous sharpness at maximum aperture and possess low distortion and vignetting and excellent transmission, but reason why the DxOMark scores are the same is due to the excellent noise and dynamic range of the Nikon D800 sensor.

The LENS tied the Canon lens because of the CAMERA used!!!  HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.


Well , I just put in the d600 in the comparison to get something which is closer to reflecting the lenses:P?
But it's indeed funny they tie the lenses due to the sensor behind it outperforming the other sensor


Also when you look at
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/1174/%28lens2%29/393/%28lens3%29/891/%28brand1%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/834/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/795/%28brand3%29/Sony/%28camera3%29/831

I wonder how they conclude 24 for the nikon, if you compare it to the sony(also on 24 mp?)
The sony has better t-value, sharpness, lower CA, yet it scores only 22? :P

There the canon has 19mpix, the nikon 15
0% distortion vs 0.2%
3µm vs 7

I don't know if their tests are really scientific, if so it's easy enough to draw your own conclusions based on their values ( just forget the overall score and compare per lens/body).
And ignore the conclusion of them i guess

Better hold on to those lenses and wait for better bodies :-), Those cycles are much shorter and less expensive to replace. Imagine what those nikon sensor would be like on the canon lenses!

55
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 10, 2013, 06:25:06 PM »
Also the 600's

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-500mm-and-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-lens-reviews-legendary-performers-in-the-range/Nikon-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-vs-Canon-EF-600mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-duel-it-out-but-it-s-a-tie


I guess the 'tests' kind of back up what was already reported.
The difference looks quite substantial, nikon must be close to updating some of their lenses (400/500/600)

57
EOS Bodies / Re: Stay with Canon?
« on: July 10, 2013, 09:14:10 AM »
If you are a fan of canon ergonomics i suggest you don't switch

I recently switched from nikon (d800) to canon (1dmkiv) due to better ergonomics for me and a lot more lenses available.

I really miss the resolution of the d800, but in time canon will come up with better sensors and resolution as well :). Lenses I am interested in (wildlife), canon offers more, with a bigger second hand market, and it seems they like the tc's better.

Some examples of what i did not like about the nikon system.

-Ergonomically , the camera felt like it was made for smaller hands than mine, and i really had to clamp it rather than hold it (even with the battery grip), The d7000, d7100, d600 and d800 all had this problem.
The d600 was better to hold than the d800 weird enough, never tried the d4

-Nikon position of the AF-switch ( to switch how many points you use , and afc-af single) , really awkward then you have anything bigger than a 24-70/70-200 on it ( even with the 70-200 it wasn't great).

- The position of the ISO button , basically same thing , it was on top (left side) of the camera.
When handholding a 200-400 on a d800, i found it akward to change iso or the af area, I could not set it to the buttons on the front (it was possible to change from dx to fx there). Maybe it's been updated or I was 2 dumb to figure it out, but ok.

-The glue of the filter holder actually melted away a bit , and the knob of the filter holder gets in the way when you bag the lens+body combination, it was getting lose after only 2 weeks of usage.
I have seen several nikon lenses where it had to be replaced.

-Less secure feeling with bigger lenses, due to ''smaller'' diameter lens mount, this is probably not even true, but very subjective view of myself

- Amount of pressure needed to press the af-on button on the back of the camera, again this may be different between cameras, but the ones i held (d7000/d7100/d800/d600), it seemed to me that more pressure was needed to press the af-on button, when compared to 1dmkiv/7d/5d etc.
This started to annoy me towards the end of the holliday, I was waiting for something to happen , for 2 hours I was constantly refocussing in anticipation of it to happen.


So in the end, even though the resolution was nice, the lens was great, and I am sure most nikon telephotos are close enough to their canon counterparts , the above things and the craving for more than 4fps made me decide to switch to canon.

The shoes fit better, even though I might run a little slower, I am confident I can keep on running ;P
And eventually canon will catch up on sensor performance, even if they are always 2 years behind I am still liking it better.

Also Nikon has it's own fair share of problems.

No 300 f4 vr yet, no 400 f5.6 , heavier 300/400/500/600 lenses.
They will be updated eventually, but if their 800's price is any indication, they won't be cheap.

58
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 120-300 OS S
« on: July 10, 2013, 03:41:59 AM »
Hey, I stumbled across the new crops on thedigital picture

It looks a lot better than the older OS version

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


However, I do wonder if maybe TheDigitaPicture had a bad copy of the older version? or that he possibly had a bad copy ?, Midframe to corner the new S version looks really really good compared to the older one

at 3.2 the difference is even bigger
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

Actually the new Sports version @ f3.2 looks about as good as the canon 300 f2.8 IS @ f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=249&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Which is quite an accomplishment for a zoom .....

With teleconverters(1.4) its also looks good , if you stop down 1 stop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3


The older version with TC's looks a bit better in the center when shot wide open, but again mid frame and corners the new version looks really really good.
That it almost matches the old 300 f2.8 IS really makes me crave for this lens, and as soon as the price drops a bit I will hopefully add it.

I had been thinking about possibly going for the 200-400 1.4 , but this new information has confirmed that I might be better (and even less expensive) off with the 120-300(with sometimes 1.4converter) from sigma and the 300 2.8(sometimes 1.4/2.0 converter) from canon, on two different bodies.

Which gives a lot of versatility as well, and when used correctly could give equal or better results than the 200-400.

Some of my thinking based on the crops

@300mm f4 (sigma / canon 200-400)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

@300mm 2.8 and f4 ( canon/canon)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

@420 f4 /400mm canon 200-400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

@420 5.6 sigma, 400 f4 200-400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

@600mm 6.3 (3002.8) , 560mm 6.3(200/400)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


If the budget was lower and only 1 lens possible, the Sigma still looks pretty good, the only thing where it really misses is @ 600mm, The results don't look promising.

Already had such a thing in my mind when I saw the price of the 200-400, but as I like to shoot wildlife, it is such an appealing lens , hopefully I can stay strong and stay away from it :p

Budget wise, the 200-400 is 11K here, got the 3002.8 IS II for 4800, if the 120-300 price drops to 3k,
That would still be over 3k under the price of a 200-400 and gives 120-300 2.8 , 420 f4 - 600 6.3, which is also quite versatile, the thing to train for is F1 style 'tire changes ', get those converters changed rapidly when needed.

I am curious if there are any people who have purchased the 120-300 S already and could post some samples of it?, do your findings back the digitalpicture crops up ?

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 07, 2013, 04:50:54 AM »
As long as there is a 5DMark whatever camera with no more that the current number of Megapixels I am fine!

I do not need more Mpixels, I prefer lower noise and higher DR. I respect however other people's wishes/needs.

I hope when they make a high Mpixel camera that it will be a totally new model and not a 5D one...

+1

Me neither, Until there is a 27 inch screen(Or imac) with 16mp, I see this happening within 3 years ( which isn't unrealistic), with my poor focus skills this would mean the need for a 64mp+ camera :-)




60
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 06, 2013, 06:56:58 PM »
'Only' 9-10 years ago the 1d had 4.2 mp and the 1dmkII 8mp.
For that time it was great, but now we have 5+megapixel screens, you are looking at almost 100% crops or 100%+ crops.

The reason i liked the 36mp of the d800, is that you got some future in your files, It's really hard to predict where the pixel race for screens will end, at the moment i can lean as close as my eye can focus to the screen and things still appear sharp, so i guess 8-10mp for a 15 inch laptop screen is about as far as is useful.
Is it useful to press your nose to the laptop monitor when the normal viewing distance is 50'ish cm?, I personally like it because I can see detail (hairs and such) which i cannot see from 50 cm, sure I can just zoom in on the image, But i don't know, I like it

It as about 220dpi now, if you translate that to a 42 inch tv screen , that would be 37'ish MP (estimate).
440 dpi would be 75+.

Is it necessary to be able to press your nose to the tv screen and still see a sharp picture when the normal viewing distance is 2-5 meters? ,probably not, but I would personally like it , seeing all that detail up close!

A bit of overkill of pixels on the camera (about 8-10 times screen resolution) never hurts imo, slightly out of focus images will still appear tack sharp!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11