September 19, 2014, 05:58:38 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 - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 301
1
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:28:51 PM »
Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?

Did you just call all my photography glorified snapshots?  ??? I like to think I'm at least a step above that. I don't consider my work to be the best, but neither do I consider it to be the worst...

Sheesh...I really don't understand this community anymore.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Chuck Westfall Talks Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:47:17 PM »
Elsewhere, someone worked on a 7DII raw file and found rather clean shadows:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?s=5bc5bcfaeb7070a83fe961da98b20dfe&p=17162418&postcount=810

We need more information. Shadows have to be DR limited to actually demonstrate the full capabilities of the camera. Not all shadows are the same...some may be only a stop under the black level of the screen, others may be several stops. Lifting shadows that are only one stop below the black level of the screen isn't going to demonstrate the true dynamic range of the sensor...you would have to expose a scene with as much or more DR than the sensor is capable of handling to really demonstrate it's capabilities.

3
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:07:27 PM »
This reminds me of discussions on the maximum resolution that people can see.
People get really confused about that for various reasons, but the crux of the argument always comes down to diminishing returns, or "price to performance".
1080p is great, but 4K is better, how much better? Depends on who you ask, how much it cost, how it affects the surrounding ecosystem, etc...
20MP is great, but 40MP is better. How much better? ...

A lot of it depends on visual acuity. I have 20/10 vision with my contacts in or glasses on. To me, the difference between 2k and 4k is significant unless I'm sitting quite far away from the TV. At the comfortable viewing distances I have in my home, 4k is definitely better...sharper, crisper, clearer, more detailed.

Double your resolution from 20mp to 40mp, you could downsample the 40mp image to the 20mp sizes, and have considerably better data that looks sharper, crisper, clearer without any additional sharpening.

Just because some people don't see the difference doesn't mean that no one does, or that the additional information is totally useless and couldn't possibly give you better editing capabilities. I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it. Everyone can put better data to use, one way or another. I mean, the way so many of you guys talk, it's a wonder we ever got out of the film age. If we were still IN the film age...you guys would be arguing against digital photography (and, ironically, I know that many film photographers did, for a very, very long time, until the differences between film and digital were so overwhelming that they simply couldn't deny the facts staring them in the face any longer.)

At some point in the future, you guys are going to be the new generation of "film forever" guys. You'll be sitting on the most archaic digital technology that costs a small mint (which will really be true if Canon drops a $9000 46mp DSLR with the same old sensor tech on us in a month), looking at photos taken with $800 cameras from any other manufacturer, going: "Wow...I didn't think such a low-end camera could take a photo that good."

To each his own, I guess. Personally, give me the best technology possible, and I'll find a way to use it.

4
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:17:36 PM »
Nikons D8xx (Sonys Exmor sensors) are better for landscape shooter.
There is nothing to talk about, it´s a fact.

I can agree with you that when you really can go into the pixel itself. Yes, there is more detail because of the higher resolution. However, in our local photo club and in school, when we all take photo's of the same landscape, we all can immediately see the full frame sensors when we compare photos afterwards, and for sure in combination with good lenses. However, no one can see on the difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800, D810. The difference can be found back when we compare in LR into deep detail, but in no other way.

If I would only do landscape, and needed to buy a camera, and not having all the Canon gear, I think I also would choose for the D810. However for action my 5D3 is still very great in combination with my lenses. I would not choose on current situation for Nikon if I was mainly shooting action.

Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:46:39 AM »
When it comes to the A7r, for me, it would be used solely for landscapes. I've said that on many occasions. That's also a big part of the reason why the D810 is not the most appealing option...it's a very pricey camera, on top of the need for new lenses (which just skyrockets the price even more)...just for landscapes.

Again, my goal is NOT to replace my entire Canon kit. I'm not "moving" to the A7r...I would simply be adding the A7r. I would be adding it very specifically just for landscapes. From what I know about the shutter shock issue, it primarily affects longer focal lengths when used on a tripod when there isn't enough weight to keep everything steady. A lot of people (particularly on DPR forums) have asked about it, and a lot of people who own the A7r have replied saying they have never encountered the issue at all. I have no intention of trying to slap my 600mm lens on the A7r, nor any other long focal lengths. I might like to try it a few times on the A7s, but I have no expectations that the AF system would work well through the metabones adapter. Maybe someday, but that isn't my goal right now...and if Canon can remain competitive at high ISO, it never will be.

The A7r would pretty much exclusively just be a wide to ultra-wide angle landscape camera. Maybe some macro stuff in the long run (with an MP-E 65mm, if the thing would work with the adapter.) The vast majority of my work with it would be 16-35mm, at the wider end, which should reduce the impact of any potential SS issue even further.

6
Technical Support / Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:24:23 AM »
Hi Colin,

I recently (few months back) purchased a 5D III to compliment my 7D. I do birds and wildlife mostly, but I also like landscape and macro, as well as astrophotography. Short term, both cameras work well for the astrophotography, but in the long run, I'll need much more expensive and dedicated eqipment to do what I want on that front. For white field astro (i.e. milky way stuff), the 5D III is quite good, although a bit noisy.

For my birds and wildlife stuff, the 5D III is excellent. When I first got the camera, my 2x TC had been missplaced. I use the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II lens for birds and wildlife. For wildlife, the 5D III at 600mm is excellent...it's just about the perfect combination. Deer, coyote, etc. at decent distances frame nicely, with a little bit of slight cropping and rotation room. Larger birds, like egrets, larger waterfowl, frame decently as well.

When it comes to smaller birds, including passerines (songbirds) and shorebirds, I have found that I feel a bit lacking in reach. I'm always wanting to get closer, and at 600mm much too close for most of those birds comfort. At 840mm things were better, but I still felt I wasn't getting the same number of pixels on subject as I did with my 7D. It was only after I found my 2x TC III, and started photographing the smaller birds at 1200mm f/8 at more comfortable distances that didn't influence the birds behavior, that I really felt I had the necessary reach to get the kinds of shots I wanted with a full frame camera.

For the more budget minded, I still think that for smaller birds, something like the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm lenses on the 7D II are going to get you more pixels on target, which means more detail. I don't know how the 7D II will fare on the noise front...only time will tell us that. I can only hope that it's improved over the 7D and 70D IQ since it uses DIGIC 6, and if it has, I think it would be a better choice for reach-limited photography (at least until the 5D IV is out). If you have the skill to get close to frame smaller birds larger in the frame on the 5D III, then it should still produce better IQ than the 7D II, and at higher ISO settings.

The frame rate differences are another thing that I feel I've lost with the 5D III. Experientially, I know that the 7D's 8fps didn't always result in 8 keepers a second. It's AF system has an inherent jitter that tends to kill a couple frames each second, so in the end, you often effectively only get 6fps anyway. The literal 6fps on the 5D III does feel a bit slow in comparison...and it would feel very slow in comparison to 10fps. There isn't a huge difference in the moments and subject poses captured at 6fps relative to 8fps, but I think you could indeed capture better moments at 10fps, and that could be extremely useful for BIF...so that's something to consider.

Now, my preferred lenses for birds and wildlife are the EF 600/4 II and EF 300/2.8 II. I think that the 100-400 and probably the 150-600 (I haven't used the latter) are still excellent for the budget minded photographer. Ironically, I think the latter two lenses are still better paired with a 5D III and expending the effort to get closer to your subjects than a crop camera...simply because of the narrower maximum apertures.

When it comes to landscapes, this is the one area where I have personally been disappointed in the 5D III. I bought it partly for landscapes, as the 7D never gave me the field of view I really wanted with my 16-35mm lens. I don't get to do a lot of landscapes...all the beautiful ones are many hours drives away,  and my life currently just doesn't support getting out there all that often. I've tried doing some landscapes recently, most of which had quite a bit of dynamic range...and I was rather disappointed in shadow noise quality of the 5D III. The 7D had vertical banding, however it was very regular and easily removed with Topaz DeNoise 5. My experience with the 5D III is that it's banding is much more random, and does not clean up as well or at all with DeNoise. The sheer amount of noise in the shadows is very high as well, and it's not very clean noise...it's banded, it's got a lot of blotchy color splotches in it, and it's more grainy and much more washed out than the random photon shot noise.

After the hype I had heard about improvements to the 5D III's shadow noise quality in the year after it's release, I figured it would have been better than it was. Certainly better than the 5D II. While some of the characteristics seem better, the overall levels of read noise are the same, and it is not any more "sightly" than Canon read noise has been for years. I love landscapes with water in them, which often precludes the use of HDR, or if you do use HDR, it complicates the merge. There are other options, manual blending, etc. that can be used, but it is an increase in workload that I can't really absorb, and even if I could, I just don't want to hassle with the added complexity. With more dynamic range and less read noise (as you get with cameras based on Exmor sensors, like the D810, D600, A7r), you can usually resort to less complicated post processing, and even reduced use of GND filters when on-scene, and just overall a lighter workload (something very appealing to me personally).

As such, I've been seriously considering an alternative for my landscapes, macro, etc. photography. Since I am rather heavily invested in Canon lenses, the Sony A7r is at the top of my list as an alternative full frame, high resolution camera with lots of DR that I could use for landscapes. It's not exactly cheap, but neither is it particularly expensive...and since it does have the potential for EF lens compatibility with the Metabones adapter, it's the cheapest alternative. The other alternative for getting the best IQ possible is the Nikon D810. I'd considered that as well, along with the 14-24mm f/2.8 lens...but the grand total cost on that came out close to $6000, which is just to pricey for me. The A7r is $2300, a much more reasonable price.

Your opinions on read noise and overall IQ may differ from mine, and you may find that the 5D III low ISO IQ is perfectly fine for your needs. If you think the IQ issues of Canon sensors might be an issue, then you may want to seriously consider an alternative package. The 7D II for all your reach-limited action stuff, and the A7r for your landscapes. The A7r is a mirrorless camera, so it's fairly small. The Metabones EF adapter is also quite small, so they can still be quite portable, even in combination with a 7D II.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:24:25 AM »

Remember the rumored price range is eight to nine THOUSAND. You could pick up a D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 for six grand, and pocket the extra two grand.

If this rumor is true, then this definitely is not a D800 series competitor. If anything, given the price, this sounds more along the lines of one of those Canon medium format rumors than anything...price wise it sounds like it would compete with the Pentax MFDs.

I was going to say at that price I might as well go for the Pentax 645z and a few lenses. For me high res is always on a  tripod with LV focus. A 1D series body would have little benefit to me.

Aye, very true. If I wanted to get the maximum quality at that price range, the 645z would be a far superior option. I mean, that's $8500? Granted, you would have to buy lenses, so it would be more costly, but the IQ for things like landscapes would be far superior. Medium format is often used in studio and architectural photography as well.

Dunno, seems like Canon is really pushing the price envelope these days. They may have had it made in the past at $7999, but there are so many high quality options for far less than nine grand these days. Were assuming such a camera would have competitive DR as well...if it is still just Canon's "same old" sensor tech, the 645z seems like such a much better deal (even if you have to buy lenses), and the D810 offers a vastly cheaper option (or similar price including the cost of a lens or two).

8
Lenses / Re: Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:45:51 AM »
"IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths."

That is a self contained sentence that makes a fairly blatant claim which for you it might be true, for others, not so much; it is also a massive generalisation and I took exception to it because in at least one case, mine, it is not true (and I don't believe I am alone). Now you can get upset that everybody doesn't agree with you, that is your right, but I didn't crucify you, or twist or misrepresent your words, I just disagreed with them, and that is what a forum is about. Stop the persecution complex and do me the favour of "Please READ what I write, people."

I don't believe you are alone, either. I just believe that you are in a significant minority. My comment was also not about what I think (I'm personally am sure IS could be useful in such a lens, just not essential)...it was ore about what I believe Canon thinks about IS, and why they might decide not to include the feature (the question posed in the post I responded to was "I wonder why f/4 if there is no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?"...I was offering a reason why I thought it was likely Canon did not include IS.) I'll make sure I clarify that next time, given how everyone on these forums is so prone to picking apart words.

If IS in ultra-wide angle lenses was thought of as essential by enough people to matter, I think ultra wide angle lenses would have IS. It's not that I get upset with everyone who disagrees with me, what does tick me off is the superiority complex you often demonstrate when your absolutely certain someone else is dead wrong. YOU PERSONALLY think that IS is essential in every lens. I think the odds are far more in favor of most people NOT thinking that IS is essential in every lens. I'm sure many people agree with you that IS can be useful in every lens, however I think the ratio of those who do is quite small compared to the whole potential body of users of a lens like this. I'm very confident that most people would simply up the ISO setting to achieve the shutter speed necessary at ultra wide angle focal lengths if IS was not available, given how good IQ is up through ISO 1600 and even ISO 3200 these days (and is apparently only getting better as time goes on). I'd be willing to bet that Canon considers these very same factors when deciding whether to include IS in a lens or not, and if this lens does materialize, and does not have IS, I wouldn't be surprised.

So, GENERALLY speaking, I still believe my assessment of the state of the necessity of IS is accurate. I do not believe that Canon believes that IS is essential in ultra wide angle lenses, where the minimum shutter speed necessary for hand-holdability is relatively VERY low, therefor it is not nearly as necessary as it is in long focal lengths, where you are likely to need shutter speeds as high as 1/1250s to get a shot hand-held without it (thus making IS an essential feature if hand-holdability is to be an option in anything less than exceptional light). I'm not concerned with the individual opinions of a few specific people when making such a claim.

9
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:53:26 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

Your entitled to your own opinion, however it's just that, an opinion. I wasn't generalizing anything, and my assessment of the "necessity" of IS is not wrong in a general sense. Statistically and empirically, IS is essential on long lenses for any kind of hand-held use at what are often even very fast shutter speeds. Also statistically, IS is NOT essential for hand-held shots at wide and ultrawide focal lengths.

There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being essential. Usefulness is very often a matter of opinion, resulting from differences in personal style. I would be willing to bet that far more ultra wide angle lens users, if tested, would not find nearly as many reason to ask for IS to be added than those using longer focal lengths. I would be willing to bet that your insistence that IS is so useful as to effectively be essential and vehemently debate my post and pick apart words is a reaction a far, far less significant percentage of the wide angle lens using population is going to have.

My original post was simply offering a reasoning why Canon is less likely to decide to include IS in ultra wide angle lenses. It is NOT as necessary as at long focal lengths, where it is effectively essential for hand-holdability at shutter speeds that most would consider quite fast. It is very likely that ultra wide angle lenses are being used on tripods or some other kind of support, than hand-held in extremely dimly lit places at ultra low ISO settings. Inclusion of IS is also an additional cost, one which will be passed onto the end user, and NOT every user is willing to pay more money for a feature they may not find as necessary as others. I'm willing to bet the balance is tipped more heavily in favor of those who don't find IS useful there. If there was a very significant demand for IS in ultra ultra wide angle lenses like an 11-24mm, I think Canon would have included it.

Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with usefulness. It simply has to do with the likely reasons why Canon did not include IS in such an ultra wide angle lens designed for full frame sensors. If you find it useful, great! I'd recommend sending emails to Canon demanding they include IS in every single lens they make.

10
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:09:24 AM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

11
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:50:44 PM »
Good news if true.  I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS?  Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

I never said it wouldn't be useful. Just not as necessary. I was offering a reason for why Canon likely did not include the feature, not trying to make a case for why the should not include the feature. At long focal lengths, IS is effectively necessary for a significant amount of shooting. Not the case with ultra wide angle lenses.

I hate it when people read WAY too much into a post than is necessary.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:46:47 PM »
You should know, though, that you do come off as a very strong Nikon fan, given that you regularly seem to try to insinuate that Canon technology is inferior to Nikon technology...for pretty much every technology these kinds of cameras have. I haven't ever really seen you argue that anything Canon does is better. I've seen you make one-liner statements kind of to that effect, but when it comes right down to it...you seem to think Nikon is superior in every respect. That perfectly fine, everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions and preferences...but, it does come off a certain way. It comes off to me the same way I must come off to you, only the brands are switched. :P

I see what you're saying, but here's why it's like this:

I come in and specifically counter some false generalization that Nikon X is worse than Canon X (like the D800 AF is inferior to the 5D3 AF). That requires pages and texts of explanation, b/c no one here wants to accept it. You won't even try the Nikon out, resorting to some basic tests with your Canon that may or may not correlate with the real-world shooting scenarios where I've tried both systems. So I try to explain, post videos, then eventually give up.

OTOH, I only provide 'one-liners' when it comes to a superior Canon tech (dual cross-type points providing more potential detail to focus on, wider base-lines providing more accuracy, potentially anyway, the wireless flash system, etc.) b/c no one here is making some false generalization about those being poor or worse than Nikon. And, naturally, since this is Canonrumors, where Canon people reside who don't want to think they made the wrong decision (that included me for many, many years - and if you must know, I still have my 5D3 and will continue to have it until I've convinced myself from empirical data that Nikon is not noticeably worse in AF precision with 24/35/85 primes - though Roger Cicala's initial data suggest the systems are comparable). For now, though, the D810 has solved many of the problems people have asked solutions for here, while introducing little to no negatives (yet).

So in the end it boils down to this: I don't need pages of text to convince you that Canon is better in one respect or the other. You'll gladly digest it in one line, one phrase even. :) Something Nikon is better at? Not a chance, without writing a novel & presenting irrefutable data. Which, obviously, I can't do. That's fine. But I am glad I refuted the general statement that '5D3 AF is clearly superior to D800 AF', b/c maybe that'll actually make someone try the systems out before being misled by a generalization that may or may not be applicable to him or her.

Make sense now?

I think your misreading things. Misinterpreting them.

I also HAVE tried the D800 AF system in stores. You made the assertion that's all I needed to do to know how much better it is. Sorry, but, the differences have never seemed that obvious to me. I also used my 5D III in a very specific test scenario that you described, rather explicitly, as THE case where I would, without any question in my mind, notice that my 5D III "was basically useless at." Focusing with a short lens on a subject moving rapidly and erratically around. That isn't some "general real-world shooting scenarios", that is a very, very highly specific use case that you ultimately narrowed your argument down to the last time we had this discussion. You keep changing your argument. One minute the Nikon 3D AF system is just better, period. Then it's on par with the 1D X iTR system. Then it's only this one specific use case where you can really see the difference. Then it's back to being real-world shooting scenarios (which I can only assume means things like wedding photography, sports photography, etc....because all of those are "real world".)

I dunno. I'm not working from an empty slate here. I've had a D800 in my hands on many occasions. Sometimes out in my regular birding haunts, albeit with much shorter lenses than I usually shoot with. I didn't like how it fit my hands, and I honestly did not notice any glaring differences in the AF systems. I'm happy to admit there may be some differences in specific niche use cases, as the one you alluded to the last time we debated AF systems. This isn't some stubborn Canon loyalty here. My brand loyalties are pretty much gone...I'm willing to try anything now, buy anything, once I figure out what will serve my needs. I'm quite interested in the Samsung NX1, even! (I doubt any Canon photographer on these forums would be willing to say that.) I simply don't believe the hype here that the Nikon AF system is so vastly superior to Canon's (the one in the 5D III) that the differences are so obvious I'd think my Canon AF system was useless (oh, sorry, gotta make sure I'm quoting EXACTLY the right words here: "ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless"...hmm, yeah, same difference: useless).

I honestly don't care how much widespread personal experience you have with these systems. What I am saying, and I'm trying to be very, very specific here, is: The Canon AF system in the 5D III is NOT "ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless" for the use case you described the last time we had this debate. The use case of photographing an erratically moving subject close up (and therefor with a thin DOF) with short lenses. I've tried it. It's not 100% perfect, but if it works well enough with my EF 50mm f/1.4, it'll work well enough with pretty much any lens I throw on there. I also have experience tracking erratic birds in flight as they fly towards me when using the 600mm lens. I've never had any problems with that. Is it better than a Nikon system? No, not saying that. That was never my point. Not what I'm interested in. Is it "ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless"? HELL NO! You have repeatedly made the claim that Canon's AF system is useless in certain specific circumstances...I DISPUTE THAT. Very specifically. I'm not here to say Canon's AF system is superior in every respect. I'm only here to say that your WRONG that Canon's system is useless for certain things. I've tried those things. My 5D III performed at a level WELL above "practically useless", well above "mediocre". It performed, with my worst lens for AF, rather admirably. It seems to perform just fine with my 16-35 L. I don't know if it's better or worse than a Nikon, but I really don't care. What I do know and care about is that it doesn't plain and simply suck at that kind of AF use case.

Do you understand, now? Your really reading a lot of things into what I'm writing that I'm plain and simply not saying. I really don't care so much if the Nikon 3D AF system is a little bit better in some scenarios, or a lot better in a couple specific scenarios. The same thing could be said for Canon's AF system (either with the iFCL meter or with iTR), and I do believe that when it comes to tracking sports activities, the reviews generally point to the Canon iTR system as being the superior system. Would the 1D X perform as well or better than the D800 in your specific use case? I dunno, but if my 5D III performs as well as it does, then I suspect the 1D X with iTR would perform better. That's different than on the IQ front. On the IQ front, there is no contest. Canon wins, hands down....the place of dead last. It doesn't even matter if were talking about Exmor anymore. Even the rather lowly D5300 sensor from Toshiba is trouncing Canon APS-C sensors, and has more overall dynamic range than any Canon sensor. I'm willing to bet the Samsung NX1 sensor is still superior to Canon sensors.

I'm not here to say Canon is better at everything. However, there are specific things I do believe. Canon has NAILED ergonomics as far as I am concerned, and Nikon cameras simply don't fit my hands. Canon's lens lineup offers a greater diversity of types and offerings, and overall (not in totality) the lenses offer unparalleled quality. That doesn't necessarily mean they outresolve everything...not every lens is designed for raw resolving power. However, for what most of Canon's lenses are designed for, I think they nailed it. Extremely low flare for most of the new lenses that use SWC, ultra fast AF when paired with the 61pt AF system, very high resolving power in most cases (some exceptions, although most of the time it's by design), unparalleled quality in every respect for their white telephoto and supertelephoto lenses with the one exception being the 800mm f/5.6 (I think Nikon's outdoes it, however Nikon's design is nearly brand new and uses the same flourite elements as the rest of Canon's supertele lineup.)

I think Canon cameras are lacking certain useful features. WiFi and GPS in every body would certainly be useful.  I hate spending time to geocode my images in post. Resolution is lagging behind the rest of the industry now, and I could definitely use higher sensor resolution for some of my photography. They don't seem to hear the call for Dual CF or Dual SD. I get their reasoning for both, but it doing both seems to annoy more users than find it useful (including me.) There are plenty of things Canon sucks at. I know that. I don't think AF is one of them.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:34:35 PM »
...
Let me know how the A7s is. Are you going to use it with Canon lenses w/ adapter, or Zony lenses? (Yup, Zony...Zeiss+Sony lenses. :D) I'd be curious in knowing how the AF performance is with the A7s and Canon lenses with adapters if you go that route.

Do any of the rental places rent out the A7 + Metabones adapters?

LensRentals had the A7r last I checked. Not sure about the A7s. They also have the Metabones adapters. I was going to rent the A7r this weekend, but I have to house sit, so probably next weekend. I'll look for the A7s when I do, would be interesting to see how it works with my 600mm.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:31:23 PM »
True...however, one doesn't need to buy into the whole Sony system. You can just buy their bodies (which are ephemeral anyway, from every manufacturer, unlike lenses), and use an adapter to attach your Canon lenses. Stick with the Canon "system", but gain the benefit of Exmor with the rest of that system. ;)

Do you still get the same fast focusing?

For landscapes, macro, etc. I wouldn't need it.

Quote
If Sony somehow did end up belly up...eh, no real harm done...most people would have replaced an old A7whatever body in a couple years anyway.

Well, maybe if it is a Sony.  I just finished a huge shoot using nothing but my over 10 year old 20D, and I got more glowing comments on this shoot than on any shoot ever.  I plan to buy two new (Canon) cameras in the next 6 months, and I plan to keep them for at least 10 years.

Well, I'm a bit different. Body age for me is around 2-3 years...then I usually get a better one. I know that a lot of pros tend to go with the latest and greatest as well, since it's just a tool they use for their business, and therefor it's just a cost of doing business. I don't think that most enthisiasts, semi-pros, or pros are going to sit on a camera body for ten years. I think your average consumer tends to churn through cameras at a pretty fast rate as well, although there are certainly some who stick with what they've got as long as they can to get the most for their money.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most exciting thing at Photokina?
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:27:42 PM »
I'm saying the Samsung NX1.

There's still potential that Samsung could mess up the system with poor infrastructure surrounding the BSI sensor, but it could, just maybe, fulfil the premise of a crop sensor performing in low light as well as your average full frame (at least as long as no-one else is using similar tech).
The 7D2 is still close in most specs so it's not a total landslide. Build quality seems like their biggest hurdle.
I still have a really hard time thinking about giving up the Canon ecosystem, lenses, software, etc... but I have yet to see a weak spec on the NX1, Samsung really hit the nail on the head with that project.

I agree, the NX1 is very impressive. I know the sticking point with it is the 12-bit RAW at high frame rates. That would limit DR to 12 stops, however...that would still be more than Canon cameras get, even with 14-bit files. It'll diminish tonality some, which might affect more extreme edits. However, if you consider that the high frame rate is most likely going to be paired with higher ISO, then your already going to be implicitly limited in terms of tonal range anyway. You still get full 14-bit data at low frame rates, so for landscapes or anything that doesn't need high frame rate, you would have full detail, full precision files.

I think in the grand scheme of things, the NX1 is a winner. If there is a way to adapt Canon lenses onto it...I might pick one up myself. I wasn't really considering the 7D II, but 28mp at 15fps...that's pretty killer. I could definitely find a use for that for bird and wildlife photography. That's more what I think the 7D II should have offered. The quality of the AF on the NX1 would be the key factor for me in the end...but, it does sound impressive on paper. (Here's to hoping it tests impressively as well.)

I am really interested in seeing how this things sensor tests, too. The technology is very impressive....BSI and ISOCELL in an APS-C size sensor? That's pretty incredible...I haven't seen ISOCELL BSI outside of very small sensors before. The ISOCELL tech should improve color fidelity and improve Q.E., so I am hoping high ISO is very good.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 301