Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:22:54 PM »

The end product is not the same. Simple FACT of the matter is...you could NEVER get that close to a courting Grebe couple in the first place! You would scare them off LONG before you ever got close enough to photograph them as more than two black and white specks with the A1400. That all assumes you aren't arrested first for encroaching upon the habitat of a protected bird.

Your hypothesis only works in a dream world where there are no environmental and wildlife protection laws, and in which birds are completely unafraid of idiotic human activity. You CAN NOT get that close to a Grebe, especially a courting couple. There are matters of respect that must be addressed. If I saw a photographer like you out in the wild at some protected migrating bird stopover, sloshing through the water so get a snapshot of a couple grebes, I'd happily nark on him and get his ass arrested for being a disrespectful jackass.

You can wish and hope all you want, but it's still absurd to think you can literally "get the shot", hell "get any shot" with a $100 P&S wide angle camera, in any situation. You can't.

At this point, it's obvious your just trolling. Your making absurd arguments just for the sake of making absurd arguments. That's fine...it only really hurts you. I think it's clear no one here believes a word you are spouting anymore, so I'm quite happily done with the conversation.

It is obvious that RLP has never tried bird photography and so is talking so ignorantly... Sad...

It's not just this, though. Same kind of debate ensued regarding a comment I made about the closing gap between FF and MF. Similar, anecdotal, non-factual comments there as well, and generally debating a point I never made. Not sure why he persists in his flawed arguments...but I've grown tired of trying.

47

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:20:11 PM »

The Canon lenses without TC's are noticeably better.  TC's magnify any flaws, so the difference becomes grossly apparent.
The lack of Nikon top quality telephoto lenses is one reason I sold my D800.  They are finally upgrading them (example 80-400, 800), it will take years though to get to where Canon is today.

Not to mention come close to price of Canon glass.  Perhaps if their lenses were white (not black) the image qulaits would be better 

The list price of Nikon's new 800mm lens is $17,899. That stomps all over Canon's 800mm lens, which is $13,499, and still more than Canon's newest 600mm, which clocks in at $12,999.

It doesn't matter who manufactures it...new lenses with top of the line, CURRENT optical technology cost. If Nikon starts producing lenses of similar caliber to Canon's lenses, they certainly won't be cheaper. If their new 800mm is any indication, they could be considerably more expensive.

48

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 11:07:27 AM »

A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.

Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo. 

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.

The end product is not the same. Simple FACT of the matter is...you could NEVER get that close to a courting Grebe couple in the first place! You would scare them off LONG before you ever got close enough to photograph them as more than two black and white specks with the A1400. That all assumes you aren't arrested first for encroaching upon the habitat of a protected bird.

Your hypothesis only works in a dream world where there are no environmental and wildlife protection laws, and in which birds are completely unafraid of idiotic human activity. You CAN NOT get that close to a Grebe, especially a courting couple. There are matters of respect that must be addressed. If I saw a photographer like you out in the wild at some protected migrating bird stopover, sloshing through the water so get a snapshot of a couple grebes, I'd happily nark on him and get his ass arrested for being a disrespectful jackass.

You can wish and hope all you want, but it's still absurd to think you can literally "get the shot", hell "get any shot" with a $100 P&S wide angle camera, in any situation. You can't.

At this point, it's obvious your just trolling. Your making absurd arguments just for the sake of making absurd arguments. That's fine...it only really hurts you. I think it's clear no one here believes a word you are spouting anymore, so I'm quite happily done with the conversation.

49

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 12, 2013, 11:39:03 PM »

"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient. 

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.

That is not a point, it's an assumption. Your trying to turn into fact, without any actual evidence, the IDEA in your head that a photo from an A1400 could equal or (laughably!) "better" said shot from a super pricey combo. In the end, composition is a composite of factors...including depth of field, background blur, perspective, etc. You cannot achieve all of that with any old gear...you need the right gear to get the most flattering or intriguing or otherwise interesting shots that also achieve nuanced artistic aspects.

You assume that the A1400 is just as good as (or "better" than ) $30,000 worth of equipment explicitly designed to maximize your potential in perfecting all of those nuanced artistic aspects in your work must be tested. Your still providing anecdotes. No one has missed the point...it hasn't flown over anyone's heads. It's clear from the weed comments flying around lately that the point has smacked everyone in the face just one too many times (BTW, I thought the "weed dance" comment was pretty darn good! LOL  ) The problem is that your argument has no basis in fact...it is an anecdote. If you want people to believe you...you need to prove your point. You need to provide some actual physical evidence that people can evaluate.

I'd do the same...I'll point you to Art Morris blog "Birds as Art" (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/) who's photography is all done with the Canon 1D X and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs), or Alan Murphy's "favorites" (http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/favorites.htm), which are made with a Nikon D3x and a 600mm f/4 lens (often with teleconverters, according to his eBooks.) Both of these men, as well as many other men and women whom I could link if necessary, are the top professionals in the world in the bird photography niche, all of whom have years, even decades more experience than RL, myself, or probably the majority of members on this forum. The most ubiquitous kit among them? Nikon Dx series or Canon 1D series with a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, sometimes the EF 800mm f/5.6, frequently with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.  That is quite literally the best equipment money can buy these days, and their photography clearly demonstrates the power of a highly skilled photographer in conflation with best-in-class professional grade equipment.

Sadly, I don't have any resources to provide that show any such high quality photos made with a Canon A1400 and its ultra-wide to normal angle built-in lens....(not for lack of looking, though...)

50

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 12, 2013, 10:31:34 PM »

Some logic?
Point nr 2,   18 or 21Mp  . more Mp is always better, it could be at least 24Mp or  rather more considering the sensor development  this last years

I'd like to see a 42MP sensor, it's not a monstrous file size and you won't be affected by diffraction at F2. Not that diffraction makes a big difference, many cameras today are theoretically affected at F4, but you don't see people saying that all their F4 pictures are terrible.

I know your trying to be ironic and sarcastic, but from a purely technical and theoretical standpoint, a 42mp APS-C that is diffraction-limited at f/2 would STILL be better than a 24mp APS-C that is diffraction limited at f/5. Diffraction cannot reduce IQ below that of a sensor with lower pixel density...only approach it. Assuming I could still get 10fps out of it, I'd take the 42mp APS-C every day.

51

Lenses / Re: Sigma 120-300m F2.8 DG OS HSM (S) First review

« on: May 12, 2013, 12:47:47 PM »

I just have to say, it's good to see third-party lens manufacturers stepping up their game. They played the "cheap alternative" for so long that so many people would refuse to buy their lenses due to the cheaper quality. It looks like several of Sigma's new lenses are really starting to rival the kind of quality we get out of Canon's brand-name lenses, even some L-series lenses. That is good competition, and only bodes well for the consumer.

52

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 12, 2013, 12:26:47 PM »

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.

This is a total myth, and why keep on  spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete)  that make  it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.

And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen  300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars  and let Hasselblads MTF Lab  measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and  they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.

According to Nikon's own MTFs (which, like Canon's, are mathematically generated from the manufacturing models...your notion of a "real" MTF "test" has the fatal flaw of being influenced by the imaging medium used to record the image...total SYSTEM MTF is a convolution of multiple factors, what is effectively the RMS of the MTFs of each and every component of the system combined (including the air between subject and lens, between each lens element, and between lens and sensor)...a mathematically generated MTF is the only way to get a "pure" lens MTF otherwise uninfluenced by system factors), their last generation of telephoto lenses are NOT as good as Canon's. The only lens that currently competes with Canon on the telephoto front is the new 800mm lens, which, as I just mentioned in my last reply, employs fluorite elements just like Canon does. Overall, Canon's lens lineup is more current, and is generally offering superior IQ. The one area where Nikon has a solid lead over Canon is in the ultra wide angle zoom lens range...Canon currently has nothing that can touch the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8.

53

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 12, 2013, 12:24:12 PM »

So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.

There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better.

Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand.  What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense.

Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...    (kidding)

why use fluorite ? when Nikon have  their "new SuperED glass" and  the optical properties of this new glass closely resemble those of fluorite, Super ED glass is more resilient to rapid temperature changes (thermal shock) and not as susceptible to cracking as the crystal structure of fluorite. Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite, making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than chromatic aberration.
And fluorite is also one reason that  NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

Fluorite still offers superior dispersion control over ED/SuperED/UD/SuperUD elements. Canon has both UD and SuperUD glass, which is exactly the same as ED and SuperED, and they have clearly demonstrated the superiority of Fluorite over low dispersion glass for controlling the dispersion of light. SuperED glass is NOT better than Fluorite at correcting CA! It should also be noted that low dispersion glass only offers improved dispersion control...it is not inherently capable of significantly correcting other aberrations unless it is paired with other elements, or aspheric....however those solutions to other aberrations are not limited to low dispersion glass...any glass, or Fluorite, could be used for those purposes as well.

Fluorite IS more fragile, however not as fragile as many might think. Canon has buffered element mounts that reduce shock on the elements these days anyway, so cracking due to a drop or bump isn't a very big concern. Regarding thermal shock...that requires SHOCK, and that can only occur if the temperature changes VERY rapidly. Moving a lens into a house from outside on a cold night is not going to be cracking any fluorite lens elements any time soon.

Finally, you need to back up that last statement. Why wouldn't NASA take a Canon lens with fluorite into space? To my knowledge, none of the Nikon equipment has ever been used outside the spacecraft...so there is no need to be concerned about thermal shock. Nikon's newest lenses are beginning to employ fluorite (anything with the FL moniker is a lens that uses Fluorite elements)...I'd guess because otherwise they could not compete with the kind of IQ Canon is currently pumping out with their fluorite lenses. An example of a fluorite lens from Nikon is the new 800mm, which uses two fluorite elements. So, according to your anecdote...NASA won't be able to use future Nikon lenses either...right?

54

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:48:30 AM »

Willets, Western variety, at Cherry Creek State Park:

Great shots, I think the first two really do it for me. I think its the colours that I like, and thats spoilt a bit by the sand at the bottom of the third one.  But please don't take that as criticism.
Cheers Brian

Oh, I certainly don't take it badly. I totally agree. These little guys love mud flats, so it was rare to get a shot where it was just them and the water. I prefer the cleaner water-only shots, too. Sand in the foreground isn't quite as bad...it tends to blend in better than dark mud does...but sandy shores are rarely where they hunt.

55

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:46:28 AM »

jrista.....by the power not vested in me, you are hearby awarded the photographers Purple Star for injuries sustained in the line of duty

-edit-

I think this would make a cool thread..."What I had to go through to get the shot"

Hah! Ty!

56

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:46:00 AM »

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

57

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: AF Adjustment : What Am i doing wrong!

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:32:51 AM »

So did 3 tests with Focal and result was +3, + 2, +4(on 50L)
I've decide to make a 4th test and got +3...so +3 it is. (used strong Hallogen light to be EV 12)

after taking tests shots I am more confident the correction is accurate.  Although there is no true alignment with Focal...I still like it :-)

thx guys

Aye, FoCal is pretty good stuff. It DOES need a LOT of light to really work right, but it really simplifies an otherwise complicated process.

58

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:43:47 PM »

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)

Too bad nothing that's been released is both affordable and better than what was purchased years ago.

Are you saying the 5D III is not better than the 5D II, or pretty much ANY camera from four-five years ago?

59

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:01:07 PM »

or an iPhone.... Apple claims that more pictures are taken each day with an iPhone than any other camera.....

WOW, seriously! That has got to be one of Apples' most bold-faced outright fabrications (superlies) EVER.

There must be millions of photos taken every day, hell if you count the whole world...hundreds of millions or more. No freaking way the majority of them are taken with iPhones.

as an aside, I refer to my 400mm lens as my "grizzly bear" lens...... a lens for things that I can't get too close to, or don't want to get too close to.... I am NOT going to walk up to a polar bear and stick an iPhone in it's face.... I also have problems walking on water and flying up into trees, so for me, gear does matter.

Aye. And there is just a respect element, too...its better for the animals and the environment if photographers aren't tearing things up, trashing about the water, etc. to get close to wildlife or birds they shouldn't be disturbing in the first place.

Although, if an idiot with an A1400 got his face eaten off by a bear while trying to get a macro eyeball shot of it...serves him right! At least then, he's feeding the bear.... 

60

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 09:45:05 PM »

 

Anyway, I thought I'd give it one more try to convince the guy. Even the article he linked proves my point (which is that the gap between FF and MF is shrinking):

There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.

However, I have never seen such a great details and resolution in $3200 35mm DSLR before! Will it be any visible difference between large prints from both cameras? May be, if we’ll look at those prints with the loupe. But how many idiots use loupe to enjoy large prints? 

Both cameras did a great job recovering very dark areas of the image, with slight advantage on Hasselblad’s side:

There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon. And if we consider the price difference, the Nikon become a true hero: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge…

The only thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima.

I rest my case on that article!

It is apparently impossible to convince RL, so I'm done for good now.