September 20, 2014, 04:10:55 PM

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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 305
61
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.

62
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.

63
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.

64
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.

65
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.

66
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.

67
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.

68
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:15:31 PM »
Too much MP for my taste.

Sounds just about right for landscapes. :) If only it has the DR...

Completely agree, totally.

This would be a Pro Body, main competitors being the Phase One IQ250, Pentax 645z & Haselblad H5D, basically anything with the Sony 50MP CMOS Sensor in it (and you can bet good money that Sony are about to drop that Sensor into their own body, sooner not later), is that worth competing with ?? I think so, I hope Canon does as well.

Price ??, about right, Competes well with the price of the 645z, certainly competes more than well with the Phase One & Haselblad (Sony will do it for 1/3 the price, but that have zero Lenses to match without Zeiss).

Will it happen, no idea, but I certainly hope so.

Edward & jrista,
Sold my a7r last week(keeping my FE55). I plan to add a7s in future. I guess I'm more into high ISO than DR.

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.

69
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:14:06 PM »
Too much MP for my taste.

Sounds just about right for landscapes. :) If only it has the DR...

Completely agree, totally.

This would be a Pro Body, main competitors being the Phase One IQ250, Pentax 645z & Haselblad H5D, basically anything with the Sony 50MP CMOS Sensor in it (and you can bet good money that Sony are about to drop that Sensor into their own body, sooner not later), is that worth competing with ?? I think so, I hope Canon does as well.

Price ??, about right, Competes well with the price of the 645z, certainly competes more than well with the Phase One & Haselblad (Sony will do it for 1/3 the price, but that have zero Lenses to match without Zeiss).

Will it happen, no idea, but I certainly hope so.

It would have to have a large sensor to really compete, though. Put a 50mp FF and 50mp 44x33mm MF head to head, and the MF is going to win. The Sony 50mp MF in the backs or MF cameras from any one of those companies would pulverize a Canon 50mp FF in any IQ comparisons. Again, that boils down to equivalence...more total light for a given subject framing, better IQ. Pixel counts really wouldn't matter.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:11:11 PM »
Quote
What I've denied is your claims that Canon's AF system in the 5D III cannot do certain things. I tested those things. My 5D III performed fine doing AF with the 16-35mm f/2.8 with close, moving subjects. It's not 100% perfectly accurate, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a moment that the Nikon system is 100% perfectly accurate either.

But that's not what I claimed. I said that, especially in comparison to Nikon's 3D focus tracking, it's ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless for my shallow DOF wedding photography using fast 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 primes. Because I could not trust it. It gets confused too easily, and this'd come as no surprise if you performed my little thought experiment on how the algorithm actually works. And I'm *not* alone in my opinion. Sure, rewind 10 years, and the 5D III's subject tracking would've been the best thing since sliced bread. It's a very cute, clever algorithm. And I think it still works quite well for sports. It just hasn't kept up with what the metering sensors in the 1D X and Nikon's can do, or what the imaging sensors can do in mirrorless cameras now (although without phase detection, the latter are still lagging IMHO). Arguing against this is literally arguing against the benefits subject recognition via a sensor bring. And, again, you'd know this if you just picked up a D810 & put it in 3D tracking and waved the camera around a bit. It sticks to subjects almost as well as the Sony AF method you praise.

I'm honestly not sure where your getting what your getting out of this. I understand the benefits of linking an RGB meter into the AF system. I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is your notion that the 5D III AF " especially in comparison to Nikon's 3D focus tracking, it's ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless". Yes, I clipped out the part where you said for YOUR wedding photography, because the last time we had this debate, you challenged me to go into a camera store and try out the AF on a D800, and see how much radically better than my 5D III AF it was. I've done that, on many occasions, at the local Mike's Camera. I honestly do not see the kind of difference gap your talking about. I also tested the exact scenario you described before, with my 5D III and the worst lens for AF I have in my kit, the 50 f/1.4...and it still worked, quite well.

I'm very specifically denying your claim that the 5D III AF is "practically useless" for, which is just another way of saying incapable of, handling AF situations where the subject is moving around the frame while simultaneously moving towards the camera. Sorry, but I don't believe it. My believe isn't just based on assumption, it's based on real-world data I gathered myself, and based on the experiences of reviewers who have reviewed multiple Canon and Nikon cameras in head-to-head testing.

As for the lens stuff, you seem to be making another assumption, that I said ALL Canon lenses are better than Nikon cameras, or that ALL Canon lenses resolve as much detail as a D800 when used with the 5D III. That's not what I said. Words keep getting twisted here, so, I'm just going to exit the conversation. 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

71
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:13:12 PM »
They seem to aim for building the smallest, tightest bodies possible for every single model.

Some find that preferable.

Right, SOME. That's kind of my point. ;P Just as some people like Nikon ergonomics, others don't.

As for the rest, all I can say is this. First, I haven't denied the benefit of iTR. Never. I know it brings improvements to the table. What I've denied is your claims that Canon's AF system in the 5D III cannot do certain things. I tested those things. My 5D III performed fine doing AF with the 16-35mm f/2.8 with close, moving subjects. It's not 100% perfectly accurate, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a moment that the Nikon system is 100% perfectly accurate either. No AF system is 100% perfectly accurate, never has been, never will be. I do deny certain things, however your generalizing my denials, twisting them into something else. I don't really care for that. It's that kind of thing that ultimately turns friendly debates into something nasty.

Next, your using DXO. Yeah, I think that's an issue. :P Of all the lens testers out there, you should well know by now that I trust DXO, for lenses in particular, the lest. I think their scores are utter crap, I think they WAY too heavily weight lens quality on the T-stops "measure" (which really has nothing to do with transmission, and everything to do with the aperture of the lens...which is why a 50mm f/1.4 can outscore a 600mm f/4.) You could have picked any other source of lens tests, and I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt...but, DXO? Seriously, man! :P I also think that your interpreting the results from DXO with a specific frame of reference, one where maximum resolving power, period, is always the ultimate goal...when that isn't always valid.

You've picked a very small handful of lenses. Canon has well over 100. One of the lenses you picked was actually explicitly designed to KEEP a certain amount of spherical aberration present, as it's a desirable trait for many: The 85 f/1.2 L. Your using plots and charts and numbers to compare that lens to others, when maximum resolving power has NOTHING to do with the appeal of that lens for Canon shooters. Same goes for the 50 f/1.2 L. Those two lenses have a special look, and it's that look, more than the raw fundamentals, that really matters for people. I personally love the look both of those lenses produce (although specifically the 85). I notice that it's not the sharpest lens, but, that takes such a distant back burner to what I really care about as far as photos made with it go. In skilled hands, that is beyond a phenomenal lens...it's a thing of wonder. (Which just debases the value of DXO scores and plots and measures even more.)

I believe there is a place for a diversity of lens designs. If I want a high quality 85 or 50, I can always pick up a Sigma or Zeiss...and I could very well have both the Canon and either one of those. They are different tools for different purposes, IMO. In general, the latest Canon lens releases produce stellar IQ, in many cases literally second to none. I would take any one of Canon's superteles over Nikons in a heartbeat. I would take their L-series zooms most of the time as well. I'd take any one of Canon's T/S lenses over Nikons. I appreciate some of the more unique lenses that Canon has, such as the MP-E 65mm. I would actually LOVE to pair that lens, at high zoom, with a Canon camera with tons of DR. It can be wicked difficult to balance light (due to very narrow apertures), focus, and noise when taking ultra zoomed in macros. There are a handful of macro photographers that I know who have the skill to make the most of that lens, and it took them years to build up the experience. Canon is the only company building lenses that use diffractive optics. The new 400 DO looks extremely impressive, and indicates that some amazing things could occur in the future for the really big, long superteles...a 600 or 800 DO would be amazing, especially if it could really reduce weight below the current versions already low weights.

Plenty of unique and impressive innovations and quality factors in Canon's lens lineup that aren't found anywhere else. To me, that's valuable. I do indeed think Canon's lens collection is better and more diverse overall than Nikons. Three lenses out of hundreds don't make for an effective statistical measure. You even picked the 35mm f/1.4 L...that lens is, how old now? Sixteen years? It's beyond out of date. I don't even thing Nikon's 35/1.4 G is even four years old yet, is it? HUGE difference in lens generations there. The fact that Canon's ancient 35/1.4 L scored 30 vs. the Nikon's 36 is quite impressive to me. I think that actually speaks to Canon's optical engineering, for a lens to hold up that well that long. Even DXO's results frequently show Canon lenses on the 5D III scoring the same as Nikon lenses on the D800, despite the D800's vastly superior resolution.

So there are reasons why I want more DR in the Canon system, specifically. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, and I don't think it's "funny" that other people think the same. I think there are specific and valid reasons for wanting it, and for not wanting to jump ship to Nikon. Your a Nikon fan, nothing wrong with that...but just because you like Nikon doesn't make them superior at everything. Canon certainly isn't superior at everything, nor is Sony or any of the others. Even the creme of the crop medium formats that are using Sony's 50mp Exmor suffer in certain areas.

I don't personally believe that the Nikon AF system is vastly superior to Canon's. I've run little tests...tracking moving subjects with my 16-35 L lens. Maybe it's because it's f/2.8, but it seemed to track fine (not superbly, but the lens is the bottleneck in this case, not the camera), even in the z-axis. It doesn't nail 100% of the shots, but it does nail most...and I honestly don't believe any system is capable of nailing every single shot ever taken. Plenty of camera reviews that cover the D4 AF system seem to back me up on that fact. I don't care for Nikon's schizophrenic approach to their camera models, naming, or release schedules. I feel it's hap-hazard and sometimes seems even panicked (D610, D810...seemingly rushed out to fix problems, to the detriment of long-term value for the D600 and D800 cameras, thereby diminishing resale value). I am honestly not sure what to think of Nikon customer service. I've had phenomenal experience with Canon's...I've heard a regular stream of nitemare stories about Nikon's. There have been several rather public fiascos, such as those that occurred with the D800 and D600 issues. That's a frustration I'd prefer not to deal with, especially considering that Nikon doesn't appear to have the quality control that Canon does.

There are good reasons to not want to go to Nikon. Even just adding Nikon to an existing Canon kit...it's expensive, and there are drawbacks. It's a lot easier and cheaper to add a Sony A7r and/or A7s, and get nearly the same IQ as Nikon exmor-based cameras. That;s ultimately all I'm after there...the sensor IQ. Based on the patents they have filed, I believe Canon has superior sensor technology to what they are currently using. I believe they have had it for quite some time. Why they haven't employed it is truly mind boggling to me, especially when the entirety of the rest of the digital camera world has moved to significantly better sensor designs. Even Samsung, with their 28mp sensor, is now the first to bring some of the highly advanced technology previously found only in very small form factor sensors...BSI and ISOCELL, to the APS-C format. I suspect that, despite their use of 12-bit data at high frame rate, that the IQ from those cameras will be extremely good, and superior to Canon's.  :-\

I do want better IQ, just like you. I just don't think I'm willing to turn to Nikon for that IQ yet. I'm not sure I'm willing to turn to Sony yet either, but it's a far lower cost, and ultimately compatible with my existing Canon lenses with an adapter. So Sony is currently the far more appealing option. It'll solve my landscape IQ problem at least in the interim, while I continue to barely hope that Canon will deliver better IQ (in a package that doesn't cost $9000) some time within the next couple of years.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d-II Pushed images...
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:31:26 PM »
A push test isn't going to tell you anything unless the original images were DR limited to start with. Not everything is DR limited, and it's quite possible to fit a lot of scenes within 8-10 stops of DR. For a push test to have any meaning, you need to be exposing scenes with 11-14 stops of DR. THEN you'll really see how far the sensor can go. Oh...you gotta push RAW as well...pushing a JPEG is basically pointless.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:28:48 PM »
Too much MP for my taste.

Sounds just about right for landscapes. :) If only it has the DR...

74
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:28:17 PM »
Its interesting that Fred Miranda posted that he trusts the OP more than the Rumor sites.  The poster is a long time FM member.

That's pretty interesting. I wish there was more detail for this rumor. At nine grand, this definitely wouldn't be a D810 killer. Maybe medium format? (I still don't see Canon going in that direction, but I guess anything is possible.)

75
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM »
It's interesting that this article popped just now.  Over the weekend, I was doing some serious looking at possibly switching (more like buy an extra body) to the 810, but I'm really invested in Canon.  I do landscapes and go big with prints, so I want/need the resolution.  I went back through Canon's history, and the past several cycles of the 1D cameras has been every couple of years, and the past couple have been announced in October.  So, I decided this weekend to hold off until after Christmas before making any other purchases.  I have a bunch of L glass to go with my current bodies, but maybe if I do get the 810, I could get by with just a couple of Nikon or Zeiss lenses.  I just hate to switch and sink $ into another system, but I'm also tired of waiting for Canon to quit recycling old sensors and finally move forward a good step.  46MP sensor would be huge, and this is not the first time I've heard that number tossed around.  Seems like I read somewhere around 4-6 months ago that there was a 46MP body in the wild for testing.  I guess we'll soon see.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 305