Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?

« on: February 07, 2012, 03:33:51 PM »

To truly respond to the D800, canon will have to make a 5D3 that will cannibalize the sales of the 1D X.

And we all know they do not want to do so.

Well played Nikon. Well played..

Exactly. Wish they'd do. We had it all here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3131.0.html

Yeah, if Canon matches those rumored specs, then the 5DIII/5DX will easily win my money.  For my next body, it's really just a fight between the 1DX and 5DII successor anyways.  I have enough fancy Canon glass that I wouldn't consider switching systems, Nikon's ergonomics don't sit well with me, and I'm not interested in another APS-C camera, either (I want the better DoF control and cleaner high-ISO output that full frame offers).

For the Nikon users, the D800 definitely looks pretty sweet.  Although, judging from test images, the fabled 14-24 f/2.8 isn't quite up to snuff for a 36MP FF sensor.  Test shots with the 24-70 and 70-200 look pretty great for the most part.

62

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:12:01 PM »

Interested?  Sure, once I've gone full-frame, and after I've seen some reviews, and once the lens is on rebate for $200 off, then we'll talk.  For the price, IQ needs to be better than the 70-200 IS II (or at least match).  If Canon includes this lens as a kit with the successor to the 5D2, then the chances of my jumping on board would increase quite a bit.

Then again, I tend to prefer larger aperture primes once the focal drops under 100mm, so what I really want to see is a 35mm f/1.4L II.  It would be awesome to have a weather-sealed, auto-focusing 35mm lens with smooth bokeh and kickbutt across the frame IQ wide open.  I mean, hey, it's okay to dream, right?

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 01:00:41 PM »

ISO 1600 looks almost as good as my 7D @ ISO 160-200.  At lower ISO (check the ISO 400-800 examples), shadows in the 1DX are much cleaner, and subtle color transitions are much, much smoother than the 7D at base ISO (especially in ISO 400 sample).  DR is visibly better, too; I'm really looking forward to going FF...

64

Lenses / Re: Why Dont more lenses have IS?

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:31:26 PM »

Good call with the note about IS and video, IS on the new 24mm and 28mm primes makes a lot more sense now...

65

Lenses / Re: Why Dont more lenses have IS?

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:22:02 PM »

I'm newish to high end photography, but one thing has struck me. there dont appear to be a lot of EF lenses with IS.. is there a reason for this? is it not as required on short focal lengths?

Yep, implementing IS adds marginally to weight and cost, isn't as necessary for short focal length/large aperture lenses, and provides little to no IQ benefit at high shutter speeds.  The combination of the standard convention of a shutter speed of 1/focal length to avoid image shake from camera movement and the large apertures typically found on the short L primes tends to limit the practical need for image stabilization.

I mean, how dark does it need to be for a shutter speed of 1/50 @ f/1.4 not to be enough?  Answer: if it's that dark, use a tripod if subject movement is not an issue, and if subject movement is an issue, then no amount of IS will save you.

Seems to me like Canon's general response to IS in short focal length lenses has been "why bother?"  Of course, 2 rumored EF primes with IS could mean that Canon might be changing their stance...

66

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6

« on: February 03, 2012, 04:35:43 PM »

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock.  Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens.  that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

Unless Canon omitted the use of fluorite elements or other steps to drive down costs (no IS? weather-sealing?), you'd probably still be looking a final cost close to the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO.  Physics dictates that the diameter of the front objective would need to match that of the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is something like 122-125mm.  And given the advances in performance (AF speed/accuracy, optics) with the new III TCs, I doubt we'll ever get this lens from Canon.  An update to the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 would make more sense.

67

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Book Pro or Asus N55SF or something else for photo editing?

« on: February 01, 2012, 03:29:32 PM »

It should be noted that the MBP pro line is slated for a major redesign very soon. It's been pegged as Q2 2012, which could be as soon as two months. These will have the new line of Ivy Bridge processors. These are also strongly rumored to take their cues from the MBA in that they will switch to SSDs and a much thinner profile. Might be worth the wait.

I'm all for it as long as display quality does not suffer as a result of thinner design.  But as it stands the LCDs in the current MBAs aren't as impressive as those found in the current Macbook Pros.  While the current MBA displays are decent compared to the rest of the laptop market, compared to the Macbook Pros they have poorer contrast ratios and black levels as a result of backlight bleed and viewing angles are subject to noticeable vertical color shift, especially in the 11" model.

68

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Book Pro or Asus N55SF or something else for photo editing?

« on: February 01, 2012, 01:38:35 PM »

Hey guys, what laptop would you buy for photo editing? Thx for the help

Mac Book Pro 15"
Asus N55SF 15"
or something else?

I'm not sure which laptop is the best choice between those two (I have no familiarity with the ASUS at all), but after skimming through the discussion here, I'm surprised there isn't more talk related to display quality.

At minimum, for photo editing I'd want a display with the following features: decent contrast ratio (I'd shoot for 500:1 at a brightness of 120cd/m2), capable of saturating the sRGB colorspace, minimal vertical and horizontal colorshift.  Resolution is another consideration, I'd recommend aiming for a display with a resolution of 1920x1080 or 1600x900, as more work space is always nice (assuming your vision is good enough to deal with the dense pixel pitch of a high resolution display).  I also recommend steering clear of displays with the ultra-typical resolution of 1366x768, if for no other reason than this resolution is often associated with inferior laptop displays.  Regardless of what you end up with, do yourself a favor and calibrate the display, it will make a huge difference in color accuracy.

There are several LCD display technologies found in laptops, each with its own strengths and weaknesses - namely TN and IPS panels.

IPS panels represent the ultimate in display quality and are the best for critical work.  The downsides are that they are quite rare in laptops, and when they are available they cost a pretty penny - it could be as much as a $400+ add-on to the base cost of the laptop.  IPS panels have good to great color depth (capable of reproducing anywhere from 70-100% of the adobeRGB colorspace), contrast ratios (700:1 or better), and superior viewing angles with minimal colorshifting, and sometimes come factory calibrated (a few laptop models even have built-in calibration).

TN panels, on the other hand, are available in varying levels of quality. Color depth is all over the place, poor displays might be limited to reproducing just 40% of the adobeRGB colorspace, decent displays are good for about 70% (and can saturate the sRGB colorspace), and there are a small number of high gamut displays good for 95-110% of the adobeRBG colorspace.  TN panels are also prone to vertical and to a lesser extent horizontal color shifting depending on viewing angle - again, the extent of color shift varies by display quality (some are actually quite good indeed with respect to minimizing colorshift).  Contrast ratios vary from 230:1 at the low end to 1000:1 at the high end.

Macbook Pros are generally well regarded for overall display quality, so that option is probably a pretty safe bet, but I'd recommend finding a review for the specific model you are planning to buy to confirm (check anandtech.com, they do a pretty good job with laptop and display reviews, another good resource for general LCD display information is tftcentral.co.uk).

I'm currently using a Dell U2711 (a high gamut IPS panel) for my desktop photo editing and a Dell Precision 4600 workstation laptop for on the road.  The laptop has a 1920x1080 TN panel display (an IPS panel is available, but would have cost another $400), before I had it in hand I was a bit worried the display wouldn't be up to spec, but after calibrating with a Spyder3Pro it's really quite pleasant to work with.  It's also a matte display, which is great for minimizing glare in bright environments.

Oh, one last note before I disappear into the ether: all the talk about SSDs is true, they make a huge difference in loading times for programs and files, everything is much more responsive.  With SSD, the boot time of my laptop is crazy fast - under 10 seconds.  The only problem is cost (very high cost per GB), and SSD quality is about as fickle as display quality - there are good SSDs and bad SSDs.  Samsung 830 series, Crucial M4, and Intel 320 series SSDs are probably you best bet for reliability, and the samsung 830 and curcial M4 will be faster provided you laptop supports the SATA 3.0 spec.  Sorry for the huge wall of text and good luck!

69

EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Wait for 5D3 could be longer

« on: January 31, 2012, 01:26:58 PM »

When Nikon announces the D800 next week, Canon will be announcing something within a very few weeks.

Although the term "Weeks" can be used loosely...

Quote Saving this   

I cannot wait for the announcement... Cmon Canon.. Do it! (or is it Nikon Do it first?)

I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that the term "something" can be used loosely...

70

EOS Bodies / Re: BUY 5d MkII now or WAIT for 5d MkIII????

« on: January 31, 2012, 11:40:23 AM »

Hey Kids,
Just wanted to chime in and note that this thread was started way back in July 2011 and some hoser drudged it up to note that an image looked soft (thanks hoser).  But don't mind me, feel free to beat this dead horse for all it's worth.

71

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 30, 2012, 07:09:41 PM »

Eh?!

I loaded that page earlier this evening and I still have the browser tab open. On MY tab,
the photo description does NOT admit or claim to have used 2 exposures!

Weird!

That quote was from an earlier post (reply #18) regarding an email sent out leading up to the release of the image.  The description in the email is different compared Lik's description of the photo on his site.

72

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!

« on: January 30, 2012, 06:54:19 PM »

He used a huge 800mm lens to capture a double exposure of the foreground and moon, so surreal!

Bella Luna

Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah

+ Camera Canon EOS 5D

+ Exposures f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 seconds

+ Time 6:50P

+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof

I'd like to see a picture of that 800mm f/2.8 lens...

73

Lenses / Re: How do you pay for your lenses?

« on: January 28, 2012, 02:57:02 PM »

Well as the topic says, how do you afford the lenses you have?

Ofcourse, there are those of you that take photos for a profession, but what about us hobbyists, with middle of the range wallets?

And do you have a funny story about coming up with the money for a lens you REALY wanted?

Personaly, i just got my first L, 70-200 f/4L and im afraid I've been bit by the L-glass bug already 

I'm not afraid to buy used when the price is right - and picked up a 1.4x III teleconverter for $325 on craigslist, basically brand new.  Other than that, I believe patience is key.  I wait for things to go on sale/rebate - my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II was about $2075 after rebate from B&H, and when I bought my 7D ($1600 after $100 instant rebate), I picked up a Pro9500 Mark II printer for $200 net (combo rebate of $500 when purchased with the camera body).  I also recently bought a Samyang 35mm f/1.4 for $375 (usually $470-500) from an Amazon lighting deal a few weeks ago.  Pretty sure my 100L Macro was on rebate, too.

Another option is rentals - when I backpacked Sequoia National Park last summer, I rented a 24mm f/1.4L II.  It was great to have, as it was smaller, lighter, faster, and wider than anything I owned at the time.  I was able to get a few interesting astrophotography shots at the higher elevations, some nice landscapes, a few HDRs, and several handheld panos - none of which would have been possible without the lens, and renting it for two weeks was much cheaper than buying.

I've also done some semi-professional work - family portraits, engagement photos, pets - easy, low-pressure stuff.  My clients (if you can call them that) are almost always family/friends, family friends or friends of friends - I let them decide the what my time is worth based on the results, and honestly I don't really care if I get paid at all.  But it's fun, and whatever I do make supports the hobby.

While I'm on a rant, I really should talk up the Samyang.  If you can deal with a full manual lens and don't mind a bit of barrel distortion (as much as you'd find in any wide and fast prime), I highly recommend the Samyang 35mm f/1.4.  Wide open, I think contrast/sharpness could be better (I'm thoroughly spoiled by the wide open performance of the 100L and 70-200 2.8L IS II), but the lens behaves very well from f/2.0 and beyond.  Stopped down to f/5.6 it feels sharper than both the 100L and 70-200 IS II.  Given the low price, I was impressed with the build quality - not an L, but definitely a step above the non-L canon primes - it feels close to a non-weathersealed 100L.

74

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delayed?

« on: January 27, 2012, 08:47:51 PM »

What is silly is that you assume we are a store selling camera gear. We could care less about brands at this point.

Indeed.

75

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delayed?

« on: January 27, 2012, 06:13:43 PM »

I was hoping otherwise, but if this is true, Canon at least lost a small shop in ours. Not a dent in their bottomline, but can't help either losing customers.

Please tell me you're trolling.  I'd be a lot more worried about my own store's bottom line if I decided to stop carrying products made by one of two juggernauts in the industry.  That's just silly.