Messages

886

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dx hands review by Ron Martinsen as posted to his blog on February 12

« on: February 15, 2012, 05:04:44 AM »

Screw you Canon!! The prices just went up:

http://www.japanphoto.no/product/kampanje/nyheter/systemkamera/canon-eos-1d-x-kamerahus/

This translates to 9616 usd......

887

EOS Bodies / Re: Focusing Screen

« on: February 15, 2012, 03:57:33 AM »

Any focusing screen that will give me a brighter, yet still same functionality, with 1,2 and 1,4 primes? I read once that the VF stays at 2,8 brightness no matter what lens you use.

That's what the Eg-S screen is for.  You're correct - the stock focusing screen not only gives f/2.8 brightness with faster lenses, more importantly it shows f/2.8 DoF with faster lenses, which is a problem for manually focusing, since the real DoF is thinner than what you see. The Eg-S shows the true DoF (and brightness) of fast lenses, the tradeoff is that slow lenses look darker in the VF.

Awesome! I hardly ever use the 70-200 other than outside, and maybe then it's not a huge problem?

Is there an f-stop my 70-200 f2,8  II will look like in the VF, I mean, can I stop down to f4 and use the dof-peview button to simulate what it will look like wide open with the Eg-S screen mounted? I really would like to not have to change focusing screens off and on.

My absolutely most used lens are the 24 II, 50 L and 85 II. I also use the TS-17, but almost always with LV, so then it won't matter.

888

Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway

« on: February 14, 2012, 05:50:26 AM »

Just to give you an idea of what the range does to IQ:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=493&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

Use mouseover to compare, and keep in mind that the 70-200 is 2,8 while the Tamron is at 6,3, and that the corners of the Tamron is shown here on a crop body while the 70-200 is on fullframe.

889

Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway

« on: February 14, 2012, 04:50:31 AM »

Hey there,

I am going on a cross-country skiing expedition to Norway this easter and need the availability of one, allround lens - preferably something with a reasonable short end, but a pretty large long end as well. Needs to be relatively light (so no f2.8 70-20mm IS II please) as i will be carrying everything in a rucksack. Also, the lens should be able to cope with some pretty cold weather, as norway, is norway, and no doubt it will be pretty freakin' cold.

Am stuck myself, on what lens, but perhaps you can help?

Er du fra Norge og snakker norsk?

I would recommend the 24-105, but it depends on what body you are using, I would def go for the 24-105 for a FF camera, and maybe even for a crop cam due to the weather resistance.

If you can live without weathersealing a wide-range lens I kind of like is the 15-85, not useless like the 18-200's, but actually pretty good, and 15 at the wideend is a lot wider than 18.

You're anyways in luck, it's not very cold here now, between -5 and -14 celcius. We normally have -20 to -25 now.

And easter is spring time!

890

EOS Bodies / Re: Focusing Screen

« on: February 14, 2012, 04:40:02 AM »

Any focusing screen that will give me a brighter, yet still same functionality, with 1,2 and 1,4 primes? I read once that the VF stays at 2,8 brightness no matter what lens you use.

891

EOS Bodies / Re: When will Canon Meet The Market Demand?

« on: February 14, 2012, 04:01:39 AM »

More people buy Chevrolet's than Volkswagens; that doesn't mean that VW doesn't make as good a car but that it isn't what the market is looking for

Although that might be true in the US, it's not even close to the truth in Europe  You'll see 10.000 VW's for one Chevy, and that Chevy is in 90% of the cases and old Classic.

So there's different markets, kinda hard for one brand to satisfy them all.

892

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dx hands review by Ron Martinsen as posted to his blog on February 12

« on: February 13, 2012, 04:24:32 PM »

Thanks! I wasn't way off then

893

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dx hands review by Ron Martinsen as posted to his blog on February 12

« on: February 13, 2012, 03:11:19 PM »

What's the far left lower button for? The one next to the rear small display. Can't remember pushing a button like that before. Resolution?

894

Lenses / Re: 24-70 too short for full frame?

« on: February 13, 2012, 01:05:56 PM »

I liked the 31-91mm focal much more useful for walkaround and such on the mk4. I replaced it with the 35 L, then to my current 24 L II, but I wished it was 30mm or 28mm on the 1d X instead. So yeah, I found both the 24 and the 70 mm too short on FF, but LOVED the 24-70 on 1,3 crop...

895

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does FF make your photos pop?

« on: February 12, 2012, 04:49:10 PM »

I guess it has something to do with what you shoot also. From my perspective, I shoot a lot of my images at larger than f2,0 apertures, and that gives the FF cameras a huge advantage,


Compared to a body like the 7D, the 5D is about 1 stop better across the ISO range. So in practice, if you're shooting low ISOs, you won't see a huge difference. BTW, some of the new APS-C sensors from Sony do better in the dynamic range component of the DXO mark at low ISOs.

Have you even tried these cameras?

The lower iso's of the 5d is waaaaaay cleaner than the 7d, are you kidding me?

The 5d is also much better at the lower iso's compared to the 1d4. And, ahrg, pay attention so I don't have to write the same stuff all over, the difference in the overall IQ and "feel" of the image on the 5d2 compared to the mk4 is huge! If you don't see it, then fine, you saved a lot of money, but don't give me quotes from DxO marks telling me otherwise.

896

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon isn't feeling brave now is it?

« on: February 12, 2012, 04:39:56 PM »

FYI, the Sony is noisy has hell, and the AF suck. It can't track a subject if it was life-depending. Plus, with all the mp's you get a noisy image compared, but even worse is it when you loose 30% of the available light at ALL times due to the translucent mirror.

So while it looks impressive on paper, using it in real life shows it has nothing on the 7d.

The 1d X and the D4 are the new pro-bodies from Canon and Nikon, it's not like NIkon owns the pro-segment and everything else. Canon was first with the pro-body, now Nikon is first with the d800, Canon is widely know, waiting for the anniversary in March, so I wouldn't be too worried.

And what has Nikon released of lenses the last year compared to Canon??

897

EOS Bodies / Re: Preview of iso 204,800 on 1dx and d4

« on: February 12, 2012, 02:34:48 PM »

Those two videos is yet another fine example showing just how much easier Canon are to use, just look at how he pushes button like a madman, moving from one side to another on the D4.

And for those who haven't tried, have a go with that Nikon joystick, it's loose and ultra non-responsive. Buttons placed all wrong, for example, the ISO-button is on the top left, try holding a 300mm f2,8 and changing the ISO, yes, I know you can configure another button for it, but that's not the point. The point is that they placed it where they saw best. Which they have done with the rest of the camera also. And when changing the darn function-wheel, it must be unlocked first, which is awkward at best, and holding down buttons while scrolling the tiny wheels. useless!! With the buttons to change mode's on the 1d's, there is no need to lock them.

The small top wheel and buttons at the index finger on the 1-series combined with the big wheel and set-button on the back with the perfectly constructed joystick is a breaze to use for all functions, and you don't have to change the position of your hands once. To change mode while on a large lens, use your thumb up. Maan, I'm glad I am a Canon-guy, lol!

Add VERY long and complicated menus, an also color-coded , which is fantastic for us that are color-blind.

898

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does FF make your photos pop?

« on: February 12, 2012, 11:13:43 AM »

I guess there are people here who feel that their photographic talents are being constrained by anything other than a full-frame camera and they are trying to justify the cost of upgrading to a full-frame. Well, why do you need justification from others? It's really a simple matter: if you have the budget, then you should go ahead and get one.

Don't talk rot about FF having more "pop" than APS-C. There are umpteen number of photos (and photogs) out there shooting APS-C professionally and their photos have equal amount of pop as anyone else shooting FF.

Don't believe me? Here are some samples from Flickr (these aren't mine, but they illustrate the point - and they were shot with a Rebel T2i):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbyryke/6846645823/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovelotsofpizza/4675165898/#

And if these still do not have enough pop and don't jump out of the screen/print, then maybe ya'll should consider this camera: http://www.shopfujifilm.com/detail/FUJ+16082969

I guess it has something to do with what you shoot also. From my perspective, I shoot a lot of my images at larger than f2,0 apertures, and that gives the FF cameras a huge advantage, but other styles may not be THAT much different, for example at f11 snapshots with useless light

But these two examples, to me at least, prove the difference I see with my own images. It's too snapshotty.

This is my personal taste, and I'm not here to dog the aps-c, but for ME, the images will always be better no matter what you shoot with a fullframe. And extremely often, isn't very difficult to see what image shot with what, although there can be a garabage picture with a FF and a fantastic, optimal with an aps-c camera that won't tell the whole story. But there is a reason Canon released the FF cameras, and we will see more of them.

The x-factor or magic of the FF camera isn't that at all. It's much smoother gradients between light and dark, less depth which really show off the smoother better bokeh of those lenses used, it's better dynamic range and less noise.

My last comment for this thread, I just had to argue with that it's "no difference, it's all light and skill and framing" it isn't.....

it's the same as saying it's better to buy a polarizer than a better lens, no it isn't, because they also sell polarizer for the more expensive lens. It's the same as saying, learn how to sharpen and shoot raw and you don't need the more expensive lens, but you can also sharpen the images from the more expensive lens , so the better gear will always keep their advantage....

899

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does FF make your photos pop?

« on: February 12, 2012, 09:46:23 AM »

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

Bokeh is the quality of the background blur. It depends on the lens and the way a lens "draws". The amount of background blur is controlled by Depth of Field (DOF) and this is driven by subject distance, sensor size and lens aperture. You can get the same bokeh (amount and quality) with APS-C and FF if you use the same lens. The only thing different will be subject distance and framing that will account for the size difference between the two formats.

All theory and what might not be, doesn't change the fact that my 24 LII, 50 L and 85 LII looks fantastically much better on the 5d than they did on my mk4. Muchmuch cleaner iso's below 800 also helps the 5d over the 7d and the mk4, and as the iso get's cleaner the dynamic range is also better. Simply saying the dof is the same with different framing doesn't make sense. It's the whole package of the fullframe 5d2 over the mk4 and the 7d/60d/550d that is the key here. And the fact it being full frame and improves every aspect of the image is waay different from depth of field alone. And all those things combined gives you at much better image overall.

900

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does FF make your photos pop?

« on: February 12, 2012, 09:07:18 AM »

Thanks for the info!
There are so many steps I can improve on - especially PP.

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Regarding the "poping"  I don't think it is so much about aperture and DOF.
In the portrait galary there is a great pic by JR:
5D mkII, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, taken at 200mm, f4.5, ISO 320


The sharp face contour gives the image a great three-dimensionality.
It is almost like looking through a window.

To the last comments:
I don't claim that I mastered APS-C and now need a FF to push the technical boundaries.
I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds.
The reason is not clear to me. It might be PP that most 5D owners use.
Many of the pictures I admire don't look like they took hours of waiting for the right light and it is also not about the largest aperture.
You also don't need a complex composition, as you can see in the picture above.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it sounds stupid but after changing to FF I prefer my photos, though I certainly did not improve my photographing skills from one day to the other, and my D90 and X100 certainly were/are great cameras, but there just is something to these FF pictures, the tonality of the x100 plus the DOF control plus some L-magic. I get way more compliments now than before just shooting the same... Everybody says it's more important to take courses and read books on getting a better photographer, which is absolutely true, but if you have the funds for FF and other goodies it makes your photos better in an instant and you still can go on improving your skills...

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.