September 16, 2014, 08:03:24 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 - aj1575

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:38:19 AM »
  The sensible option is to remain with my crop-inspired lenses and maybe go to a 70D or the next Rebel, but the 6D seems pretty cool. 
There are mainly two questions you need to answer. First, and most important; how much money do you like to spend on a tool you do not need to make a living out of. I think you know this, since the 70D and the 6D are not so far appart on the price scale.
The second qustion is, what you like to do with the camera and the file; are you an allround shooter, or do specialize in something; do you need/like to make large prints, or do you almost only make smaller prints.

FF (the 6D) will give an advantage in IQ; you will see this especially at high ISO and in large prints. With smaller prints and at lower ISO the difference is rather small. On the screen APS-C pictures can look quite nasty when zommed to 100% (my 70D files at high ISO do so), but at 20MP the resolution is so high, that it does not really matter in normal prints.
On the other hand, the 70D has a very nice AF-system, a cool touch screen (this is no toy, it really improves the handling), the higher frame rate, and other nice features.

If you are a landscape or architecture photograph, then I would go for the 6D. The IQ is great, but it is not a "fast" camera. The 70D is more of an allround package, with a little disadvantage in IQ; which is okay when you do not need large prints.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 05:16:01 AM »
It's yet another example of a camera that was close to be fantastic, yet is not, and you wonder what made Nikon overlook such fundamental aspects. The camera ends up feeling like a fashion accessory for loaded vintage-loving hipsters and nostalgics. That is, more a marketing novelty than a photographic one.

+1

exactly what I think.

And hey, for 3000$ you also get a specialy designed 50mm f1.8 lens (this is like getting a plastic toy with a happy meal...). This is not a great camera from the technologigal point of view, it is just a great camera marketing wise; small FF with retro style, this is hip at the moment, and there are enough people with $ out there who like to be a photojournalist and buy this camera for 3000$.

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 02:24:15 AM »
NO! Again, Nikon now also has a small FF camera, with retro look, like Sony has. Olympus has also cameras that look like they did 20 years ago. Canon is again lacking behind, I will switch to something else than Canon, just because, and anyway, Canon will go down if they continue like this....


Well, actually I don't mind if canon doesn't have such lifestyle products. These are mainly overpriced toys for photogeeks. At first I liked this retrowave (like when the new beetle came out, and all these other retro cars), but now it is time for something new. I like to see new more revolutionary approaches to camera design in the DSLR range. So far everything "new" is just an implementation of new tech in old designs.

These cameras offer nothing more (actually less) than a normal DSLR, but cost still a lot (actually too much for the specs), mainly because of their looks (toys for photogeeks with too much money to spend)

19
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 07:57:23 AM »
Well, maybe the smartphones will die to an be replaced by smartwatches or googleglases...

I do not think that the DSLR will die every time soon. There a different factors come into play here. There are physical limitations in reducing the size of a camera and keep the IQ (diffraction is one example), and a bigger sensor will make better pictures than a smaller.
Based in this comes another fact. Sensor size defines lens size. So if you have a certain sensor size to achieve the desired IQ, you also have a certain size of lens. This cuts away a big part of the advantage of mirrorless cameras, as soon as there is some serious glas mounted, the size advantage is moslty gone, and in the worst case you are holding an awful balanced package in your hand.
And the last reason for a DSLR is the size. Taking pictures and setting the camera right for it is no easy task, and involves human actions. No smartphone or camera will ever know what you really like to do, and therefore can not work in automatic modus to make all settings for you. This is something a photographer has to do himself. The many buttons on a camera help us to make these settings faster, sometimes without taking the camera from the eye. This is something I miss with mirrorless, either the shooting position is unnatural (holding the camera in fron of you), or then it is impossible to adjust the camera while it is up at the eye.

Sure, other cameras have also their pros. But if you don't mind the size, the DSLR is the do everything workhorse, and because of that a DSLR is the only camera I use (ok, sometimes I take pictures with the smartphone, but not because they look good, just because I need a picture).

20
I've seen rumors that Nikon is working on cameras that can have an interchangeable sensor...

Now, I found really strange that Canon, that's producing both Camera and Sensors is not working on something similar.
Canon il the market leader and could set a standard for all the companies, no?

What makes you belive that Canon is not working on such a camera? Maybe they are already working on it. Just because there is a patent from Nikon, it doesn't mean that Canon isn't thinking about such a camera. (no matter if it makes sense or not)

21
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness
« on: October 01, 2013, 08:43:50 AM »
You have to admit he is good at what he does...

Yes, he is.  But what he 'does' (as in, does for a living) is not photography, nor is it teaching photography or reviewing gear. It's running a for-profit website.  Controversial statements generate website hits and ad revenue.  Having people act as unwitting shills is great for KR's 'growing family'.

I completly agree with you on this one. !

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: If you plan to upgrade your camera, read
« on: September 17, 2013, 04:51:01 AM »
I'm amazed you're still using a 350D ;)

This is funny because I work with a guy who still uses his 350D and he swears by it. He says a couple of reasons why he still loves it is because 1) The pixel pitch is 7.4um (close to the full frame 5D & 5D2) and produces noise free images all the way through his ISO range and it is a larger body than the newer Rebels and feels "beefier".

I suppose that is a testomony to the quality of Canon's products, that such an "old" DSLR is still going strong, even after years and years of use. Personally? I would have dumped it years ago in favor of the newer, brighter (and larger) LCD back displays. I can't imaging how we got past such a small, dim display and made it work, but compared to film, at least you got something to look at vs. having to wait to develop your film to see...

D

I completly disagree with the noise in the 350D; the 350D is quite awfull when it comes to noise; but hey, this is an 8year old design. Otherwise I have no quality issues. The eyepiece fell of twice, so I needed replacement. The grip starts to loose its texture, and the screen has scratches (so it is even harder now to really see something); but everything is still working, and it reminds me that the most important part is the photographer. I have to work a little harder, and I have to understand a little better what I'm doing than the other guys with new gear.
My conclusion is, that the equipment is not the most important thing; and yes, upgrading from one consumer camera to the next is a waste of money; wait a few years so that there is a bigger improvement. Upgrading to a semipro or pro camera is also a waste of money, when you are not using the camera often.
The real luxury is not having a 1Dx with 10 L-lenses, no it is having time to make good photgraphs whit any decent camera.

23
Software & Accessories / Re: Cataloging
« on: September 16, 2013, 09:58:25 AM »
I'm using apple aperture. It does also a very nice job at cataloging photos.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: If you plan to upgrade your camera, read
« on: September 16, 2013, 02:57:41 AM »
Hi there,

I feel it's a waste of money upgrading from one Canon rebel to the next rebel or even a 60D to the 70D.
I suggest that you upgrade only to a larger sensor body.
It is just a waste of money to buy another camera having the same size sensor IMO.

Upgrade your glass instead.

Your are right, it is a waste of money to upgrade from a 60D to a 70D, or even more so to upgrade a 650D to a 700D.

It is a different story if the upgrade is from a 50D or even 40D to a 70D, or from a 450D to a 700D. Actually it is a waste of money to upgrade any electronic device after one or two years, be it a Canon camera or a Nikon or a Sony or whatever; or be it a smartphone a nav-system, a homecinema. There are no big improvements from one model to the next one.

Everybody has to find his own way of replacing and updating equipment. For me as an amateur photographer the target age for a camera is 5 years. Right now I'm replacing my 7 1/2 year old 350D with a 70D, this is a nice upgrade, and well worth the money. In 5 more years the 90D will be out, and if I wait another 2 years, then it will be the 100D.....

25
Lenses / Re: Why are Zeiss lenses manual?
« on: September 13, 2013, 06:10:18 AM »
I hear about the great Zeiss lenses, and read the great reviews on them.

My question is, why do they ONLY seem to do manual focus lenses? Could they not really clean up on the high end market by making them work with the Canon/Nikon AF systems???

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Here is the real reason why Zeiss does not make AF-Lenses for Canon and Nikon:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissTouit/ZeissTouit-overview-optics.html
From the Zeiss Q&A:
Because of the patent situation, it is not currently possible to offer a ZEISS AF lens for the other camera systems with EF and F mounts
And also:
In its collaboration with Canon and Nikon, ZEISS currently is not even licensed to use the autofocus interface on the camera.

As I read in other places, it is not possible for a company outside of Japan to build AF-Lenses for Nikon and Canon cameras, due to patent rights.

26
Lenses / Re: Is There Such Thing As a "Best" Normal Lens for Crop?
« on: September 09, 2013, 07:26:21 AM »
This is a little bit difficult. I used the 35mm f2 for quite a while as a walk arround lens. It is small, and the IQ is good; AF is noisy but fast enough. FoV is just a bit too narrow for my taste (56mm eqv.)
The Sigma 30mm f1.4 got me quite excited, but the old version had horrible short focusing distance, which itself was a killer for me. The second generation improved in this aspect to an acceptable level, but I was hoping for Sigma 35mm f1.4 IQ, which it can't deliver, actually, the improvement over gen. one is not that big.

I then considerd a zoom option. There we have the 17/18-50/55 f2.8 options from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. The Canon being the best (and most expensive), then there is the nice 15-85mm, and Sigmas 17-70 is also in the mix. To make it short, the f2.8 were too expensive and lack some versatility (and when I really need fast glas, I take a prime), the 15-85 has a nice zoom range, but it is a bit slow, and IQ could also be a bit better (and it overlaps to much with the 10-22 at the wide end), so I went with the Sigma 17-70 and I'm very happy so far. IQ is great, the zoom range is nice. It works almost silent. And it is smaller and lighter than the other options.

But no, there is no "Best" normal lens for APS-C, there is only the one that suits your personal needs the best.

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / RAW or JPEG
« on: September 08, 2013, 03:13:29 PM »
I wonder what other are shooting. I shot almost only JPEGs, mostly I'm happy with the quality, even though I encountered problems with some scenes, where I got some nasty effects, especially in large areas with small color graduation (night sky...). I tried RAW for some of these shoots, but somehow it didn't help that much; probably it has to do with the fact, that my skills at RAW processing are rather limited.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:47:48 AM »

You do not really think that posting selected OOF crops of JPEGs with different noise reduction proves anything, do you?

Tell me which brand you want to see a winner, and I will post similar crops from IR proving that that brand is the best.

Two things here, dp uses different lenses. For Canon APS-C they use a EF 50mm f1.4 for Nikon the 50mm f1.4 AF-S and for the FF they use the 85mm f1.8 from each brand. They shot at f8. So the differencr in quality should be rather small (check the tests of these lenses at various sites, also DXOmark)

The OOF claim is understandable. I was thinking the same when I looked at the samples. The D600 looks worse in the poker card than the 70D. But I do not think that this is an OOF problem, for several reasons.
1. The 7100D and other Nikons show this problem, so either they focus many Nikon cameras wrong, but not the Canons; or the Nikon AF is not accurate enough...
2. This softnes does not appear on the whole picture, you just need to move down on dp-site tool a little bit to the black and white circle. This seems to be on the same plane, but it looks sharp enough to me.

So to me, this is not an OOF problem, the Nikon sensors just have a problem to resolve that properly.

29
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:29:31 AM »
I think to say that DXO is complete nonsense isn't fair.

I did not say that DXO is complete nonsense, I said that the DXOmark score is nonesense.

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 06, 2013, 03:22:46 AM »
What I wanted to show is, that the DXOmark score is nonsense. Their measurements are nice, but even they lack information to conclude which camera makes the best pictures. Sure, there are some things that can be derived from the DXO numbers, but others not. One is for example noise; you can have the same amount of noise for two cameras, but to the human eye they look different, because of the patterns and the colors they appear in.

I also found the test interessting, because it even worked for myself, since I forgot most positions of the cameras, and also did a blind test (and I judged the pictures differently then when I knew from what camera they were).

My conclusion.
-The DXOmark score difference between the 70D and the D7100 is definitly not justified.
-The Fujifilm x-pro1 makes some nice pictures.
-The Sony a99 is a bit dissapionting, the D7100 and the 70D produce pictures that are about on the same level.
-FF is better, but not but the difference is not as big as I thought (the 70D was often rated higher than the D600 at JPEG).

I really tried to make a fair test; I took samples from colorcards to show noise performance at low ISO, I took parts with high contrast and some with details. So I think the comparison is quite fair. If it is meaningful to you, I don't know, this is up to you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12