March 06, 2015, 02:39:13 AM

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 5 ... 12
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.....

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,


Here is the real reason why Zeiss does not make AF-Lenses for Canon and Nikon:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:52:36 PM »
Here is the comparison with the camera models and the settings of the pictures taken.

I leave it to you to judge your results; I will make some kind of statistics later.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:31:19 AM »
its just not possible to siply rank them as each row has different pixtures that have different qualitys better like colour sharpness and noise are not always equally good on each shot.


so depending on what you look for different photos might fit your need best.

Thanks, a very nice analysis.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 03, 2013, 09:44:08 AM »
I like to see some more ratings, so that it makes sense to put the results into some nice graphs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 03, 2013, 04:12:15 AM »
Do you mean sort per row or sort once to pick the most pleasing one of the four cameras?

You can also only pick the best and the worst. What I like to do is a blind test; just look at the pictures, without knowing what camera it is, and what the settings were.

It is very interesting. I made the table, but I can remember the position of only a few cameras, so there is nothing else to do than just look carefully at the pitures, and rate them by what I see.

I think I will do a table with only the DXO mark attached to it, this would also be interesting.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 03, 2013, 02:03:12 AM »
I will do a ranking.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:32:24 AM »
Ok, I'll kick: :)
3A is the Canon 7D
3B is the Nikon D7100
3C is the Sony A77
3D is the Canon 70D
Did I kicked too far? ???

Mostly Wrong. Try to sort the rows from best to worst, I will post the pic the names on it soon.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 02, 2013, 04:23:57 PM »
I made an interesting table to compare IQ of different cameras (the EOS 70D is also part of it). If you like to check it out, I started a new thread here:

EOS Bodies - For Stills / IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 02, 2013, 04:19:58 PM »
Hello, I made a table with different samples from different cameras at different settings. I took the pictures from dpReview, and arranged them in 6 rows with 4 pictures each. The picture in each row are taken with the same setting (ISO, Raw or JPG). The pictures are mainly from Canon or Nikon cameras, but others are also included.

Feel free to rank the pictures in each row, or to just point a interesting things. I will post the picture with the settings and the cameras later.

You should download the picture to see it at 100%

The goal is not to spot the 70D. The idea is to rank the picture according to your impression, and then see later from what cameras they were.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12