March 04, 2015, 07:50:54 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 - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 124
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Brief Hands on with the 7Dii
« on: October 05, 2014, 08:55:46 AM »
If it gets even 1 stop better IQ it will be great. I think 1/2 stop is realistic.

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 05, 2014, 02:23:50 AM »
... my day job is color grading. ... My other job is in camera department ...

In this case, notwithstanding the fact that you don't like EVF's, stop putting down actual photographers who do prefer an EVF in their cameras.

I get it. Sorry. I'll stop insulting actual bad photographers. :)

If this is directed to me, please point out my bad photographs with suggestions. I so want to improve. I will appreciate. Honest.

Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 05, 2014, 01:41:52 AM »
Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

You are making a conceptual error here :) You should compare Sigma 150-600 with Tamron 150-600. Comparison with Canon is useless as Canon 200-400 is in absolutely different league. It would be the same as to compare Mercedes with Kia :)

Hmmm. Most likely what you saying is correct. But Sigma has thrown some surprises our way with their new 35 and 50. Am fantasizing that the league will not be so different. But yes, perhaps I should wait till at least the reliable reviews come out. Thx!

Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 05, 2014, 12:15:08 AM »
Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

As I am gaining experience with my photography and getting older I am realizing I do not need the most heavy or expensive equipment to get the photo. I am sure the focus of the Sigma will be as quick as the Canon in good light. The difference will be in low light only. So if I spend 40 days in 'bush' every year then I will have 80 mornings/evenings. Out of that I will witness something to photograph 20 times in tough light. Out of the 20 I will miss just few shots. I think I am ok with that. (Actually I do not think I will miss ANY.)

F4 is bit too wide for me. I find that many times the entire animal is not in focus. So 5.6 is fine and preferable. And the real world depth of field difference between f4 and 5.6 is negligible.

The main factor is resale value. Sigma may not hold up to its value after 5 years but Canon will.

I think I will sell the Canon and get the Sigma. Mainly because I prefer to work without the extra step of 1.4x switch. I will prefer the continues zoom option without having to wait for the lens to normalize.

Or perhaps I am building all this up as I want to save the 9k. haahaha

Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 05, 2014, 12:03:50 AM »
... Action in the bush happens fast...

That's what ... oh, nevermind...

Ahahahahahahaaha. Good one. And perhaps after seeing the pictures I was talking about you will realize the Freudian slip.

Attaching to photos of the incident. The lovers were far and I had to engage the 1.4x. The first photo is how the RAW appears. Second is a quick salvage. (I know many of you would salvage it much better.)

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: October 04, 2014, 10:49:41 AM »
Thank you Click. It was an amazing moment.

Lenses / Re: Selling 200-400
« on: October 04, 2014, 10:29:53 AM »
Thanks for your thoughts friends. Appreciate.
My take on the overexposure: The photographer must wait for the lens to become disengaged from AF etc before the extender is engaged. In my excitement of the moment I must have forgotten to do that. And if this is indeed the case then it is a bottleneck. Action in the bush happens fast...

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: October 04, 2014, 10:26:10 AM »
With 200-400

Lenses / Selling 200-400
« on: October 04, 2014, 05:37:08 AM »
Not very happy with this decision as the lens is quite good. But just for use once a year, am not sure if I should hold on to it.
Will buy the Sigma 150-600 sports. But will it be available before my next trip in Feb is the question. Do you think I should wait till the trip is over before selling? What if I sell and the Sigma does not deliver?

Btw the 200-400 is good but I got lots of over exposed shots when I engaged the 1.4x. Perhaps operator error but but not sure...

Oh no. Who wants a 36 mp camera? 24 mp are ENOUGH. Nikon made a huge blunder by coming out with a 36mp camera two years ago.  ;D

What gets boring about this discussion is that those who attack the 'high DR advocates' are invariably coming from one of the following flawed perspectives:

1.   It does not matter to me, so it should not matter to you. Sorry, around whom does the universe spin?
2.  You do not understand how to expose correctly. Condescending and ignorant view point.
3.   If Canon pros can make great photos, then you must think you are better than them. This ignores entirely the plethora of factors that lead to some people shooting Canon versus other brands. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the facts being discussed here. What's more it is about as logical as saying 'Mr X, the Formula 1 racer uses a BMW 535D as his daily driver so I cannot see why its not good enough for YOU.... without recognising that you might live on a remote farm in Scotland, accessed via a track passable only to 4x4s!
4.   When buying a camera, DR is only one consideration. You should look at the whole camera! Yes, but it may be that amazing AF and live view matters not to a given person, whereas high DR is actually more important for specific applications. Some people don't want to 'work around' the issue when they don't have to, or own multiple systems just to cover those high SBR moments that a Canon will struggle with... and carry both 'just in case'.
5.   Show me the paper or monitor that has 14 stops of range - there are none that are close so this 'data' is wasted! Sorry, but this shows a total lack of technical understanding of the issue. You need to learn about the relationships between subject brightness ranges, capture and output. This is basic stuff and its sad to hear how many people get their teeth stuck in while showing their ignorance on this one.
6.   A five stop push is unrealistic and therefore shows us nothing about real life application! Sure, 5 stops is extreme, but you try even 2 stops when those shadows are on the floor and the Canon still falls apart, especially if you want to make large prints. And yes, you can encounter these scenarios every single outing if you happen to shoot the sort of subject matter that will require you to expose to include hot highlights and then lift deep shadow. Sony sensors are dramatically better here and its visible in an 8x10, never mind a 30"
7.   Shadows are supposed to be shadows you fools! They aren't supposed to be lifted that much. Once again, you don't understand the basics of exposure and tonal placement in relation to the exposure latitude of the materials you are working with. Put in crude and simple terms, the photographer decides what is shadows and if the exposure means they fall darker than desired, its better if the photographer has recourse. There was the same issue in the darkroom, when you did your best with exposure and development, but due to various factors were left with heavy dodging in the darkroom....
8. All cameras are compromises. You are getting all upset because Canon is not perfect, but neither is Nikon. Sure, this is true, but as everyone's needs differ and as the compromises differ from one manufacturer to the other, this is a non-point. We can still prefer one compromise over the other. Besides, now that Nikon has sorted LOTS of issues out with the D810 and D750, if Canon does not nail the DR and banding issue, its going to be difficult to show a strong reason to be selected. Besides, none of this diminishes the frustration that far smaller companies with much lower budgets produce much cheaper cameras with much smaller sensors with much more dynamic range! Canon has ZERO high DR options. None at ANY price.

There are a lot of people commenting here like they are real pros, who are clueless on the issues about which they are commenting. Then there are those who just think that anyone whose needs differ from their own are delusional. Either way, its really boring hearing the same tired old counter-arguments from people you'd think are having their identities attacked.

....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:

"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."


So? So you are right. I agree with with your thought process.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:09:08 AM »
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.

Please provide a logical solution to 'have the best sensor' (as you put it) and 'have a handholdable 600/4...and >40 cross-type points...and a 5x macro lens...etc.

The point is that the they are mutually exclusive.  If you'd like to fantasize, I'll take 30 stops of DR, 200 MP, ISO 1638400 with no visible noise and all 30 stops of DR, and throw in a handholdable 1200mm f/2.8. 

Dilbert's claim that more DR at low ISO than Canon offers is a 'free feature' isn't tenable.  Bare silicon sensors don't take pictures.  Those sensors are parts of cameras, which are parts of systems.  We buy cameras and systems, not sensors.  Sure, I want the best...everything.  But in the real world, we have to make choices.

Yes, you are right - I am being greedy. I wish Canon would give me the best of everything. :)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:40:16 AM »
Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

How do you conclude that it's 'free'??  Does that extra low ISO DR come with a handholdable 600/4?  Does it come with an AF system having >40 cross-type points?   Etc.

Dont understand. Just because we have handhold able 600, we should not get better IQ at lower ISO?

The point is, a lens that big is generally used for stopping action, which requires faster shutter speeds and higher ISO's. So the Exmor low ISO 'advantage' is totally moot.

I do not think that is the point. In decent light at f4 it is easy to get 1/250 and faster at ISO 100.
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:03:38 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

Absolutely correct about it all. And if anyone does not agree with you, ask them to shoot with a cover on the LCD. They will then understand!

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 124