October 20, 2014, 02:37:30 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38
31
Lenses / Re: Would you buy the 35L now, or wait?
« on: August 25, 2014, 06:18:07 PM »
If I wanted one I'd get it now.

If a MkII comes out then it will be much more than you can get the MkI for so you have a different set of factors contributing to your purchasing decision.

Would you buy a MkII now for $2,200? Because even if they were available they wouldn't be selling for less than list, and wouldn't be for some time after release. Look after your MkI, keep the box and bag, receipt, warranty and paperwork and even if you want to upgrade in the future you won't lose that much.

Besides, lenses are for taking photos and imagine the images you will miss in the mean time.

If I wasn't in a rush I'd see what the rebates brought, but if you are not in a rush do you need it...............

Normally I'd agree but I wouldn't be shocked if the new 35mm 1.4 isn't sold at that big a premium due to the Sigma.

I think Canon have demonstrated on pretty much every occasion that they don't care about Sigma. Sigma are not pushing them to do anything, if they were we would have seen a 50 f1.4 replacement a long time ago.

I believe the bigger picture is Canon think the relevance of fast primes has waned and they don't carry the "system" clout they used to. Killer specialty lenses like the 24 TS-E and 17TS-E, and zooms with the IQ of the 70-200 IS f2.8 MkII and 24-70 f2.8 MkII are not only expensive but they are good sellers with much broader appeal. I well understand the fast prime "look" that can't be replicated with f2.8 zooms, but it seems to me Canon don't really care too much and have moved on faster than some of us, lets be honest the most compelling reason for fast wide primes was not dof control (though I am not denying it's importance sometimes) but it was to compensate for awful film iso speeds and that has very much been put to rest with even current camera iso capabilities, I suspect Canon consider medium speed primes with IS that are small have much more appeal and earning potential, the new lenses are often video orientated and that is what Canon thinks is more important to them.


I don't really feel like I need IS on a 35mm lens for what I shoot.  I'd rather have the wider aperture for the 35mm focal length.  Handholding at 1/30th works ok with a wide-ish lens like a 35mm, and that is plenty slow for me.  I don't have much need for 4 stops of IS to allow me to shoot sluggish 1/2 second exposures handheld because most of my subjects are alive and moving way too much for that, even if trying to hold still.   When I do occasionally shoot still life I am fine using a tripod or resting the camera on something. 

What I do like about a brighter 35mm is that instead of having to jack up the ISO to the point where I notice noise or lack of detail in crops, I have room to open it up and gain a stop of shutter speed at equivalent ISO compared to what an f/2 lens could do.  And even wide open, the DOF on a 35 usually stays wide enough to work with, and does not get so shallow that you are stuck with that look where practically nothing in the image other than a couple of eyelashes, seven pores and one pupil is in focus. 

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:49:12 PM »

As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers. :P

So rather than removing obstacles to improve detail and simplifying, you want to convolute the process?



Quote
Your an idiot if you think a lower resolution sensor without an AA filter is ever, even remotely, going to be better than downsampling an oversampled image that doesn't NEED an AA filter (because by oversampling, you ARE anti-aliasing!)

As for sharpening soft images...are you refuting the claim that you can restore detail by sharpening? Seriously?! I've proven this case so many times before, do I really, truly, need to prove it again?

In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened.  But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.

I'm not sure there is any actual evidence for that. And again, I'd point you to all the artifacts that occur with sensors that lack an AA filter entirely. You could spend DAYS trying to correct moire or extensive aliasing in an image, and still never get rid of it. As for a sensor with an AA filter...run it through a light sharpening filter and your done. Maybe that's 5 seconds of additional processing...ooh, that's just so much time. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that you still have to spend time sharpening an image without an AA filter...you just use less sharpening. So there really isn't any major difference in processing time period.

Now, regarding oversampling. You seem to be misunderstanding that. A sensor that oversamples lenses, at their best resolution, say f/2.8 as a round-about high quality aperture for lenses the likes of the Otus. You still wouldn't have an AA filter. However, you wouldn't NEED an AA filter, because your anti-aliasing by oversampling. You do understands what that means, right? A sensor that is capable of oversampling is going to be of MUCH higher resolution than any sensor that isn't oversampling and lacks and AA filter.

So...where, exactly, is your lower resolution AA-less sensor actually getting higher IQ than a high resolution oversampled sensor? The higher resolution sensor, even it it may look "soft" at 100% pixel peeping, is STILL resolving FAR more detail than the lower resolution sensor that lacks an AA filter. You want a sharper image? Well, if your 2x oversampled, downsample by a factor of two (reduce it to 1/4 area). If your 3x oversampled, downsample by a factor of three (reduce it to 1/9th area.) The oversampled image will be sharper, out of camera, without any sharpening or noise reduction, than the lower resolution image that did not have an AA filter.

When it comes down to sensors at today's resolutions, I'll take the one with an AA filter over one without an AA filter any day. It might take me an extra five seconds to dial in a slightly stronger amount of sharpening than one without an AA filter, but at least I won't have to spend an extra day trying to get rid of aliasing and moire. :P

What if they just did a non-Bayer pixel arrangement, like Fuji?  Isn't that supposed to let you ditch the AA filter?

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 06:59:39 PM »
What is "built in flash with radio trigger function"?  Is it just saying the on board flash can act as a master?  That is not "radio trigger".  Is it? 

It would be pretty cool if it had a built-in radio trigger for RT flashes, wouldn't it?

34
Lighting / Re: Mitros+ Owners: are you satisfied?
« on: August 20, 2014, 06:03:00 PM »
I have 3 Mitros + flashes and I have not noticed any issues at all.  I wasn't aware there was any kerfuffle out there, actually. 
I have never had a receiver not get a signal.  Also, although I don't necessarily push the thing to the ragged edge, I don't have a problem with overheating either.

As for the price of the Phottix being somewhere near the once-in-a-blue-moon sale price one might catch on a 600, that is not so if you are purchasing a set of 3 of them. 

It is even less applicable to folks who, like the OP, already have a whole set of Phottix triggers and receivers, plus multiple flashes to go with them.  Such a person would go from needing just one additional $399 flash unit to needing to ditch everything and buy 3 600's and a Canon transmitter.

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 16, 2014, 09:39:54 PM »
They would kill it with sharp long glass (400/500/600) that is 1/2 the price of the OEM models. 

Doing it with primes seems to be safer for them than zooms, and it seems to be where they have won their loudest praise (35mm and 50mm Art), compared to respectable but not stand-out billing for their zooms.

The tilt-shift comment above makes a lot of sense.  Get all the points for sharpness, and none of the griping about the autofocus, there being none.  I am not sure how many tilt-shift units get sold every year compared to lenses of more general appeal, such as telephotos, but at some point Sigma ought to get around to doing a TS.

Also, what about a "Sport" teleconverter?  No autofocus required!  Just good sharp glass, and sharpness seems to be their strong suit.  Maybe throw in $2 bucks worth of gaskets, though, so you could say it is weather sealed when you put it in between your 5d3 and your sealed "L" lens.

36
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 08:24:33 PM »
I wish it came in "M" mount.  The mirrorless cameras are just so much less bulky.

37
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 09:23:38 AM »
Multi-layer with DPAF.

IF that is true, and
IF it really works, and
IF it represents the kind of major IQ improvement required to justify Canon's taking the major trouble of doing it....

And to take that further, into wild speculation territory...

That could be a setback for Sony trying to break into the serious/pro photography market.  And if it is a hiccup for Sony, it would be pneumonia for Nikon, who depends on Sony sensors, and who seems to be struggling financially lately.  If Sony goes some other direction in sensor development and quits innovating on 35mm stills sensors, it could be the beginning of the end for Nikon, who seems to have let its sensor development atrophy a bit while outsourcing that job to Sony.

38
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 09:09:11 AM »
 We’re also told, that just like the EOS 5D Mark III launch. This camera should be available pretty soon after the announcement.




Could that mean in time for Christmas?  How quick did the 5d3 hit shelves after formal announcement?

39
EOS Bodies / Re: No weekend rumors ever??
« on: August 10, 2014, 07:45:32 PM »
While it can be a bit of a drag to find no new rumors waiting when you check the site, I think it is better to have fewer, more reliable rumors than lots and lots of unreliable ones delivered 24-7.  Pretty soon they'd exhaust even the sketchiest of sources and the thinnest of rumors and we'd all be scrolling through a lot of stories about space aliens and Bigfoot out there beta testing new high MP sensors, etc...

40
Which has greater noise? An APS-C sensor or a full frame sensor cropped to APS-C size? Bare in mind our hypothetical situation is you're still reach limited, so the bigger sensor in itself conveys no advantage, and the only arguable difference is pixel size. For roughly comparable sensor generations I'd argue they're practically the same. Outside of lab tests, it probably isn't significant.

At ISO6400, I'd happily use either of my 600D or a 5D mk2 (as secondary body to 7D), but when reach limited the 600D would be my preference of the two. To me noise isn't the limiting factor in this scenario.

Below are a pair of images shown at 100%.   One is from an 18 MP APS-C camera at ISO 3200.  The other is from an 18 MP FF camera at ISO 6400, a full stop higher than the APS-C image.   

I'm having trouble telling which is which, the noise levels are so similar.   ::) ::)



I'm not convinced.  I'd need to see the squirrels on the moon to be sure.

41
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:15:41 PM »
The background is only 2-3 feet behind the subject?  Can you get much blur that close to the background?

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:49:22 PM »
I think we can all see what is next.  This return to medium format is sure, in turn, to ingnite the race back into Large Format. 

No one can deny the public has been itching to drape a new synthetic version (kevlar?) of the traditional light blanket over their heads, hunch over the tripod, clutching the updated carbon fiber handle of a state of the art  flash powder trough. 

Party like it's 1899.  This could obviously become huge with the steampunk crowd too. 

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:59:02 PM »
Seems like they would want to shrink a bigger telephoto lens before a macro but maybe.  I also wonder if the price would be beyond what most folks would pay for a macro?

44
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 04:58:26 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

Yep.  According to nearly every review, too.  Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly.

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it:  People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc...  And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens:  There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus.  People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering.  The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality.  And the price would be four times what it is now.

45
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 03:16:40 PM »
Also, why compare a 58mm lens to a 50mm lens?  The longer one will have more OOF blur taking the same shot at the same distance.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38