December 19, 2014, 05:55:29 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 6 ... 39
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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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. 

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?

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

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.

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.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 25, 2014, 11:40:46 PM »

In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)


Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 25, 2014, 11:30:02 PM »
FWIW I'm really bored with 24-70 zooms, so I ditched mine (24-70 f/2.8 L) and got a Ʃ35 f/1.4A instead to bridge a gap in my range of wide to standard prime lenses. I find that I am shooting with primes more and more often, with really satisfactory results. Often I will have a wide or standard prime on the 5DMkII  and a tele-zoom on the 5DMkIII. My 24-105L and 17-40L get most of their use when I travel, the 17-40L is almost exclusively for holiday use .

Yes.  I have the Sig 35 Art and it just forces me to make better composition, and its colors and sharpness are just insane.  I almost can't take a bad image with that lens. 
I plan to pick up a 7d2 (if it isn't just a Bigfoot riding a unicorn) and then keep he 35 on the 6d and the 70-200 on the crop.

Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 03:33:39 PM »
many years.
there is nothing wrong with the 50L.

it's a people lens. it's plenty sharp.
it's f/1.2 - so if you're not nailing focus, you need to work on your technique.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

Exactly.  It's not the f/1.2 aperture that causes the focus problems on this particular lens.  It's actually the field of curvature and is especially prominent at close distances from about f/2.8 to f/4.5.  The lens will back-focus and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it.  I thought it was pretty underwhelming for $1699.

You could manually focus... but I think the presumption is that those who struggle with f1.2 are using bad technique, like focus and recompose... which will all but guarantee the subject is out of focus.
Manual focus (even with the super precision matte screen) is almost impossible with the 50L at f/1.2 just like f/1.4 with the 24L, but things get a little easier with the 85L and 135L because of the focal length. 

The 50L is the ultimate love/hate lens for Canon shooters, I think, and to me, it's part of why it's so satisfying to use.  If you nail a photo with it at f/1.2 it feels like an achievement instead of a gee I pressed the shutter moment.  On the other hand, many people have tried the lens and hate it.  I see it as a very specialized tool for unique looking portraits, but similar results can be achieved with other lenses.

The part about loving it because good focus is rare and hard to achieve is a masterpiece in spin doctoring. :)

You'd think they'd put AFMA in it.  It counts as a good user feature but really it also helps Canon increase user satisfaction by letting owners fix any minor manufacturing boo boos themselves. 

Why wouldn't they do that?  Otherwise most people with slightly out of whack lenses or bodies just suffer with it and tell people their Canon just wasn't very sharp.  Maybe they buy a Pentax next time. 

Then others have to deal with the hassle of sending their body and one favorite lens off for adjustment at Canon which is no fun for either the owner or for Canon, and it is all avoidable if they'd just include AFMA.

If the ketchup companies are smart enough to add "shake well before serving" to their labels, so that the user is more likely to have a positive experience with their condiments, why would a camera maker leave out AFMA?

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 45x Zoom for Waterproof Camera
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:32:58 PM »
Is white balance tricky underwater?  Does it have a WB setting for that?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39