February 01, 2015, 02:43:17 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade Path Dilemma
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:24:52 AM »
You don't list interests in shooting live subjects in low light or indoors.  That somewhat reduces your need for full frame. 
As long as you are shooting landscapes, etc., which do not move, you could get by in dim light by using long exposures, provided you get a good tripod and head. Do you have one? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:48:09 AM »
No mention of max shutter. Assume it is 1/8000?

No mention of flash sync speed.  Assume it is 1/250th?  Any possibility it could be a bit higher?  1/320th?

Well, I don't know nearly as much as Privatebydesign does about everything, but I do think Roger of Lens Rentals may be an educated lens buyer almost on the same level as Privates. 

Privatebydesign:  how many lenses have you purchased?  Just round it over to the nearest hundred lenses to keep it simple.


And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site.  And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear".  Oh.  No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

Lenses / Roger Cicala: Canon v. Nikon lenses on optical bench (no camera)
« on: September 06, 2014, 09:30:40 PM »

Roger at Lens Rentals is comparing 24-70's and 70-200's from Canon and Nikon.  Interesting because it removes the huge variable of the different camera bodies you usually have. 

Good autofocus would not hurt image quality or performance.  Good autofocus would widen the appeal of the lens to include the many customers who are reluctant to buy a MF-only lens.   Autofocus is not terribly expensive, as most lenses manage to feature it and still make a profit (at a much, much lower retail price!).  It leads one to think Zeiss has taken a good honest look at what they are capable of doing exceptionally well (optics) and what they are not (autofocus) and made a decision to not do it they are unable to do it as superbly as they do the optics.   

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 02, 2014, 05:56:11 PM »
As for pricing, there is no reason they have to increase.  Look at flat panel TV's. every year or two for the last 20 years the TV's have gotten better and better at the same time that they were also holding the same price or even sometimes getting cheaper.  Same thing with computers, laptops, Dvd/Blueray players, phones and other electronic things.

Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:06:15 PM »
Obviously a response to market conditions.  While there are several relevant ones here, including overly-aggressive pricing strategy in the last few years, camera/tablet cameras, mirrorless systems, a still-sluggish economic recovery, market saturation, etc., I can think of no stronger operative market force than competition. 

And because Canon is partly insulated from Nikon/Sony competition by the investment its existing customers have sunk in Canon equipment (which acts as a barrier to switching systems), I think this speaks volumes about the effect of 3rd party lens makers in particular, being direct competition on lenses.  Chief among them being Sigma, with their generally well-respected Art line.

I think this is great for the consumer, as it should drive innovation as well as put some brake on pricing.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:50:24 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 
Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used.  6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation.  It's how big companies make money.  Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens.

If they want to offer a less-expensive kit lens with a FF camera, they should simply offer a kit that includes a 50mm f/1.4. That could be done in a white box for just a couple hundreds bucks over body-only price and might be very popular.

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. 

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41