Messages

331

Third Party Manufacturers / Good luck with that 6D, Canon, D600 test results at DxOmark = D800's top-of-pack

« on: September 19, 2012, 11:59:12 AM »

Some seem to have a particular distrust of DxOmark's test results which show recent Nikon bodies humiliating Canon's offerings in the critical low ISO dynamic range results.
Well, there's new fodder for your angst.

The D600's test results are virtually the same as the D800 and D800e and that puts it a full 2.5 stops better than the 5D3 at base ISO.

Canon's "new" sensor in the 6D better be part of a whole new system that can pull of a miraculous improvement if they want to stem the criticism.  1Dx results are still not posted either but should be a bit better than the 5D3's in the DR measurement.

332

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....

« on: September 18, 2012, 05:31:11 PM »

So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?

I decided to get D800s instead of an F<>EF adapter. 

Even before the WA zooms, my main issue with my landscape and other shots was not being able to push up shadows from my 5D2 without showing pattern noise.
The low (pattern) noise from the D800 is really appreciated and the extra MP come in handy too.

I've got one foot solidly in both camps right now and, if the new 6D doesn't show some serious improvement in DR and low ISO pattern noise I'll slowly be withdrawing from the Canon camp.  Might keep the 5D2 just to continue using some Canon glass I like.

333

EOS Bodies / Re: At what price point will you consider buying the Canon 6D?

« on: September 18, 2012, 05:23:44 PM »

IF, and only IF, it can provide low noise low ISO performance significantly better than 5D2 or 5D3, and hopefully at least approach the low ISO performance of a $500 Nikon cropper like the D5100, will I consider buying this thing.

DxoMark better show it to have great DR and low noise, which I then follow with my own read noise push test to check for pattern noise issues.

Until then the devil-I-know 5D2 remains in my kit.
I don't need any of the other flimsy features in it, even the AF is likely plenty adequate for how I want to use it.
And if it does that well enough then I'll still only want to pay no more than about $1700 for it.

334

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G15

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:58:28 AM »

Oh yay, they put in their CMOS sensor.
Likely to perform more poorly than the G1x then?..
Too bad they didn't stay with the Sony (?) CCD sensors that gave very good low ISO performance in the G11 and G12.
At least initial release price is not unreasonable, considering the lens ..

335

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:54:06 AM »

Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in...

I seem to get inconsistent results with mine, if I look more closely.
Sometimes, at f/8-f/11 or even 16 I'm getting really decent corner sharpness and other times it's mush.
It seems, maybe that the times I'm getting good corner results the corners are only a few meters away, with the central subject at a similar distance.  At longer distances it's very soft.

I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.

My Nikonian friend is intent on the 16-35 VR
I just picked up a very clean used Nikon 17-35/2.8 and will begin comparing it to my 17-40/4L in some hopefully controlled situations, each lens on their native bodies (D800 and 5D2) and eeking out the max I can from each one.  The loser gets listed on Kijiji.

One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?

I tend to agree. The more there is, the more there is to cause problems.  Tamron's very decent 17-50/2.8 is an example of a good lens that went not-so-good with the addition of VC.

I love using some of my stabilized lenses for handheld walk-around shooting but when I'm on a tripod I prefer the best lens I have available for the job, usually a prime or a good performing stabilized zoom.  If I'm taking the time to mount on a tripod, I'm also taking the time to get the best from my equipment in other ways.

None of the zooms I've looked at in this range are particularly good at FF border-corner performance tho.
I think Samyang's 14mm prime actually outperforms the Nikon 14-24 in the corners too, but at the expense of significant distortion in the central area which could be an issue if shooting stuff with straight lines.  Water/horizons might be a problem in landscapes.  14-24/2.8 is working nicely enough otherwise, I'm really enjoying that WIDE end!

336

Landscape / Re: A skyline to remember.

« on: September 16, 2012, 05:03:24 PM »

@solargravity

Thank you for the compliment.    I'm glad you like it.

Every once in a while I have to post a shot here just to show I actually shoot and don't just gripe about and criticize equipment performance. 

Skyscapes and sunsets are some of my favorite subjects and I'm fortunate enough to live where there's sometimes a good supply of each if I'm willing to drive out of the city to get a better view of them.  This time of year is ideal for vivid colors because of all the dust in the air from grain harvesting and other agricultural activity.

My www.a2bart.com website is where I'll be posting my work altho the sad state of it at this time is a bit of a joke.  I'm planning to put more of an effort into it this autumn and winter.  I have thousands of images I want to get out there and hopefully have some commercial success with either as print sales or stock.  So, I'd better make it look good!

I've spent most of my photo-related time this summer getting, and getting familiar with, new equipment.  I'm almost back into "shooting mode."  Hopefully some good fall colors to shoot but the trees here are stressed and more brown than yellow in many areas.  I've got lots of files to process from the past tho.

337

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron's new 70-200mm f/2.8 w VC & ultrasonic AF - & 90mm 2.8 VC macro

« on: September 16, 2012, 04:43:45 PM »

1-Sigma improved a lot their 70-200 adding stabilization, but the introduction price was quite high...tamron ha to add ultrasonic motor and improve the construction, so u can expect a low price; 1200$ at least after a while and the quality wont be like the 70-200 II

2-Maybe the stabilization wont be effective in macro, but you can use it as a medium tele, so the stabilization will be useful

I DO look fwd to a thorough testing of the new stabilized Tamron.
as it is, the Canon v2 is peerless, and the main reason I haven't sold my 5D2 body. That lens totally kicks on FF.

yup, non-macro use is about what that stabilization's good for. tho I find that's not often a FL I make much use of outside of studio-type shots.

I actually just ordered the Sigma 70mm macro in F-mount.  An older lens but reviews of it show it to be extremely sharp so I want to see how it performs on my D800e for a variety of subjects.

338

Landscape / Re: A skyline to remember.

« on: September 16, 2012, 04:18:32 AM »

I like those purple, blue and orange skies, awesome.

I also like the liquid lava sunsets we sometimes get on Alberta prairies, like tonite.
My 7D was behaving itself quite nicely.

339

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

« on: September 15, 2012, 02:01:49 AM »

If this thing comes out as spec'd I won't be surprised.

IMO, the 5Dc and the 5D2 were both just FF Rebels with only the 5D3 really stepping forward in features and performance. Something a tad lower-end, but newer, makes a better setting for the 5D3 to shine in.

Until you compare it to the competition's offering.

I'm sure Canon's marketing guys are getting no sleep this week, trying to figure out which variation of product to announce and what day to make it available to milk the most money from the eager public.

You want performance with that?

340

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Nikon vs Canon - Honest Poll before photokina.

« on: September 15, 2012, 01:53:07 AM »

..Nikon increases preservation of shadow detail more than highlights, Canon increases preservation of highlights more than shadows. Again, which is 'better' depends on the photographer. Me personally, when a scene captures my eye and makes me reach for my camera it is specifically the interaction of light and shadow that made it appealing. I am not concerned with nor desire to process out all the shadows, that would completely ruin the imagery of the scene/subject. If I am concerned about anything it is highlights being blown out when wanting to maintain shadows being shadows.. I mean I want the shadows to be just that, shadows. If I could not make out what was in the shadows at the moment of capture, I have no concern with seeing it in the image.

Dealing with the ends of a system's DR can be both relative and subjective as far as this kind of image interpretation goes.

But what about when some bodies (coff coff 5D2 coff) actually generate visible pattern noise in midtones (like blue sky) or darker areas that are not even in pushed shadows?

Also, as part of an artist's interpretation, simple controls like contrast and brightness, even when used sparingly with a camera's built in scene mode or picture style, can sometimes bring out these patterned noise artifacts.  so it's not always heavy post-processing required to show some of these problems from some bodies.  Some low iso images have problems right out of the camera and same with some hi-ISO blotchiness.

I don't agree with your opinion on noise processing.
Patterned noise is nearly impossible to get rid of, uniform noise is easier to remove or can even be left in as it's less obtrusive than patterned noise.

No comparison in lenses. Canon offers a greater selection in their 'pro' lenses than Nikon. Canon offers users the ability to get into pro glass without having to buy the ONLY and most expensive lenses they make like Nikon does. For example (and there are many) the venerable 70-200mm lens you will likely find in any pro's bag, and one most everyone else wants at some point, Canon provides four options from ~$600 to ~$2400, all exceptional optic quality - Nikon has ONE and fork over ~$2400 for it or do not even think about a 70-200m..

That is only one example, but a good one.  You still have the option of choosing and using 70-200mm class lenses they've made over the past 30+ years tho. So there's a price point for everyone if you don't mind using some older, possibly manual gear.  Not that different after all.
OTOH, Nikon has some great lenses Canon doesn't, like the UWA benchmark 14-24mm.

341

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Nikon vs Canon - Honest Poll before photokina.

« on: September 14, 2012, 05:47:19 PM »

Hmmm  A bit too much ETTR on those Canon bodies, they're clipping a little.
The Nikon bodies are looking like they're making full use of their DR altho still a bit underexposed for my preferences.

Really difficult question and I think only people who have dealt with both, could say something. The more models from both sides someone had to do with, the more one can say.
Looking at those pictures only, I'd say Canon has better bodies, but it's really subjective to personal preferences, I suppose

342

Third Party Manufacturers / Tamron's new 70-200mm f/2.8 w VC & ultrasonic AF - & 90mm 2.8 VC macro

« on: September 14, 2012, 01:27:58 AM »

The new stabilized Tamron is something I'll be watching out for in the test venues, I'm hoping it will perform well enough for MY needs, and at a low enough price that I can sell my fabulous Canon v2 L lens and dump the 5D2 it sits on and use the cash for something else.

www.tamron.com/en/news/2012/0913_01.html

I like the IQ of the older non-stabilized Tamron but it's kinda poor in the AF department, certainly no threat to Canon or Nikon's lenses of similar spec. MF is not the easiest with the short throw but easier than with the sticky-feeling Nikon focus ring.  Canon's lens, just works like it should and is wicked sharp.


the 90mm f/2.8 macro, also stabilized

www.tamron.com/en/news/2012/0913_02.html

I don't need stabilized macros. I have a big heavy tripod instead. 

343

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 announced - $2100, let's see how Canon response!!!

« on: September 14, 2012, 12:55:15 AM »

.. I have seen the same better IQ from my T2i compared to a 7D. The low ISO noise on a 7D is unacceptable to me.

60D also has more pleasant low ISO noise characteristic than the 7D; much less banding.
7D's sensor is similar to, but different from the other cameras. It utilizes a dual data readout for more fps.

You have to ETTR on the 7D to get the best out of it, a bit counterproductive for a "fast" camera.

344

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G15

« on: September 14, 2012, 12:37:57 AM »

Nice lens' spec.
Where's the dials?!?.. 
I hope it didn't get the touchscreen treatment.   

345

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 $2700 MSRP??

« on: September 13, 2012, 03:00:51 PM »

Canon is in a dilemma here. Of course they'll discontinue the 5d2 (the name 5d3 alone states that), they just kept it around because they raised the 5d3 price tag so high to make money from early adopters.

But the pricing of the 6d will show how Canon expects the 5d3 to develop, because the gap cannot be too large if the 6d hasn't got any distinct features like built-in flash or flip out screen.

and...  keeping 5D3 price high allows 5D2 to look like a bargain in comparison so it will sell out inventory without having to discount it.
Once it's gone the 6D may fill that slot so maybe not real down pressure on 5D3 price.

D600, however, complicates buyers' options if they're not too tied to Canon glass but even then you can sell it and get most equivalents from Nikon.