July 22, 2014, 03:42:38 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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 61
346
EOS Bodies / Re: Back to the Future Parts 1/2/3 Canon Strategy
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:48:44 PM »
Pentax seem to be hanging on, and have some very nice design work coming out, I thought the K-01 was excellent and the new MX-1 very nice also.  They've always ploughed their own furrow, Pentax, I reckon if I didn't shoot Canon I'd shoot pentax.  Certainly what you get for the money (that 16MP sensor, weather sealing, massive legacy of inexpensive lenses) lang may the pentax lum reek.  They are an interesting company making capable cameras at sensible prices.  Canon could learn a lot from them.

I agree. I started with a great deal on a Q, liked the interface so much I sprung for a K-01 when it was being dumped at super low prices.  Liked it so much I bough a 2nd one and another Q to use for, well, I'm not sure yet.
I now have K-5 IIs and a pile of K-mount glass, new and old, to play with.
I'm really enjoying shooting with Pentax more than with Nikon or even Canon, despite how familiar I am with the latter and how much I like the clean raw files of the former.  Pentax is like a decent combination of Canon operability with SoNikon raw file quality.  Sensible control layout, lots of customization and good ergonomics. Some poor ergonomics and control layout options too but, overall, I enjoy using my K-5 like I enjoyed the 7D and I feel more comfortable with knowing I can push that raw file pretty hard if I want to.
OTOH, the non-AA-filtered K-5 IIs (k52s from now on) delivers great per-pixel sharpness with a good lens, but is also showing up false color in some shots I didn't expect to have problems with so I may have to opt for a regular K5 for those scenes where I'm dealing with lots of specular hilites.

EDIT:  forgot to add, I wish Ricoh-Pentax would learn a few marketing tricks from CANON.  I don't ever recall ever seeing a Pentax ad.  If it wasn't for the encouragement of ONE Pentax shooting friend, and plenty of solid convincing from my local Pentax rep, I'd likely have never bought into the system.  I'd have been more tempted to go Fuji.
And that's my ABC (Anybody But Canon) story.  I'll likely end up using the weather-sealed Pentax gear more for foul-weather work than my other systems.  Their weather-resistant consumer level lenses are a great idea and they work well enough to use them in inclement conditions where better sharpness and optical performance is not essential.

347
Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject
« on: April 28, 2013, 03:21:18 AM »
A couple posters here have hit the answer to your question.
The answer is YES, lenses may have different abilities to resolve detail (defined as lines on the sensor at a given contrast ratio), depending on the focus distance.

As of yet, I know of no site that actually measures this characteristic of Canon or any other lenses.

I've certainly noticed this with a few lenses, typically zooms, where they will do a better job at close distances than at or near infinity.  I had a 17-40/4L that comes to mind first.
With the minute inconsistencies of manufacturing tolerances, various copies of a given lens model may exhibit more or less of this tendency as well with further variation possible at different focal lengths.
It sometimes seems that more low cost zoom lenses perform this way than others, likely because they're compromised to work better at the closer "people-are-the-subject" distances they're used with when kitted with consumer bodies.
Pro level lenses aren't exempt from this effect either, many workhorse zooms are a bit less sharp near minimum focus distance.

348
I doubt a mirrorless camera is what Pentax users have been clamouring for. [...] As a side issue, I'm always surprised that Pentax ranks so low in camera sales.  Their products and pricing seem ok.


At the same time, a mirrorless ff would make perfect sense because Pentax didn't make a splash with their traditional dlslrs even if they are good packages like the K-5. So if they cannot compete directly, they are well advised to innovate - and mirrorless is the way ahead, imagine how zebras and focus peaking right in the viewfinder would improve exposure and manual focussing capability.


Judging by today's bit from

http://photorumors.com/2013/04/24/pentax-working-on-a-new-professional-aps-c-based-camera/

The Pentax full frame is to be, "different than anything else available today"

The major qualification for that could be mirrorless...
The K-01 was an interesting beast in many ways, if not the most usable. I certainly have a use for it.
But I think I'd prefer a more conventional FF design from Pentax, I quite like using the K5 IIs and a FF version of that but please, an even better AF system, would be a real treat.

349
As I was attending a recent trade show and deciding what new gear to try out, I had a chance to play a little with the X20.
It feels good in the hand, seems reasonably responsive in many ways but I still didnt' get the impression the AF was super fast.  Faster than many for sure.

OTOH, the user interface would take more time for me to get used to compared to Canon, Nikon, Pentax.  Not a bad thing, just another learning curve.
But then.. The XE-1 started to really appeal to me more.  Just as that was settling onto my future-considerations list, I see rumor that Fuji may introduce an entry-level X-mount.

http://photorumors.com/2013/04/21/new-fuji-entry-level-mirrorless-camera-with-x-mount-to-be-announced-this-summer/

Good thing I'm waiting anyway. :)

350
I'm actually curious about those WB differences too.
I haven't specifically compared Can vs Nik WB but I have noticed a difference between Nik's, Can's or Pentax on the same scenes.  Even between a D800 and a d5100 on the same outdoor scene, both in AWB, with similar lenses, they rendered quite different results when the light started to change in the evening.  While the sun was higher the WB rendering was very satisfactory and nearly identical.

Would also be interested in seeing if the latest d800 firmware actually addressed any of that WB issue compared to the previous firmware.

Canon's WB seemed to make a good improvement when they started using that 63(?) zone color-sensitive metering sensor.  7D and 60D's auto WB renderings were almost always pleasing in a variety of different kinds of lighting and eval metering was far more accurate than previous bodies which tended to under/over-expose fairly often unless manually corrected for the subject matter's color.  Nikon supposedly had this technology first but I think Canon implemented it much better.

351
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 03:09:03 PM »
...
..
So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all.  I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower.  The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless.  Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on.  </rant>

That is good advice all around.
I think that too often people are compelled to post something in response to a post, even if it's not contributing to the actual technical aspect.

If your momma never told you, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." ..
Well, here it is.

Amending it for an internet based discussion forum would likely go something more like,
"If you can't contribute something useful to the topic, please reconsider posting anything at all."

I have to commend all involved that, at least from what I've seen recently, the level of rancour amongst differing viewpoints has taken a more civil route, even on this topic which has been beaten to death since I joined up a year ago to discuss this very issue.

So thank-you, various posters, for doing your best to remain civil.  It improves what is already one of the better places for photographic discourse.

Now for the tech contribution to the topic: I think we'll find that, as Canon moves into DiGiC 5 products, we'll see somewhat less of the general noise and banding issues which plagued a few of the DiGiC 4 equipped models and may have been less of a problem with earlier DiGiC 2 & 3 bodies.

A recent chat with a Canon rep, busy as ever manning a booth, solo in front of a large crowd of curious onlookers, who said that there are many improvements in DiGiC 5 for high AND low ISO noise issues... A point he was eager to make when I told him that I'd dumped all my DiGiC 4 bodies due to poor noise performance for my uses.
He then handed me a 6D and asked me to play with it a while and let him know what i thought of it compared to the 5D2 I had... I know he already knew the answer to that. :)

Gotta say, other than the reduced overall noise and noticeably reduced FPN on the 6D, the thing I really like about it is the smoother quieter shutter.  The 5D2 had such a crude THWACK! along with significant body shake induced by that big mirror being let loose and poorly damped.  The 6D feels more like a nicely balanced match-rifle than the shotgun-like 5D2.  it's even nicer, i think, than the quick CRUNCH sound the D800's shutter makes.
I haven't had a chance to really shoot with a 6D, likely won't unless I buy one.  Likely won't do that either until I find a compelling enough reason to go back to Canon for FF.  And about the only reason that will be is if my hankering for a tilt-shift 24mm is not satisfied by the upcoming Samyang for F-mount.
Plunking a 6D on the back of Canon's fabulous 24 and 17mm TS lenses will likely be the most practical solution for some of what I want those lenses for.  This might have been speeded up, somewhat, if the darn resale value for D800s was better. All those factory refurbs have dropped my resale value to the point where I now will likely have to keep using both of them for at least a year to get more value from them.

352
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 05:09:02 AM »

proper exposure what is that?


 :o

Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.  ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.
Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons.
Seriously.  There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis. :)

353
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: April 21, 2013, 05:00:14 AM »
I had a look at the pram photos again and frankly I like the pram on the left. The one on the right is a bit  - flat! No character. Just plain dowdy... ;)
Uhmmm.. I think it's an awning, not a pram. :)

It's also a reasonable choice of scene for such a comparison push-test, with sunlit areas of near-white masonry in the background contrasting with the darks shades of a (nearly) black awning in the shade with its upper side illuminated and the underside in yet deeper shadow.  Not a super-high DR scene, but one with enough DR to be able to demonstrate the difference in sensor system noise levels.

I think Ankorwatt is being generous by comparing a 1Dx to a D800.  Had he used a camera below Canon's current flagship, the difference would have been even more significant.  As it is, the Nikon was half the cost of the 1Dx.
It could have been an even bigger cost/performance difference if he'd have used a Nikon D5100 compared to a Canon 7D.

354
The 1dsmk3 have a better CFA  regarding white light, day light than 5dmk2 and 5smk3, the middle tones are unsurpassed which can been seen in a even colored  surface with texture
another example and good explanation of why, sometimes, old tech is better than new

355
I'm upgrading my 60d  to the 5d mkiii  and I'm concerned I will really miss  my 60d.   but I think after I get the 5d,  I will be better off getting a 50d  for the afma and slightly faster shots per second.
be prepared for the 50D's considerably greater noise.
When I had my 40D, and was thirsting for the AFMA and extra MP when the 50D came out, one look at some test shots and I decided to skip the 50D.  It's my least liked x0D body for that reason.

356
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 20, 2013, 12:10:17 AM »
Ultimately, there is not much point justifying our own choices. Going to any system, you gain some, you loose some, which is my point. I certainly see plenty of the same tales in Nikon land. In most cases however it is just the usual nonsensical loyalty photographers have for mere tools which is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

I know that there are people on both sides of the fence stuck on some lens or camera and erect a shrine to it and overblow its significance based on some anecdotal evidence or personal experience. I'm just glad, long gone are the days were it was canon or nothing and we should all celebrate it and hope it only gets to better. The trend certainly indicates the future is very heterogeneous and there will be plenty of choice. AWESOME.

+1

I still don't understand the either-or mentality of some people, especially gearheads like myself.
Some of us have so much invested that it really doesn't matter much what brand it is, as long as it does the job it was purchased for.

E.G. Telling yourself you need to stay with brand X because you have all the flashes and strobes that match is not a very compelling argument when what you need is a better wide angle lens and higher DR body to do landscapes.  Get the better landscape gear, use your other brand with your strobes.

Not all my wrenches and shop tools come from Sears or Snap-On.  I see no compelling reason not to think the same way when spending on photo equipment.  Get what's best suited for the task or whatever you prefer to use for a certain task.

Dare I say, having multiple camera brands on hand, for their different strengths, is NOT tantamount to puritanical views on polygamy.  Yet some people seem to be wedded to their one brand of gear, for better or worse.
I prefer polycamy far more since I've experienced it.  ;D

357
today only, Thursday, April 18th.
only IN store.

SX50 super-zoom for $350. also various other rebel-ish deals.

358
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM »
and today only, Future Shop, Canada, you can find this little gem, INSTORE ONLY special, for $350!
I almost bought one.

6D was $1700 and kitted w 25-105 for $2200 - I'll spam this in deals section ..

359
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: April 18, 2013, 12:14:25 AM »
The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.

I never had the 16-35, have a 17-40 that's for sale.
I found it to be pretty usable at the wide end if stopped down to f/8 or smaller, improving considerably as you move to the long end.
If I used it for landscape work and didn't focus at hyperfocal or closer, my lens was always soft in the corners.  Worked well for indoor and other close-focus material, slightly disappointing if I wanted crisp-to-the-corners large landscape prints.

I got the Tokina 17-35/4 and it's excellent in many ways from 21-35mm but the corners at the wide end are as bad or worse than the 17-40, depending on how you're using it so not much of an improvement, if any, on Canon, but an option in F-mount.

I'm currently trying to put together a wide-zoom kit for Nikon landscape work, minimizing overlap and maximizing performance.  The Tokina 16-35 and 16-28 are both in the running for the mid-range wide-angle zoom with the Nikon 14-24 covering its best from about 14 to 20mm.

360
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 15, 2013, 03:03:53 PM »
as much as SLR gear has improved in the past decade, PnS cameras have improved leaps and bounds more.
They are quite usable for a lot of things, especially when you have the flexibility of raw files.

I regularly use G-series PowerShots for serious imaging of stationary subjects.
I did play with a G15 a few days ago, AF speed is much improved, even the switch to their own in-house type sensor has made for (surprising to me) improvements as well.  I hope this tech does trickle up to the next crop bodies.

back before I got my first DSLR, I made good use of a Panasonic DMC-FZ20.  a 12x constant f/2.8 stabilized lens was a huge fun factor and it worked extremely well.  Too bad the sensor got pretty noisy above base ISO.
With that, or eve better lenses now, on today's sensor tech, no good reason why a superzoom compact can't be a capable camera, as the OP has well demonstrated.

I haven't considered a superzoom PnS for a while either, thanks for opening my eyes.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 61