April 16, 2014, 09:24:50 AM

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 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 55
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 18, 2013, 09:07:18 PM »

It has slightly less vignette @ 2.8 but that's about it. Neither are terrible lenses but to claim either is vastly superior in IQ is nonsense.

The prime certainly wins on speed, weight, bulk, price, and stealth. If only it was a bit faster and had IS.  ;)

I suspect this prime is likely to have more consistently smoother bokeh and less CA than the battleship zoom.  For that alone it's worth at least half the cost of the zoom.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D5200 review
« on: January 18, 2013, 08:59:59 PM »
It's out, DxOmark has published their tests on the D5200 and it's bloody impressive in the basic metrics!

D5200 dethrones the Pentax K5 series as the top-scoring crop-sensor camera.


I don't care for their overall scoring, but looking at the individual test results, this thing is performing very well for such small pixels.  This would make it it entirely possible to produce a 54MP D4x body or a lower MP FF with even better performance.

Pixel-level signal to noise is going to suffer because of the smaller pixels, but when you put them together in a print, even a very large print, it is going to deliver some significant improvements.  It's high ISO performance isn't bad either.

Still looking forward to finding out how well it's new metering and AF system perform.

For now Im still quite happy with the image quality I can pull from it's predecessor, the D5100.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 17, 2013, 01:36:02 AM »
I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?
I've shot all 3 of Canon's EF 70-200 2.8 L's
You can not beat this latest v2 for sharpness, it's fantastic!  So is the IS, very capable.
A bit of CA in FF corners but that's minor.

But yes, it's bokeh, at least in some situations, can be hideous and distracting, especially, in my findings, at wider apertures if there were fine structures just out of the focus plane (tree branches for example).  Unfortunately I ran into too many other compositions where the background blur quality was really poor, even when separated from the in-focus subject by a large distance.

I think this is one of those unfortunate compromises when an incredibly sharp zoom is built that has a lot of corrections to fix everything that's IN focus, the stuff that's OUT of focus can sometimes suffer.
I can also create an attractive bokeh, but I've preferred the look of the original non-IS lens for that at times.  The v1 IS was so not-sharp at the long end I got rid of it quickly.

Go play with one in the store.  You can see some of this effect even in a viewfinder as you adjust focus and zoom.  Can be really apparent if you can point out a window at some trees or shrubs where there's some fine structural elements and you'll see the kind of distortion caused as you the controls or even pan the scene.  I posted a sample in the lens gallery here.

My new Nikon 70-200/4 VR also does the same thing to a slightly lesser extent which some have referred to as "radial bokeh."  I need to do more testing before I determine which lems is more agreeable to me now that the 6D is a camera I also find capable of agreeable image quality to match.

If bokeh quality is as important to you as extreme sharpness then you have a tough decision to make.
I'm also waiting to see how the new stabilized Tamron 70-200/2.8 performs.  I've had good results from the earlier version.
I haven't played with any of Canon's f/4 Ls in this range.

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 04:20:13 PM »
I've requested permission of a family whose casual photos I shot last summer where FPN is noticeable on dark clothing.
I expect they'll approve my request.
It's about the last time I used the camera.  Customer was totally pleased with the results, I was not.

I've basically sidelined the 5d2 as an inadequate FF Rebel with serious FPN problems, not worthy of MY use so it's seen very little action with me.
I got the thing to do landscape and other outdoor and high DR work.  It's not been able to adequately fulfill that role, the way I want to use it, so to me it was an expensive PoS with limited ability.  It DID deliver some really great images in many situations where lighting was not challenging, but was not able to do so when and where I needed it to. At the time I was also using a 40D which showed less FPN when using similar PP.  I still like and use the 40D.
So a new 5D2 having worse raw file IQ than my older, cheaper camera was a big disappointment, to put it mildly.

Maybe 5d2 was one of the better tools available at the time, doesn't mean it was good enough.  A better tool was announced less than 3 weeks prior to the 5d2, the d90.  However I was an ignorant Canon fanboy at that time and paid little attention to the competition with all the full-frame excitement and high expectations.
Now a cheap consumer camera from a competitor nearly 2 years ago, at 1/5th the cost, grossly outperforms 5d2 in this part of the operating regime it only reinforces my opinion that the 5d2 was, and still is, a grossly overhyped bit of gear.  Despite that, the vast majority of users are happy to continue using it.  That's fine for them.
Those who are content with the shortcomings of a tool they're using are not going to convince those of us who need a better tool that it's OK!  Thanks for trying.  People on here are truly helpful and a great resource to plenty of newbies. :)

Hopefully I'll get permission to post a few samples where maybe you'll actually SEE the problem.  Possibly helping spare some avid users some unpleasant surprises that they haven't yet discovered.

You guys may need to be reminded. I'm not a Canon hater, just a disappointed long time Canon user who opened his eyes and found better tools for certain shots from the competition.
I still like using my bucket of Rebel bodies, 40D, and 60D and am looking fwd to an improved 7D Mk 2 or 70D.

@privatebydesign - i often print big too. expose for the highlights, bring up the rest with various curve tools until the image DR is compressed to a useful range for printing.  This is where the 5d2 (&7D) can fail if there was a lot of DR in the original scene.  The sensor may be similar or even the same between this and your 1 series body but there's a lot more to the rest of the electronic guts that can make the difference in FPN.  Quality is rarely skimped on the 1 series.

I got better results with my 40D, 60D, and various Rebels than what the 5d2 delivered.  And now my modern Nikon gear blows them all away whenever I need to do this this kind of processing.  Right tool for the job, but not necessarily the same tool for all jobs.

@Mikael Risedal - Thanks for knowing and understanding. :) I don't know if I've seen your real world comparison shots other than the one of a shed with interior shadows.  Apparently that does not qualify as a real world image for some people.  What if you want to spy on the contents of your neighbor's shed?  ;)

I suspect Neuro will tell me that I wasted 1 or 2 possible stops worth of DR on some of the shots by some of the method I used.  I.E.  I could have ETTR more if I were using Neutral or Faithful instead of Standard settings so my RGB playback histogram would more closely reflect raw headroom.  Yup... Might have.  I don't have to worry about this on my other bodies tho.

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:58:08 AM »
How come the 5D2 IQ was impeccable before the D800? I find it still impeccable today. :|
it was not when it was released
it is not much better after all the firmware updates
it made a big splash being the first CHEAP full-frame and those who wanted or needed that were so enthused with this new toy they paid little regard to its IQ shortcomings because it offered IQ benefits and features previously unavailable.

Endlessly trumpeting on that basis suckered me in to buying one; my most regrettable Canon purchase.
not for lack of due diligence, but for lack of honest and clear information about the 5D2's weaknesses, which became clear enough after I used it for a while. .. and after others began posted about its less than ideal low ISO FPN issues.

If you still find it meets your needs you either lucked out with a good one or you don't mind crushing your blacks a few more levels than some of us.

edit adding DxOmark comment below:

and THIS is what annoys me about DxOmarks results. not just that they assign a vague overall score to a camera, based solely on measured sensor merits, but that they do not adequately disclose the testing criteria and data in a way that would allow the technically astute reader the opportunity to evaluate the data on their own.  And, for the most part that I've found, neither do other sensor tech sites.

When FPN affects a sensor to the degree some of the Canon's (and some other mfr's products) were affected, it would have been very valuable to have a good idea whether the noise was random and acceptable or whether it was patterned and possibly objectionable to prospective purchasers.

DxOmark's data is useful but incomplete and that makes it much less useful than it would have been in my particular instance.

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:46:55 PM »
FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

For the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:25:19 PM »
Isn't someone going to say EF-S 18-55? It's supposed to be the number one Canon lens for numbers produced.... someone has to like it.... anybody?????

its not a very good lens, if they upgrade the optics to be the same as the 18-55 EF-M it will be a big improvement for this kit lens

For all its issues, I still love the EF-S 18-55mm IS for its flexibility, price and weight.  You just have to understand its weaknesses to be able to enjoy this lens at least for casual photography.  I for one can't complain on some of these pics:


definitely great performance per price and good for close up work if you don't need or have a nice macro.
or when you need a lens for hazardous work that's likely to result in, uhm, damage.  Combine with a 2nd-hand Rebel.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:56:45 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

I haven't bothered with the 16-35 v1 cuz it's not sharper than the 17-40, v2 looks significantly improved.
I found the 17-40 has really poor corner performance at the wide end, mushy even when stopped down a lot.  Performance varies with subject/focal distance. Seems worse at long landscape distances. But it does have a little more "something" when used on FF compared to the 10-22mm on crop, which I still do use occasionally.
FWIW, you can buy and try a used 17-40L and resell it if you don't like it and probably lose less than the rental cost.

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

It's the only lens whose FF corner performance, at least on the near flat-field tests, was absolutely abysmal. Pure mush at any f stop.  Real-world images at normal distances were better but still poor corner performance until about 24mm.
Accutance was otherwise quite good in center and border areas and geometric performance was very good, holding straight lines very well with minimal distortion.
However, for the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:09:19 PM »

A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm.  Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.

Again the Nikon example is being ignored, the 14-24 outperforms the 14 prime in almost every metric

Not ignored, but I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison. The 14-24mm is much newer than the Nikkor 14/2.8.   

Compare the 70-200/2.8 IS vs. the MkII to see how far Canon went in a similar period of time. 

The Samyang 14mm prime is even sharper than the vaunted Nikon 14-24 and much better in the corners too...  At the expense of a lot of bulbous barrel distortion in the middle.  Not much of a problem for nature but nasty for anything with straight lines not running right down the center of your composition.
So Nik's 14-24mm is a compromised but very nicely behaving UWA lens for a variety of uses and you get to pay many x the price for that.  Canonites can expect Canon to produce a similarly well behaved and likely even better optic but you'll be paying for that.

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:34:12 PM »
Hands Up!, the 100-400mm L
not the best lens by a long shot, hideous transition zone bokeh but when this thing delivers, it REALLY delivers.  Not my most used lens but has provided some of my most outstanding, mostly nature, images.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:25:52 AM »
Space is mostly dark, eh..
Don't want to be using Canons that fill all that dark up with faint reddish stripes and such, gets confusing.  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?
« on: January 11, 2013, 09:01:06 PM »
Please help me understand why people are excited about 6D? I cannot be excited about 97% VF, 1 x-pt AF, crippled 6D with wifi and facebook buttons. I will stick to a 5-year-old beloved 5D Mark II which is identical in IQ to Canon's newest sensors...

The 6D has a few IQ improvements over the 5D2 that ARE worthwhile.
100 and 200 ISO banding noise are almost completely eliminated compared to 5d2, my biggest complaint almost fixed.
6D's interface is better, center AF is better, quiet shutter is REALLY nice, hi ISO blows 5d2 away.

Lenses are generally limited to around 22 megapixels of resolution, and no zoom has ever been made for 35mm that can exceed 21.3 megapixels over more than 15% of it's center frame.
nope, plenty of good glass will outresolve even higher res sensors
my low cost Tamron 70-200/2.8 easily produces moire problems on my D800e, backing up what MR sez below. The lens is cheap cuz it's not well-featured but it IS sharp, end to end and right to the corners.
I have seen moire in pictures with a regular lens and a crop sensor 24Mp, equal to 54 Mp at a 24x36mm sensor
area, this means that the lens resolution are greater/ out resolves  the  sensor resolution.
The best lenses today handle  more than 54Mp .
More pixels gives also better tonal transitions, less jaggies, easier to correct CA, crop etc etc

The point therefore of the 6D is that it has less than HALF the noise of the 5D Mark III and 60% better shadow recovery while having enough megapixels for any lens or just under.

The 6D really shines at super high ISO though, at ISO 16,600, the 5D Mark II has the same ISO performance as the 6D at 51,200. Thats 3 times better high ISO, in addition to the 2 times less noise at low and medium ISO.

One might be mistaken to assume that the 6D has the same or equal resolution to the 5D Mark II, because it has 99% the linear resolution. This would be a mistake, the 6D has 13% MORE resolution due to an improved AA filter using the latest technology.

It's also lighter, smaller and has much better AF, the price will hit $1700 in 6 months too. Guaranteed.

all good things over the 5d2 and even 5d3, depending on your requirements

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D5200 review
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:46:20 AM »
Not a big fan of TechRadar's reviews but, if they're consistent, their early review of the D5200 is looking impressive.


Looks like it's mostly ahead of the D5100 in sensor performance, add in the higher end AF system and 5fps this will likely be a great little camera.  Small pixels mean overall SNR is lower and it shows on that particular graph.
Usable thru ISO 3200.
6400 and up if you don't mind it getting muddy looking.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 60D Stock Levels Getting Low?
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:29:16 AM »
Well...so much for waiting for ces for an announcement on the 7/70D and possible release date. Looks like we wont see either of these cameras for another 6months at least. Disappointed isnt the word. Just seems crazy these cameras are from 09/10 and are the current top of the line aps-c, what are they playing at?

Oh well.
7D2 / 70D would go against Nikon's unannounced replacements for the D300s and the D7000.
I think it's becoming a waiting game between these pairs of cameras.   Whoever announces first gives the other the opportunity to improve or change their product before making it public.
I was expecting one of them might let the cat out of the bag at CES but there's also CP+ in a few weeks in Japan...  Not that that's any guarantee anyone will blink then either. 8-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:22:12 AM »
how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?
I do.  Often.  Nuff said.
I very rarely even need to use 1/4000, only occasionally 1/2000.
Any less light required, a 2 to 4-stop ND filter is a cheap solution.
not having faster than 1/4000 is not a deal-breaker.

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 55