April 18, 2014, 05:04:35 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 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 55
Lenses / Re: Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up
« on: September 22, 2012, 05:24:38 PM »
Ha! The Onion Rings!

I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.


Lenses / Re: Manual Focus Lenses: Smarter in F-Mount?
« on: September 22, 2012, 05:23:42 PM »
I've bought a whole whack of old Nikon MF primes, I love using them on my nikon digital bodies since I often shoot all manual anyway and there's nothing like those old, all-metal lenses for precision focus and feel.  I missed being able to use my old Canon FDs.

I have a cheap adapter ring I also use to mount them onto EOS bodies when I feel the need, but mostly that's only when I'm shooting on my IR-converted 50D as none of Canon's modern lenses seem to be able to focus at IR wavelengths.

There's a much better adapter ring by Novoflex which would allow you to even set the aperture on newer G-series F-mount lenses but that adapter's prices is likely a couple hundred by itself but supposed to be better than the cheap stuff you get from eBay or similar.

So, if you like shooting with old F-mount glass, GO FOR IT! :)
They work great and the performance/$ beats much of the newer stuff and few, except Samyang, Zeiss and Voightlander can match the feel these days.

Not arguing with you one bit here.  The 5D2 and 7D cameras are great.  But just keep in mind, the 5D3 is both the 5D2 and 7D, PLUS other stuff, combined into one camera.  I'd rather have one camera be able to do everything vs. having to use two for two different situations.  Just my perspective is all.

I think 7D is great at speed and AF
I think 5D2 is great because it was the first "cheap" FF and people (I disagree somewhat) thought it had great IQ

I think the 5D3 is far better than the sum of the above 2, if not up to the speed of the 7D.

If I didn't already have the 7D + 5D2, the 5D3 would represent value to me, but as an incremental upgrade it does not until the price drops to about $2500.

Even if I had a 5Dc and my 40D, the 5D3 would still look like too high a cost to convert until the price drops.

Canon knows how to make money even better than they know how to make cameras. ;)

If you had spent $20K on a set of Canon lenses in 1998, they would likely be worth well more than $15K today.
But, if you had spent $15K on similar Nikon AIs and "D" lenses in 1998, you would have lost most of it.  Even though they may be good lenses, the old screw drive ("D") lenses, for example,  have lost their value pretty quickly, and do not autofocus on Nikon's entry level cameras.  Then, the first Nikon "g" lenses were optimized for APS-C bodies simply because Nikon did not have a FF body.  This makes them less valuable. 
Nikon is pulling your leg if they claim that buying their System lenses has been a good investment.
I really doubt that any Canon or Nikon bodies from 1998 have much value today, so its only lenses that have the potential to last.
Your comment about the 6D doesn't make much sense.  It will likely retain more of its value than a Digital Rebel as years pass.

goes both ways, if you bought in to a bunch of EF-S glass and now decide you want to go FF, start all over.
OTOH, even if you have crop spec (DX) Nikon glass you can still use it on a FF camera in crop mode.
As for their older AI/AIs lenses, funny you should mention. I just loaded up on a pile of primes for dirt cheap in the used market and many of those lenses perform fabulously even on the D800 and even the crop body D5100 - for what *I* need them for.

Some of the old screw-drive D series Nikon lenses still focus faster than many of today's AFS lenses when on an appropriate body.

I avoided buying into Nikon because of their clunky looking and confusing lens history.  But a soon as I got familiar with it I found it's not complicated and there's a LOT of good old glass out there that STILL WORKS on digital whereas most of my old canon FD lenses, with a converter to EOS, could not perform at all on a digital body.  Inadequate coatings caused massive flare/coma rendered them useless.  Converter partly to blame but frankly i can also use old Nikon glass on my Canon EOS with a much simpler adapter and get superior results too.

back to my original premise.

The 5D3's a great camera but i think it was a bit overpriced at launch considering the meager IQ improvements at low ISO.  It's now coming down to a more commensurate level.  If I didn't have a 5D2 already, i'd likely buy one.

6D, in comparison to the D600, doesn't offer as much for the same price.
6D will likely drop in price until it reaches an appropriate "value" while the D600 likely won't drop in price since it's providing value and performance where it is.

tougher to compare 5D3 and D800, rather different cameras at similar prices. For me the D800 was a no-brainer value decision, it fulfills needs Canon can't and does so at a palatable price... Which is likely to remain the same.

Put another way, Canon's stuff is overpriced at launch. 
Pent up demand after long delays likely leads to plenty of sales tho so they're still ahead that way.

...Is there any reason why you think the 5D3 "did not deliver"?

... for the price, as someone who got the 5D2 base on all the fan ravings, which turns out to be a seriously disappointing camera for what I needed and wanted.
For me the 5D3 has only marginally improved IQ where I need it.  Lots of nice features I would like but I'm not about to trade in 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3 unless it did much better at low ISO IQ.

I'm watching DxOmark to see how the 6D fares in DR and noise before doing my own tests on it.
At this point I'd still like to keep at one Canon FF body but I want it to be the best performing for my needs.  None of Canon's products currently deliver what I expect.  Their main competitor does, so I bought in over there to meet those requirements.

I'll assume you weren't into photography during the Canon Digital Rebel or Canon 5D eras.
into-it for the past 35 years.
Early Canon DSLRs were certainly impressive when they arrived in comparison to, well, most other things available at the time.  But the prices were prohibitive unless you really needed or wanted to shoot digital.
I kept shooting film and used PnS digicams to their limits while waiting for DSLR tech to improve. My criteria was they needed to have at least 14bit/pixel to be useful.  So when the 40D arrived, I finally bought in and got live-view as a bonus.
I still have and use the 40D, it's a favorite.
If I'd have bought a PowerShot G3 or G5 I may have delayed my DSLR first purchase considerably as those compact cameras still kick butt with great IQ and I STILL USE THEM now for certain studio work.  ;D

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....
« on: September 20, 2012, 12:08:52 PM »
The google purchase makes me nervous too as Silver efex for one is the best B&W conversion software I know....

I agree.
I was originally using the new B&W effects plugin from Topaz, and it worked well and provided plenty of control.  But Nik's Silver has quickly become my preferred tool because of the sweet results I can get in less time.  I've made my own recipes in Topaz product that are very close but I just prefer slight tweaks on the Nik presets.

Canon General / Value for your money - has this ever been uttered by Canon ?
« on: September 20, 2012, 12:06:08 PM »
I was just reading this little bit of an interview with Nikon's Dirk Jasper, published on DPreview:


It mostly discusses the new D600 but I like the very last line, a point I don't remember Canon ever mentioning.

"Even second hand, or refurbished, a good lens is still worth its price, ten or twenty years later. Especially for enthusiasts, backwards and downwards compatibility is very important. Once you invest your money in a system it must be safe. You must get value for money. "

We do know that Canon glass, especially the L series stuff from the last 10 or 12 years, does hold its value extremely well.  In fact, it's been my best performing investment ever!

But I take the context of Dirk's comment to imply the whole camera-lens system.
Even OUT of context, I'd like to hear Canon say, and mean, they intend to offer good value for money.  Something I think the new 6D fails to deliver and something the 5D3 didn't exactly deliver at its intro price either.


Landscape / Re: A skyline to remember.
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:58:23 PM »
not as deeply colored the next night in a different location about 40 miles away.

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:35:04 PM »
I doubt I would get this shot with the mk III (single shot Handheld with D800 and 14 - 24 at 22mm cropped to 5 x 4 processed in Silver efex pro2)

Nice image!

I also hope Nik software stays good despite the Google purchase.

Here's one at 14mm on the D800 I pushed in post to bring up the deep shadows.
Certainly nothing my 5D2 could provide.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:23:32 PM »
Thats not bokeh artifacts rather a fence or mesh behind the bird ...

likely is
not smooth due to OOF background structures not blending nicely
still qualifies IMO

find a busy scene at mid distance and look at it thru that lens, then change the FL and aperture and you may find a few situations where the background bokeh is heavily marred by spherical distortions and looks, well, gross.
Small tradeoff for the otherwise excellent performance of that lens.
I liked the old non-IS version for making smoother background more often but I got the v2 for the ultimate sharpness and contrast.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:08:54 PM »

Photographer Emil Lundstrom by imaginize.net, on Flickr

Nice bird shot
but one of the few occasions, in a narrow range of conditions, where the bokeh from this lens is not impressive.
I've run into it myself at times, once made for quite a hideous background blur where there were many small tree branches.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 19, 2012, 12:03:00 PM »
DxOmark just posted D600 test results.  They're about the same as the D800's.
What will the 6D rate whenever it get's there?... (good luck, Canon)

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 55