April 18, 2014, 10:22:07 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 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 55
586
That D600 is a very nicely spec'd unit for the price.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/spec.htm

has enough good features and customization to do virtually anything any non-pro will ever need, and should cover what most pros need too.

I like it.
But with 4 Nik bodies already on hand I can certainly wait to see what Canon's response will be and how each of these new "budget" FF bodies perform on the test charts.

I hope that its sensor performs at least as well as the D800's.
Considering the slightly larger pixels, it could perform even better if it hasn't been compromised by marketing.

Viva la competition!

update edit - found the brochure link too

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/pdf/d600_20p.pdf

.. from page 4, upper left paragraph, ".. while keeping noise remarkably low throughout the wide ISO range, and even further reduced at ISO 100."

Recent Nikon bodies already have impressively low noise at 100 ISO.
If this thing is even better, well, then I'm salivating.

there's more on that page about how they deal with noise.

I'm very interested to see how this performs and how Canon will compete with their next FF body.

587
Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

really only a problem with large OOF highlights from what I've seen so far.
The IS is a major selling feature.
-

588
Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....
« on: September 12, 2012, 01:16:23 AM »
Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):

I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.

+1
17-40mm f/4 L is great on crop but sux on FF if you're looking for corner detail at the wide end.

I was considering the Novoflex adapter, balked at the price for the first round of experiments with old F-mount glass.
How does the aperture control work?  Are there any detents in it at all or just friction?..

589
Y'all hopin' this lens was delayed so much to make the tweaks needed to bring it up enough to match the rumored high MP FF body?..

590
I'm glad all you guys got my sense of humor... I was almost half afraid I was going to get flamed and dragged through to mud by our nikon friends who like to patrol our forums as of late.  =)

HAHA!

Ya, YA!  Just wait until I show off my backlit cows from Sunday. ;)

It is a funky lookin' image after PP, tho.  I kinda like it.

591
EOS Bodies / Re: Is a 46mp Canon EOS-1 on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 10, 2012, 02:59:10 PM »
In my opinion, if Canon does not launch an cheaper model around 2500-3000€ with 35+MP, they will loose a lot of photographers.

Are they 'losing a lot of photographers' to the D800 now?   ::)

I'm sure there's a reasonable number of photographers who are able to recognize the image quality of D800.

Sure, and I'm among them. But I didn't switch...  Where are Nikon's versions of a high quality 80/100-400, 28-300, and anything like my MP-E 65?

The 14-24 is certainly a nice lens - but 36 MP is hard on that lens' corner performance.

Just put my new 14-24mm on the d800 this weekend for a few test shots in the countryside.
Certainly does have some CA in the borders and corners but that cleans up pretty well with one click on the checkbox in Photoshop's ACR front end.
That lens is pretty good, tho not perfect.  14mm made for some pretty wide pastoral scenes tho.  Looking forward to what else I can do with it.

as for Canon losing customers...
They didn't get any money from me this year.  Instead I bought 4 Nikon bodies, included the 800 and the 800e, a few new high end lenses and a pile of cheaper ones.

IF Canon had just ONE FF body with as good base ISO noise performance as any of the current Nikons I would have bought it, maybe even two of them.
As it stands, more of my creative and outdoor work is going to the other camp but I wish it weren't, as I still prefer many things about using Canon gear; the appearance of the images their bodies produce, many of the fine lenses they have.

What they announce in the next few months, whether delivery is soon or in 2013, will determine what equipment will dominate my toolbox.
If they can't kill the read/banding noise even more than in the 1Dx then I'll be selling some of the Canon gear that's been outperformed by the new competition.
Invariably that means I'll be buying more from the other guys.  Plenty of enthusiasts, landscapers and other non-hi-iso types will likely consider doing the same.  We're not all married to our brand of tools and toys.

592
There is another thread from a person seeing white X's on a black background.  You might compare notes with the poster, however, he did not yet post a image.  It sounds like a similar issue.

that sounds a bit more like de-bayering working around a bad pixel

593
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mki or 60d (landscapes)
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:42:38 PM »
Let's see. The 60D...

* Out resolves the 5D, and this is visible in large landscape prints.
* Has wider DR than the 5D.
* Has less high ISO noise than the 5D.
* Has both LiveView focusing and a built in level, both very useful tools for landscapes. (LiveView is huge when you need to check DoF and use hyperfocal focusing.)
* Can use relatively low cost, high IQ wide angle crop glass. For example: to match the $700 Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the 60D you will need a $1,700 Canon 16-35L on the 5D.
* Comes new with warranty.
* Shoots faster, has video, uses modern batteries, and can remote trigger flashes. (Not as important for landscapes, but still.)

The 5D...
* Has a better viewfinder.

The 5D was a great camera, and is still a very capable camera. But at the same price as a 60D it's a silly buy. The 60D is better in every respect except one (viewfinder). And that includes sensor, no matter what format fans want to believe.

+1

I've not shot w a 5Dc, but the output from it IS pretty nice and I've thought about picking up one to play with.
However, I've shot LOTS of landscape with the 60D. It's a VERY good camera and I'd recommend it over an ancient 5Dc mostly for the technical and feature improvements.  If you're shooting landscape, low ISO is more important than hi and 60D's low ISO performance is one of Canon's better bodies.
goes a long way on a battery charge too.

594
This is going to cause a lot of buzz!

http://photorumors.com/2012/09/09/breaking-sony-rx1-the-first-full-frame-compact-camera/


fixed 35mm f/2 lens apparently

and a hefty price tag of $3k

595
Software & Accessories / Re: DPP for MAC too slow?
« on: September 07, 2012, 07:22:19 PM »
After doing a lot of tests using both the Mac and PC versions, I think I have managed to identify the cause of the issue. On the MAC version DPP has a problem handling folders with over around 400 images in them. It seems that there is a memory management issue. On the PC version, it does not appear to be a problem.

I run into this often too.
I've also found splitting up my files into groups of less than 300 speeds things up considerably on my i7 iMac and I get fewer DPP-out-of-memory warnings.
I once put over 600 raw + small jpgs from a trip into one folder and DPP basically hung up for minutes and then was extremely unresponsive.

the little I've used DPP on windows it certainly does feel snappier.  I don't think the program is making good use of multi-cores/threads on a mac and memory management is less than stellar.
Even Adobe stuff whips large raw images around like nuthin' on my machine while DPP drags along.

Complain to Canon, they sort of fixed a bug I reported with digic 4 based bodies that put a strange kink into the shadow end of thinks causing some strange posterization.  Only took about a year.  ::)

596
Yes, the 5D II has AFMA.  The center point on the 5D II is REALLY good.  It can AF lock at really low light levels where crop cameras fail.

I concur, center AF on my 5D2 is outstanding and has provided accurate AF down to dim moonlight levels when using a 50mm f/1.4 on it.
The other thing it can do better than any other camera I've used (so far) is display a usable live-view image for manual focusing in seriously low light conditions where I can barely see myself.

597
full frame shots have that full frame "look" that you cant get with a crop sensor. It doesn't show in every situation, but its unmistakable when it does. I can't really put my finger on it though.

I've been trying to ID that "certain something" in the FF look.
I think it may come down to the cleaner signal to noise of the FF bodies that have really shown it so far:
The 5Dc, the 1DS3. even the 5d2 at times.
It's hard to see but it can be perceptible in some images, I think by showing smoother tonal gradients where they're supposed to exist. There's also slight differences in the color response that may contribute as well as per-pixel sharpness.  (old 40D also often has "the look")

But I don't find the 5D2 gives me "the look" often enough to make it a slam-dunk over the 60D in the same conditions.

598
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 06, 2012, 01:33:21 AM »
I find that my newer bodies, 7D, 60D, do not seem to collect dust as bad as my 5D2 and older bodies.
I think there's a slight change in the coating of the low pass filter on the newer cameras that's less static-attractive to dust particles, therefore improving the effectiveness of the self-cleaning.

I don't swap lenses often and when I do, I'm meticulous about it.  Despite that, stuff still gets in thru the lenses and open lens mounts.

I wish Canon would also move the LPF farther from the sensor, that'd do much to reduce distinctness of dust particle shadows on the sensor.  Their competitor(s) do and I don't have dust issues in images from those bodies even when I can see the stuff stuck on the LPF.

599
That's a tough one, actually!

I have and regularly shoot landscape and other stuff with both the 60D and 5D2.

at iso 100 thru 400 they're very similar overall IQ but I actually often prefer the 60D's files over the 5D2's in most cases.  I prefer the 5D2 when I want a bit more resolution but it's really quite close

The 60D output is ever so slightly noiser/grainier but it cleans up quite well in LR. It's low ISO noise is very decent and much better than the 5D2's patterned noise.

My 5D2 will often show faint banding noise in blue sky areas, my 60D does not.  That's important to me when making big prints.

Their DR is nearly identical from 100 iso up to about 800 where the 5D2 starts to perform a little better.
5D2 is about stop better at higher ISO.

At lower iso the raw files are not really that different in quality, tho you'll have a few more MP to work with from the FF 5D2.
That said, I find I can push my 60D's files considerably more without annoying banding noise showing up in large shadow areas, I cannot push my 5d2 even half as much.

AF performance between the 2 is similar as far as I've experienced (landscapes don't move much)
My 60D has done reasonably well tracking AF for things like running dogs, never tried with the 5D2.

Bokeh on FF is almost a stop better than with a crop camera set to frame the same shot the same way...  Not a big deal for most things, even portraits.

60D battery life is really good, 5d2 is a little less so.


As suggested, consider the 5D3 once the price drops to a more reasonable level.  It's cleaned up its pattern noise a bit better than the 5d2 and has a number of other useful improvements over the 60D and 5D2.

Just my opinion but if I was a one camera guy right now, and knowing what I do now for the kind of shots I take, I wouldn't trade my 60D for a 5D2.  And that's not even considering the articulating screen and more versatile video modes on the 60D if you use them.
LOVE my 60D with a 15-85mm on it.  They're never apart.
5D2 is more of a love-hate for me.  I keep it cuz I have a 70-200 f/2.8 L mk 2 which is just SO sharp and contrasty for full frame body image goodness.  Also like it with the 50mm f/1.4

I'm hoping Canon brings out a low cost FF body with even better IQ (lower pattern noise) than the 5D3.

- -
I have been shooting quite a lot with the 60D for past 1.5 years. I must say I enjoyed shooting with this body even though it is not considered stellar. However, I am tempted to upgrade to the 5D Mark II but holding back for few reasons:

1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom.

2) I understand the ISO performance in the 5D is better than my 60D, but I tend to not go beyond 800 and try to stick to 100 as much as possible. Will I see substantial difference in ISO performance when shooting in ISO 800/1600. Or even at low ISO such as 100.

3) Any idea if 60D's AF system is better than 5D Mark II or not? I shoot wildlife, but not too often though. Mostly landscape, portraits, street, still life.

4) I have a 24-70 f2/8L, how likely will I get better results when paired with a 5D MkII. Is there any micromanagement function in 5D MkII?

5) They say bokeh quality in full frames are better/creamier, if that's true is it really that noticeable?

6) How about the dynamic range in 5D?

Any other points I may have left out or should be aware of? Thanks in advance.

600
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I stay with Canon or moving to Nikon
« on: September 05, 2012, 02:39:44 AM »
..For landscape and portraits, I'd be perfectly happy with a 600D and some nice glass, though if you really never shoot moving subjects I'd suggest the 5D Mark II. You shouldn't buy anything until the dust settles after the D600 hits.

A lot of good advice has been offered so far, and some tripe.

You'll take the best shots with a system you're comfortable with, any system.  So use what you like.
but be aware of the differences and let that also guide you depending on what you want to do with your images.

Small prints or on-screen, doesn't really matter.

BIG prints...  I'll lean towards my Nikons because...

When it comes to post-processing my images I can get more out of my recent Nikon bodies' raw files than I can from a Canon raw file.  But this only matters when the shot I'm taking is something the Canon is weak at and I can only really say there is one circumstance where I will pick Nikon, no contest -
Landscapes under challenging lighting conditions.

I would describe this as a high dynamic range scene with full sun illumination and (large) parts of the scene in deep shadow.
IF you want to bring up the shadows then the Nikon's low ISO files are lower noise and post-process better.
Otherwise you can shoot really good landscapes with Canon too.  I tend to prefer Canon color rendition, overall handling and most of their lenses. Plus their free DPP software works very well for basic processing and adjustments of your raw files.

I prefer my Canons for portraits and most general shooting
I prefer my Nikons for landscape and artistic work where I'll be doing more post-processing to create the final image.

LostArk is right about this, wait until after Photokina announcements and keep watching for more rumors of soon-to-come hardware because there's a dustup coming with Canon trying to counter the various body-slams from Nikon this year.

FWIW, I'm not really happy with the 5D Mk II, it's noisy and can even show some banding noise in midtones and sky under proper exposure.  It's a decent camera, and a very cost-effective full frame one that can still produce some great images but its files can also start to fall apart pretty quickly under extensive post processing.

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 55