September 17, 2014, 04:08:32 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 - dilbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 194
1
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: Today at 02:45:56 AM »
My list:

1. 100-400L IS USM II   (would be nice, if it stayed as compact as v1, whether push-pull or rotating)
2. 50 1.4 USM II, non L   (with IS would be nice, but only if it does not lose aperture)
3. 85 1.8 USM II, non L   (with IS would be nice, but only if it does not lose aperture)

The 85/1.8 is a sweet lens, just a pity about the CA. If they fixed that and kept a similar IQ, price & size... mmm....

2
...
1. bigger but useless does not help  :o... LOL...
2. he is a business guy, what do you expect...

however, i have at least realized that you know very little about how to take images... otherwise, you already take my challenges...

If you want me to go and take a sharp picture, sure, I can do that. But what does that prove? Nothing.

Quote
if your images are that s*cks, then do not give out comments or try to educate other people about photography after doing some crap research around the internet.

Worth of an image is often subjective thus what you and I see as being worthwhile images are likely quite different ...

Quote
if you are that good in technology, then apply for the r&d departments...  instead of being so, join forums and keep learning just like some others and i do...

you have not answer my previous question on topic "Do Sensors Make the Camera" and again, be-careful in giving out answer, otherwise, i am going to call you as a guy being born with tofu brain...

Probably because I haven't read that post of yours and I'm not likely to either.

Quote
... or you want to downgrade to my canon 30d and 50mm f/1.4?  again, i guarantee that your images cannot be sharper than mine regardless what camera i use (from canon 30d to modern), certainly not better than any others in this forums, but definitely better than yours...

note:  my daughter at a chess tournament, while little one playing crazy chess with her friend...  taken with canon 30d and 430ex ii (in single shot mode, not high-speed burst since i hate process of rating images).  if admin think what i am talking is not right, let me know and i will delete my post immediately...

Very ordinary look images to me and not only that, boring and meaningless to me. I imagine to you they're important but I couldn't care less about them.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: Today at 02:18:04 AM »
...
Falk Lumo did some great work that showed AFMA inconsistencies across the AF sensor, on top of a skew that resulted in the left AF problem:



This is taken from his article here: http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/D800Focus/SensorArray.html

That looks like lens manufacturing issues to me where the lens isn't properly centered. Look at the recent lens testing on lensrentals to see how warped the light coming through the lens is. It would appear that this warping of light does more than impact IQ, it also impacts AF.

That is unless the above AFMA AF mapping is the same for every lens on that camera ... seems more likely to be a lens manufacturing issue than camera one.

Has anyone done a similar test for a Canon lens/camera combination?

4
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: Today at 02:02:07 AM »
A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.

And I'd like some low calorie ribeye steak, too.

It's called eye fillet steak (very low fat.)

5
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: Today at 01:01:16 AM »
A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.

6
Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.  :P

If he's going to pick up a new camera, post pics online to "showcase quality" then he should make the pics worthy of such.

As it is, Matt Granger has posted pictures for click bait and to drive his views up. That's about all that you can say for the images posted.

He posted the pics for review and should have made sure they were ready to be reviewed. He didn't.

Matt Granger is just another click bait fool like Ken Rockwell.

7
LOL at the trolling regarding the 7D2 AF, first of all the guy was making an informal test of the High ISO SOOC JPEGs from the cam, not its AF performance.

Yes, an informal test, so the results of it should be universally ignored or taken with a grain of salt.

at least he has his gut to post his out of focus image?

What he did wasn't gutsy but a plain grab for attention and clicks.

Quote
how about you?

"mine is bigger than yours"? How mature.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:04:21 PM »
To everyone talking about the ISO 3200 pic being OOF

IF you watch the video you will see that the ISO 3200 pic isn't even the same one shown in the video.

Not much credibility with this guys article.

So Matt Granger (mattgranger.com) took a bunch of quick snaps to get some web traffic and guess what?

Matt Granger cannot take photographs. Matt Granger is a bad camera reviewer. Matt Granger is a bad photographer.

Summary: Matt Granger is a tool and I would never hire or buy from this guy.

9
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:01:29 PM »
Will be interesting to see what Tamron delivers with the 15-30.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:57:55 PM »
LOL at the trolling regarding the 7D2 AF, first of all the guy was making an informal test of the High ISO SOOC JPEGs from the cam, not its AF performance.

Yes, an informal test, so the results of it should be universally ignored or taken with a grain of salt.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:55:45 PM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Really?

Someone that many would call a competent photographer posts a series of images, of which a substantial fraction are out of focus and criticising the camera is baseless trolling?

So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
* The camera
* The model
* The lens
* The photographer

The AF was off, the exposures were off, the white balance was off. That's not the camera. That's the user. The guy was in a spur-of-the-moment setting, with a BRAND NEW PROTOTYPE camera that he had never before used.

Sorry 'Bert, but you have to account for user error at the very least here, not to mention the potential issues that a PRE-release camera is going to bring to the table. No one is going to instantly become intimately familiar with and capable of using to perfection a brand new piece of hardware after handling it for a few minutes.

So that would be "The Photographer."

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:33:40 PM »

Someone that many would call a competent photographer posts a series of images, of which a substantial fraction are out of focus and criticising the camera is baseless trolling?

So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
* The camera
* The model
* The lens
* The photographer

Why speculate at all?  For all we know, people milling about around him kept bumping into him at awkward moments, or the model kept moving, or....  What's odd isn't so much that some of the photos are duds as that anyone should have thought the bad ones worth publishing in the first place.

In other words he shouldn't have tried to take and post sample pictures.

Part of what's important about higher ISO is the tradeoff between detail and NR. Without 100% crops that are carefully done, it's not possible to make significant judgements.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:49:26 AM »
Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.

If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?

Personally, I think they should never have been posted because it is a test in an uncontrolled environment and they always end badly when someone is trying to "show off" a new camera. Always.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:46:29 AM »
I have a question, if you had access to a 7d Mk ii RAW file, how would you open it outside the camera itself?

dcraw/dark table - they'll either work "now" or sooner than Lr/Ps/ACR.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:49:59 AM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? :o

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

Neuro is so far right when it comes to defending Canon and being a Canon fan that he'd make the most conservative Republican look left wing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 194