August 27, 2014, 07:02:22 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 188
1741
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 06:20:47 PM »
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

[snip]

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?

The lightest zoom is a P&S superzoom which you appear to be concerned about

That's comparing apples with oranges. so not really helpful.



Quote
Looked up the review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc

Quote

The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless


- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.

Let me translate that for you: it's about the weight of a bottle of water.

Quote
- it is not weather sealed
- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection
- The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.

If you need these then you wouldn't even be asking the question of whether or not to buy the 70-300L, you simply would.

Quote

Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.

You forgot to mention:

Price/performance: 5 out of 5 (for the Tamron lens)

Additionally, the Tamron 70-300 VC is the 70-300 lens of choice for those that use Nikon, including the D800/E.

1742
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:31:29 PM »
There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:
- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

The IS in the Tamron 70-300 is in the same ball park as that of the 70-300L. As for the other attributes, go check some reviews.

Quote
If weight is a problem then perhaps a P&S superzoom would suit?

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?

1743
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:04:20 PM »
There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:
- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC
- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

1744
yes $3000 for a camera at 36mpix that is slower than my 450D taking photos. now the option for nikonians are 12mpix/36mpix, and the d800 has a better sensor than d700, so in my opinion a faster camera with a good sensor at 24mpix would kill also the d800 sales

It all depends on what you value in a camera. But what do you mean by slower? So far as I can tell, the D800 is 4 frames per second and the 450D is 3.5 frames per second, meaning that the D800 is faster?

With LR4, the D800 will allow you to HDR a scene with one photo that would take multiple shots with anything that Canon offers. The D800 allows you to say "I don't need 3 exposures for HDR to get the most out of this scene, I can do it with one!"

Many typical hdr scenes (like shooting in the snow or at the beach with bright sunlight and wanting to have details in the shadows) will still require 3,5,7... exposures for some time to come, even with the d800 sensor. I'd like to have it to on my Canon of course, but let's stay realistic what it can do. And it cannot entirely replace hdr.

Btw: it's a viable option with any sensor to hdr or better exposure fuse a single picture with LR because it saves you local editing, I wish Adobe would build single image exposure fusion into it out of the box.

Shooting at the beach and trying to HDR would be a big mistake. Fact of the matter is, most HDR shots look terrible because they're brightened in unnatural ways. Being able to get meaningful detail without noise from shadows and dark areas in a single shot is invaluable.

Thought people on a few pages back said the d600 was going to be a crop camera, not full frame?   I could be wrong... Either way I doubt the D800 will be effected unless it effects itself with shotty production that is currently going on, but it will eat into the D300s market tho...  unless they cripple that series. 

If you follow the nikon rumors website then you'll know that the D600 is rumored to be 24MP and full frame.

I wonder if the end of this year will see Canon on the bottom of the megapixel pile in all DSLR categories?

1745
There are a lot of performance issues with LR4. They've got some very basic things to fix.

1746
Software & Accessories / Re: Best PC product for HDR
« on: May 29, 2012, 12:24:46 PM »
Using Lightroom 4 and the highlights/shadows sliders you can go a long way and almost not need HDR software or plugins.

1747
...
More to the point, I've yet to see the image from any of the whiners that "only" the D800 could produce - and that's because it doesn't exist.
...

With LR4, the D800 will allow you to HDR a scene with one photo that would take multiple shots with anything that Canon offers. The D800 allows you to say "I don't need 3 exposures for HDR to get the most out of this scene, I can do it with one!"

1748

Nikon's D600 as currently rumored over on NR will quite likely be the next tough test of the Canon-devotees unwavering faith. It may well deliver as much or more than the Canon 5D 3 at less than half of the cost. Slightly more resolution, almost for sure more DR, quite likely also same speed 6 fps, heck, maybe even 7? plus a very capable AF-system (probably even working at f/8).

if it's going to cost just $1500 is gonna destroy sales of d800 too  :'( … except nikon hasnt a very capable AF system on d800 so i doubt it would be implemented on D600

No, the D600 will not destroy D800 sales.

If you want 36MP and you've got $3000 to spend on a camera, spending $1500 on a D600 that only has 24MP will not get you there. For people that are just looking for a full frame DSLR, the D600 will add new options for potential purchasers. So rather than ponder over spending $3000 and whether you can afford that much, you'll have the option of a camera at about half that price so lots of people that have been thinking about it can just say "Yes!"

1749
Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: May 26, 2012, 11:46:54 AM »
"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?

Want a blurred background?  Then use a prime!  2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

The 24-105 IS L  is an f4 lens
Who wants to deal with that in low light situations with moving subjects?
Get ready to crank up the ISO :\

it's only one more stop.

If 1/60 with 2.8 requires ISO 400 then 1/40 with 4.0 requires ISO 800.

1750
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: It's Not Even April Fools [CR1]
« on: May 26, 2012, 10:52:59 AM »
Too bad that lenses are sold with detachable or replaceable mounts that you can screw on/off.

Then you could buy a Canon lens and simply replace the mounting to put it on a Nikon.

Or vice versa.

No need to mess about with lens mount adapters.

1751
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weather Sealing for EOS cameras
« on: May 25, 2012, 06:34:24 AM »
Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

The 1DsIII white paper indicates that environmental sealing is one of the improvements compared to the 1DsII.  Maybe you consider that Canon kool-aid, though.  Regardless, even if the 1DsII is no better than the EOS-1V, the current 1-series are better than that. 

Sorry, I missed this.

The comparative measuring points that we have are:
Quote
FWIW, the weather sealing of the 5DII and 50D is described by Canon as, "...almost the equal of the EOS-1N."
and your comment above. We also know that the 1V is better than the 1N and that the 1D series is better than those under it.

So what do we know in terms of weather sealing?

1V > 1N > (5DII, 50D)
1Ds3 > 1Ds2

However in terms of cost:
50D < 1V < 1N < 5DII

Are there any proclamations that allow the 1D series weather sealing to be compared with prior 1 series cameras?

One is given to wonder if "better weather sealing" will be something that each new generation of camera delivers like Canon keep claiming "2 stops better JPEGs".

1752
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weather Sealing for EOS cameras
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:55:43 AM »
Thus Canon deliver a "weather sealed camera" based on what they believe people want in a camera in the price bracket they're targeting rather than it being a feature that costs $2000 to deliver.

Of course. But consider - to some extent, weather sealing is a by-product. Yes, the 1-series has gaskets and O-rings, but it's also built to tighter specified mechanical tolerances than lower cameras, and those tighter physical joins account for much of the sealing. It's why many users of 1-series bodies who pick up a 7D, despite it's commendable build quality, think it feels a bit like a toy.

I wonder, if you handed a blind folded professional an EOS-1N or EOS-1V and they'd never held one before (had only used 1D series), would they dismiss them as a "toy"?

1753
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weather Sealing for EOS cameras
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:14:49 PM »
Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

The 1DsIII white paper indicates that environmental sealing is one of the improvements compared to the 1DsII.  Maybe you consider that Canon kool-aid, though.  Regardless, even if the 1DsII is no better than the EOS-1V, the current 1-series are better than that. 

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.
As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

A 1-gallon Ziploc® bag will provide a completely rainproof seal to even a Rebel camera for less than 10¢.   :P

Still not sure what the point is, here.  If it really is just to show that a weather-sealed camera doesn't need to cost $1000s, fine - I agree, and the Pentak K-30 is proof of that.  If you don't want to pay $1000s for a weather sealed camera, fine.  Get a Pentax K-30.  Or a P&S like the D20.  But if you want a fully-sealed Canon dSLR, you pay what Canon charges.  Or not.  If you find it unacceptable, vote with your wallet.

I regularly shoot in the rain with the 1D4/ds3 complete with sealed lens. Well they haven't stopped yet!!

I'm not trying to say that they would stop.

What I'm trying to say is that the difference in price between a 1D4/1Ds3 that are weather sealed and not is perhaps not all that large (relatively speaking) for a camera in that price bracket.

Thus Canon deliver a "weather sealed camera" based on what they believe people want in a camera in the price bracket they're targeting rather than it being a feature that costs $2000 to deliver.

1754
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weather Sealing for EOS cameras
« on: May 24, 2012, 01:16:01 PM »
In 1989, the EOS-1N was launched at $2300. In 2000, the EOS 1-V was launched at $1899 with better weather sealing than the EOS-1N.

The implication is that the EOS-1V is the pinnacle of weather sealing, that it can't be any better.  I doubt that's the case - rather, the current 1-series bodies have even better sealing.

Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

Quote
I'm not sure that any of this is relevant, in any case.  As I've pointed out previously, the unit manufacturing cost of a dSLR is only a very tiny component in determining the selling price.

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.

As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

Rather it is the perception of the value of weather sealing that makes it expensive.

1755
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weather Sealing for EOS cameras
« on: May 24, 2012, 12:37:00 PM »
Before the digital era, the top of the line film EOS camera was the EOS 1v. It was UAS$1899.
With the battery pack booster, the pricing was around $3000.
The EOS 1v was marketted as being waterproof.
So quite clearly, weather sealing does not mean a camera needs to cost > $3000.

FWIW, the weather sealing of the 5DII and 50D is described by Canon as, "...almost the equal of the EOS-1N."  So, you're getting what you pay for.  The sealing of the 7D is better than that (as is the 5DIII, although that takes you over $3K).  Spending more than $4K gets you better sealing (among many other things).

In 1989, the EOS-1N was launched at $2300. In 2000, the EOS 1-V was launched at $1899 with better weather sealing than the EOS-1N.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 188