November 26, 2014, 11:43:23 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 ... 216
1741
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 23, 2012, 02:48:15 AM »
In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.
I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently.  The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing.  I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either). 

TDP says, "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens. It is possible that another copy of this lens would focus more consistently, but my guess (helped by feedback from others) is that my lens is representative of this model. Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead."

The ISO12233 chart crops on TDP suggest that the Sigma is a bit sharper, but the Imatest results in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" suggest that the Canon 50/1.4 is a bit sharper.  Imatest results on Photozone.de also suggest that the Canon is mostly sharper.

The first review that really showed up the difference between the Canon 50/1.4 and the Sigma 50/1.4 was on dpreview. For example, use this URL:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=25,23&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4


So far as I know, nobody else has presented such a complete result set as dpreview on this matter.

1742
Third Party Manufacturers / Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 22, 2012, 09:44:58 AM »
In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.

But if we look elsewhere, what do we see?
Sigma's new 35/1.4 delivers better IQ than either Canon or Nikon for substantially less.
Tamron's 24-70/2.8 bests Canon's version 1 and is almost comparable to version 2 at almost half the price.
And so on.

Maybe 5 years ago when there was no alternative to the IQ of Canon's lenses it made sense to have a full kit of Canon lenses but today surely you'd have to ask yourself why you were willing to pay a premium for a different name.

Is the smart shooter now only buying maybe one or two Canon lenses and at least the same if not more 3rd party?

1743
I did not think it would be common to use Vibrance and Saturation at the same time. Vibrance is just saturation but set to only effect Red, Green and Blue. Giving you a saturation control when skin tones are present. It lets you adjust saturation without altering skin tones or at least that what it said in the Lightroom Adventure.

Shhh.... you're giving away secrets

1744
Lenses / Re: Selling 70-300 IS - Suggest Replacement?
« on: December 22, 2012, 09:20:39 AM »
All depends on how much money you've got to burn.

If money is no object, sure, go for the 70-200/2.8 IS II plus a 1.4x TC.

If you're looking for something in the same price bracket, get the Tamron 70-300 VC.

1745
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 22, 2012, 09:07:23 AM »
Did that make you feel better?

My primary income is from investments. I really have no personal feelings when it comes to taking a loss on something. It's business.

Then you should understand that when it comes to electronics such as digital cameras are not investments and that if you were a business owning them then you would be writing off a sizeable fraction of the capital cost each year due to this.

On the other hand, if you actually thought that digital cameras were worthy of being an investment and you do investments for other people as a profession then I'm hella glad that I'm not your client and have pity on those that are!

1746
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2012, 02:23:28 AM »
With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.  A video 24-70 model will certainly exceed $3,000.  Right now, I've seen the version 1 going for $2049 at Adorama, thats likely as low as it gets for the next few months.

And 12 months ago, how expensive was version 1 at Adorama?

I've never seen Canon drop MAP for lenses, so I doubt that we'll ever see the MAP for the 24-70/2.8 II ever officially drop below $2399. Sure with specials/rebates, you may get it closer to $2000, BUT the introduction of MAP has pretty much killed "street prices" being lower than the intro price.

But what about camera bodies, don't they drop in price all the time? The market for bodies is completely different to the lens market.

The real problem here is that the 24-70/2.8 IS from Canon is up against Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC, so if it does intro at ~$3000, it damn well better be almost perfect.

1747
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:31:52 AM »

If money was not an object, would you buy a D4 or a D600?    According to Dx0marks you are an idiot if you buy the D4 because the D600 is vastly a better scoring camera...

Well I can definitely say that I wouldn't buy a D4 - or a 1DX. They're just too big and bulky!

But I think you're mistaking DxO for rating cameras when what they do is rate sensors.

It's up to each individual how important the sensor rating is to their decision making about purchasing a digital camera.

1748
Software & Accessories / Re: Stop Using Instagram
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:13:37 AM »
Even after all of the outrage, so far as I know Instagram have not presented a new, fixed, TOS. So why they released a press release to "talk" to people, they appear to have not fixed the actual problem.

1749
Software & Accessories / Re: Best panorama photo stitching software.
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:11:24 AM »
I downloaded PTgui and hugin. Both are quite complex. hugin delivers visibly inferior results to PTgui and Microsoft's ICE from a "lock and load" perspective. hugin's interface is crazy.

Given that I have never seen Microsoft's ICE deliver the wrong output, I can't see any reason for me to use PTgui, especially since ICE is free and PTgui is not.

1750
Software & Accessories / Re: Best panorama photo stitching software.
« on: December 19, 2012, 07:33:49 AM »
Another vote for Microsoft's "Image Composite Editor" (ICE).

It is a free download from Microsoft's website and in my experience, has produced better results than Photoshop and other tools that I've tried.


http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/

1751
Third Party Manufacturers / Nikon patent for digital back for 35mm SLR
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:43:41 PM »
Ok, if Nikon do this and it will fit into a Canon SLR, I'm going to find myself a 1V or EOS-33 and wait..

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/17/nikon-patents-a-digital-back-for-35mm-film-slr-cameras.aspx/

... or maybe I'll just go out and get a F6.

1752
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: December 17, 2012, 01:44:01 AM »
I prefer to look at trends rather than specific points in time, i.e I'm more interested in knowing if Canon/Nikon's DSLR share is growing/shrinking than what specific percentage it is.

That's fine, as long as you realize that one quarter does not equal a trend...  FWIW, Canon has gained market share at Nikon's expense for the past 5 years or so.

Well it is hard to see Canon maintaining its sales numbers without continued fire sales of (for example) the 5D3 at a discount of over $500 of the MSRP. Or one might say that such fire sales are evidence that vendors are struggling to sell 5D3 stock at MSRP and that Canon sales numbers will suffer if they don't happen.

1753
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: December 16, 2012, 07:06:00 PM »
...
Consider - there's an election, at the end of which (hanging chads notwithstanding), there's a winning candidate and a losing candidate. 'Winner' is based on a count of votes.  You voted for the candidate you thought was 'the best'...but that candidate may not have won.  You're entitled to your opinion, and if you picked the losing candidate, that doesn't invalidate your opinion. But at the end of the counting, you need to understand that the candidate you liked best lost, and your opinion is in the minority.

Note that in elections, the outcome of who wins can be more complex where a person can win without having a overall majority of people vote in their favour.  Elections are just another analogy that fails as you could just as easily argue that it is not always the best person or the person with the best policies that wins but rather the person that sells themselves and their policies the best, meaning that a good percentage of people had the wool pulled over their eyes (i.e the winner should not have won.)

But really, lets not drag politics into discussion about cameras.

Quote
But there was an election, with a winner and a loser...and Canon has sold more cameras than Nikon.

I prefer to look at trends rather than specific points in time, i.e I'm more interested in knowing if Canon/Nikon's DSLR share is growing/shrinking than what specific percentage it is.

1755
Canon General / DxO Mark explained
« on: December 15, 2012, 09:40:54 AM »
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml

... includes specific discussion relating to Canon's "flatlining" in sensor performance and that the 5D3 bests the D800 above ISO 3200.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 216