October 22, 2014, 07:21:20 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 172
16
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hello FF!
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:42:00 AM »
6D is a much better buy than a secondhand 5D MkII.

Does that make me a 'looser' too?

18
6D.

You will then realise the 'limitations' of crop cameras (for pixel peepers and big printers) and realise you need a 6D and 5D MkIII, mind you, by the time you have the 5D MkIII money saved you will be in used 1DX territory money wise.........

GAS is a rarely tamed affliction.

19
Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.

Er, no it isn't. It is used regularly by bad photography journalists who are too damn lazy to be accurate and are looking for any excuse to get a job in auto journalism, and by marketing departments who know very well how misleading it is and don't care to be honest with their consumers.

Take a look here for the true meaning of equivalent with regards photography http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

20
Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

21
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:23:20 PM »
"You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing."


If you think you are giving up nothing go take both cameras, put on an identical lens and take a picture of an object that is far away, proceed to crop the shot from the 5DMIII to match the shot from the 7D, and then print them both at 30"x40"...

You need your empirical evidence, go do that.

I did, and I am showing you a crop of over 100% magnification of that print file.

I used the same 300mm f2.8 IS on both cameras (actually I left the lens on the tripod and just changed bodies where it was), manual focus via live view, f5.6, iso200 (which favours the crop camera), wireless flash for maximum contrast, massive tripod, cable release etc etc.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:54:23 PM »
this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.
Nobody is saying your crops don't look good. I'm sure your cropped images look wonderful. Nobody is challenging that.  You are being so matter of fact and it does feel argumentative. 8mp images can look great of course, but we don't need to point out that 18mp has certain advantages over 8mp given certain circumstances. If we are just generating web content then the 8mp is more than enough... I happen to think that what you see, the images you love, are far more important than the math. So I applaud you for standing ground on empirical - what you see - evidence. That's what matters. The graphic I made was just to show what you are giving up.  Again, there is no -one size fits all tool.

You missed a big point in the crops jepast. The FF crop is upsized to 18MP, there is no 18mp - 8mp advantage, I am, effectively, 'giving up' nothing.

23
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:04:07 PM »
this whole topic should be about which camera is better for shooting _________?
Decide what you are shooting, then you can decide what equipment is best for the job. There is no perfect tool.

That is what we are doing, I am just trying to make people actually look.

As for your image, so what? Explain my crops.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:01:48 PM »
Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

Interesting debate. I go back and forth on this.

Since buying a 5DIII about a year ago, I admit my 7D has pretty much been sitting, gathering dust (although I keep it as a back up). But, in the past year, I've had very little time to shoot distance-limited subjects as demand for portraits seems to take up most of my spare time these days.

But, I can't quite understand how a crop sensor would never provide an advantage in distance-limited situations. I'm certainly willing to agree that if you crop the full frame down to the same framing as a uncropped APS-C image, you won't lose much, if anything. But, intellectually, I can't get my head around the idea that if I need to crop the image much more significantly, having the extra pixels of a crop would not be an advantage.

Being math-challenged doesn't  help, but it certainly seems from a logical point-of-view that eventually, as you slice and dice away pixels, you'll reach a point where the full frame image loses too much resolution and you'll be better off with the crop sensor's greater pixel density.

It might require some pretty radical cropping, but then again, I've been in situations that require radical cropping (A California Condor perched on the top of an outcrop at the Grand Canyon – absent the ability to fly, you can't get any closer than the edge of the Canyon.)

There are several points to make, first is I am a little maths challenged too and agree, it doesn't make sense, but my empirical results illustrate my point.

Secondly, I never said it will never make a difference, but in my empirical testing (on older generation bodies but same theory) I found it didn't make enough of a difference to be noticeable in big prints even in optimal conditions set up to favour the crop camera. I would love Bob or Lee Jay to actually come along with some decent examples illustrating their beliefs, I have done so for mine. I am not saying 'I am right you are all wrong', I am saying 'I found this to be true, has anybody doing the same comparison found the same?' and several, like Neuro, have. I have never seen anybody post direct comparison images that illustrate a very different result, certainly after optimal processing at any kind of actual reproduction size there never seems to be a difference.

Third, as I have always said, the feature set of a crop camera might well make it a better camera anyway, things like AF, fps, cost etc can't be ignored.

Fourth, my crops are actually set up to favour the crop camera in iso and aperture etc, but also I upsized the ff file to match the crop file pixel for pixel to 'level the playing field' for comparison purposes, this should favour the crop camera even more.

But in the end I base my buying decisions on empirical results, I can't see $1,800 worth of difference in those >100% crops to warrant the expense, and I was happy to pay $3,750 for a 300 f2.8 over a $1,455 300 f4.

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:36:40 PM »
Saying smaller pixels don't help with "reach" (resolving power) is the same as saying a longer focal length doesn't help with reach, and it's just as wrong.

No it isn't.

You are obfuscating the very limited criteria I laid down by attempting to introduce spurious comparisons and strawman arguments.

Stick to the point, show me 5D MkIII vs 70D (or 6D and 7D MkII) focal length limited crops that demonstrate the crop cameras resolution advantage, if they demonstrate a clear winner I will show you where either your testing technique or post processing is failing you.

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:55:46 PM »
Eldar, since you use FoCal and claim this lens has inconsistency issues, perhaps you'd care to share some focus consistency test results from FoCal on this lens with us.  Multiple copies, multiple bodies would be indicative.  At least post the charts showing the 10 or 20 shot tests, with the final percentage.

There are few people I trust implicitly on this forum, Eldar is one.

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:43:22 PM »
Anyway, unlike some, I find the extra "reach" to be real and advantageous.

Got any comparison images to back that up Bob?

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:04:33 PM »
One is not better than the other. Honestly, just depends on what you are shooting.

True.

The extra reach on the 7D from the 5D combined with a 200mm f/2.8 means you have 320mm reach for shooting sports.

Not true. Look at my crops.

However, the 20mm on the 7D shooting landscapes means you are shooting at 32mm instead of 20mm.

The EF-S 10-22 is generally considered a better performing lens than either the 16-35 or 17-40, so no lack of ultra wide for crop and the price difference is less than $50 for FF. Indeed the 24-105 f4 L IS is generally much cheaper than the directly comparable EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.

This question is eternally pointless.

Not true.

They both make beautiful images.

True
I'm not going to argue with you.

Expressing an opinion is not necessarily arguing. This is a forum, a place for discussion ideas and thoughts. I expanded yours with my own and gave comments with easily verifiable facts to support my differing opinions, hardly an argument.

29
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 12:35:07 PM »
One is not better than the other. Honestly, just depends on what you are shooting.

True.

The extra reach on the 7D from the 5D combined with a 200mm f/2.8 means you have 320mm reach for shooting sports.

Not true. Look at my crops.

However, the 20mm on the 7D shooting landscapes means you are shooting at 32mm instead of 20mm.

The EF-S 10-22 is generally considered a better performing lens than either the 16-35 or 17-40, so no lack of ultra wide for crop and the price difference is less than $50 for FF. Indeed the 24-105 f4 L IS is generally much cheaper than the directly comparable EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.

This question is eternally pointless.

Not true.

They both make beautiful images.

True

30
Canon General / Re: "11-24mm f/4" vs The Holy Grail
« on: October 16, 2014, 12:27:47 PM »
Okay some people are complaining about 11-24mm being f/4 and not being at f/2.8 while others are complaining its price anticipated to be at 3,000$.

I really do wonder what you all think it would be like to compare it with the Nikon 13mm f/5.6 also called "The Holy Grail"

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/13mm.htm

Quote:
- Nikon's suggested retail (rip-off) price was $8,229 in 1979, or over $24,000 in today's dollars.
- B&H advertised it at $5,569 in January 1987, or over $10,000 in today's money.

- The 13mm cost more than the no-longer-made 300mm f/2, which now sells for five-figures used.
- The 13mm was double the cost of the 300mm f/2.8 or twelve times the cost of the 16mm fisheye.

Recently sold for 24,500 US$ on ebay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/141433630285)

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-_KTLF_D4

What do you all think, can we compare these both or are both of them at a different league of their own?

OR,  people might be thinking the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 is a closer comparative lens, at $874.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755357-REG/Sigma_204101_12_24mm_F4_5_5_6_EX_DG.html

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 172