October 30, 2014, 09:02:37 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 174
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Whats wrong with the 70 D ?
« on: October 27, 2014, 09:26:13 AM »
My photography, is purely artistic. I shoot in full colour, print 16bit grey-scale + 1 32bit primary-colour, and crop to 19:7. I push contrast and saturation also.

You will get noticeably better prints from a secondhand FF camera for your specific output. The 5D MkII can be had for around the same money as the 70D, but if you can find a little more money the 1DS MkIII is the best camera Canon has made so far for print output.


17
Lenses / Re: Review: PowerShot G7 X via DXOMark
« on: October 26, 2014, 08:40:17 PM »

18
Software & Accessories / Re: Ballhead for Gitzo 2542L
« on: October 26, 2014, 07:59:45 PM »
BH55 would be overkill in my opinion.

I got an Arcratech GP and think it is the best medium capacity general photography head out there, if I lost mine tonight I'd order another from B&H tomorrow.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: It's just me but...
« on: October 26, 2014, 02:38:06 PM »

Anyone else feel this way.



No.

Personally I am waiting patiently for a 1Ds MkIII replacement (I often require more than 18MP), a 45 and 90 TS-E (the 45 I can get around with the 24 TS-E and a 2xTC and the 90 is being worked around with the 100L Macro). I'd like a higher quality and wider ultrawide fast zoom (I never saw that much difference between the 16-35 f2.8 MkI and MkII for my use to 'upgrade').

But these are personal things that will make my life easier, not my output particularly better. In the mean time there are a million and one things that have made my life easier that are not Canon products, things like a CamRanger, TetherTools table, Wonderpana CPL for the 17TS-E, etc, or Canon products like the 600-EX-RT's.

The cameras are good and almost all limitations are in ourselves, make a choice to be a photographer or a gear hound, it doesn't matter which you are, but photographers have the best opportunities ever to make amazing images, gear hounds, by definition, will always feel a little lost with every gear cycle.

20
....
Then, compare the light blue swatch on the color checker card at say ISO 6400 RAW, the one just above the black swatch in the lower right corner. Also, make sure you are in print mode. I've been comparing the 7D II and the D7100. The difference should be pretty obvious.
....
Noticeable, certainly - but again, it varies with where you look - if you move up and compare the four squares above that the relative slight advantages seem to flip - especially the pale turquoise/cyan square at the top right, which is clearly much noisier on the D7100 than the 7DII, so much so that the noise almost hides the splotchiness. 

Agreed...and that highlights the issue of personal bias in observations.  If you think Canon sensors have 'blotchy' and 'nasty' noise, you'll go looking for it...and most likely find it (even if you have to ignore observations which would lead to the opposite conclusion in the process).

As another demonstration, if you are shown what you believe to be an Exmor file, and you have a love of them, then they will exhibit 'fantastic gradation and tonal values'* even when they are Canon files. Personal bias is displayed with remarkable regularity here, often from both sides in the same thread.

What pixel peeping has done now is 'jumped the shark', which, as a saying I believe has also jumped the shark. Back in the days when we had low pixel counts and regular pixelation from sub 10mp cameras there was a genuine interest and 'need' for knowing where the pixel limits were, and pixel peeping became a quaint badge that was worn to demonstrate better understanding and knowledge to fellow photographers and anybody too immobile to move.

Well with our 1080HD displays, and even our 'I want 4K now' and 'bring on the new Apple screens' attitude, we still can't see a fraction of the pixels captured on full screen, even when we crop hard, we can print to never before printed sizes with ease, and the peepers became a bore.

Pixel peeping has lost it's relevance to the output image. The files from pretty much everything nowadays are so good, so clean, so sharp, and so rich it is obscene, put those files into a copy of any decent RAW editor and the only image limitation most of the time is you. Sure we will always have needs we can't personally meet, a single shot might need a 600 f4, or a 17TS-E, or need 1/250 sec at f4 and 10,000 iso, but we are so spoilt now it is ridiculous, worrying about the noise patterns by swatch colour is crazy.

Enjoy the tech for what it is but don't take this kind of super over analysis seriously, and certainly don't let it impact your purchasing decisions. The 7D MkII will create some world class images by people not reading gear forums but by people actually out there making images, just as the now derided 7D has.

• This is a paraphrase because the original was taken down.........

21
The answer is obvious for people who take their photography seriously, you need every camera made on you at all times.

Then, if the scene contains mainly books you can use the appropriate camera and lens, if the scene happens to contain a person, then again, you will have the right tool for the job. Those that take the 'art' particularly seriously can even base their camera use choice on the colours of the books, as clearly (apparently) Nikon's wipe the floor with Canon on yellow, orange, green, and blue, so Canon would be OK for red, pink and mauve spectral scenes.

Simple really.......
DARN!
I wanted a camera for taking pictures of red canoe against a green background....

Don, don't be obtuse, the answer is obvious. Shoot the canoe with the Canon and the greenery (and water) with the Nikon, then merge in PS, it is automatic and only takes a few seconds, you can then apply a Nik or whatever effect to get that authentic natural look.  :)

22
The answer is obvious for people who take their photography seriously, you need every camera made on you at all times.

Then, if the scene contains mainly books you can use the appropriate camera and lens, if the scene happens to contain a person, then again, you will have the right tool for the job. Those that take the 'art' particularly seriously can even base their camera use choice on the colours of the books, as clearly (apparently) Nikon's wipe the floor with Canon on yellow, orange, green, and blue, so Canon would be OK for red, pink and mauve spectral scenes.

Simple really.......

23
Is it DO?
Hopefully not!  8)

The new DO system supposedly has vast improvement over the old 70-300 attempt - and if it works, it means less weight and length for the same image quality. With a lens the size of a 100-400L, what's not to like about it?

Price.

24
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 25, 2014, 03:03:08 AM »
However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

Since you're willing to go ~5 years back:

In 2006 Canon has updated the 85mm f/1.2, and the 50mm f/1.2 was released the same year.
In 2007 Canon has updated the 14mm f/1.4
In 2008 Canon has released the 200mm f/2 and 800mm f/5.6
In 2009 Canon has updated the TS-E 24mm f/3.5, and released an all new TS-E 17mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro IS
In 2010 Canon has updated the 300mm & 400mm f/2.8 IS
In 2011 Canon has updated the 500mm & 600mm f/2.8 IS
In 2012 Canon updated it's non-L 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses, and released a new 40mm STM lens.

So, in the time frame you refer to, the 85mm L has been updated, the 50mm L is a new release, and the 24mm f/1.4 has been updated (though you find the not up to your expectations).

I agree the 35mm f/1.4 L is old, but unless you need that extra stop, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens.

As for the 135mm f/2, I'm not sure what you would expect from a mkII, beyond the letters "II" in the name. An IS?

The 14mm is an f2.8, not an f1.4.

25
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 25, 2014, 03:01:36 AM »
Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.

I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.

I do not fully agree here, the 100mm L is a superb lens, but I have both the 50 Compact macro and the 100mm L and they do not serve the same purpose. I won't comment the 60mm EF-S since I don't have a crop camera. A 100mm is not a 50mm (though the perfect focal for a standard macro should IMO more be a 55-60mm).

 I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).

Absolutely agree.

26
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo killed my batteries - warranty case?
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:15:10 PM »

FWIW, I leave batteries in RF-602, RF-622 and 560-TX transceivers all the time and never had a problem in any of the 15 or so units I have.  I only take the batteries out of my flashes because I have a bunch and only consistently use 2 or 3 of them.

If you leave batteries in the RF-602 trigger you are bound to have a flat batery when you come to use it if left in a camera bag, it doesn't have an On/Off button!

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:42:05 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

As I said...not even close.

Oh, I missed the bit where you didn't mention the TC, that was naughty of you. There are loads more FF images out there with 5D MkII/III's with TC's that are every bit as good as yours, I was just looking for 100-400's.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:21:13 PM »
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough.

Not true.

I'll challenge anyone to go out with a 1DX or 5DII or III and get a moon shot like this one with a 100-400L.



Hand held.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg120132#msg120132
And here,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=10014826

29
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:55:34 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961
To get that crop reach advantage, you need a GREAT lens. A lens like the 100-400 or the Tamron 150-600 is not sharp enough. My tests between a 5D2 and a 60D using those two lenses showed minimal differences in resolving power of distant objects between crop and FF. Using a 100L, crop definitely resolved distance objects better than FF, but it most certainly was not twice as good... maybe 20 or 30 percent better. (no scientific measurements taken, the percentage is a guess)

I am told, no personal experience, that the second generation "Big Whites" will act the same... but however you slice it, to get that crop reach advantage, you need some of the sharpest glass that Canon makes.

I understand what you are saying Don, but my example crops fly in the face of that.

I used the best techniques possible to maximise the difference including using a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6 (nobody ever argued that isn't a great lens and without a TC gives little, if anything, to the MkII's), I did this to give the crop camera the biggest advantage its small pixels will ever have, it certainly isn't close to a real world situation, and the differences are just not there to any meaningful degree.

As an aside, I have tested my 50 f1.4 against my 100L Macro at f5.6, and the 50 is 'sharper', TDP iso charts agree with my findings.

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 09:24:13 PM »
In the real world, with the cameras Canon makes now, FF wins the IQ contest in all but one scenario... and that scenario is when you are focal length limited, can't move any closer, have a GREAT lens, and good lighting. Under those conditions (happens a lot with small birds) the quality of your crop pixels is fairly close to your FF pixels, but you have more crop pixels on target so you end up with a better image from the crop camera.  Everywhere else, FF wins.

No, there's another one - when you're magnification (as in macro) limited.

Good point!

Only my and Pit123's crops in this thread don't actually illustrate that to be a crop camera 'advantage' either, certainly not one to base a buying decision on, price, AF fps maybe, but IQ advantage, not so much.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453961#msg453961

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 174