October 22, 2014, 07:35:25 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 172
286
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 08:01:40 PM »
Or set Custom Function C. Fn 1-7-1, to link your spot metering to your selected AF point, page 210 of your manual.

Yeah, cool, that's set in my camera but it doesn't work in 45 point mode.  However, I was mistaken about the 1DX because I thought exposure was linked to the AF point even in 61 point mode.  Turns out, nope.  So I guess I would like that to happen at some point.

Wow, I never met a 1D user who still has all 45 points active, it always took me too long to go through them all and the framing is negligible. I have used 19 points with surrounding point expansion since day two, as has pretty much everybody else I ever met.

287
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 07:46:22 PM »
... (we won't mention the 7D,60d,60da,550,650,750,SL1,1200 et al 18mp APS-C sensor) :P

Let's also not mention that we haven't seen any tangible performance increase in a Canon sensor since the 1DsIII in 2007 (seven years ago).

[now playing U2]
...
You've got to get yourself together
You've got stuck in a moment
And now you can't get out of it
...

8)

So what you are saying is smart Canon shooters bought into the 1Ds MkIII and haven't upgraded?

288
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 07:35:17 PM »
I love my Mark III. But, I would love it even more if it would ALWAYS METER FROM THE SELECTED FOCUS POINT.

Man, I hear you on that.  It's a bummer when a third of my frames from a burst in Av mode on my 1DIV are blown out or under exposed when I'm set to spot metering. The 1DX links exposure metering to active AF point and there is no reason that needs to be an exclusively "pro" feature.  Hopefully its included in the 7DII and then every not-rebel from here on in.

Or set Custom Function C. Fn 1-7-1, to link your spot metering to your selected AF point, page 210 of your manual.

289
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

But what about the future? Unless Canon has utterly lost the plot they will have a D810 res sensor out soon. With this test we know how the Canon lenses would compare vs. Nikon with all sensors.

NO WE WILL NOT.

Without a camera body behind it a camera lenses capabilities are entirely irrelevant.

To quote Roger himself "But hey, I usually find the opportunity to do a meaningless test hard to resist.", he fully understands the very limited practical value of this as a "comparison". Indeed it seems even a standard Imatest, that measures an actual image output, gives the 24-70 MkII the narrow edge over the 70-200 MkII, whereas this decoupled result gives it to the 70-200; so if we take a photo with our lenses we should use the 24-70, if we want to test some esoteric value we should shine a light through the 70-200!

Call me dumb but I'd use the 24-70 unless I had the 70-200 on my camera, it is that close.

290
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

Science require control of the variables. Too many variables and you can conclude nothing.

Photography isn't a science. If you don't include all the variables you end up with purely academic test results that have extremely limited, if any, real world value.

291


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

292
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site.  And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear".  Oh.  No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

Not at all, I was questioning the practical value of the question, I don't see why that brings about such negativity. If you can't take a picture without the camera then a test of the lens seems to be of limited value, to me.

Put another way, what difference does it make if I am shooting  with a 24-70 and a 70-200 and want a 70mm shot which lens I use? The body free lens test can't tell me! Besides so many other factors impact the image far greater than the small measured body free lens tests differences that even if it did those other factors would almost certainly impact my decision making more.

293
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

You mean uneducated?

Some people want to know how good a lens actually is.  When you couple it with a body, that drags down the actual capabilities of a lens to that of the body.

I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Maybe.

Some might, I was just trying to head off the inevitable 'my ?? is better than your ??' because when taken out of context the result, however interesting and informative, has little practical application. 

Nobody in their right mind is going to have their buying decisions, or even their shooting choices, impacted by these results, and anybody with the gear crossover should already know what works better for them. Sure this lens might have fractionally less field curvature than that lens, put in the context of dof, framing, lens changing, exposure, focus, framing, subject, light, artistic merit, post processing etc etc the outcome is so minor as to not make any real world difference.

Say I had two 5D MkIII's and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and was shooting a wedding, I need 70mm, what camera/lens combo do I need? The one in my hand, the one I just shot 35mm with, the one I just shot 180mm with, the one I am going to use after the 70mm shot? On and on, my thought as to what lens is going to give me "more" doesn't factor into it.

Or, I want to shoot a landscape at 70mm, which do I use? Well again the miniscue differences in bench tested aberrations doesn't really matter because my dof is going to cover a mutitude of sins and post processing is going to cover the rest.

Sure this has an academic value, my point was, it is only academic.

To be sure, I really like Roger's blog, he writes some very interesting articles and gives seemingly unbiased views on pretty much everybody, I wish there were more like him, his testing seems very balanced, fair and consistent, his results posted with similar common sense and notes as to practical application. He is well aware of the furor taking these kinds of results out of context can create, how is calling for relevance and moderation a bad thing?

294
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

295
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And what does Canon do?
« on: September 06, 2014, 08:04:18 PM »

That is a faulty analogy, you don't buy a hamburger if you want chicken; if your primary need is sensor output get one of the Exmor cameras, if you want Canon lenses, and they have many unique and class leading lenses, flashes (and nobody else makes a factory radio flash system) etc etc then a Canon IS the better buy.

What you are talking about is a menu.
I am talking about a single Hamburger (only the sensors)


Quote
For the billionth time, Canon does not hold the lead in sensor output especially at low iso, but it does have many other system advantages over competitors systems....

I did say that didn´t i?

Quote from: ULFULFSEN
Canon still makes good cameras, but the sensors are not up to the competition

But if everything else on the menu is more appealing than a hamburger, it doesn't matter how "good" it is.

Look, people banging on about how bad/far behind Canon sensors are, and they are, seem to miss the point that for the vast amount of the time they are still more than good enough to actually achieve what you need.

Even if the burger is the best burger in the world if only need a single one, why would you order a triple burger?

Other factors are far more important to most people most of the time than more DR and more MP, and that is a fact supported by sales data.

296
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And what does Canon do?
« on: September 06, 2014, 07:48:01 PM »
From a consumers point of view it´s complete bollocks to defend technology that is worse than competing technology.

You don´t buy a Hamburger that tastes worse than another, right?
You don´t tell other Hamburger fans he is as good as the other because both offer the same carbs, vitamins, proteins etc.
You buy the Burger that tastes delicious.

So stop making excuses for Canon.
Canon still makes good cameras, but the sensors are not up to the competition.

That is a faulty analogy, you don't buy a hamburger if you want chicken; if your primary need is sensor output get one of the Exmor cameras, if you want Canon lenses, and they have many unique and class leading lenses, flashes (and nobody else makes a factory radio flash system) etc etc then a Canon IS the better buy.

For the billionth time, Canon does not hold the lead in sensor output especially at low iso, but it does have many other system advantages over competitors systems, and for many keen amateurs, semi pros, and pros those system advantages are bigger factors than the sensor differences. The low end is dominated by price and market share and everybody agrees Canon has been leader there for many years.

297
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:38:52 AM »
Doesn't quoting the Princess Bride invoke Godwin's Law?

298
I don't know how but I want to photograph the plankton in the evening.  The water is lit with something like small fireflies.  I wish I can go back.  For other pics taken from this place, you can visit my flickr account.  Thanks!

It is Bioluminescent bacteria.

299
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 08:18:33 PM »
Why has this made it to page 30?

Because there is an extremely high correlation between Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and frequency of internet postings.

Take some OCD, coupled with a matter of life and death, plus a lack of humour.... throw in some raging testosterone and keep the whole mixture simmering over a troll baited flame.... Add DR for seasoning.... and you get enough posts to choke the server.

Don Haines
Posts: 3084

 ;)


And of those 3,084 posts, 3,083 have been cheerful, humorous, positive, constructive and/or peace-making. I'd say 3,084 were that way, but hey -- nobody's perfect.  :P

I was going to ask Mitch if he is experiencing Deja Moo... (The feeling that you have seen this bull before) :)

Unfocused: 2044 Posts. The only reason for posting this is to start one of those quote within a quote within a quote sequences that can look pretty cool when they get to about 20-30 quotes. Time to have some fun, demonstrate the absurdity of this thread and maybe break the Internet!

Neuroanatomist: just a few posts, really.

What? No one else wants to play?

I spy something with my little eye...

I can't, I am on a self imposed exile for a week or so. But, intriguingly enough, I have a friend coming to stay who has a D800 (shame it isn't an 810 or E though) and a 24-70 so I am hoping to do some comparison images for my own piece of mind.

300
Sorry to revive this old thread, but I'm considering getting the wonderpana for the 17 myself and am a bit confused  ;)

Is this 145 Essential Kit custom made for the different lenses (like the Nikon 14-24, the Canon 17 TS, etc.) or will the same kit work with all of them? Particularly I'm wondering if the same kit will work for the 17 and the samyang 14 mm - and possibly the 16-38 2.8 II.

Hi Stephan,

The kit for the 17 TS-E is custom, I strongly suspect all the others are too.

I have thought about making a convertor for the 17TS-E version to an 82mm thread, that shouldn't be too difficult and would give me more flexibility, but I haven't gotten round to it yet. But I don't see a way of making it fit the other lenses with petal shaped hoods/ends.

It might be worth a call to Fotodiox to ask how the core units fit to the filter holder, it is a bayonet mount, and you might find they will sell you the core units (the bits that attach to the lens) and you only need one filter holder for the Samyang and the 16-35, but I still don't see how that could interface with the unique lens cap mount bayonet arrangement they have for the TS-E.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 172