October 25, 2014, 11:16:42 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 172
301
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.

302


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.

303
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.

304
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?

305
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.

306
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.

307
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.

308
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?

309
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.

310
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.

311
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.

312
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: August 31, 2014, 10:02:59 PM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........
serenity now!

I try, I truthfully try, but it is like a car accident, you really don't want to look as you drive by but for some morbid reason you can't stop yourself. Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19", they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall?

I think I am not going to log in for a few days.

313
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:50:19 PM »
I'm kinda in the "once you go full frame you don't go back" camp. The main reason would be the extra reach, which I'm reading here is over-rated. More like 1.2 not 1.6. So, that makes it a very expensive teleconvertor. I've already got the ff lenses. So, not sure what the advantage would be over a 6D. If I wanted a second (great) body (have 6D and T5i and 2 EOS M) would be more tempted to buy another 6D, one for longer zoom, the other for wide zoom at athletic events.

I agree with the conventional wisdom offered here that has been born of the crop vs FF debates.  (In essence, what you have stated above about real world 1.2 reach, etc.)  However, there is more to it than that.  In real world use, a new technology sensor in a new crop sensor camera gives me...

-  Faster fps (10 for the 7D2, 8 for the 7D and 7 for the 70D.)
-  1.6 (1.2?) crop factor reach advantage without a TC in the way
-  2nd body & lens (not a TC on a single FF)

A TC still costs you a stop of light and a loss of IQ compared to a crop sensor with no TC in the light path.  Having both a FF and a crop camera hanging by your side with two different lenses at a sporting event has its merits.  And if you are shooting sports, you are shooting a lot of frames of fast moving action.  You need fps.  And you need reach.  Trying to crop FF images later in post is a LOT of work when you are looking at several thousand images over a day or two of action.

That's why I bought a 70D a week ago for $836 from Canon Refurb.  It's likely going to give me at least 2/3 of (what I need) the 7D2 will give for possibly 1/3 the cost.  It's likely got a similar (if not the same) sensor and 7 fps is fast enough for my needs.  I'll know for sure after swim season starts.   :)

Not if you take equivalence into account, if you do, and you should, the ff has an iso advantage greater than the stop of aperture loss.

314
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:36:27 PM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........

315
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:29:12 PM »
The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

Look, ETTR is not a new thing, we have had to expose to our recording mediums vagaries since photography was invented, look at the meticulous care Ansel Adams went to to accomplish the amazing DR ranges he did with less capabilities than we have now, from initial exposure to development of the film, to printing and development of that print, all in his mind even before he set up his tripod.

You do have a valid point that the Exmor is capable of superior shadow lifting, everybody here agrees with that, but you are being silly if you honestly believe that Canon sensors are as bad as you are saying.

No system currently available is close to perfect, they all have positive points and negative points, every single one of them. I shoot a lot of live view with the 17TS-E with massive DR (I demonstrated that before but certainly didn't throw it down your throat or go to a Nikon forum to raise hell there) For my personal professional stills work Canon offer me the best solution, the Exmor cannot do what I need in one shot, Nikon Live View is a joke and they don't have a 17TS-E. Now my specific photography needs might be unusual, but if I was shooting the images you have shown with a Canon I know with optimal technique I could get superb results, your reply to that has been "why should I have to?", because we are photographers, if everybody could get our results you wouldn't have your $250,000 a year studio.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 172