November 21, 2014, 07:42:58 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 184
496
The 7D.

497
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 01:26:58 AM »
At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

FYI: You're an Idiot

And just so we're clear, that's Arthur Morris - the most famous bird/wildlife photographer in the english speaking world - calling you an idiot, not me. Just so you know.  Also, Canon knows their own business better than you ever will and you have literally no stake whatsoever in whether they want to pursue this technology (or not! its still a rumor!) so I can't even begin to imagine why you would be taking the possibility of a new 400mm f4 DO as some sort of personal affront.

Thanks Steve.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

I tried one for a day, I am happy I didn't get one and I don't feel like an idiot....

P.S. Don't let Franz Lanting hear you say that about Arthur Morris.

498
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 01:12:49 AM »
Hand held test are largely pointless. Each person has their own fitness and strength level.

Only if you never hand hold. If you do hand hold, ever, the test will show you what you will get, that is the point!

I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.

499
I have two 1VHS's I am selling one and I don't care which one. One has 36 rolls of film through it, the other 58 rolls of film through it. I bought both brand new and I am the only person who has ever used them, not long after I got them I got a job that included cameras so hardly used them before I got a personal 1D and that was it, they stayed in the bag as backups for a couple of seasons and then moved to my gear cupboard, and now they are here........

Both come with every piece of paper, packaging, sticker, quick guide etc they came with, the 36 roll one everything is untouched, the 58 roll one has a bit of wear on the manual.

Both cameras are very good condition, though not quite mint. They have the usual slight rub marks from sitting in my bag as backups for a few years. Nothing to cause any concern and no scratches, dents, bare metal, or deep marks, just being 100% honest.

I actually bought them as 1V's and got the PB-E2's, for those that don't know that makes a 1VHS, the boxed 1VHS is no different and does not have different badges, but doing it like that meant you got the GR-E2 included, and the two covers you didn't get with the 1VHS.

I'm asking $800 for the 36 roll camera or $700 for the 58 roll camera, if you are interested drop me a PM.

500
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:07:19 PM »
We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult.  The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

I'l show you mine..

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22441.0

now show me yours.  :P
BTW, the image linked above was at 1/6s, not 1/15.  It'd print comfortably up to 48" high before I'd consider tweaking pixels.  Oh, and there was a slight shadow lift too, as the foreground was too dark for my liking and I wanted a more gradual gradient.

So you are asserting that you get "crisper" shots from the D800 at 3200iso, and 1/6 second @ f4.5 handheld than you did from the Canon at 200iso, and 1/400 second @ f8 (sunny 16 exposure for "bright sunlight")  with the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII? Or just over EV1 with no contrast compared to EV12 with great contrast.

That makes no sense.

Also, if you are happy to print at 153dpi I understand why we have these differences of opinion.

You can search my attachments history for some of mine if you are interested.


501
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:06:09 PM »


blah blah blah

but ROmy has already posted many real world comps between 7D and 5D series and he surely got more detail out the 7D


So he has, thanks for that, that really put me in my place, thanks for pointing those real world 7D and cropped 5D MkIII images, I hadn't seen them before.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=352724

502
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:23:26 PM »
So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question.  What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld?  What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?

I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.

We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.

The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.

I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose?

All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.

A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.

That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.


503
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:20:31 PM »
No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point.  And I provided that.

Well you did care enough to argue the point, and you failed.

My request hasn't changed, I just broadened it to include more cameras to make it easier. Here is the original request:

Quote
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage.

If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you, "Idiot".

Here is the link and the quote in context.

Quote
date=1409191281]
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

504
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:25:39 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things.  I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO.  Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions.

Yes, I did.  Since you're memory seems to be failing you, here it is:



And, if you prefer to see them at native (but different) sizes, here's that one too:


No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

So apart from neither camera being in the list and it being tripod mounted you nailed it.

505
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:54:31 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things.  I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO.  Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions. Oh that is because we weren't talking about the 5D, you are the one that tried to prove something without actually having any examples of it and yet I am the one you say says dumb things, you da man.

So you have talked to a couple of owners, that is convincing, I am looking at what owners are prepared to lose to get rid of them, I believe mine is a bigger sample and a more accurate indicator of lens performance.

506
Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:38:53 PM »
50 f1.4 and 15 f2.8 fisheye.

507
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:37:07 PM »
But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "   ;)

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with  :(

I thought jrista* was a guy!  ;D

*Apologies in advance if it wasn't jrista that made the comment.

508
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:34:32 PM »
I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction.  This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements.  For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent.  Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements.  Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

And yet, many owners just love them.

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

509
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:09:38 PM »
art is the product of the artist and their tools

How would you know that, did you read it?

510
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:07:07 PM »
I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction.  This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements.  For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent.  Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements.  Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 184