January 25, 2015, 11:35:40 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 96
376
It looks like you've got the lenses to cover your low light/non flash needs, so if you think the 24-70 f/4 IS will be a good fit, then go for it!

It will require a change in how you use the lenses, but your primes will be used more.  I'm assuming that you'd be selling your existing 240-70, but how about your 15-85?  Perhaps a 10-22 would be a better complement for your WA/UWA needs.

377
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: February 07, 2014, 09:27:36 PM »
Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.

You should apply to Canon as an independent fud agent :-)

I understand the necessity of pro shooting are different than for the rest of us, but 3rd party items don't just brick by looking at them, but only after camera fw updates. But *esp* as a pro you don't just update your fw on first day of the release and just before a shooting. You will evaluate what the changes are, and if necessary wait some, for example until 3rd party vendors updating their fw.

Yeah, because people love losing functionality of their gear... not so much.  In my industry it takes months to release new software because of safety and certification issues.  Consumer electronics is different but it will still take time to reverse engineer and test the changes.  And it doesn't have to come with a fw update; it could come with a new camera release.  Of course, they never list incompatibility with extant 3rd party gear as features of a new camera.  ::)

378
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:43:11 PM »
but I am pretty sure Canon will see to it that their lenses work with their cameras.

You're lucky here: Latest Sigma lenses (and Yongnuo flashes/controllers) have usb ports so they can update the firmware if Canon changes something- so I'd say these are as future-proof as Canon originals.

Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.  Not so bad if you have multiple options, but not worth it if you rely on it for a living.

379
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:09:14 PM »
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
[/quote]

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release.  The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.

380
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 06, 2014, 12:55:51 PM »
but in your eyes (AvTvM), both of these bodies are paper weights, because they have mirrors. 

Lastly, I kind of feel like you may be one of those people that's never happy.  I keep seeing you posting these demand lists, and the list keeps growing.  Canon could produce a mirrorless 1dx right now priced at 5d3 prices and you'd still complain about it (ohhhh its too large, or, it where is the tilt screen...)

+1, bingo!  The A7R should have satisfied most of the requirements of his earlier lists, and yet he is still using his 7D in place of the A7R.  There is a large IQ gap between the 7D and the current FF offerings, and yet he still won't switch...

381
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4
« on: February 06, 2014, 10:09:43 AM »
It comes down to how many lenses you already own.  I tend to use a 35mm prime primarily indoors and as a single walk-around lens at night because I have other lenses that cover the same focal length with similar IQ outdoor when there is more light (where a smaller max aperture does not matter as much).

In your case, you'll use it a lot more because it will have better IQ than the 17-40, and you don't have a mid-range zoom.  Unless you really need the 17-40 for the 17mm focal length, you could replace it with 24 and 35mm primes.  The 24 2.8 IS/S35/50 1.8 would take less space than the 17-40/S35/50 and you'll be trading focal length and more lens changes for IQ.

382
Lets see how this actually stacks up against the 28-300L...  when that information comes out I will give this lens a second look. Until then, I am filling it in the 'could be interesting' pile. Like any new lens, lets see how it performs in the real world, and see what 1st round production problems it has! ;)

Canon's 28-300 is in a different class.  It weighs 3x as much as this Tamron.  Build quality leads to a weight penalty for Canon, but the max aperture at 300mm also has something to do with the weight difference too (f/5.6 vs. f/6.3).  There have been opinions/experiences posted on the net that Tamron's 150-600 does not servo AF as well at the long end and the max aperture of f/6.3 might have something to do with it.  At 19 oz, the Tamron weighs much less than any Canon telephoto zoom (70-200L f/4, 70-300L f/4-5.6, etc).

The Canon 28-300 is an interesting concept, but it's only strength is being a single lens solution.  It weighs about the same as carrying both a 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 70-300L, which deliver much better IQ.  Perhaps the Canon can be improved quite a bit while reducing weight, but I can't imagine that it is a very big seller.

383
Does anyone but me find it bizarre that the APS-c version is actually wider than the full-frame version?  If they could make this one 16mm, it seems like they could have made the full-frame version 24mm.

No, not too surprising.  Lens design involves more tradeoffs and the difficulty increases the larger the sensor is.  With FF the superzoom ratio is about 10x (28-300), with APS-C the ratio is about 20x (16-300), with P&S superzooms it gets to about 50x.

384
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2014, 08:47:17 AM »
Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.

Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new

And how many DSLRs that came out before the 5D 3 had wifi?  Into a bit of revisionist history, aren't you?

385
Lenses / Re: Is There a Definitive "Best" Landscape Lens for Crop?
« on: February 01, 2014, 08:29:21 AM »
Would it be wrong to replace my 35 2.0 IS with a 24 2.8 IS and 50 1.4?

No, it wouldn't be wrong.  But you might just end up with the 24 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS AND 50 f/1.4 anyway.   ::)

386
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 01, 2014, 08:23:16 AM »
Canon.  AF is fast enough for sports (indoor basketball).  Most of my pics have people in them, so IS is of little value.  I do wish that these were designed to go to 85 rather than 70, which i find just a little too short.

387
If your wife will use the 2nd camera more than you will, then get the 70D.

388
Banding only occurs after a lot of postprocessing, and only the op can know how much he's into it and if he's able to ettr or use bracketing ... as for the af, the -3lv center point sensitivity is a big plus over the +0.5lv 5d3 (afaik) if you need it, but you're the first one to discover that the outer af points are a significant step forward :-p

I'm assuming you're referring to the 5D2 above; the 5D3 has -2ev sensitivity, although the darkest I've tried and kept with the 5D3 is closer to -1.

389
Second but ... based on your "usage list" I'd also have a serious look at a secondhand 5DII, instead of the 6D camera. I'm saying this, because I don't think the 6D offers anything much better than the 5DII ... for instance, I read up on how the GPS part works and, based on the literature, I feel it is badly implemented and will lead to severe headaches for the serious geotagger ... but I'm probably wrong, as usual.

-1.  When the 6D was first announced, it was trashed by many in forums who said that they would buy the 5DII over the 6D, but now that it is out, very few would say that unless they had a specific requirement that would be satisfied by the 5D (i.e. ergonomics, better weather resistance).  The 6D has much less banding than the 5DII, has greater center point light sensitivity and the outer AF points work better.

390
Except that there are how many native lenses?  28-70 and a 55?

For Canon landscape shooters, the A7R may be the perfect solution right now.  Manual focus is preferred so AF is not an issue AND you get to use superior Canon glass:  TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70.  Nikon can't match those lenses and neither can Sony/Zeiss.  And if one wanted to use the 14-24, then an adaptor can be used rather than introducing another camera system.

Zeiss FE 35, 55, 24-70 and 70-200…don’t you think this is decent list for NEW small camera? What else do you want – 400mm, 600mm for BIF? I wish they have UWA prime instead of 70-200.

I don’t own Canon TS-e17, 24 so I will not comment on that. However, I have about 40 photos taken with A7 + Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 that I compared to:

1. 5D III + 50L from f1.8 to f5.6 – ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600(50L ONLY slightly better @ f1.8, from f2 to 5.6 zeiss has upper hand)
2. 5D III + 24-70 II @ 50mmish - f2.8 to f8 – ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600

All shots were on tripod and raw files were converted through LR5 with just +25 sharpness, +10 contrast.

On my 27” LG monitor, the Zeiss FE 55 seems to be as good as Canon, even slightly better. I have no problem sharing these photos. Are you willing to share your TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24-70 more superior than Zeiss?

You should read what was written more carefully.  Orangutan was pointing out that are those that would profit from using a A7R with their existing lens set, and you lambasted him for it.  I agreed with him -- different tools for different purposes.  There is already another thread on this forum where a canon pro uses the a7r for landscape purposes and the a7r gives him higher resolution and shadow recovery while allowing him to keep his canon glass.  He also noted that there MAY be issues with the a7r at certain shutter speeds with telephoto focal lengths.  I agree with this as well, which is mostly what I posted earlier about how the a7r can be useful to canon landscape shooters.

It is not a surprise that viewfinder cameras can have sharpness advantages over DSLRs.  Leicas have had the resolution advantage over Canikons for years.  The Zeisses are also optimized more easily than adapted lenses for peripheral microlenses).  And no, the 35, 55 (just came out), 24-70 (is it out yet?) and 70-200 (is it out yet?) are not enough to rely on Sony as stand-alone system.  And no, many of us can not AFFORD to buy multiple systems like you are able to.

True, I don't post ANY photos of my family or friends on the internet.  I have done some jobs for home builders and friends on the side, but photography remains a hobby, but here are 2 taken with the TS-E that were posted last year.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg287604#msg287604


Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 96