March 03, 2015, 01:59:09 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 97
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
I have to agree with this...I'm a little surprised so many Canon shooters can't seem to publicly admit Canon sensors just aren't as good as Sony's or Nikon's. But you can be sure WHEN Canon finally come out with a new sensor with high DR, Canon shooters will finally understand what they've been missing and will be very, very happy. As a Nikon shooter that will also be the day I switch to Canon -- mainly for the superior lens selection. Until then, however, for me Nikon sensor performance trumps Canon glass by a wide margin.

We admit that Canon sensors don't have as much DR as Nikon's.  What we don't need is a daily dose of it; what we find offensive is being hit over the head with it on nearly every camera thread.  Do a search on this site, and you'll see it.

And the DR advantage matters to different extents to different people -- it is not the only factor that matters, which is point that is lost on the DR trolls (and that advantage is only there at low ISOs).  For indoors sports, I'm at ISO 3200 and above.  What advantage will the Nikon have?  The D800 will give me worse AF performance, lower frame rate and it's lost its DR advantage.  For architecture, I'm using 5 stop brackets.  The Nikon might save me a couple shots, but then I lose the ability to use the TS-E 17 and 24, which is not worth the trade to me.

If I made enough money to be able to switch systems every few years or buy both systems, then I might consider it, but I don't and so I won't.  But saying that I have cognitive dissonance because I do not switch is insulting.  For now, the Canon SYSTEM works better for me.  Canon's high end glass is better, and I've got enough of it that the DR advantage of the Nikon sensor is not going to trump Canon's advantages.  What part of this is so hard to understand?

Lenses / Re: What to buy dilema !
« on: August 30, 2013, 08:11:56 AM »
Tripod first.  Think of it as a down payment for a macro rig.  The 100L is nice, and the IS helps for larger subjects, but if you're planning on getting close to 1:1, the DOF gets thin, and you'll have to close down the aperture to extend it or focus stack; either of which will require longer exposures that are impossible to hand-hold.

Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:42:59 PM »
If you have a flash, you can avoid a slow shutter by shooting with flash.  Also, if you were near MFD the 24-70 II isn't at it's best when focusing close.

+1.  If your 24-70 II doesn't beat the 50 f/1.8 at f/2.8 in good light then something is wrong.

Just because the 50 1.8 is cheap doesn't mean it isn't good. from f/2.8 and on the 50 1.8 and 2.8 are fully L-level of sharpness (or better, better than 24-105L for instance).

It wasn't a comment on whether or not  the 50 1.8 is good or not (it has tremendous performance/cost ratio), but TDP's charts show that the 24-70 II at 50mm is significantly sharper than any EF 50mm prime, and that has been my experience as well.  Using the identical setup and camera settings, the 24-70 II should be better and would provide a good reference point as to whether the OP has a lemon.  My first post suggested comparing the 24-70 II to his 24-105 (previously owned/listed on a prior thread).  On this thread, he said that he no longer has the 24-105 but has the 50 f/1.8.

Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:47:38 AM »
If you have a flash, you can avoid a slow shutter by shooting with flash.  Also, if you were near MFD the 24-70 II isn't at it's best when focusing close.

+1.  If your 24-70 II doesn't beat the 50 f/1.8 at f/2.8 in good light then something is wrong.

Lenses / Re: prime focal length choices
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:45:26 AM »
I like the 35, 50 and 85.  The 24 is a little too wide for how I would use it for environmental portraiture so, it's the 35 for me.  85 handles a bit easier than 135 indoors.  A lot of people skip the 50 prime because all the AF lenses have flaws (50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8, f/1.2).

Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:27:52 AM »
Did you have mirror lockup turned on? With such a long exposure, even on a tripod, you can get camera shake.

Better bet is to try this with better lighting, to remove that variable.

+1 on repeating the test in better light.  But also do a back-to-back test with your 24-105 at 24mm in the same light with IS on and off.  The 24-70 II should be better than the 24-105.  The IS vs. non-IS will give you some insight as to how steady your tripod is.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:18:00 AM »
At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

I could see a use for this camera in my kit with the adapter if it had a flip screen.
If canon brings a new version with one I will get it.

I don't think so...  Why would people defend something that they have never used?  M threads were (mercifully) less frequent and shorter before the fire sale, which supports the idea that it did not sell all that well at its original price.  In some respects, looking at M threads that only ran for a dozen or two posts is much easier than any 70D/7D/FF vs. crop/Sony versus Canon sensor tech threads, etc.  I almost bought one at 400 on Ebay, but I'm glad I waited and snagged one at 300.  It was not a good value at 800 when T4i and T3is sold for less for the same IQ, but now it is.

If EOS-M 2 comes out back at 800, with similar IQ, I won't be interested.  Smaller sensors need faster glass when light levels are low.  I don't like its IQ at ISO 3200/6400 at 1/30th of a second, which is why I value the 22mm f/2 more than the 18-55 IS.  The M is cheaper than the S100 and delivers better IQ, so it has taken over the P&S's role in the house.  Until APC-S can match what FF sensors can do today, I can't imagine using a CSC as a primary camera.  The reduced flange distance gives it some advantages in lens design, but any fast glass (f/1.4) will require large lenses, so body size matters less and less.

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:28:55 PM »
The EOS-M replaced the HS 230, which had a good zoom range, but IQ was was lacking especially ISO > 400. 

I like the M with the 22 f/2.  I don't care for the EF-M 18-55.  The IQ isn't as good.  However, my wife will opt for the 18-55 because it is a zoom.  Picked up the adapter for 85, and it serves as a backup to the dslr.  I tried the adaptor once to make sure it worked but haven't used it since, but 85 to extend a good walk around camera to use all my other EF lenses is a good deal.

Lenses / Re: Pimped my lens!
« on: August 23, 2013, 09:44:23 AM »
Fine, if you are standing among zebras.

This would allow stand in the middle of zebras and shoot the approaching lions without spooking the lions. :)

Only thing is that a two legged zebra is a slow zebra, which = lion's next meal.

Just be careful if you are buying a "grey import" from eBay etc. Check that it comes with at least a 1-year warranty, which allows you to get the speedlite serviced in the country that you are buying it in.

I concur for lenses and camera bodies, but I'd risk to say if a Canon Speedlite breaks down in less than a year even with a lot of usage it's probably your fault so the warranty won't be any good... correct me if I'm wrong, but camera bodies (shutter) and lenses (is, af) with more mechanical moving parts seem more likely to fail due to a factory problem.

I remember reading something a few months ago that flash power affects flash life a lot.  The more power used, the more heat is discharged, which causes the tubes to develop microfissures and ultimately crack, which is another reason why heavy users will gang multiple flashes (besides decreasing recycling time).

Lenses / Re: Need daily lens suggestion
« on: August 20, 2013, 03:37:49 PM »
Hijacking my own thread...

So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...

What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?

Yes, you can do sports with the 5D, but its AF is more limiting.  Taking pics at softball games was easy because the subject (batter swing/pitcher pitching) is not moving quickly/erratically or they're far enough that DOF is not that challenging.  Soccer was more of a challenge when the player gets close and their changing directions.  Tended to frame loose and use the center point for servo only.

Lenses / Re: Canon L or Tamron/Sigma advice
« on: August 20, 2013, 01:23:40 PM »
Generic answer:  it depends on how you intend to use the lenses.

Dustin, a member of this forum, has the Tamron 24-70, and it works well for him (see his review threads -- he posts a lot of images).  The digital picture also has a review that is worth looking at:

The general consensus is that the Tamron is close to the Canon version 2 in IQ and signifcantly better than the Canon version 1.  I haven't tried the Tamron, but I have used the Canon 24-70 II and can vouch for its IQ and that the 24-70 II does indeed focus and track very well for sports (on a 5D III).  I used it for a young boys basketball game, and it behaved like a shorter 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, AF-wise.  Some will value VC over AF performance, so it really comes down to how to intend to use it.  The Canon 24-70 II is better overall, but is it worth the 1k difference to you?

If I were choosing between the 35L and the Sigma 35 and didn't have either, I'd choose the Sigma 35.  It has better IQ and it costs less.  But given that you already have the 35L, I'm not sure if it's worth the transaction  costs associated with switching, especially if you'd consider a 35L II (if it ever comes out).  It depends on how often you'd use it.

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for upcoming road trip and beyond?
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:56:38 AM »
In the age when cells phones account for the majority of all pictures, anything much bigger is going to make you stick out.  You might be able to get away with an EOS-M or a NEX system with a few lenses in your pockets, but anything SLR-like is going to stand out.  You would stand out more with the 70-200, but when your attempt for discretion is blown, it's blown, and whether or not it's blown by a little or a lot doesn't really matter.

Those that shoot sports and candids of kids moving around will value the 70-200 more.  I have better results with the 70-200's servo AF than the 135.  The 135's AF isn't slow, but it feels like the 70-200 is faster and tracks better.  Those that shoot portraits or can control the camera/subject distance will value the 135 more.  You can also get extenders (1.4x and/or 2x), but the 70-200 will be slightly better natively near 200mm and can get you to 400mm at f/5.6.

It doesn't seem like you'll need to zoom at that much and it looks like you have your heart set on the 135L and it fits your style, so go with the 135L.  Consider getting extenders to give you more reach.  You can't go wrong with either.  But be forewarned, you might find youself with both someday.   ::)

Lenses / Re: Need daily lens suggestion
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:04:42 AM »
What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses? 

I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.

I *DO* have a bad case of 'accessoritis' or 'upgradaphilia', so to the OP, if you're the type that's not content with technology and constantly upgrading . . . the EF-S lenses are great, but you may have some regret down the road.

I know, admitting I have a problem is the first step.   ;D

I sold my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 last year for about 850 and my refurbed 10-22 for 600.  I "lost" about 100 on the 17-55 and less than 50 (including taxes, shipping, etc.) on the 10-22, so I was able to recoup about 90% of what it cost me to purchase the lenses.

There are so many used 17-55s and 10-22s floating around that buying new makes less and less sense.  Canon refurb with a sale is usually a good deal.  I'm guessing that EF-S lenses tend to have lower resale value because they are transitional for those that do move to FF.  Some L-lenses also have lower resale value.  Think of those that purchased a 24-105 in a retail box at 1000-1100 a year or two ago.  The kit value used to be 800-900, and now it's dropped to 600-700.  That's worse resale value than the 17-55.  Again the 24-105 is a transitional lens.

Those that get gear when it is first available tend to pay the most.  Those that wait for rebates and sales pay less, and those that buy refurbed or used pay even less.  If you hold onto the lens for a few years and then try to sell it, you'll get roughly the same price, so buying the gear at the lowest price is key.

And +1 to those recommending the 17-55 f/2.8.  The smaller sensor needs all the light it can get, which is why Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is such an attractive option.

Lenses / Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:53:39 AM »
Not to be argumentative, but I know you are possibly the biggest supporter of the f/1.2 here.  Outside of the bokeh, can you replicate the contrast and color in lightroom? 

And again... not to be argumentative... or maybe I should say, With all due respect (Talladega Nights anyone?), I haven't heard of the 50 f/1.2L having a magic bokeh except recently.  The 135L yes, the 85mm f/1.2L yes, even the 200mm f/2L... I've even heard contrasting opinions regarding the bokeh of the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii.

I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?

The topic comes up from time to time, but this has been going on for years.

The 50L is not for everyone.  For IQ parameters that are easily compared (i.e. resolution), the 50L is not leaps and bounds above its non-L brethren.  I tried the 50 f/1.4 on several crop bodies (including the 7D) and it was a maddening experience.  AF accuracy and consistency was bad from f/1.4 to f/2, and colors were flat/tended to washed out wide open.  I had the 17-55 f/2.8 IS at the time, and I saw no value in the 50 f/1.4.  Test reviews tend to evaluate lenses using LV pointed at static subjects.  The 50 f/1.4 that I used performed much better in LV, but there was no way that I'd use an AF lens only in that way, and with AI servo, it tracked horribly.  The experience was so bad that I didn't even try another fast prime for a while.  It wasn't until I tried a 35L that it dawned on me how much better the 50 f/1.4 should have been.  I got my 50L used because after reading a lot on the net, I was inclined not to like it.  I figured I could resell it at a slight loss, at least well within a rental fee, so I gave it a go.  It's been a couple years, but I still have it, and for a while it was my most used lens because I didn't have a midrange zoom for a while after moving to FF.

If you are expecting to use the 50L like how you would use any L lens, you will be disappointed.  It has a lot of quirks, and I won't bother shooting near MFD with it.  However, if I'm with friends and family and it's dim (esp. indoors or at night and when no one wants/expects the flash to go off all the time), the 50L is my first choice because I can rely on it wide open and because it's the most versatile focal length for me.  Would I sell if it Canon comes up with a better alternative?  Absolutely.  Do forum members that own the 50L own it just because of the red ring?  No, but it is on the correct side of the cost/benefit analysis for us.

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 97