January 29, 2015, 07:45:22 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 - Rudeofus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: January 14, 2015, 09:09:48 AM »
So the focusing motor was dirty...Sigma® focusing motors do not fail?

If you know and understand how USM/HSM/USD works, you will quickly agree that mechanical failure is quite unlikely, whereas a grain of dust, or sticky lubricant can cause a lot of grief.

It's been said a hundred times just what additional value Canon gives through reliability and the robustness of their products.

Some people are apparently too young to remember the EOS 1Ds III auto focus debacle right after introduction ... and Sigma's initial problems with OS in 120-400 and 150-500 ... or Metz's issues with exploding flash bulbs ...

Let's get real: getting a newly introduced product exposes you to inherent risks, and a proper recall is 1000x better and more honest than a company singing "lala, I can't hear you" to a torrent of problem reports.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: B&H Photo Nows Carries Yongnuo Products
« on: January 12, 2015, 03:16:28 AM »
Also they were the first to introduce metal
shoes on their trigger (compare to the flimsy Profoto Air Remotes!)
and the adopted 2.4 GHz as a worldwide compatible standard,
while LPA drove another nail into their coffin when they stuck
at their frequencies different in EMEA and NA.

Also, RF-602 were among the first to reliably bridge up to
100m/300ft distance. So - they got me on their capabilities.

The big advantage of the lower frequency bands used by LPA's pocked wizards is better reach. I have a set of yongnuo RF-602 and can only dream of bridging 100m with them, a distance that pocket wizards can bridge easily.

This is entirely a matter of personal taste. High contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, better local contrast, or not, black and white, or not. That is all a matter of taste, style, art. It blows my mind how much the members of this community feel they can just decide for everyone what is valid art or not, or what is valid artistic technique or not, or what is valid processing or not, or how much no one knows how to use a camera if they find a use for more in-camera DR. WOW.

Personally, I think the photo is great. It wouldn't matter to me if it was done with a Canon or not. It's a great photo. It's probably better than I would do if I was standing in that guys shoes.

As you probably know, the human eye uses different cells for seeing dark or bright scenes, and in dark areas our vision is mostly black and white. This little fact is precisely what makes most HDR images (and it doesn't matter whether they are real HDR or just tone mapped) so eyepokingly atrocious to many. The dark hallways in this image look as saturated as the bright outside, and to my eyes (and apparently many others) this doesn't look right.

Yes, Tamron's lens doesn't cost $2400 and it's a pretty good performer optically with the handy inclusion of VC.

The minor issues I have with mine are:
1) I find the zoom action isn't as smooth as I'd like
2) The focus ring is narrow and the focus throw is also a bit short so not great for manual focusing
3) Autofocus is inconsistent on the 5D-III, so I use it for deep dof shots (f/5.6-f/11) or on my 60D or 6D.

Are these issues worth more than a 1000$ dollars? Not to me.

As you probably noted, none of these issues require a filter thread larger than 82mm to solve. Apart from that, whether you get the Tamron or not seems to depend on whether you truly benefit from its features. If you really need F/2.8 and IS in that focal length range, the issues you listed sound pretty minor (except for poor focusing with 5DIII, that's a show stopper).

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

You do realize that Tamron does make a 24-70 2.8 USD VC (which is their name for USM IS) with 82mm filter thread ...

Do you believe their forecast?

They are one of the major makers of these cameras! If they predict a downturn in this market, then god help anyone betting on an upturn ...

... and Zeiss's Otus (expensive&MF but optically excellent).

there isn't a 35mm Otus.

You are technically correct, I mixed it up with their new 35mm ZM lens. Still, the 35mm market is crowded if you ask me. A high performance 24mm for full frame on the other side ...

Bokeh, color, contrast and transparency of the lens are very important to some folks. Each lens manufacturer has their own recipe for their glass, thus each one looks different even if they're all equally sharp.

But is 35mm really such a bread&butter lens for many photographers that everyone needs two? Why would so many companies focus on this market, while more or less ignoring 20mm, 24mm, 100mm, 135mm or 200mm?

Everyone and his/her grandmother seems to hit the market now with some version of 35mm F/1.4 - F/2.0, and I really wonder who buys all these 35mm lenses, especially when the market is pretty much covered by Canon's 35/2IS (cheap and effective), Canon's 35L (expensive but says "Canon L"), Sigma's 35A (moderately priced, but says "Sigma") and Zeiss's Otus (expensive&MF but optically excellent).

I hope you are not including me as a criticizer of Roger, several times I have written of my respect for him, his work, his results and conclusions.

I most definitely don't try to act as Roger Cicala Defense Force here, first off all I had my own stern exchanges with Roger in the past, second I can confirm from personal experience that Roger doesn't need anyone as RCDF because he is quite capable of standing up for himself.

I don't care what gear anybody uses, I use my selection because I felt it was the right thing for me to get, and I might point out that Roger is a 6D Canon system owner. I don't care how my gear "tests" I care how it works.

In this case the DxOLab tests are for you, and luckily CR will continue to link to them as they appear. Roger's tests can be used as complementary tests for all those, who fit Nikon lenses to their Canon cameras, or who fit Canon lenses to their Sony A7R, or as some have pointed out, for those who upgrade their cameras more often than their lenses.

After reading yet another hatefest aimed at DxOLabs just recently, I am a bit surprised about the criticism aimed at Roger Cicala and his latest test report. DxOLabs got slammed hard because they measured lens performance together with the camera, and go figure, Canon didn't look good. Now Roger measured lens performance alone, Canon again didn't look stellar, and people throw another tantrum.

The only type of test, however contrived, which would find common acceptance here, would be one that yields results saying "Canon is better, pictures shot with Canon gear are automatically better, and people using Canon are a smart, attractive bunch, unlike users of other equipment."

A while back I tried Canon's 20-35, and to be honest, the zoom ratio was so small it did not really impress me in the view finder. Let's not forget that every zoom has to make some compromises in terms of image quality, so a really sharp prime plus cropping may fare better than such a zoom. Allow me here to doubt the usefulness of a zoom with only 2x focal length ratio, even the 200-400 included an optional TC for this reason.

what about the bayer pattern?

a pixel in the image file is interpolated from photosites on the sensor.
so a bayer pattern sensor has to be worse than what you wrote?

AFAIK the filters on those bayer pixels are quite weak, which means in terms of luminosity you get full resolution plus lots of chroma noise. This bodes well for black/white test charts, but less so for e.g. blue/red test charts. Guess which ones are more common ...

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon's $40 Super-Macro Lens
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:01:52 AM »
Not sure what to make of this posting. It's a verbatim copy of this posting, which is 4 years old and actually offers the images promised in the text.

Are you the same guy posting this?

I have an Epson V700 for scanning my negs&slides, and with 35mm material sharpness is dreadful, so is dynamic range (which means sensor noise). And the V700 is supposedly top of the line when it comes to flat bed film scanners.

If DSLRs have soooo many megapixels, sharp lenses and tons of dynamic range, then I really wonder why everybody recommends flat bed scanners.

I recommended a film/slide scanner, but yes, my V700 does a great job on slides as compared to my 5D MK III.  It is not a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner, so I do not expect that kind of results.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6