September 30, 2014, 02:45:15 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 - BozillaNZ

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:05:45 PM »
A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Corners
« on: December 12, 2013, 07:58:44 PM »
Glad you found out the issue. Top quality zooms can now rival primes in terms of sharpness, contrast, color and even bokeh, but there are two thing they can't do well yet: Distortion and field curvature.

If the field curves towards you in the corners, try to focus the lens at infinity and stop down, you will get better overall sharpness than let the AF dial in or using hyper focal distance.

The 16-35 II have complex wavy field curvature. Lots of people saying that this lens has so called "mid-field-weakness", which means the center is good, then goes bad in mid-field, then better at the corners. However this is the same as what you discovered above: field curvature at it's most evident term. Manually focusing 16-35 II to infinity and stop down to f11 and it becomes sharp corner to corner.

Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 10, 2013, 11:25:35 PM »
Not too many days since you got the new lens and you've dropped it? Oops... That's slumpy. Whether there is a UV filter on it or not doesn't matter. A drop is a drop and there might be some internal damage.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 10, 2013, 04:50:33 PM »
Not interested. When I need a 35 prime again, I will buy the Sigma.

Reviews / Re: I'm amazed by my 5D Mark iii
« on: December 06, 2013, 08:35:36 PM »
ISO 640?? Did you mean ISO 6400?

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:27:34 PM »
It's been over a year and you are still waiting? So wait away... Waiter's gonna wait...

Lenses / Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:08:53 PM »
Started out with average zooms, then collected primes, then found that I missed too much opportunities by always having the wrong prime mounted. Finally settled on 24-70 II as the main lens.

But even when I am using the zoom lens, I will now consciously choose a focal length that I intend to use and shoot away. So now using 24-70 II my photos come back with EXIF showing 24, 35, 50, 70 but not much in between. To me it is a bag of primes on it's own.

Prime lens are very good at training your sense of perspective and low light stuff. But once you go over it, you will appreciate what a good zoom can offer.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 2.8 II or Sigma 24-70 f/2???
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:07:10 PM »
24-70 II is the most satisfying lens to use after the 70-200 II. Every time I look at the photos taken by it I am amazed by the color rendition and smooth bokeh it gives (no need to mention sharpness, it is the sharpest lens I've used), at the same time offers good mobility. No IS might be a shame but it depends on your intended use.

Tripod landscape? This lens has it. f2.8 portait? Yes can be done. General workaround in day time? No problem.

Only ultra low light no flash situation and no moving people calls for IS.

Also regards to sigma F2 zoom, I don't think it would be feasible. Look at their 24-105 F4, it's already 880g. Their 18-35 F1.8 cropper is 810g. Canon's 24-70 II is lighter than both at 800g. Even if they somehow manages to come up a 24-70 F2, the weight alone would be a show stopper. Just look at how much weight gain a lens gets when it is merely 1 stop faster. And 1.5kg for a standard zoom? no thanks!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 04, 2013, 05:03:06 AM »
It could have been so much better for you.  You wanted it to have an EVF, tilt-screen, built-in flash, added controls, new sensor, etc.  And then of course it would be a very different camera, with a different size & shape and a different price point.

I wanted ONE of the features that I listed to barely justify it being a new model, but apparently Canon delivered NONE. I see no purpose of this release at all.

Now you tell me, what's the difference between M1 and M2 again?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:57:55 AM »
Exactly, we never need the latest iphones or Samsung smartphones but every since year they release a new model, i will buy the latest model and do exactly the same thing on it as i did with the previous internet and make calls...hecl i think a phone 3 years ago did the same thing for me as well! We always want the latest and if we're paying for the latest, there had better be new tech inside :) We're all gear lusting hehe..we need help.

But when some company brings the same old sh!t and call it brand new and asks for a premium, we have a problem. However apparently some people are perfectly happy about that too...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 04, 2013, 01:01:37 AM »
It also seems that some have assumed that every new camera model released must be of significant advancement so as to justify everyone upgrading from the previous model, and that if it doesn't meet this requirement, the company must be asleep at the wheel or on the verge of collapse....

People just get upset at missed opportunities.  It has already been mentioned above that about 1/10th of serious camera buyers are into mirrorless cameras.  It has also been mentioned that mirrorless buyers are happy to spend more on a mirrorless camera than would seem rational.  You could then assume that an identifiable/sizeable portion of Canon camera buyers want a well built, feature packed mirrorless camera and are willing to pay for it.  And given that Canon has developed a lot of the tech to make a great mirrorless camera, I can sympathise with those who think the M2 is a let down.  Canon can do so much better.

This M2 announcement causes another problem for Canon.  It sends a clear message to many that Canon isn't serious about mirrorless and won't be for some time (if ever).  (Of course the M1 also sent that message loud and clear - are there still only 2 lenses for it, one of which you can't even buy in half of the world?)  Therefore, all of those who are mirrorless curious are just going to pick up a Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica etc.  If they invest into those systems and like it (as I did with Fuji), they're not going to quickly switch back.  All of sudden, Canon has lost a large swathe of early adopters who would otherwise be proudly espousing the benefits of Canon mirrorless cameras to their non-Canon friends.  By the way, have I mentioned how awesome the Fuji 14mm is?  And have you checked out the flash synch times on the X-100S - what kind of creative opportunities would that provide you?  (Anyway, you get the idea - deep down, I'm still a Canon fanboi.)

Yes, I found the fact that people come up with all kinds of excuses to justify that what Canon have done is good, which is strange! What aspect of M2 is done good compared to the M1? The fact that it is (ever so slightly) smaller? And comes with WiFi? To me that is not good enough!

The reason that I'm bashing it is because I think it could have done so much better, given what it already has in it's sleeve now.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 09:36:17 PM »
The 5D3 and its sensor are more than good enough.  It does a great job for some of the best photographers in some of the most demanding situations.  Those photographers are no fools and neither are their clients or publishers.  Sure, the 5D3 sensor may not meet the standards of a few sensor critics in online forums, but for actual photography it is fantastic.  Canon sensors reached the point of "good enough" about 11 years ago when they were good enough to replace film cameras for many pro & amateur photographers.  Since then, they've been refined many times, especially for high ISO.  Of course they will continue to improve.

Problem is it's all about relative performance. We can argue that anything is enough for somebody, but right now here are better choices. 5D3 is more than enough for someone yes, and original 1Ds and 5D is more than enough for someone. Shall we just let the innovation die and stick to whatever we have 10 years ago? I don't like the thought of that.

The more Canon stagnate, the more unsatisfied it's user base will become. Sure you can 'convince yourself' but it's the same question of how long are you going to hold on to it while you see 'other guys' doing more and more thing that you can't.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 08:19:06 PM »
So even though Canon currently offers about twelve EOS cameras and about 70 EOS lenses, and fantastic wireless flashes and other accessories, the introduction of this one little $600 camera at the bottom of the EOS line in Asia only makes you conclude that Canon will not be a "viable platform".  Because you are personally moving to a smaller format, you conclude that the entire EOS platform won't be "viable"?

No, that's not the only time Canon let users down. They just seem to stuck in the old sensor era and for several previously released products, I don't see any evidence that they will ever come up with a camera that has better sensor than last 2-3 generations, while the gap between them and the competition is widening - fast.

From current situation, I can envision that in 5 years time, other systems will have a FF sensor of 40MP no-AA sensor with 15-16 stops of DR and good ISO, while Canon still keeps cranking out the pathetic 18MP APS-C sensors. And I'm saying that with a high probability of it becoming the fact.

Sure, we can all fool ourselves to say that the 5D3 sensor is good enough. But for how long? How long can you fool yourself for?

It's again pathetic to see that the brilliant 24-70 II on 5D3 would only give you the worse quality photo as the Tammy on a D800E in terms of resolution only (forget about DR). Good glass being wasted.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIV, 7DII and future of upgrades
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:48:25 PM »
Somewhat happy with what I have and new ones do not motivate me.

Unless the sensor gets a serious update I will firmly stand in current body.

3 layer 25MP sensor? Count me in!

Split light filter instead of bayer? Count me in!

14 stops DR (sorry Canon fans but I have to mention this...) with clean ISO 25600? Count me in!

Same old sh!t sensor? Sorry!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:38:32 PM »
Is Canon fscking kidding? I can't see any meaningful difference between this camera and the previous one. Still no PDAF, no added controls, no onboard bounce-able flash, no EVF, no tilt screen, no nothing?! Oh yeah and the same old sh!t 18MP APS-C sensor with horrible DR and high ISO!

This is getting bored and I am so glad I started my small kit with the M43!

Canon, you are burning your customer's patience. And when that is gone, you will pay the price.

I started winding down my EF collection because I don't see Canon being a viable platform in 3-5 years anymore!

24L II is up for sale. Then the 16-35 II, sigh...


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10