March 04, 2015, 10:37:28 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 20
and 2 more...again, totally different scene...

in the first one I was definitely embracing the distortion, the girl I was shooting was very thin and not overly tall, but taller than average.  This is where distortion can be your friend...but even with that in's not for everyone.

Chuck, I love the look and perspective of that second shot! Her legs go on for miles.....  8)

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: April 19, 2013, 06:10:45 AM »
As usual, "more expensive is better" applies here, though as far as I read it not for f8-f11 landscape shots. If you use uwa a lot, the 16-35 might be the better choice, but often it'll be used in a combo with a 24-70 lens - and then it gets more difficult: 16-35+cheap 24-70 or 17-40+expensive 24-70? That's why I've got the 17-40, and at f8 I'm happy so far, it's a good iq (even on crop) and sturdy internal zoom lens.

I use the 17-40 on crop as well, as my general purpose lens. Well built, sealed and performs well, and used on a crop body it's not suffering the same drop off in resolution or vignetting at the corners as it does on a FF body at the wide end, wide open!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Confusion about Macro Photography
« on: April 17, 2013, 08:50:28 AM »
Just because you are using a Macro lens does not mean the subject has to be close and small.....

The andromeda galaxy.... The image is unedited from the camera jpg, with the exception of cropping to the center 50% to meet website guidelines. The shot was taken an a very clear night, handheld (with the help of a tree for bracing) with a 60D, F2.8, ISO3200, 10.4 second exposure, no image stabilization, manual focus, and no flash :). All image settings were neutral or camera default.

That's a fantastic shot of Andromeda for a handheld 10 sec exposure, what was the lens?!

Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 17, 2013, 06:00:39 AM »
I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.

I own this lens for the same reason (well, that and the fact that the 2.8 IS version is twice as expensive  :P). The IQ from both 2.8 and f4 lenses as I understand it is pretty similar, so I can live with only having f4 as the max. aperture!

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 16, 2013, 01:10:34 PM »
So you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ??? The nice thing about Nikon is that they treat all their customers with respect. Nikon has no second class citizens when it come to autofocus and metering.

In a marketing driven world, having lesser specifications won't win the sales war.

So why not pay your money (or not) and take your choice, instead of constantly proclaiming Nikon's superiority and more consumer friendly business ethic to the rest of us? As for your comment about specifications and the sales war, are Canon losing market share? If you don't want to shoot Canon, no problem, I just wonder why you continue to hang around on a Canon forum and tell us all about it.

And, FYI, I won't be upgrading my 7D until Canon offers a genuine upgrade, so I'm not defending their strategy, I'm just tired of the same old commentators with nothing new to say that seem to surface every time Canon -RUMOURS- (not even announces) a product.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign
« on: April 15, 2013, 05:22:15 AM »
I'm boycotting all these imaging companies. They make infernal machines that steal your soul!

My belief is that corporations have essentially completed their takeover of the world. They will make minor adjustments responding to niggling little complaints like this to keep sales at full tilt. Beyond that, we and they are on a path to destroy this planet. Since I can't stop it, I plan to enjoy the ride into the pits of hell.

Ain't that the truth. Very true Sir, very eloquent.  :'(

Qwerty, if you're out there I have re-read your posts and the key points make sense to me, namely that the larger sensor will of course offer more resolution because of it's larger size and therefore greater line widths per picture height, and also because of the cropped sensor image requiring greater relative enlargement to appear at the same size of the full frame image- not to be confused with the total number of pixels, which, for example, comparing the 1DX and 7D might be similar, but the 7D's are crammed into a much smaller sensor. Of course I always knew the FF sensor would provide better IQ, due to it's larger surface area and consequently greater light gathering ability, it was just the difference in sharpness particularly apparent in TDP's sample crops that astounded me.

The other thing I think was confusing me was the units for resolution- lp/mm, which is independent of sensor size, and lp/ph, which is not.

Anyway, it makes more sense to me now, thanks again for taking the time.  :)

Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:18:01 PM »
Ouch! That was a bit harsh wasn't it? It wasn't me that invented the 'Queen's English'!  ;)

It wasn't "I" (not "me" for us purists)

C'mon, let's keep it on topic here shall we?  ;) 

(says he that contributed to the deviation!)

Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:57:15 AM »
Maybe there is room for a "Humour" section threads like that could be moved to.   

...and a section for threads where people put a 'u' in words like humor and color.  Oh, wait...we already have one:P

Ouch! That was a bit harsh wasn't it? It wasn't me that invented the 'Queen's English'!  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:08:11 AM »
If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles. When the reason for choosing a 650D over something else is the touch screen, then as long as the camera has enough pixels for facebook and WiFi to upload, well who cares about PASM, etc?

Ok, so you had poor service. I'm sorry that happenned, but that's not exclusive to Canon.

Personally, I welcome improvements to IQ and DR, as I'm sure many here do. The bells and whistles don't interest me either, but I accept that in todays social networking culture they will interest many, and Canon is going where it thinks the money is. That's business.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1DX Junk camera??
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:01:26 AM »
For F's sake, can you dummies stop replying to this guy!?? What is wrong with some of you people??? He is making a fool of the CR forum, and you idiots actually post a reply...? Nice going! No wonder there's some folks posting stuff like this here every now and then, cause there sure are are enough suckers with nothing better to do than to write the oh so valued opinion on matters Canon... Jeeeeez!!

Perhaps some of those who replied just wished to have a little fun, apparently in the same fashion as the O.P. Bit of humour isn't such a bad thing is it?!  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 06:40:54 AM »
You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)

All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.

Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 06:14:51 AM »
No, she didn't care about picture quality. The 650D could have produced images half as good as the Nikon but the touch screen, well that's just like new phone that has a touch screen and "iPad" that has a touch screen, so why would anyone want one of those prehistoric things with knobs and stuff?

Has DxOMark quantified that the Canon images are only 50% as good as the Nikon?

Qwerty, thanks for taking the time and effort to respond! I will take a good long look at what you have written to try and understand better. I had previously assumed that the increased pixel density of the crop sensor camera was 'magnifying' any flaws of the lens, which is one of the points you make.

Further to this topic, I've checked some more of The Digital Picture's sample crops, this time for the 70-200 f4 L IS (a lens that I own): compared on a 60D crop body and 1Ds mk III full frame body- the situation is the same, the full frame crop is sharper everywhere, and indeed, this seems to be a general thing- the same lens used on a FF body appears sharper than the same lens used on a crop body. In the comparison, the aperture is set at f5.6, so diffraction should not be having any effect on the crop sensor result. I understand that the full frame sensor will deliver more total resolution, and that the 1Ds III has 21.1 megapixels compared to the 60D's 18 but can somebody explain why the full frame crop is sharper everywhere? Surely it must be possible to achieve sharp results at a lower total resolution? If pixels are a dimensionless unit, then surely it cannot be because of the crop sensor image requiring more magnification to appear the same size as the full frame image. I apologise is this has been discussed before, but I'm really trying to understand the reasons for these differences and how much difference going full frame would make to me.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 20