September 21, 2014, 10:31:47 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20
151
I'm a hobbyist photographer who mainly shoots landscapes, and have been using a 7D for the last 3 years. My ultrawide landscape lens is the Canon EF-S 10-22, which does yield good results, but coupled with the pixel dense 7D does struggle with fine detail towards the corners when the files are viewed near to 100%. Whilst I always expected that going full frame would give benefits especially regarding landscape photography, and is something I intend to do in the medium term when i can afford it, I was quite amazed at the difference in sharpness comparing the sample crops on The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Looking at this comparison, with both lenses set to f8 and at their widest setting to provide a similar FOV in their respective formats, the EF-S 10-22 used on a 60D crop body @10mm appears very unsharp and with more visible CA than even the 17-40L ( itself not regarded as a stellar performer at the wide end on FF until considerably stopped down)  used on a 1Ds mk. III. Is this showing the limitations of ultrawide glass on pixel dense crop sensors or could it be partly down to a poor copy of the 10-22 being tested? This difference indicates that I would see a marked improvement in IQ by switching to a FF body, even using the 17-40, which I already own. Any thoughts/ input appreciated!

152
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 08, 2013, 07:22:42 AM »
Dilbert, I'm genuinely interested. For somebody who obviously dislikes Canon and all it stands for, why are you still posting here? So you can educate newcomers to come towards the light (eg, Nikon) before they settle for any of Canon's rubbish?

153
No avatar or picture because I haven't found where to add it, or any of the other customisations like a signature bar, is this because so far I have only been accessing the forum on tablets, or is there a minimum number of contributions before I get this privilege?

The historic name for people from my location is Caulkhead the area is Isle of Wight southern England anyone else on here from there or are Devon and Cornwall as close as you get?
Am really enjoying the posts here, you all seem very friendly or at least tolerant as from the forums I haven't seen any real flaming or aggression which is cool.

Heh, regarding the flaming and aggression.... give it time! I'm from Exeter, Devon. You can customise your signature and avatar in the profile tab at the top of the screen and then the forum profile sub option on the drop down menu once you've racked up a few posts, not entirely sure of the exact number of posts required but certainly no more than 10.

154
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 05, 2013, 04:41:18 AM »
lol, that's a nice shot!  :D Makes mine look a bit feeble in comparison.

155
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 01:13:16 PM »
I tried for a shot with Andromeda but was unable to get one.  :)  Nice capture.

A shot of Panstarrs from the UK, noisy and not the sharpest due to being shot at ISO 6400 on a 7D with no post processing, but the comet is plainly visible along with a fuzzy patch of light that is Andromeda up top!

Thanks! Neither Andromeda or Panstarrs are much to look at in the picture but I'm limited with only having a 200mm as my longest lens, plus shooting at such high ISO on the 7D doesn't help detail or noise. Maybe one day I'll get a telescope and an equatorial mount for some serious astrophotography!

P.S- you've captured some nice images also! I'd love a 5D III for better high iso performance. The shooting info from my shot is all contained in the exif, local time was 21.45 I think.

156
Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures
« on: April 04, 2013, 12:49:20 PM »
A shot of Panstarrs from the UK, noisy and not the sharpest due to being shot at ISO 6400 on a 7D with no post processing, but the comet is plainly visible along with a fuzzy patch of light that is Andromeda up top!

157
It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.

Is there not something to be said for a more even resolution across the frame and less vignetting? The Canon 10-22 also has much better barrel distortion than the 17-40 used on crop or full frame for that matter. You might be able to use your 'garden variety' zoom on FF to do better, but that FF body you are using will have cost you more in the first place. Cost is not irrelevent. I would be using FF for landscape if I could afford it, but even the 6D is out of my reach at the moment. Couple that with the cost of a decent wideangle lens to use with it. I own the 17-40 but at it's wide end it's not a fantastic performer on FF unless stopped down a fair bit. So just looking at Canon glass, because I PERSONALLY don't want to use third party lenses, what are my options?

Canon 14 and 24 L primes. 24-70 f2.8/4 L Zooms, all way in excess of £1000. Same for the 16-35 L which isn't massively better than the 17-40 at equivalent apertures. The only other option is the 24-105 which is cheaper I grant you, but not ultrawide.

158
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: April 03, 2013, 06:46:16 AM »
Mostly zooms, but I only own one prime at the moment. I aim to get another wide-normal fastish prime as a compact walkaround lens in the future.

159
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice
« on: April 03, 2013, 05:39:30 AM »
I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well.  I would also like to try a T/S lens.  I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners.  That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40.  The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...

f8-11 may be necessary for decent corners when zoomed out wide for the 17-40 on full frame, but used on crop it behaves better- the corners are decent by f5.6, even wide open isn't really a problem, though used for landscape, corner sharpness/detail for distant subjects is never completely stellar. Probably not helped by the pixel dense 7D sensor!

160
Canon General / Re: Goodbye Cruel Canon
« on: April 02, 2013, 06:11:47 AM »
Does it work for Sports and Birds in flight?!  :P

161
But then, it is good to know if there are major problems in tech land.  My experience is that Canon aren't going to tell you (banged my head against wall with mass CCD failure, 7D CF failure) unless they really have a gun at their heads.

Out of interest, what is the 7D compact flash issue you mention?

162
Pardon me, but I thought the topic was achieving sharp images. Is this the same as resolution?

No, of course, you can sharpen to death and get a sharp image from any original.

Was that the topic of the discussion?  ;)

Nope, not to my knowledge. More about sharpness out of the camera without having to resort to sharpening in post.

163
Quote
Size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.

And what part of your quoted text is stating that a full frame 35mm sensor can capture as much detail as medium format?  ???

The second sentence, in the context of the discussion.

Pardon me, but I thought the topic was achieving sharp images. Is this the same as resolution?

164
If the new models don't offer an improved sensor, I'll keep using my trusty 7D until a new model comes out offering better performance in this area, and put the money towards lenses (Unless I can find the money to go FF, that's a while away yet!).

165
Where was privatebydesign stating that a 35mm size full frame sensor could resolve more/as much detail as medium format?
Size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.

And what part of your quoted text is stating that a full frame 35mm sensor can capture as much detail as medium format?  ???

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20