July 28, 2014, 01:11:34 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20
31
Lenses / Re: On a crop sensor...EF17-40L or EFS15-85?
« on: August 06, 2013, 06:29:46 AM »
Having good fun with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on my7D,lovely walkaround lens, sharp as all getout

Could be one to consider- I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews from Photozone etc for this lens, could be a real winner!

32
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 06, 2013, 06:24:36 AM »
Also, An additional 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance would be welcome. I don't expect it to match the 5DIII or 6D, but a marginal boost in ISO is important. And, like the autofocus, the camera's weather sealing was very good when released, but it could be upgraded to match at least the 5DIII.

However, Zv is correct in that even four years after introduction, the 7D remains pretty much at the top of the APS-C world. Canon set a high bar with the 7D. Owners are very loyal and want the next upgrade to again set the standards for the industry.

Agree with this and you were bang on the money (as usual) with your earlier post, If I wanted to go full frame and keep the features of the 7D it has to be the 5D III, but it's so much more expensive- in the UK, the 7D can be got for under £1000, but the 5D III is around £2300. For me, that's an enormous difference and not one I can afford or justify at the present time, especially as I would also need to get a 24-105 or 24-70 2.8 II etc as a standard zoom.

Just as a side note, you said the 7D's weathersealing could be improved to match the 5D III, I thought they were on a par with eachother?

33
Lenses / Re: On a crop sensor...EF17-40L or EFS15-85?
« on: August 06, 2013, 06:06:25 AM »
I would also go for the 15-85; the 17-40 just does not make sense on a APS-C camera, you pay too much, you carry arround too much weight, but you gain nothing.

IQ of the 15-85 is very good accros the (very usefull) range.

As Marsu says, the 17-40 isn't much more than the 15-85 in cost and is actually lighter, so not sure what you mean by 'you carry around too much weight' unless you mean by using the 17-40 as a walkaround means you need to use it in combination with another lens due to it's limited range. I got the 17-40 as a weathersealed lens to complement my 7D. Used on APS-C it will also have less vignetting, possibly less distortion at a given focal length than the 15-85 and a constant aperture. And you could use it on a FF camera if you chose to upgrade.

Having said all that, I concede that the 15-85 is a very nice range for the crop sensor, and a travel light one lens solution. The IS is also something the 17-40 lacks. I've never used it myself so I can't say how much sharper than the 17-40 it is, but one thing to consider is that it is a lens that MAY suffer from centering defects to a greater degree than normal, I'm fairly sure there have been several threads on this forum complaining of corner softness and uneven vignetting, and Photozone also mentioned decentering in their review (not sure how many copies they would have tested). Of course, I'm sure you can get bad copies of almost any lens. 

34
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 03, 2013, 03:56:07 PM »
I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc.   If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

- A


Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but as a current 7D owner (I may or not be a typical one) my main reason to upgrade would be better IQ across the ISO range, I'm already happy with the current 7D's build, framerate and AF spread (accuracy is another matter possibly, as discussed elsewhere). What you are describing is more a backup or second body to a shooter already heavily invested in glass and full frame bodies than an upgrade for somebody who has the 7D as their primary body.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 03, 2013, 03:07:56 PM »
Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....

IF it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......

36
Lenses / Re: Question about TDP's sample crops
« on: August 03, 2013, 05:16:26 AM »
I suspect that TDP only focuses at the center and doesn't refocus for corners or edges so just a trace mis-alignment, like a paper thin one, and....

As far as I know they do separately focus for every spot, repeat the test more than once and take the best result for each.

Besides thin DoF there is field curvature on a few lenses which makes it impossible to get a flat screen in focus.

Good point, but I don't think the 70-200 IS II is a lens that suffers with field curvature. As you say, TDP must refocus if required for the corners and use the best result from several tests.


37
Lenses / Re: Question about TDP's sample crops
« on: August 03, 2013, 05:10:41 AM »
Thanks for your thoughts LTRLI and AlanF, I didn't think about focus issues (but then I was assuming something similar to Photozone's approach where they refocus for the corners if required for the sharpest result). I agree with focus consistency on the 7D not being great, my 7D has struggled to find accurate focus at all some times with the 70-200 f4 L, and that was aimed at targets which (IMO) had good contrast, such as a swan against a dark background, it took several attempts to get decent focus- and by that I don't mean it was a little way out.

38
Lenses / Re: Question about TDP's sample crops
« on: August 02, 2013, 12:30:19 PM »
Its not the distance from the image to the camera, its the fact that the crop image (as projected onto the sensor) is enlarged by a greater factor to get the same sized image on your monitor.  Neuro's comment in the other thread was that if you adjusted the distance such that the projected images on the sensors was the same size, then FF would not have the same advantage (because, to get the same on-screen image, you would have to crop the FF image, then enlarge it by the same amount as the crop image -- in that case the higher pixel density on the APS-C camera could give a higher resolution final image).  As with most questions comparing different crop factors, it comes down to a question of what you hold constant and what you vary in your hypotheticals.



As a quick example, compare the 200 f/2 (or 300 2.8 ii or whatever other lens of a similar generation) on a crop body (you can stop down a notch or two) to the 500 f/4 on full frame.  The 500 f/4 is be further away from the subject, but will still yield a much sharper image when enlarged to a fixed size.

I posted a similar response at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14089.msg255114#msg255114



When it comes to noise or resolution for a given number of pixels, there is no replacement for displacement sensor size.


Qwerty, thanks for your reply, what I am struggling to grasp based upon what you have said, is does that extra enlargement really add that much softness? And why, specifically in the example I used, is the 60D corner crop so much softer (relatively) than the 1Ds III corner crop, (The 60D centre crop is soft compared to the full frame, but the 60D corner crop is even worse) when the 60D is using more of the centre part of the lens' image circle? Surely less corner degradation should be apparent?

39
Lenses / Re: Question about TDP's sample crops
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:38:45 AM »
Thanks neuro, so the primary factor is the camera to subject distance, I did wonder if that played a part. I have the switch to full frame planned in the long term but it's a way off yet! :(

40
Lenses / Question about TDP's sample crops
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:02:48 AM »
Hopefully one of you jolly fine fellows can answer a question that has been bugging me for a while!?

When using The Digital Pictures' sample crops to compare lens performance against other lenses or the same lens used on a crop and full frame body, for example, it astounds me how soft the crop body rendition is in comparison. The below link illustrates my question:

   http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is obviously one of Canon's legendary lenses, but why does the crop crop (crop body crop!)- which is a 60D in this case- look so much softer than the full frame 1Ds III? Is it just that the 60D has a very soft output? I chose f5.6 as the aperture for both bodies so there should be no diffraction issues but the comparison is much the same at other apertures anyway. Even more surprising in the above comparison is how soft the corners are on the 60D crops compared to the 1Ds III, which surprises me because the crop body is not using the lens's full image circle. The first time I used TDP's comparison was with ultrawide zooms so I just figured that it was the fact that the full frame ultra wides were performing better than a crop equivalent (think EF-S 10-22 on crop compared against 17-40L on full frame, but when I started looking at other lenses I saw it was pretty much always the same- the FF crops were visibly sharper with the same lens. Any thoughts?

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D Sample photos ISO 100-25600
« on: August 02, 2013, 07:22:53 AM »
Folks, this proves that Canon sensor is lagging way behind the competition. If you want shitty image quality, Canon is your choice. Until Canon customers speak up and demand quality, they are happy selling the suckers mediocre sensors and crappy IQ.

Well, at least we've got you taking the fight to Canon for us. Sleep easy folks!

42
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 01, 2013, 02:06:15 PM »
I download the raw files, that lens from Nikon is not well. The  lens suffers from centering defects
DONT BELIVE EVERYTHING YOU READ JRISTA, and please be little more critical  to what you se,  AND PHOTOZONES MEASUREMENTS ARE FROM A  HEALTHY LENS

When you ask us to be a little more critical of what we see, and not believe everything we read, does that go for what you say as well? From a completely neutral standpoint, it's hard to believe you are being objective about many of the things you say given what appears to be a continual anti Canon stance from yourself.

43
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:49:47 PM »
How about, as an example, a situation where you leave your camera dangling by your side, switched on and ready to take a picture. You're walking along, (for example, hiking, I use this as an example because I can relate to it) and out of the blue are presented with something unique, a bird in flight, an animal, or any number of subjects which will not be hanging around. If your camera is set fully manual, that subject may well be long gone before you change the settings to get the shot. If the camera was in (e.g) Av or Tv, you may get something, depending on how it was set. If you have a few custom configurations set up in the C... custom modes as found on eg, the 7D/5D bodies for such scenarios, you could rapidly spin the selector and fire, and capture at a moments notice, if your custom modes are set correctly. I cannot see the advantage of sticking with full manual in such a situation. They all have their uses.

44
Lenses / Re: Canon please show APS-C's some LOVE!!!
« on: August 01, 2013, 05:22:17 AM »
I for one would certainly like to see an updated EF-S ultrawide zoom, the 10-22 is a good lens but used on a pixel dense crop sensor it does suffer with regards corner performance. I'd quite like to see a decent EF-S wideangle prime in the region of a 24mm full frame equivalent, and maybe a standard prime as well.

45
Canon General / Re: Just For Fun!
« on: July 31, 2013, 05:32:15 AM »
78. People who don't get Neuro's sense of humour humor  ;)

104. Posters who spell correctly then amend it to incorrect.

In this context 'correct' depends upon your geographical location!

105. People who state things as absolutes without conceding that things are rarely that simple or clear cut.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20