Messages

31

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?! 

32

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?

33

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?

34

Lenses / Re: Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 10, 2013, 10:32:54 AM »

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.

35

Lenses / Re: Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 10, 2013, 05:04:29 AM »

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): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2 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.

36

Lenses / Re: Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 09, 2013, 11:28:50 AM »

Its very difficult to design a ultra wide angle lens and get sharp undistorted edges, and still sell it at a popular price.  Most users of rebels would not consider a high price for a truly excellent lens.
The new15mm Zeiss is easily the best.

I quite agree that wide angles are one of the hardest lens groups to design, even more so for crop sensors, but what astounds me with The Digital Picture's sample crops is not just the difference in corner sharpness, it's everywhere- centre frame included! Could there be other factors influencing this?

37

Lenses / Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 09, 2013, 10:00:58 AM »

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!

38

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?

39

Canon General / Re: Curious Distraction: Explain your username, avatar picture, etc...

« on: April 05, 2013, 09:16:35 AM »

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.

40

Landscape / Re: Post Your Comet Pictures

« on: April 05, 2013, 04:41:18 AM »

lol, that's a nice shot!  Makes mine look a bit feeble in comparison.

41

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.

42

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!

43

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers

« on: April 04, 2013, 12:25:10 PM »

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.

44

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 04, 2013, 05:39:04 AM »

Many of you seem to have difficulties to understand that just as there are lenses that are better than others, there are sensors that are better than others. Many  of you are taking it so personally.

I think that most people on this forum are happy to acknowledge that, at the present time, Nikon/ Sony etc. sensors have superior read noise/ DR characteristics. That is not the issue. The issue is that this topic has been debated on this forum TO DEATH, and frankly most of us are fed up with it. That's not to say we don't want Canon to up it's game in this area, we do, but for most of us, it's not the be all and end all of our photography. YMMV.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 03, 2013, 01:08:31 PM »

The weekly repeats are on again.....