December 20, 2014, 01:44:59 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 - drjlo

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 45
61
I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot. 

My money is on Canon 50 IS, which, if the 35mm F/2 IS is any indicator, will be 90% as sharp and half the weight of the Art lens at that focal length.  That combination -- Size + Sharpness + IS -- is a winner for me


Can't argue with the solid logic here..  I just hope Canon doesn't lose its mind and gives us 50 f/2.8 IS, as I am strongly hoping for at leaset f/2 IS, f/1.8 IS better yet.   

I myself cannot recall the last time I shot my 50L above F/2 and usually just leave it at f/1.8, which is my personal sweet spot for that lens for the purpose it's great for, e.g. shooting people shots who are not necessarily infant-skinned or model-makeup'd..

62
Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 22, 2014, 04:36:21 PM »
Time to sell the TS-E 17.  Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper.  Yes please!

Umm, 16-35 f/4 can "Tilt-Shift"?

63
I think really clean ISO1600-12800 is much more important to many of us than useless high ISO number thrown into the spec sheet of some Sonys and Nikons. 

Many would call 12800 unreasonable, too.  Personally, if 6400 is clean, that's all I would want or need.

DPR conclusion:

"The Sony A7S enables the use of incredibly high ISOs, including some unavailable to most cameras. When shooting at incredibly low light levels, the A7S will most likely give you significantly better results than any camera that does not natively shoot at these ISOs. There are also some advantages to be had over the higher native ISOs of the cameras we tested: we see the A7S overtake the A7R in normalized shadow noise performance at ISOs above 6400 in our tests. At more moderately high ISOs (6400 and below) as well as in brighter regions of images - where image quality is determined primarily by how much total light is captured - the normalized ISO performance of the A7S will be similar to that of full-frame cameras of its generation."

64
"ENHANCED HIGHLIGHT FUNCTION

Canon software developers have re-engineered the processing algorithms to increase the freedom in tonal rendering. By adjusting highlights, it is now possible to reproduce tones such as those in clouds and peoples’ faces that would previously have appeared washed out."

Hmm, I wonder how Canon managed this in software (if indeed true?), without actually increasing sensor's dynamic range in highlights.

I'm a fan of DPP (and Digital Lens Optimizer), and this new version looks very good so far.  I do hope DPP's slowness in converting RAW to JPEG has become faster as well as how slow it is to "transfer to photoshop" to use some specific Photoshop function/plug-in while in DPP  :'(

66

I find you have to put it in live view mode, then press the delete button to access the Magic Lantern menus. You're presented with a list of modules, all of which are deactivated.. scroll through them with the rear control wheel and use the set button to activate the ones you want (I haven't bothered with the video ones, or the game  ;) ). Switch it off, then back on and the modules you've activated are working. Access the ML menus, and then set up the features you want.  You'll be using the control dials, the Set button and the Quick Control button to set the values and it seems straightforward and intuitive enough once you know which controls to use

This paragraph should be placed in Magic Lantern's website because that's exactly what confused me the first time I installed ML.  I'm sure it's not just us !

67
Software & Accessories / Re: Which Software to convert Raw files?
« on: May 27, 2014, 09:12:23 PM »

+1
Have recently moved from DPP to DxO, I try to do as much as possible within DxO but for some tweeks and cleaning PS or equivalent is indispensable.


DPP is a great RAW converter, and the fact it's free is just a bonus IMO.  It also has Canon-specific functions that Adobe Camera RAW does not offer, such as the excellent Canon DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer). 

I do end up using Adobe camera RAW more often, mostly because I use many different Adobe Photoshop plug-in's from Nik, Topaz, etc, but I would use DPP->Photoshop instead of ACR->Photoshop if it didn't take longer time for DPP to "transfer to photoshop."


68
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 01:29:32 PM »
I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

Being a realist, we would have to ask ourselves, "When was the last time the sensor in a new Canon body exceeded our expectations?"


69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:53:57 PM »
The Nikon "S" models with incremental change must be kind of a bumber for those who own the pre-S models which are no longer latest and greatest (D800, D800E, D600, D4, etc).  On the other hand, I would welcome the price drop I expect to see for Nikon D800E on fleeBay.

New means a newer latest and greatest, sure, but if the new offering isn't super impactful:

for every 'look at me with the latest and greatest' enthusiast-in-a-forum shooter, there are likely a higher number of pros rolling their eyes at that mentality.

Do you really expect D800/D800E prices to plummet when those cameras may be 98% as powerful/useful as the new offering? 

I think your point and my point are similar.  I expect those must-have-latest "enthusiast-in-a-forum shooters" WILL indeed put their D800E on eBay, and regardless of what studio pro's do, there will be a lot more D800E's up for sale, and prices will surely drop. 

D800E isn't worth it to me at full/near-full price, but if I can pick up a used one at a very good price without the bidding war driving up auction prices, it's a different story.   8)

70
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Alpha a6000
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:28:10 PM »

With the A6000, I think Sony have largely achieved that in a small APSC sensor.

As for the Sony A7 and A7R, I think that holy grail of DSLR-FF quality with light weight, I think it is one generation away from that, i.e. perhaps 1-2 years away.

A friend just bought the A6000 with Zeiss 16-50, and AF-C frame rate and shutter are indeed impressive.  If Sony can implement a version of this AF system (even at reduced fps) on the next generation A7R, they will get me back as a customer.  I really hated the slow, heavy, LOUD shutter of A7R.

71
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:18:10 PM »
The Nikon "S" models with incremental change must be kind of a bumber for those who own the pre-S models which are no longer latest and greatest (D800, D800E, D600, D4, etc).  On the other hand, I would welcome the price drop I expect to see for Nikon D800E on fleeBay.

72
I decided against the one from china/amazon.  It is a touch short... I'm cheap with the legs... but I think I might get another dolica since it is a devil I already dance with, and then just get a better ball head... so... thanks all.

I think I have the same Dolica, and the funny thing is I have since bought a couple of "affordable" carbon fiber tripods (still WAY more than the Aluminum Dolica).  Guess what, Dolica kicks their ass for solidity and stability!  I ended up taking the nicer ballhead off the carbon fiber tripod and put it on the Dolica, whose weak point was the included ballhead.  The "Weifeng" ballhead that came with one of the CF tripod is quite solid even  ;)

73
I am going to loose my mind pretty soon.

Yup, that brings back memories of my own past Sigma troubles.  Sending the lens to Sigma service was the right step, but going by my experience with Sigma service, I wouldn't hold my breath for a miracle cure  :-[

74

The really bad news is that shooting with normal to low contrast it's really poor, so bad I took 23 shots in a row switching between Servo and One shot, I couldn't get ONE shot sharp of my daughter just standing in front of me.

This is acceptable?? ???

75
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 06, 2014, 12:39:29 PM »

Just keep in mind, if I had to use this lens without adjusting focus in Sigma USB-dock, I would have been extremely unhappy with the performance, and probably would have returned it within the first week of use. In my opinion, it is no point buying this lens without having access to the USB-dock, as it is a very high risk of focus inconsistency before correcting it in the USB dock.

Wow, good to know!  Thanks for this post.

Imagine a company like Sigma deciding to make something like the unprecedented USB dock.  How many consumer complaints, lens returns, and bad publicity it must have taken to force Sigma to market the usb dock, which is meant to accomplish things that should have been done at the factory  :'(

Even with the USB dock, it seems like there are copies out there that have AF that "drifts" over time and are consistent even after the dock adjustments.  Having dealt with Sigma service before, all I would say is buy it from a store that will let you return/refund without too much hassle.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 45