October 24, 2014, 05:45:51 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 - Northstar

Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 99
1306
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 05, 2012, 06:28:48 PM »
Taken on Saturday September 22nd at Wedge Pond, Kananaskis Alberta Canada

so beautiful...can you imagine if that was the view out the window of your cabin on that lake

1307
EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?
« on: October 05, 2012, 02:54:08 PM »
The thing that gets some people upset is when you've invested huge sums of money in the glass, and then they "hold back" on the camera.   Can/Nik almost have a duopoly in terms of market share.  I believe these two companies have 90% of the dslr market, so it's not like buying a car, or TV, or new golf clubs.  Once you buy in with the glass, you hope that "your company" makes a tech leap or strives for excellence in some way so that you have a residual long term benefit. 



1308
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 05, 2012, 10:36:59 AM »
morning on the lake...

5d3..70-200 2.8ii

1309
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: October 05, 2012, 07:16:29 AM »
Was a floating dock, so that's why have a bit of blur on the subjects, plus keep my son still for 13 seconds is almost impossible

Nice!

1310
Canon General / Re: Why you should take your camera to family Weddings
« on: October 03, 2012, 08:03:02 AM »
There is no excuse for the pro but we all make mistakes so how about improvising by quickly deleting a couple RAW shots and then switching to jpeg medium?

This would take 10 seconds and free up space for plenty of jpegs.

Anyway, I'm glad you saved the day!

1311
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:24:59 PM »
one more....today, 72, sunny, zero wind.....COLOR EVERYWHERE.

1312
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:23:50 PM »
a beautiful fall day in the land of 10,000 lakes....

1313
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:19:11 PM »
Quote
wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses..

I agree that their lens reviews aren't great, some of the competition are better (especially photozone, lensrentals and lenstip) I didn't suggest otherwise. Where we differ is in the view that the reviewer is obliged to show deference to products that have better reputations.

Quote
Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...

In my opinion, the labor of canon's engineers shouldn't be a factor in the review.

Again, this is where we just don't quite agree -- you seem to think that reviewers should be required to show some deference based on the reputation of the product, the manufacturer, or the general public's prior beliefs about those two things. Nor should they be trying to fudge their scoring systems to make certain products look good.

Quote
In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+".   I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.

No, that's just silly. I'm not trying to suggest that the reviewers criteria should be to oppose widely held prejudices for the sake of being contrary, I'm suggesting that these shouldn't be a factor.

BTW, for all the DxO bashing, I'll say this again -- there is noone who does better sensor reviews.

elford...agree to disagree...it's a fact that the 70-200 2.8ii and 300 2.8ii are superb lenses...to say otherwise discredits your rep.   this is my point pure and simple.  with that said, how can you trust ANY review, lens or sensor, from an outfit that as a matter of fact, has screwed up multiple lens reviews not just to a small degree...but to an enormous degree.

crazy how people see things differently.   no disrespect to your opinion though elf.

1314
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 02, 2012, 08:01:19 PM »
Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.

Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).

Quote
  For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.

On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.

wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses...pull your head out of the sand DXO.  Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...and a couple of guys at DXO say "hey, this lens sucks compared to the old one".

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+".   I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.   

1315
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 07:56:23 PM »
.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body.

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.

distant...I started reading your post and I thought "oh oh"...until I read a little further - funny.

1316
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 07:24:27 PM »
Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.  For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.  I know I know, they're a software company...well that just makes me question the software too.   

IMO...Every review they present should be taken with "several grains of salt".  I've read from other reviewers/websites that they sometimes think they have a bad copy and will make the extra effort to get another copy and retest.  It seems DXO is too lazy to do this, or just too high on themselves.....by the way, isn't DXO based in France?  ::)

Anyway, I just bought the 135L and fired a quick shot of an Ash tree in the front yard....it was a little too close but the only thing of interest for me to shoot before sunset.  Cropped but otherwise untouched.  I like. 

1317
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 02:16:14 PM »
So when looking at their lens reviews...

Did you also see the part where they scored the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI higher than the MkII?  They are probably the only review/test outfit who rated the MkI higher.  Just sayin' - grain of salt, and all that...

Personally, I had and liked the 85/1.8.  But crasher8 is right, the LoCA on that lens is pretty bad - watch out for high-contrast transitions (reflections, chrome, etc.), unless you really happen to love the colors magenta and green.

I sold my 85/1.8 after getting the 85L II, and I also have the 135L - I'd definitely take either L lens over the 85/1.8.  Having said that, depending on budget, I do think the 85/1.8 is the best lens in Canon's lineup in terms of IQ:cost ratio.

Neuro...re the 70-200 2.8ii yes, I've ranted about that before and probably will again since it's my favorite lens.

With your obvious camera tech expertise, explain to me how dxomark has achieved such a respected and credible status when it comes to sensor reviews when it seems they "get it wrong" so consistently with lenses.

1318
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 02:05:40 PM »
Their lens reviews are rubbish--the 28-135 or 70-300 non-L have more resolution than 300/2.8L II according to them.

This is what I was thinking....I didn't know they scored the 300 2.8ii so poorly, I knew they had "scored/screwed up" their review of the 70-200 2.8ii, but to screw up both of these scores/reviews...two of THE highest rated most respected lenses Canon makes??   It's just incredible that they have the ego to give such poor scores to lenses that are well known and documented to be incredible lenses by other reviewers and photographers.

It seems this outfit deserves little credibility from what I've seen....I've definitely lost confidence in their reviews.

I almost can't wait to see how they review the 135L....could they be stupid enough to give it a poor review, even further taking them down the "no credibility" hole.

1319
Lenses / About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 01:18:42 PM »
I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision.  So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc.  I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

They say they're reviewing the 135L in October...I'm correct in assuming the 135 will score higher, right?  OR, did they just get a fantastically sharp copy of the 85 1.8 when they did their review? 

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8? 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

EDIT...a couple of posts have come in illustrating some of the inaccurate DXO "scores" for lenses:

1. 70-200 2.8 ii is somehow scored much lower than the orginal version, and much lower than the nikon, sigma, and sony 70-200's.

2. The canon 300 2.8 ii, probably the best lens Canon makes, scores a 15 from DXO.  For all the lens scores that were scored using the 5d2 as the body, (66 of them listed) they rank the 300 2.8ii in 57th place out of 66 lens scores.  For context, that's about a tie with the 16 score they gave the Tamron 28-300, and the 14 for the Canon 55-200.



1320
Lenses / Re: Broken 24-105...what should I do??
« on: October 01, 2012, 12:36:37 PM »
That's actually what I did. I got a new one off eBay when that one seller was selling them for $800.

It just seems like such a waste. The exterior is literally pristine...maybe I'll make one of those Canon lens mugs out of them.

The problem is corrosion. I was in India when this happened, so there was no way of letting it sit out and dry since it was so humid. I believe Canon said most of the electronics were corroded and needed to be replaced. I guess I'm just surprised at how expensive they are. You would think the glass are the parts that are expensive.

I feel your pain...I did the same thing with my iPad and now it's useless...beautiful, but useless.   I'm thinking of doing a youtube "crash" video of some sort with it.

I tried the silica gel packs...it's it gets too wet, nothing will save it.

Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 99