September 22, 2014, 04:38:11 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 48
You think it might just be an economies of scale issue. Maybe the 7DII will have a sensor built on a new smaller say 50nm production line and to get the most out of the new line Canon needs to produce all it's new sensors on that line and retire the old 500nm line(s). This would make economic sense no? The "new revolutionary" sensor in the 7DII I think will point out where ALL EOS cameras are going.

Canon used the 7D as a development mule for camera ergonomics and User Interface updates, which is why the camera's handling is still so fresh. Nearly all of it's design changes went into the 5DIII and 1DX. So much so many people called the 5DIII a full frame 7D than a 5DII replacement (which is what the 6D eventually became). The AF redesign paved the way for the 61 point array and control and apart from the sensor, there is still a lot to like about the 7D. So it makes sense for Canon to use the 7DII as a development tool to updaqte the sensor technology and design. As long as the 7DII breaks even in the market place then the develeopment and lessons learnt from this model are effectively free to Canon, who can then incorporate it's features into the next gen of camera 5D4, 6DII, 1DXII ect. If the sensor is fantastic, then it's hype will generate a natural desire for full frame variants...and the next gen camera models will pretty much sell themselves with little marketing. In my view, that's the wise application of innovation which leads to market dominance.
If I rememebr the 40D introduced Live view to Canon, which was later incorporated into the 1DsIII and 5DII models. For landscape work, it was a game changer...somehitng which Nikon have never fully engaged with. 

Car makers are a stagnant market with very little change from year to year.... mostly cosmetic changes. No real surprises anywhere... As a point in case, with pickup trucks the big thing this year is GM with a step in the corner of the bumper.... that's it!

Or Ford's 700 pound reduction in weight going from steel to aluminum.

Or how about the Toyota Hybrid System announcements, fuel cell vehicle announcements, or other maker's (including Tesla) battery electric vehicle announcements?  Those are hardly "stagnant".
I stand corrected!

The VW XL1 is pretty amazing too. 300+ mpg. It's so efficient the oil dependant USA government have banned it from sale.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:15:39 AM »
Now I just have to decide whether to keep the 16-35/2.8L II or sell it and buy the 16-35/4L IS.

You already know that you must buy the new f/4L. It's just too sharp and convenient. The question is whether or not you also keep your f/2.8...
Doesn't make sense to me. I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II
Since 3 days I own the 16-35 f/4. Haven't used it extensively but enough to say that it is a better lens - for me - and it was a good decision to sell the 16-35 f/2.8 II. Why keep both?

Well, this is fairly simple.  The 16-35 f/4L IS is not a better lens than the 16-35 f/2.8L II, it is a different lens that is better at some things and worse at others.  The f/4L IS may be a better lens for you, but it is definitely not a better lens overall - just different.

Specifically, if you use the 16-35 f/2.8L II to do event photography, such as crowded dancefloor shots at dim receptions or indoor sports - all of which will likely require at minimum 1/100 shutter speed - the 16-35 f/4L IS will be virtually unusable in this situation compared to the 16-35 f/2.8L II.  At events with dim lighting f/2.8 is the bare minimum you need to get by to both avoid motion blur and get enough light, as flash is not always possible or desirable; sure you could use the f/4L IS in this situation, but it will look horrendous with the five-digit ISOs it will need to keep up.

On the other hand, the 16-35 f/4L IS is much sharper in the corners from f/4-f/8, and a bit sharper at f/11 than the f/2.8L II - meaning the f/4L IS would probably be a better bet if you did landscapes only.   Although that being said, I like the sunstars on the 16-35 f/2.8L II better than the sunstars on the 16-35 f/4L.  Still, overall for landscape the f/4L IS will be the better bet for most.

So, in short:
Event photography: 16-35 f/2.8L II is a much better bet than the the 16-35 f/4L IS in most situations.
Landscape: 16-35 f/4L IS is much better than the 16-35 f/2.8L II from f/4-f/8, and a bit better at f/11.

In other words, if you want the "best" 16-35 lens, you need to buy both.  Well played, Canon ;)

Wow...carefull, common sense like this might catch on!  ;)
I can't see me getting rid of my 16-35IIL any time soon. I need that extra stop and I don't need an image stabiliser or slower shutter speed.
Optically, the f4 lens looks a lot stronger wide open. But rest assured, in a few years Canon will update the f2.8 version to the same capability.

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:03:19 AM »
Sharpness is a very personal and subjective thing. Every photographer has their own level of aceptable sharpness. Some are easily swayed by forums and other photographers, but cost has a lot to do with this. We all set our bar based on what we can afford and to be honest this is an irrational behaviour. Surely our view of aceptable sharpness should be defined by how large we print and that it looks like on the wall?

Here's a shot I took a few weeks ago of a Puffin. At the time, sharpness was the least of my concearns. At the time, composition, tripod craft, exposue and not scaring this chap off were my priority. I was using a 400mm f2.8 at the time and I didn't want to get any closer, so I fitted a 2x converter and shot it nearly wide open. It was only when i got back to base I realised how sharp it was....stunningly so!

Here's the image, 5DIII 400mm f2.8 and a 2x TC f6.3, Manual Exposure, Gitzo Systematic tripod

Here's the 100%, it's looking like a Flickr is aplying some jpeg compression to my image. It looks sharper on my local file.

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:11:54 AM »
Time to sell the TS-E 17.  Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper.  Yes please!

Lol....just don't try to swing the front element on your new 16-35 f4 LIS!

An internal 1TB SSD drive and a Thunderbolt port...  ::) ::) ::)

Do you mean that largely unsupported proprietry interface which only some Apple machines seem to be using?
Surely USB 3.0 is the way to go. Far more general support, even Apple is starting to adopt it as a format.

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 05:23:53 AM »
Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8.

The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.

For landscape work, which is generally stopped down, then no there isn't a lot of optical benefit of this new f4 lens over the existing f2.8 II version. But if you need to shoot wide open, the the optical improvements are clear.
It's looking a lot sharper in the corners and that looks partially due to the newer flat film plane. But the increased contrast and colour looks very good. I can't help think that the f2.8 was slightly over exposing and the f4 is slightly under? There's a huge difference in the blue sky colour between them.

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 23, 2014, 05:00:12 AM »
Well said .. there is some utter nonsense talked about sharpness in many places. ;-)

My general feeling is that (for some) it's much easier to explore sharpness and other technical craft issues relating to image 'quality' than address the fact that their photos just aren't that great, and that concentrating on technical issues is just a way of avoiding concentrating more on the image content, or other less quantifiable/tangible aspects.

Of course this isn't new - photography has a long history of people spending a lot of effort on technical differences very few would ever notice. I'd just note that this behaviour becomes much easier with digital ;-)

The technical aspects (refining my 'craft') are important to me, but only as part of the whole image creation process.  The technical has a vital part in my commercial work, but I know that very few clients are ever going to ask for it by name - to them it's primarily about the content of the image and representation of ideas.

Colour management is another area I see a lot of this, with a spurious desire for 'perfection' and 'correct' colours for applications where no-one could ever know (there are times for great precision, but not for photographic work I do)

Curiously enough, I only ever find such behaviour (in colour management and photography) in men ;-)

It's astounding how many guys at my local camera club pay thousands and thousands of pounds on the latest and greatest gear, agonising if this particualr lens has a slightly better cache (notice I didn't say Bokeh)...and yet they neglect the certain and clear need to attend workshops or training courses from the very experianced to hone their craft further. I guess it's why they are called camera clubs and not photography clubs.

My landscape and wildlife skills came from attending a lof of Guy Edwardes workshops and even now I still learn new things. When I went on my first workshop with him, I took my existing skill set and added it to what he was showing me. I learnt a lot, and it refeined me as a more general photographer. Within my wedding context, my panning skills are vastly improved. My compositional pallet and exposure control were exapnded. What i brought into the workshops were my gear, existing camera craft, workflow and photographic eye. 

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 23, 2014, 04:50:14 AM »
I seem to be one of the few who actually like 22mp as a high standard. I have no particualr use for 36/44/100mp.
I don't particaulrly need the iso noise or the file size. I don't particaulrly need to print large, A1+ is as big as i can go domestically / commercially and I've never sold a print bigger than that.

Makes me wonder if I should return my 1dx and wait since I have the time.

I'd suggest not - I bought my 1Ds at the end of 2003, and the 1Ds2 was available by November 2004. The single model increment was modest, and I carried on with the 1Ds for my commercial work until the 1Ds3 arrived in November 2007.

Given that the info I had pointed to an early 2015 announcement for both (the late 2014 1D X2 was only a 'possibility) I'd not expect you to be able to get a 1D X mk2 for perhaps a year.. a long while to go without the 1D X.

As something more than 6 months out, such rumours automatically get my biggest 'pinch of salt' rating on Northlight - keep the 1D X and use it! ;-)

Hi Keith, it's great to see you posting here. Your Northlight website has been an inspiration and an education, especially your printer reviews.

Unfortunatly, there is an insanity which occurrs when Canon releases a new batch of DSLR's. Fire sales occurr and everyone clammours for the newest and greatest. There's a common belief that their beloved camera will suddenly be obsolete and there unable to take any more pictures of a reputatble quality. So what's the best a 1DX II will offer over a 1DX? A few extra mega pixels? A few stops of DR? A few more FPS? In the light of the rest of this camera's capabilities, these are mild or warm upgrades regardless of what the hype will have us believe. There is also a belief / fear that the second hand value of their cams will instantly spiral as soon as a new model is released. Which is not true, the resale value it proportionate to how long the model has been in the market, how many of them are on the market and how clean / abused the camera is.
Look at the S/H price of 1d4 and 1dsIII cams....still a hefty price considering their age. Sure, you;re bot going to get anywhere near the new price for the camera, especially if you paid top dollar for it when the 1DX was first released. But it's still going to be worth more on the S/H market than a new 5DIII.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: June 22, 2014, 06:09:14 PM »
I simply don't agree with this bolded part AT ALL.  The bokeh on the 100L is beautifully soft and creamy and the rounded aperture blades ensure that the highlights stay round when stopped down.  The bokeh from the 50mm f1/.4 isn't even close.
Totally agree!

The 50mm f1.4 USM's out of focus rendering is a little harsh compared to the 50 f1.2 L's
I've found the 100mm f2.8 L Macro lens to be very smooth in it's out of focus rendering too, although no better than most tele L lenses. The 135L and 85IIL spring to mind.

As to the 100mm f2.8 L Macro's AF speed, it's fast for a macro lens, but slow for a L lens.

I wonder if the Tamrac bag range will be thinned down a lot to a smaller protfolio and will be re-branded as a Gura gear budget range.

If I am paid by Canon to take pictures with a 7D2, that is what I will do. If I am paid to use a GoPro or an iPhone, then that's what I will use.

The goal is not to take great pictures at the world cup, it is to take great pictures with a 7D2 at the world cup.

Of course. How many of those people do you think there are? Very, very few. Getting accreditation for these things is very tough, I know I have to go through the process a lot, but I have never, ever, met someone "working" for Canon. The next event I am at Canon will be there, they have already been informed I will be there (along with hundreds presumably of other CPS/media members) but I am not paid by them, nor will I use something that does not meet my needs.

Oh come on, if Canon want someone shooting something at the World Cup they will NO problem whatsoever getting that person accreditation. There is one heck of a difference between Canon going for accreditations for people than you or whatever little media you work for trying to get accredited.

Did anyone notice the amount of rain covers over certain lens / camera combos with last night's Uruguary vs England game? I bet that's where all the 7DII's are hiding. A rain cover is hardly needed in Sao Paulo this time of year! 

EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 10:16:55 AM »
This may sound rather pessimistic, but I suspect a 7D Mark II will find its place in the kit of people not wanting to spend a lot of money on a camera body, but who still want to have many pro-camera features, because this is the selling point of the 7D and by replacing it Canon should be aiming at the same kind of target customers.

For me, a 7D is a complement to a 5D - one for reach and speed, one for low-light and image quality.  I'll take one of each if they are similar enough in user interface and technology.

But...a 5DIII and a 7DII will probably cost the same as a 1D-x....

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 10:15:33 AM »
What do you all think are the chances, that the 7D II will surpass the 5D mark iii/1DX on certain things? Such as IQ, ISO, DR or other things?

The 7DII will surpass the 5DIII/1D X in viewfinder magnification, and the 5DIII in frame rate...that's pretty much it.

There also might be several small items with the 7DII like wifi, GPS or a built-in-flash. You can argue about whether you need them, but the 7DII will surpass the other two models on that.

It will be cheaper, too.  That's probably the biggest benefit!
I expect it will also have a touch-screen. :)

Wowzers....killer new feature..... :-\

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 48