August 20, 2014, 01:12:41 PM

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 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 47
EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 05, 2014, 05:24:37 AM »
I guess it really depends on how we define class leading. Canon is an international business, it's not there to appease techhie geeks, but to provide it's share holders with a reasonable return on their investment. So if we look at the market, the Canon 5DII and 5DIII are big sellers for Canon. But the Nikon D800 isn't shifting any where near as many units. So, which camera is the more commercially viable? If you really feel that the Exmor sensor is more important to you than your current Canon one, then feel free and jump ship. It's the only metric Canon is really concearned with. If enough people buy a D800 and not a 5DIII then it will cause Canon to listen. In the mean time, Canon's market placement has been skillfully played out and the 5DIII is a brilliant product. The only way to get Canon to loose faith in their market research and placement is to show them it's wrong at a sales level.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: June 05, 2014, 05:02:40 AM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.
unhindered by a normal AA filter, tell us why the camera cannot resolve a line-pair per line-pair of pixels using a lens that can resolve at even finer levels.

From what I've seen with people and their cameras, MegaPixels area little like horse power in their some point every one says..."I think that's quite enough". For some, that's around 100 bhp....for other's that's around 400 bhp (me a Jag XKR), others aren't happy until they have a Veyron or a LaFerrari. Everyone has compromises, desires and needs which vary from each other.

I went out shooting today with my 5D3. Got some great shots.

Then I know what would make these photos even better? Zero freaking shadows!!!! I pushed and pushed in post processing until there was nothing left to push. Man...the noise in the blacks was awful. I could barely make out a sign that was in some deep shade in the far upper left corner of my photo. After some noise reduction, and zooming in to 400%...I saw what the sign said:

Beware of Internet Trolls.

I was blown away. Had I been using the D800e, with its 30% better sharpness compared to the regular 800...and it's amazing dynamic range, I wouldn't have had to spend so much time figuring out what the sign said.

Tomorrow I'm going to go back to a creepy looking bridge I found and see what Trolls I can find in the shadows when I post-process.

Pro Tip: Since trolls have never seen people in real life, they easily get scared when an actual human is near by.  ;)

I'll shoot from a distance and just crop in.

Oh no! Damn...I wouldn't be able to crop as far because of my low 22 megapixel count!!!! If only I had the 36 MP monster that is the D800.

Damn Canon, again! Ugh.

Yes you can crop to a 100% to see the soft and mushy lens optics on a 36mp camera. You can see your AF being slightly off, and  your camera shake being slightly more apparent. You can see all your lens defects more clearly and the real world resolution being only slightly higher than the 5DIII. Ho hum...but yes you can crop harder....

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Real World Sample Images
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:18:34 AM »
Does anyone know when this lens is expected on the shop shelves?

Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:17:47 AM »
If you are going to get one white super-tele (and trust me there is no substitute) then either the newer 300mm f2.8 LIS II or an older 400mm f2.8 LIS would be top of my list. The 300 is great for it's size, portability and relative lightness. it takes tele converters every well (1.4x and 2x) and will get you to 600mm f5.6 with ample IQ and can be shot wide open with great sharpness.
The 400L (my personal choice) is very big and very very heavy, but optically, it's one of the finest lenses ever made. It's pretty much untouched optically by a teleconverter. Pop a 1.4x on it and it's a 560mm f4, which is just a bit focal shy of the 600mm f4. Pop a 2x on it and it's a very capable 800mm f5.6.
Anything else is a compromise in my opinion.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 04, 2014, 05:11:40 AM »
Nikon have been splicing between Canon's niches for years. Their D700 for example sat between Canon's prosumer 5DII and 1D series. Canon has invented the various niches to start with (the 300D / 20D and 5D come to mind) and most of the other manufactures have copied and spliced to put cameras whihc appeal between canon's niches. The 1DX and 5DIII are easily Canon's finest cameras to date and certainly the most versatile. But neither of them are sitting in the niches which they were originally envisioned. The 5D has certainly gone up spec and the 1D has become more versatile, full frame and high frame rate.

I think that the MP war is essentially over, anything over 20mp is quite questionable. There has been plenty of articals stating that the detail difference between a good 5DIII frame and a good D800 frame is marginal. Sure there are differences, but it's not 30% better. So it's reasonable to assume there is a law of diminishing returns with sensor density.

Yes Nikon currently have more recoverability in their raw shadows, but there is more to a camera than that one feature. In a simular way, there is more to a camera than MP.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:09:47 AM »
If your camera has a built in level (I use a pair of 5DIII's) and you are using a tripod. Which you should be with a TS-e lens...the more stable the better, ideally without a centre column and the best quality ball head you can afford. I use a Gitzo GT3541LS with spikes and a Markins M80 head. On your camera, call up the built in level and correct the left and right pitch using the tripod. Once level, then correct the pitch using your tripod (forwards / backwards tilt) using the same level, it's the bit in the middle which goes up or down. Once corrected, then apply the lens shift function to bring the object into the frame...once placed in the frame the lens shift has corrected your perspective and no further adjustment (apart from fine focussing) is required. This is the correct (and upto now) undocumented method for correcting verticles with a TS-e lens. It's a no brainer with this technique and works every time and stops under or over correction of the shift function.

I would avoid hotshoe spirit bubbles....there'a massive degree of manufacturing error in the plastic bases. I have three than they all vary wildly. The in build camera level seems really accurate, as was the one on my iphone 4s....but my new iphone 5s is permanently off by quite a few degrees.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: June 03, 2014, 06:34:36 AM »
Viggo, those of us still waiting appreciate your updates, and this latest, how you try different AF settings for better results,  is another helpful one.

I think the strongest selling point of this lens for me is its sharpness across the frame, so being able to compose with at least any of the 5DIII's cross-points is an essential part of how I imagine using it.  Hopefully this won't be just a dream as AF issues get addressed...

You can't really trust the two outer points on each side, the one next to center is okay, but only center is fully trusted. And that kind of defeats the purpose of corner sharpness... The 85 L keeps delivering at any AF point...

I'm sorry to hear that Viggo, but with a Sigma lens it really doesn't suprise me. Been there, done that and bought and sold many of these Tee i've said before, the 120-300 f2.8 OS was the last straw for me. Hey, I've even sold my 12-24mm recently too. I'm now Sigma free.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: June 03, 2014, 05:23:41 AM »
The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.

A lot of trouble with flowers is even more that people seem to stick to sRGB which makes many flowers impossible to show correctly. A wide gamut monitor will give you a much better chance (of course it's true that the WB and profiles and all can still mess with things).

True, sRGB is too endemic. It's really time we started moving towards larger gamuts. Even AdobeRGB isn't quite good enough, as most of the gain with AdobeRGB is in the greens. The deep reds and blues and violets, where a lot of flower color resides, don't really change much with AdobeRGB. ProPhotoRGB may not be the best either, as its extent is even beyond that of human perception, but it's still got the ability to map almost every color at the richest saturation the human eye can discern.

Sadly, even 10-bit screens with 14- and 16-bit 3D LUTs are still not quite good enough at showing reds. I have these Peonies that are just about to burst into color. I've tried photographing them in years past, and I've never been able to get the reds and pinks to come out right...they clip and there is little tonality. Bleh. It's such a pain. My roses have a similar problem, however most of those have a deeper red that actually does fall into gamut for AdobeRGB.

No question, saturated color, particularly in the non-greens, can be a real problem.

I had the same problem when using colour slide and a back lit red tulip many years ago. I bracketed 5 stops either side and I was unable to record the details becuase the reds were over saturated. Interestingly, I found that colour print film had a wider dynamic range than slide or digital and yet it was seen as a less "professional" medium.
Hot reds are a common issue which are not just confined to Digital capture. It's an issue with all capture mediums.

Lenses / Re: 24-105 vs 24-70 2.8 ii
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:55:10 AM »
Interesting.  The way people rave... it sounds like the 24-70 is on par with primes... ugh.

It is, but only an f2.8 prime. The benefit of a prime is that they are generally brighter by at least 2 stops (4 time brighter). The benefit of the zoom is versatilty and the lack of needing 4 primes to cover the same focal range (24/35/50/85).
Most lens tests usually test at either extream of the focal range (24 or 70) but often forget to collect data through the zoom range and at infinity, 10m and MFD. Most zoom lenses will crap out at some point, MFD, infinity or at some particular focal length. I think I remember reading that the new 24-70 LIS is weakest at 50mm for example.

Lenses / Re: purchasing 70-200 f4 IS now?
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:49:24 AM »
you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
I have it and also Sony Nikon 70-200mm f4G lenses and I compared them side by side many times, in absolute term the Canon f4LIS is still a good lens but it shows its age compared to the Sony and the Nikon,espeically to the Sony.
and imho, the Canon f4LIS and Nikon f4VR are overpriced compared to the excellent Sony 70-200mm f4 SSM , the Sony comes with tripod mount and it is about 100US cheaper than the optically inferior Canon f4 70-200mm and the Optically as good but heavier Nikon..
I tested them all on my A7R and see the differences, the Sony was clearly sharper than the other 2 at 70 , 100, 135mm wide open , but at 200mm end , the Nikon was the better lens  at f4 , but stopping down to f6.3 , the Sony becomes better than the other 2 again.    I also compared the build quality of the 3 lenses, to me the Sony seems better made lens but a bit bigger than the Canon, the biggest one is the Nikon f4 and it is a bit longer than the Canon and the Sony.  But honestly I prefer the look of the Nikon lens since it is black and less conspicuous in public.   but if do not  care about the color of the lens, but only optical quality and AF accuracy , then the Sony wins hands down here.  and  after comparing the 3 , I am quite sure, the Sony and Nikon 70-200mm f4 are quite a bit better than the Canon one, and I am sure Canon must update it with better IS and better anti-flare coating very soon to be competitive.  the Nikon has almost 5 stop effective VR , and it focuses very very close, so personally I do not buy the Canon f4 70-200mm IS lens now , and I do not need f2.8 any more in this range(I use the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO instead). So if I need the best 70-200mm f4 zoom now , I will go Sony or Nikon. If you can wait , wait a few months , I am quite sure we will see a new 70-200mm f4LIS lens from Canon at Photokina(it does not mean we can actually buy it very soon , though).
All that having said , the best 70-200mm zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8LISMK2 USM lens.
Your post sounds like that of a lens snob - this is one of Canon's best lenses and other than the aperture being slower than the f/2.8 versions, I have yet to hear anyone complain about this lens.  Besides, there are exactly zero rumors (on CR) about this lens being replaced so I don't know what you're talking about. 

ATC, this is a phenomenal lens, you won't be disappointed with it.

This lens is ALMOST as sharp as the 2.8IS version.... They are so close that with the lens to lens variations one would expect to see, they almost certainly overlap. It is a phenomenal lens, quite possibly the best " bang for the buck" of any canon lens. You would need laboratory testing with test charts to tell the images from the F2.8IS version, yet at half the price and weight it is a lot easier to afford and much much easier to carry and to operate. That extra 2/3 of a stop comes at a big hit in weight and dollars.

My copy, which I really regret selling was slightly sharper than my 2.8 II L. But i suspect that my f4 LIS was a super-stellar copy. My 2.8 II L a typical copy and nice and sharp. I found the f4 LIS to be a better performer at MFD than the 2.8, it's astonishingly lightweight and it's IS is a little noiser than the f2.8 II L but performs just as well. It takes a 1.4x TC well. Just because it's comparitvely old doesn't negate it's abilities. If fact, i think the f2.8 II L was designed to bring the f2.8 version up to the f4 LIS's technology and abilities. They both share the same AF speed, IS ability etc.
This lens is one of Canon's finest, period. Anyone who says different either has a pup / damaged copy or they don't know what they are talking about.

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:35:27 AM »
I far prefer the results from a 35L and 95L combo...but unfortunatly it's not always versatile enough to shot with, so out comes the zoom instead. With a general purpose zoom, versatility is the key and that's what is their key feature. They perform a functional role....not an impressive role, although I've gotten some great results from my 24-70L. But it harder to get "art" out of it than say my primes or TS-e lenses.
I still think that the 24-105 IS L is a more versatile lens, it's a pity it's not rumoured for an update...It could do with it. A 24-105 and 100-400 make a fantastic 2 lens combo.

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:24:41 AM »
I really liked the old mkI 24-70L for some of the reasons it was critisied for...unfortunatly by forum nerds and not real world users. The old mechanism was highly critisied becuase it was extended at the 24mm end, while at the 70mm the lens was at it's shortest. This had a number of excellent but unique features...firstly the huge and over sized hood worked really well at the long and short end. Most lenses, the hood only really works at the wide end and serves little purpose at the long end. Zoom burst shots were increadibly easy with this lens, pop the shutter on 1/6th second shoot and twist....easy. The changing balance of the lens actually helped this technique. The weather sealing was aided by the large hood and when on landcape workshops, other photographers who were using the 24-105 often commented how better the hood worked on my 24-70L.
The level of distortion at the 24mm end was very low for this type of lens. But the best feature was the as one got close to MFD at the 70mm end, the zoom breathing worked in reverse and added focal length as the focus got closer to MFD....which made it really cool for differential focussing and shallow depth of field techniques. When worked right, it was very easy to through the background out of focus by focussing on a detail which is close. For weddings, I could easily get by with most of a wedding using that one lens....that's versatility for you. Sure, there were sharper lenses available. But I've always found the mkI sharp enough, even withh 22mp.
The new mkII version has sacrificed all this for sharpness....and yes it's sharper, but that is all.   
Anyone here tried the Nikkor version on a D800...I've heard it aint that great. most of the rave reviews of the Nikkor 24-70 were mated to the D700, which was only a 12mp camera.

Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 01, 2014, 03:30:33 PM »
Didnt bother waiting and got a 40/2,8

Wow....a completely different lens, even a 24-70L would have been a more versatile alternative

Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 01, 2014, 01:42:15 PM »
I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless.

May I ask what you did not like about the IQ of the 24 L II?

Yes you may! Mine wasn't very sharp, both because of AF issues and I didn't have a great copy, it had annoying CA. The things I liked about it was the 1.4 of course, superb color and good contrast. But I always liked the 35 L better for AF and focal length. If I had one with the AF as good as the 35 and sharpness to match I might like better.

OK, thank you. I also own a 24 L II and I find the image quality amazing. Admittedly, the AF could be a bit faster, but it focuses very reliably on my 5d, even at f/1.4 without AFMA (which the 5d does not have). I guess I had luck with my copy. copy is amazing. The AF is far better than my 35L, which hunts in low light. It's CA is pretty good and it's sharper than my 35L too. I tend to use my 35L more because I prefer the focal length....but the 24IIL is a better lens optically

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 47