January 26, 2015, 03:38:00 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 [2] 3 4 ... 50
16
I have the old dustpump version I have been very happy with.
Do I REALLY need to upgrade? No.
Do I really really want to upgrade? Yes.
Before spring holidays...

True words....although the AF is faster, other than that...there's not a lot of reasons to side grade if you already have a good copy of the mk1

17
Can anyone with a good understanding of MTF charts and actual field experience share how the three 24-70mm lenses compares to each other in terms of distortion (especially at wide end)? I have been using the 24-70mm f2.8L I for more than 4 years but sometimes borders sharpness and distortion particularly at the wide end annoy me so, I would like to know if the 24-70mm f/2.8L II or the 24-70mm f4L IS offer more controlled distortion.

Most appreciated!

Why does this minor metric matter so much to you? It won't make a good or bad photo any better or worse? It's easily corrected with one click in Lightroom. Are you looking to justify a new lens purchase? If so...go and buy it and enjoy but don't think it will change your photography much! It'll just give you something new to play with. The photos will be the same, according to your luck and talent. New gear doesn't equal better photos.

18
Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:31:03 AM »
I realize that I'm replying to an old post that's part of an old thread with recent activity due to the high mp alleged confirmation by Canon.

I wanted to address one thing in particular though.  I question the assumption that recent lenses and mk ii lenses are being refreshed for higher mp sensors, including current aps-c 18mp crop sensors.

I was wondering earlier how the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM would perform on a higher mp camera, so I tried looking up its resolving power in lp/mm and ran across a review I hadn't read before, by DxOMark stating that for that particular lens its predecessor, the original EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM (mk I) had more resolving power.  Then in the comments, they stated that it was sharper on aps-c  bodies than it is on ff bodies (which I didn't understand).  I've not read any other review that made such claims.

Then I decided to look into the new 100-400mm zoom mk II and read that more or less it has about the same resolving power as its predecessor, and the true improvement is in the stabilization upgrade/update.  Was it already resolving well enough before?  I've never used one, so I don't know.

Any thoughts on this.  I am aware that many here are not fans of DxOMark and their results, but the 100-400 II still has me scratching my head.


Well, your relying on DXO. :P Guess that's enough said.  ;D


One thing I will say is, older Canon lenses often resolved very well in the center, and very poorly in the corners. For film, where huge enlargements were not as common (most of the time, it was smaller enlargements or contact prints, so maybe 8x10 tops on average), poorer corners were probably not as much of a problem. Newer Canon lenses and the Mark III TCs have all been addressing corner performance. Some of Canon's newer lenses did not improve center or midframe resolution much...but improved corner resolution a ton. Some lenses, like many of the new Great White Mark II generation, improved resolving power across the board.


For the best lens resolution tests around, check out Roger Cicala's LensRentals blog. He regularly tests new lenses, using an optical test bench (so he's testing LENSES, not camera systems), and his comparisons tend to be more accurate and generic than most. None of this "limited by the sensor" crap that skews and convolutes results. :P

There's a few other factors to consider here. Most f2.8 zooms are tested in the middle of their zoom range. The mkII's are optimised at their previously weakest point...at the long end or the wide end, depending on which lens. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II is a lot sharper at 200mm f2.8 then the mkI. But it's slightly softer at 70mm. Stop down to f8 and both lenses are just as sharp as each other. There is little difference.
The 24-70L was optimised for the 70mm end, the new one is better at the 24mm end. Again, stop down a few stops and there is little between them.

On most zoom Lenses, sharpness often changes slightly through the focal range and focus range. Very few test sites take this into account. A lens which is really sharp at one end of the focal range at infinity will have a different sharpness score than one at the other end of the focal range and at Minimum Focus Distance. We are also assuming that every photo is taken on a quality tripod and with perfect focusing.

Photographers often get themselves twisted up over minor sharpness issues, making big purchase decisions over very minor issues. I've been using a 21-22mp sensor since the 5DII (and currently 5DIII) and I've found that it's a really good sensor density for all of my photographic needs. It's an optimum balance between sharpness, resolution, noise, lens resolution burden and file size convenience. I'm really not that fussed about a 40+ mp full frame camera, which is against the tide of a lot of forum thinking.

Photography isn't so much about the kit as it is about a great photograph. Too much attention on the science of photography can pull us away from the the reason we have the kit. Yes the kit helps, the science part...but really it's about the art of the photo not the process or kit. Talk to most great photographers and they rarely talk about kit or technique.   

19
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:46:07 AM »
I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.

Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ.  Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average.  Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk.   ???

To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it.  But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.

As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop).  The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.

The mkI 100-400L has some notoriously bad copies out there. I've tried a number of copies over the years. Back in early 2008, I tried a copy which was just awful. Soft every where and it wasn't the AF system....something in the lens alignment must have been really out of place. Earlier copies which I had tried were like night and day on comparison. When I chose a 400L f5.6 over a 100-400, there were a few reasons why. The AF on every 100-400 which I tried was pretty slow, especially in lower light. I found the push pull at 400mm caused the lens to unbalance on a tripod and the 2 stop IS wasn't that great.
But that was then and this is now...the new lens looks like it's address all these issues and it's got slightly better IQ than the sharpest and best 100-400L's which came off the Canon line. It's it's reliable, sharp, quick and accurate AF with a great IS implementation and it's handling works better...then it's a worthy successor!
Will I be buying one? Not yet, I'll wait until the prices have stabilised a bit more.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:28:08 AM »
Personally I think it's funny it took Nikon 4 cameras to compete with the 5d3.

If it would be Canon, people would call it clever because Nikon managed to sell 4 models to their customers before they now all want to upgrade to the d750 :-p

Errr, I'm not sure I follow your logic there bud! Nikon's sales figures for their attempt to take on the 5DII and 5DIII were very poor. 4 models of which none of them sold well. Canon knocked the ball out of the park with the sales for both the 5DII and 5DIII models. It's a pity they didn't quite get it right with the 6D. A great camera for sure, but not quite what the market wanted or needed.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:34:36 AM »
The problem the 6D has had (in my opinion) is that it's a reverted to a classic 5D formula. While the 5D went up in the specs, the 6D inherited the 5D's old formula. Top tier chip performance, slow fps and an old camera design with a really old AF specs. There's little on paper to wow a purchaser, although sadly it's far more capable that many have given credit for.
When I heard the rumours for the 5DIII and 6D, I was expecting the 6D to be called the 5DIII and a direct replacement, ie cost conscious, low spec but great performance. While the other camera, a high spec mini 1Dx would have been called a 5Dx. But they didn't and we have what we have. The 5DIII is closer to a 1DX than it is to the 5DII or 6D.

22
Lenses / Re: 50 f/1.2L problems applicable to 85 f/1.2L?
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:28:40 AM »
The 85L / IIL both share a slight shift in DOF according to the aperture and point of focus. But with these two lenses, it's within the scope of the Depth of Field so it's rarely noticed, hardly an issue and very slight. The problem  with the 50mm f1.2L is that it's focus shift is so dramatic, it's well outside the scope of the depth of field at the given aperture until f5.6 where the shift falls withing the aperture's depth of field.
All lenses have a slight focus "wobble" at certain apertures, but most of the time it's not noticed because the shift is slight and within the depth of field.

23
I've had a love/hate relationship with my 12-24EX HSM (version 1).  It's big and heavy.  But... when I want wide, nothing else will do.

Mondiale de l'Automobile ~ Paris ~ 2014 by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

Mondiale de l'Automobile ~ Paris ~ 2014 by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

Mondiale de l'Automobile ~ Paris ~ 2014 by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

Mondiale de l'Automobile ~ Paris ~ 2014 by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

I completely understand what you mean. I had a mk 1 too, for a lens with so many deep flaws, it's redeeming features were amazingly unique and very redeeming. I am highly critical of the lenses which I use, but this one lens I gave a huge concession for because of it's talents. It was very frustrating but ultimately rewarding at the same time. The mkII isn't as corrected and is better all of the weaker areas of the mkI, but unfortunatly, it's not as strong in the areas the older lens excelled at.

24
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 09:38:46 AM »
http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).

Agree with reviewer that Canon has work cut out for them selves trying to make the 5DIV competitive (either by slashing the price range or jumping the specs).

All the better for us that Canon is under stiff pressure to deliver this time around. This time there will no excuse that Nikon pulled a rabbit.

The first line under "important notes" in this "review" put me off...apparently he considers himself unbiased...and yet he's a log term Nikon user with Nikon lenses...yeah right....really unbiased. In the same way, if i pick up a D750...I'd compare it favorably with a 5DIII.

25
A year ago I bought a Canon 70D and installed the software.
A week ago I went to their website and downladed an update
for Digital Photo Professional (DPP) from 3.13.?? to 3.14.??.
Ran the update and the program stopped working. The error was
DPPDLL.dll not found. Following canon's support instructions
none of my Canon software, for either 320 Elph HS or 70D, work.
Nor can the original versions be re-installed. At the end of
this nightmare I was told to contact my computer manufacturer.
What does Dell have to do with Canon's software problems?

The details are at http://SwensonStudio.com/CanonSucks.htm

Wow...another one post wonder vent post....is that allwe are good for here on this forum? Being shouted at because we don't share your feelings and frustrations with our chosen camera manufacturer. Maybe there is a bigger issue here? A personal dissatisfaction with life in general which has projected onto your camera?
Surely there is more to your life than something this small?

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:08:47 AM »
Erm 400mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2, TSe-17, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 LIS to name just a few lenses.
I have two 5DIII bodies and they are the most versatile cameras I've ever used. Ok Sony /Nikon might have a shadow noise advantage, but that's just one specification and on balance, the 5DIII is the best camera currently available for my shooting needs.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 25, 2014, 06:26:59 AM »
For me, I do a lot of video for my local church (in addition to my professional stills work). What the 7DII offers me is native mp4 video. Every time I compile a DVD using Window's movie maker, I loose hours of my life trans coding from the native camera format to mp4...this camera will halve my weekly post production work...as well as giving me 10 fps and a high iso ability 1.6x crop camera with a state of the art AF system.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:51:05 AM »
Wow....so many negative comments from one post wonders!

29
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:04:33 AM »
I find photographers a curious bunch. If I choose to buy a 7DII...why does some one else get all stressed about that? What is it to them? It's my money, no theirs. If I choose to buy a camera with a useful 20mp and an AF system which is world class over another brand which has more pixels but the same frame rate, AF ability, high iso ability and it fits my range of stunning top tier lenses....what is that to them? I couldn't care a stuff if someone else buys a Nikon or Sony camera...so why do they get all huffy about my purchase?
Winston Churchill had a great saying "A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject"

I think the 7DII is a winner and it'll sell REALLY well. I think Nikon now have a marketing problem, because they have nothing in their portfolio which comes close to this camera.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Sample Images - High Res
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:05:22 AM »
How do i get at the high rez versions? These are small thumb nail web sized versions

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50