October 25, 2014, 03:59:24 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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 49
271
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 12:59:56 PM »
It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.

11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.

Sigma did with their 12-24mm mk I. It was a full frame, fully corrected rectilinear lens...with almost zero distortion. It was quite an amazing lens, dogged by poor QC from Sigma.

272
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 03:46:08 AM »
I did a photo trip to Slovenia taking only primes (plus a 16-35) and I had the heaviest kit bag and was the slowest operator on the workshop....but the results were optically better.
At the time, my kit bag was geared towards british available light weddings and not landscapes and they were REALLY heavy shlepping up the side of mountains in the icy cold.
On my return I bought a 70-200 f4 LIS and made my bag a lot lighter.
Lenses used, 16-35IIL, 24 f1.4 L, 35 f1.4 L, TS-e 45, 85 f1.2 IIL, 100L macro, 135L, 200IIf2.8L and a 2x and 1.4 x tele-converters. Most of the heavy stuff was at the long end, 85/100/135/200. Each lens is fairly light, but the combination of them was heavy. It's one of my arguments with primes vs 70-200. If you need the focal range, the zoom is actually lighter than a bag full of primes.
At the long end, the Zooms are as sharp as the primes. Especially if you consider that you'll be stopping down to maximise Depth of field.
It often makes me laugh when landscape photographers talk about comparing wide lenses at their maximum open aperture, especially viewing lens review web sites (which are usually tested wide open). When most of them will stop down to f11/16 anyhow...and most lenses perform much better at those apertures. Even quite modest kit can perform surprisingly well.

273
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 25, 2014, 03:34:40 AM »
Oh boy...another thread about a pair of random and mismatched lenses to choose between.

Ok...here's the general rule of thumb here:

1) You list them both because you want them both but can only afford one.
2) Choosing a lens based on forum popularity will only descend into inane specification comparisons, which compare features and functions which will never effect your photography but feel very important at the time of purchase
3) Look for versatility at first and add specialty when you can afford it.
4) Don't feed the trolls
5) Don't feed the fan boys
6) Don't provoke the Nikon spies
7) Remember that photography isn't a learning exercise, it's about taking photos...so many people keep buying lenses to learn and get board of a lens once they have tried it 4-5 times.
8) 99.9% of modern camera will out perform 99.9% of their users....bare that in mind when looking at lens test web sites with lots of sharpness charts
9) go with your gut feeling with kit...but beware of marketing spin at all times.

274
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 21, 2014, 07:31:20 AM »
Typically, the next generation single Digic processor has a simular processing throughput as the previous dual Digic processor. The pattern to that is roughly a 1.5x gain in throughput. Canon usually throttle a little back the processor's capacity in every camera too, so no camera maxes out the procesor, not even a 1Dx.
But the ration's still carry, so expect a Dual Digic 6 (1D series) to be roughly 1.5 times that of the Dual Digic 5 (1DX spec) and expect a single Digic 6 to be roughly equal to the throughput of the Dual Digic 5. ie, expect the 7II/5D4 to have the same thoughput capability as the 1Dx.

275
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:58:18 AM »
Was Kelby speaking at 14 wps to match his new 1D X 14 fps? By comparison, it felt like Sammons was speaking at 3 wpm.

Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for. Maybe Kelby should spend some time on the DPR Nikon forum. :)

I shoot both brands (camera and lenses) usually using both at the same location and neither reproduces color 100% accurately.

I suspect that it was a simple marketing ploy..."hey guys...I'm a famous photographer, who makes his money teaching others how to shoot stuff. I've just swapped over to Canon....becuase of erm...er...it feels like apple made it....erm...but hey...there's loads more Canon shooters than Nikon....so come and join one of my workshops and I'll show you how great it is" :D

I reminds me of a particaulr scientific author who made a lot of money with a book which saind that he belives that there is a God....then in his next book he states the opposite, creating hysteria and hype...thus selling more books....the more controvesy, the richer he gets. I wonder what his next book will say? Like wise, I wonder about this guy...give it a few years and I wouldn't be suprised if he'll be telling everyone how the Nikon D5s is the best camera ever and feels like it's hard wired into his brain for some other twaddle.....

276
My money went buying up canon stuff as people jumped to another flawed ship. :P

I like it....snap up the gems....mad fools....

've been a Canon boy since the AE-1 Program...so one could say I'm brand invested and quite happily so. When the D700 came out, I wasn't about to jump ship, but I knew it would ultimately be good for future Canon users.
I've enjoyed a pair of 5D series cameras through all three versions and the current 5DIII is probably the most versatile camera I've ever owned or used.
When the 5D came out, it was a revolution in resolution and iso cleaness. The 5DII pushed those specs, and at first I really liked the increase in MP, but I didn't like the slower post procesing, larger cards and bigger computer requiremens (space and Mhz). I'm finding the 20+ mp to be a nice groove for me. I get all the resolution I really need and then some...my lenses still out resolve my sensor and with good landscape techniqiue, I get great detail at 100% pixel size.
I have a rather nice A1+ print on my front room wall, which I took with a 10mp 40D...it holds up well and it' certainly good enough. I have another simular sized print from my 5D and I have to say...it looks great.
Do I need 35+ mp? Not really. Do I want 35+mp? Not really....I'd rather the extra two stops of low light DR than an ultra high density sensor.

277
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm or 70-200mm for full lenght portrait?
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:17:31 AM »
The lens with the least distortion. So, assuming those are the only two lenses available, then the 70-200mm. However, rummaging through my personal gear, I'd choose the 50mm macro.

All lenses have distortion...use the lens correction options in LR to fix.
Log lenses have telephoto compression, wides have the opposite...so the photo's look is dependant on the focal length. Personallly, I like the 85mm perspective, it's a mild tele with minimal compression.

278
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:14:24 AM »
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.

This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg
I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use.  Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level.  If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that :)

Lol...an uber specialist niche lens! A shift function would be cool, although I'm not sure a tile would be beneficial.
I've bought and sold fisheyes so many times over the years. I've had the Canon 15mm, the Sigma 15mm and 8mm several times...and I tended to get bored with them very quickly. Since I bought the 8-15L fisheye...I figured that It combines both types into one small and light lens body and makes it more of a two trick horse...and I'm using it sparingly but more often. It's a lens I've grown to like, although i can't imagine anyone ever buying a fisheye photo from me! So from a commercial point of view...it's a bit of a dud.
 

279
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:09:41 AM »
I believe that I have read discussions (though not a rumor) that the 45 and 90 TS would be replaced.  Or is this wishful thinking on my part?

I read on a website that the TS-E 90mm would be replaced by a TS-E 135mm but at the time it seemed like they were just pulling that FL out of their 4$$. Still no update announcement. A TS-E 90mm replacement (L-series) is the lens I most desire. The current 90mm loses IQ when shifting wide open. Unfortunately TS-E seems to be low on Canon's priorities.

I see the same thing with my TS-e 17L and TS-e 45mm. I guess it's a fact of such a large swing / shift movement. I've seen simular with the TS-e24IIL, although less pronounced. I have to confess, I've not tried the TS-e 90...it's not a lens I have a need for yet. I suspect that Canon are in no particular hurry to replace the 45 and 90, they are still selling as well as a TS-e is to be expected . A new version with have a inevitable double price hike...which will most probably kill the new sales. It's a lot of cash for a marginal increase in optical quality and the newer movement chassis. One would have a strong "need" to justify that kind of cost! 

280
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm or 70-200mm for full lenght portrait?
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:02:29 AM »
I've got a Canon 6D I'm shooting outside in the city (Urban shots)

Thanks

It all depends on how close you are to your subject. If you are reasonably close, then the 24-70 will do fine. If you are further away (ie shouting distance) then you'll probably need the 70-200. If you are not sure which one to buy...ten you probably need / want both but can only afford one.

281
Canon UK replied to my email concerning dead pixels.
'In reference to your email I understand you were received 2 EOS 700D which had a dead pixel using a long exposure. If it is the LCD screen which has a dead pixel that could indeed be the case. Allthough the lcd monitor is precise manufactured there may be a few dead pixels.

If you have imported the images onto your computer and they are showing dead pixels then the camera needs to be send in for service.

Once again, thank you for contacting Canon. We trust this information is of use to you. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact again.'

I guess the guy was not a UK rep, as his reply was a little bit awkward. But he clearly says send in the camera if I am seeing dead pixels.

I have had 4 700d bodies. All 4 have had pixel issues. My previous 1000d and 600d were fine. So my conclusion is that canon are shipping dodgy sensors or I am very unlucky.

There's quite a lattitude for sensor QA, I've had cameras with or without dead pixels over the years. It's a little bit like lenses...try before you buy. There's always a small difference between every lens and camera.
I have apair of 5DIII's and one has a few long exposure dead pixels...it's happens and it's really no biggie.

282
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2014, 06:26:08 AM »
So in sumary....Canon doesn't need to create a 1Dxs to answer the D4s...because it's still selling very very well and hasn't stopped selling since it was introduced. The D4s was introduced to address some issues why the D4 wasn't such a big success. Even though the D4 has a slightly better shadow noise control in under exposed areas, the 1Dx is a better camera overall and less glitchy / lockup / AF issues (being a comitted Canon user, that felt nice to write).
Then the next 12 pages...were mostly written by guys who think they under stood camera sensor design, those who do understand camera sensor design and those who really don't understand what on earth the last 12 pages were about....(i'm in the latter) :D

We all know a high MP sensor based camera is coming from Canon at some point...but at the moment it's not here and is vapour ware. It will satisfy a few noisy buyers, but for most pros and serious amatures, they will be far better served with the current 1DX or 5DIII cameras....go figure.
in the mean time, some of us have been out and photographed stuff....it's cold out there!

283
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 20, 2014, 06:15:14 AM »
And some from winter 2012/2013, still no snow this year  :(.

Ah, Lake Bled, one of my favorite landscape  locations...I know the steep climb needed for that first shot. I've done it several times and my legs and lungs didn't thank me. I tried it at autum and the scene didn't realy appeal to me, but I like the snow in the foreground on your image, very nice.

284
Reviews / Re: Canon 6D Review: 1+ Year Hands-On [video review]
« on: January 20, 2014, 05:37:13 AM »
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

It's a great camera. I've been using a 5DIII for sevel years and seeing simular results. I'm not a great fan of ND grads...I really don't see the point in the post digital world. They rarely can captur the correct dynamic range and some of these images illustrate my point. A 2 -3 shot merge in Photoshop with images shot at different exposures for specific parts of the scene are generally a better way to go. Using the histogram to meter for different ends of the contrast scale.

There's several highlight blow outs in some of the sky images and why is the sky darker than the land / foreground...looks like to strong grad filters too me. Nice colours, but some of the scenes look like there's false colours added from the ND grads colour casts. The scenes are nice and dramatic, but many of these would fail RPS judging (or degree level photography portfolio judging) due to the exposure issues I've just mentioned. There's bad flare in one shot and another has split boulders in the fore ground, it's important not to split any in half at the edges of the frame. These are very nice and colourfull images, i'm sure they sell well to punters. Especially to the framed print crowds, but really wouldn't impress anyone with a qualification in photography.   

285
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:27:50 AM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead.  To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.  I borrowed the 14 2.8II from Canon and I found it to be kind of blah.  The IQ is very good, but it just didn't excite me to shoot with it.  I think a zoom is much more useful at these wide focal lengths and I really loved the range of the Sigma 12-24II, but it just wasn't terribly sharp, even when used at optimal settings.

I still have a Sigma 12-24mm mkI and it's really a f11-16 lens. There's still nothing which can challenge it's angle view on full frame. Sure it's not very sharp but it's angle of view is unique. I just kind of wish that Canon would take their new hyper wide lens to the same spec but make it sharp...ie 12-24mm f4, fully rectilinear corrected (like the Sigma) and as such sits as a companion to the 16-35IIL.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 49