January 30, 2015, 04:37:52 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 5 ... 50
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Sample Images - High Res
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:04:02 AM »
As nice some of these pics look, they do not tell us a lot about the actual quality of the sensor or the IQ of its RAW output. And that is the only thing that matters (for me anyway).

As someone wrote they look like any other image from canon APS-C.
Image quality and sensor in the 7D MK2 is nothing Canon can be proud of.

Im off.

Goodbye guest...another one post wonder Nikon troll....

I switched to Nikon for Landscape work and i doens´t look as if Canon will get my money again.

If your looking for a great high MP camera don´t wait... it is here already.
It´s called D810.

Goodbye......

32
EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 04:55:24 AM »
Yep, for me to buy another 1.6x crop camera, it will need to have great low iso ability. Matching my 5DIII...if not it's a waste of a great camera casing.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:28:40 AM »
Any news on the camera's IQ performance yet?

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 08:59:32 AM »
I have a Canon 5D Mark III and I'm wondering besides the "full frame" sensor, just why would anyone spend more money on the 5dm3 and not buy the 7dm2? the 7DM2 seems like a great camera in every way...
Welcome to the forum. :) Yes, 7D Mark ii does everything equal or better than 5D Mark III, with the exception of the full frame sensor at high ISO. ::)

The original 7D was an amazing camera with a mediocre sensor...the 5DII was a mediocre camera with an amazing sensor...I'm wondering how much has changed with the 7DII.
The 5DIII's IQ is far better than just being a better chip. It's iso abilities and per pixel sharpness are in a different league to any of Canon's 1.6x cameras. Hopefully the 7DII can close some of that gap.

35
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:35:46 AM »
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?

The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem.  The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same.  Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8  in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.


That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

I'm not seeing any Bokeh or contrast issues with that pic you've posted. Shooting into the light (contre-jour) with sparkly waves regardless of the supertele will pretty much give you what you've posted.
In the image you posted, I would be more concerned with your burnt out highlights than the quality of the Bokeh.
The contrast in this image is particular high and prolly needed better post prod to pull more out of the RAW file.







Careful metering & careful post prod. Notice the quality of the bokeh is very similar and the contrast is less.
These were taken with a 5DIII, ef 400mm f2.8 LIS and with 1.4x or 2x TC's
I choose the far more heavier f2.8 version because it's IQ is a lot better than the f4 DO version (I can use a 2x TC and get amazing sharpness wide open) and I really like the extra stop...sometimes f2.8 is the only way to go!

36
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:39:01 AM »
I wish people would STOP calling this lens a telephoto. It's 100mm long with a focal length of 85mm. It's NOT a telephoto lens...ok. The Canon, Sigma and Nikon are...but this Zeiss is not.
I'm also sick of reading on "review" sites that 85mm is a semi telephoto focal length....no it isn't. A lens is either a telephoto or it isn't.
Go look up the definition on Wikipedia.

37
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:29:48 AM »
I'm more than a little confused with this new lens...it's actually heavier than the outgoing model? Surely the whole point of a DO lens is that it's uber small and light. And Canon have made a heavier versions? Whaaaaat?

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:45:34 AM »
I'm sure these are wonder optics that live up to their billing, regardless of how overblown some of the verbiage is in the marketing slicks. 

But for my money, I think I would pour my $ into a medium format system for portraits before I considered the Otus lenses.  I could do a lot more with, say, a Pentax 645Z and a couple of lenses, than by adding the Otus lenses to my lineup. 

Just my take on them. 

Doesn't mean I won't lust after this 85mm...

How much better is this lens compared to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II?  Is it worth over twice as much?  I  don't know and I am not trying to be cynical.  I would just like to hear what people say.  Thanks.

I'm not jumping ship...my 85mm f1.2 II L is a thing of photographic joy and beauty.

39
Lenses / Re: 35mm f/1.4 L to 16-35mm f/4 L
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:43:40 AM »
I regularly swap between them, I use a 16-35 for a wider view on the world. But the 35 f1.4L is my preferred "weapon of choice". I prefer the look I get from it's images than I do from the the f2.8 at the long end

40
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - Durability?
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:41:59 AM »
It's as durable as you are careful with it. If you bounce it off a concrete floor...it's going to mark and chip. But objective lenses are far more durable than people give them credit for and usually far more durable than the expensive but crappy filter people buy to protect their objective lens.

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:38:27 AM »
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.

honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.

What exactly is it that makes you an expert for the use of this lens?

Yeah...look me up numpty. Don't attack who you don't understand.

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 08, 2014, 06:33:06 AM »
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.

honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:39:27 AM »
Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII. But, as you can read in many postings on this forum, an optical system is more than just the picture sensor. The whole system has to work perfectly together to help you to get an - technically seen - good picture.

In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).
And each camera has its benefits. My daughter needs a light camera with an good image quality (like my husband does - but he owns several Nikon lenses). My son and I prefer to shoot birds, planes and animals, so we stayed with Canon).
The 5DIII is an all-in-one package. The image quality is not as good as the Sony´s and Nikon´s, but its autofocus system is superior. The D810 has an superior image quality, bit the autofocus system lacks of speed, if you shoot moving objects.

I think, each camera has its own field of application. Sometime you can not directly compare them betweeen.

I it true, that Canon should get better in resolution and dynamic range, but Nikon should hurry up to get an fast autofocus system. (This is my opinion).

By the way: My husband, who stayed at the soccer WM told me, that there were several modified cameras "in the field". With bulky housings, others with an odd combination of cameras and lenses or leneses that were not printed with their specifications). So you can be sure Canon is working on succesors of the 1Dx and 5DIII.

From my experience of handling Nikon and the newer Canon lenses...is that Canon's lenses are several generations ahead of Nikon. Nikon may make the finest resolving SLR on the planet, but their lenses are not able to match or exceed their sensor tech. Where as with Canon, their lenses are far out resolving their sensors.

44
Lenses / Re: Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:31:40 AM »
To be honest, this lens doesn't really do a lot for me. My current 16-35 f2.8 II L is 2mm less wide at the wide end but offers a more useful range (24-35mm) at the long end. So for the sake of 2mm at the wide end, I am sacrificing a very useful range at the long end. Plus it's not an f2.8 so I'm failing to see the point with this lens.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:09:38 AM »
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII :D

Shooting at base ISO and being able to process a file without having to watch awful blotches or noise would be nice


A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ?

Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)

I'm not interested in a 70D. I had a 7D for a number of years and it was good, but noise was bad over 400 iso and I didn't care for the image quality I saw from it either.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50