March 01, 2015, 02:41:54 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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 51
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:44:00 AM »
Thanks guys, your comments are appreciated!

EOS Bodies / Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:41:32 AM »
I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.

Check back around 2018. The 5DIII might drop to around $2K by then.

Yep, the 5DIII was launched at a higher price than both the 5DI and 5DII. The 5DIII is higher specced and a more up market model to either of it's previous cousins. It would have been clearer if Canon had called the 5DIII a 5Dx and the 6D a 5DIII. Indicating that the 5DIII range was split in two models.

EOS Bodies / Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:49:23 AM »
Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D

lets see a super high ISO which is workable, 15 frames a sec,  lots of good stuff..

canon blow the industry away by giving us a new world class sensor tech which will blow all full frame away.  Tuen up that tech in the ff and blow us away again...

hey a guy can wish can't he....

Sure. A guy can wish for all the stars in the heavens...and be disappointed. Just to be frank, and quite honest...if people didn't wind their hopes up so much for the absolutely unattainable, they might not be so disappointed when Canon releases something more, down to earth.

It really isn't that hard:

 1. 22-24mp APS-C
 2. 10fps
 3. Better AF system (repurpose 5D III's maybe?)

One might even get particularly hopeful, and wish for something not quite as likely, but still nevertheless more attainable than starstuff:

 4. 180nm Cu Lightpipe sensor design (we know Canon has it, they already manufacture with it for smaller sensors)

Now, I might be a little dismayed when I don't get #4, but I'll still be entirely satisfied with 1-3. Might try a little realism sometime...and end up happy and satisfied, rather than devastated when your lofty hopes are all dashed to bits.

While agree about your specs, DR and ISO noise are the two areas Canon really need to tame on the 7DII.
The current Sony sourced sensor is pulling better DR than anything from Canon and their iso noise theshold is somewhat lower at higher resolution...where as the reast of the camera body (1Dx and 5DIII) is exstreamly advanced. It's just the sensor tech is now lagging behind. That said, a carefully exposed image should negate this issue 99% of the time. 

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 Camera Information [CR1]
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:15:17 AM »
So what are you whinging about? LOL. 1D-X for action. Another 1D-type for high resolution. At least the choice is there unlike their crop space which is stuck sensor wise.

Funny how this rumour reads like Canon only releasing stuff to respond to the competition. So the sooner Nikon brings out a D300 replacement, the better for us 7DII-type camera wanters!

And there is is irony....the 1Dx was to unify the two 1D ranges...the 1DIII and 1DsIII into a single body and a single range....but the 1DX came out at the price point of the old 1Ds range....if the 1DX proves to be nothing more than a full frame 1D series...then how much will Canon charge for their 1Ds replacement? Silly money I guess.
The wheels on the bus seem to go round and round...with two top end 1D series cameras, one for speed and the other optimised for resolution. It's easy to see the same split happening with the 5D4 / 6DII cameras as well. With the 70D being such strong specs, there is only one way for the 7DII to go spec wise...upwards.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 17, 2013, 04:59:58 AM »
However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer.  If I am wrong, please help to clarify.  There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?

There were definitely AF unit issues with the 1D X. That was the primary reason for it's delay. We aren't talking about the f/8 stuff, there were apparently other AF issues that had to be delt with. As far as I understand, for the "early release" models, they were actually prototypes that were effectively loaned out to those privileged pros until the final production models were really which time the loaners had to be turned in. The 1D X released officially just a few weeks before the Olympics got rolling, IIRC, and those who had loaners and were already packed up and shipped out for the Olympics were allowed to keep those models until the Olympics were over. Similarly, there were quite a number of 200-400mm TC lenses loaned out for the Olympics as well.

Yes, I read somewhere that the 200-400 LIS lenses at the Olympics were all prototypes and needed a tweek due to a re-arrangement of the control switches, which arose due to pro comments during the Olympics. This then caused a further three month delay to the final launch date.

Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 17, 2013, 04:53:44 AM »
There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.

Erm? Why because of one lens? The 14-24mm? Their 16-35 f4 is ok, but no better than the Canon 16-35IIL.
Canon's 24-70IIL is superior in every respect to the Nikon version, the TS-e 24L is superior. The TS-e 17L is peerless and without equal. The 16-35IIL has it's issues but it's still the most versatile UW on the market.

The problem with the 14-24mm is that it can't easily take polarisers and ND filters. The front element is very prone to flare and ghosting (compared to the 16-35IIL) and it's very exposed. So while it's a sharp lens, it's not very practical or versatile. The 16-35IIL is just as sharp when stopped down (for landscape work) and very few photographers need very sharp corners at f2.8.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 04:32:01 AM »
How do you improve on the 135L?

I guess you do something like this :


The Zeiss from all accounts is an amazing lens, what we have come to expect from Zeiss, they make few poor Lenses, but.

For Canon & Nikon, this particular 135f/2, though sublime, lacks auto focus, so it's all manual, which is Ok as well, but the Canon 135L is a pretty hard act to follow considering it's maybe 98% as good as the Zeiss 135f/2, and has auto focus, on a Canon body.

I haven't actually used the Zeiss 135f/2, but I do own the Canon 135f/2, and it's pretty good.

I own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 as well as the Canon 35f/1.4 L, and both are excellent Lenses, the Sigma may have the sharper image, but the Canon has the better Bokah, it's all subjective to the individuals taste & preference, and wallet.

I think also "distant stars" original "How do you improve on the 135L" didn't need to inspire the "Canon Fan Boy" tirade that followed, this is an open forum, people are allowed to post their views, and within normal reasonable bounds, shouldn't expect to be hammered for them.

Falling off my chair in suprise here...a reasoned discussion about lens brands and choice!
Your experiance pretty much mirrors my own :D
The Canon 135 f2 L is a lovely lens, but it's a little dated in terms of modern design. If Canon imcrease the filter size to 77mm, they can easily make f1.8. They could easily add an IS unit, which would make this lens a low light performer. The min focus distance is a little long when compared to the 70-200 f2.8 II LIS and the aperture blades aren't very round (stop down to f2.8 and point at some highlights to see my point). Then there's the AF unit. It's good, but it's a little slower against the 70-200 cousins. It could benefit from the newer coatings and weather sealing...but all these thing do not detract from the superlative photos that the current version is capable of taking. It's a great lens, but could do with a few tweeks for a 2014 context.

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 16, 2013, 06:59:55 PM »
I think you have misinterpreted the figures: the test for the 400mm f/2.8 shows that it is about as good as you can get. The 400mm f/5.6 is not as sharp.

Opps...soz, I was looking at this on a mate's non calibrated laptop...the purple looked

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 16, 2013, 06:57:27 PM »
A recent pair of shota from Kimmeridge in Dorset, UK:

Durdle Door:

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hello...Anyone else from the UK?
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:32:44 AM »
Just outside of Southampton. 6D owner...debating whether to get the 16-35L II or the 24-70L II.

Both are fine lenses. When I find I'm in a quandary with two lenses in different's becuase I actually need both. So my advise is to get the 16-35IIL and then begin the next save / phase for the 24-70IIL.

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:26:37 AM »
This what the difference in MTFs of the 400 f/2.8 II at f/2.8 (top) and the 400 f/5.6 at f/5.6 (bottom) mean in practice as measured by SLRgear's blur tests.

I do question that 400mm f2.8 lens test....we all know it's a more capable lens than that, I suspect there is a flaw in their testing method for longer lenses. It's a comon issue with lens tests...the lens test of the 300mm f2.8 IS L was suggested that it was no better than a consumer zoom...and subsequantly the review got pulled, but some of us still remember it.
I have a 400 f2.8 L IS and I had until recently a 400mm f5.6 L, they are both very sharp lenses but the f2.8 is in a different league.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:24:59 AM »
Well, there's three groups at play here.
A group who have their 35L and generally very pleased with it and have been for a long time. My copy has paid for itself many times over the last 7 years of use.
Then there's a group of users who have just bought the new Siggi version. A great lens, but they like to make a big fuss over this new lens because they feel that they have a bargain...a better lens for less money. While it's true it's a fine lens, it's not up to the Canon L build standards and they are comparing a new design to one that's substantially older. The Sigma will always be a sigma and they have a reputation for mechanical failure and sloppy AF (a generalization and not pointed at this lens in particular).
Then there's a third group of guys who want a 35L but secretly want a new Canon version so that it's slightly better than the Siggi....which is totally silly when comparing the final images...
Either way, it's fun to see the drive and motivations in this thread. I'm in cat 1....but could easily tip into cat 3 once it's finally released and I get a big dose of lens envy :D 

Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:18:05 AM »
35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS  8)


Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

Really? I use my 35L day in day out for professional weddings and it's an amazing performer. Sure it could do with a warm over but it's not going to make a huge difference over the current model. Sure, better AF in lower light, newer coatings and weather sealing would be nice...but don't be fooled, it's one of the finest picture taking optics in Canon's catalogue. 

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: December 13, 2013, 02:38:18 PM »
I think (hope) we will see the 100-400 IS replacement, the 17-40 L replacement, the 14-24 2.8 L, the 24-70 2.8 IS lens, the 50 mm 1.4 replacement and the Tilt-Shift replacements.

Me too. The long rumored 100-400 replacement is a bit of a mythical unicorn....along with a 35mm f1.4 L replacement.
Personally, I'm not too fussed with a 24-70 L IS...I know some are looking forwards to it. But the mkII non IS is very very good. A 14-24L would be nice, a 12-24L would be better and not preclude the need for a 17-40 or 16-35.

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 13, 2013, 02:35:22 PM »
I'm a bit puzzled as to why your 70-200mmL f/4 IS has issues at 200mm.  It is much sharper than the 400mm.  Get it fixed, its one of the best lenses for the price.

It s pretty well known the 70-200 f4 IS perfoms poorly when at 200mm and at or close to MFD. I have it and this problem is noticable. Mine also suffers from the dredded slipping focus problem. Buyers beware to check for this issue if buying new or second hand. Sorry for going off topic. Otherwise its a very sharp lens.
I'm with Mt Spokane on this one, and "well-known" to whom?  I owned the 70-200 f4 IS and it was as sharp at 200mm as any other focal length and even with the 1.4x at 280mm, it's sharper than most other lenses.  I think you definitely need to have your lens calibrated/repaired.  Here are some results at 200mm from DxO, LensTip, and Photozone, all showing the lens to be extremely sharp.  Now back to the 400mm 5.6...

I had a 70-200 f4 LIS and I currently use a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II...and to be fair, there is so little between them. I think there is more copy variation between 70-200 lenses in general to speculate which one is generally better. Lens charts are only a rough guide and only pertain to the quality of the tester, the distance from the lens to the chart and the quantity of lens samples used in the test. Unfortunately, one or two copies usually aren't enough to formulate a reasonable expectation.

If the OP's 70-200 lens isn't performing it is either two factors at play, the lens is out of spec or the user isn't handling it right.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 51