October 01, 2014, 11:34:06 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 ... 49
361
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2013, 07:51:45 AM »
Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

Vonbon?


Try that for an example. Polarised just over St Michael's mount.

362
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 28, 2013, 07:16:45 AM »
I really liked the 7D, it's a fantastic camera for it's day except for the very poor quality sensor. It was noisy at low ISO's and it lacked the micro contrast and sharpness of it's full frame brothers of the similar era. Every other part of the camera was excellent. It's handling and UI were a big step forwards for Canon. Certainly better than the XXD which pre-dated it. If there wasn't a 7D then I doubt the 5DIII or 1DX would have been quite as stunning.

I'll probably get one to accompany my 5DIII's and offer me that extra reach which a 1.6x crop does so well. Pop a 400mm f2.8 on it and it's a very useful 650mm.

363
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: October 24, 2013, 03:55:47 AM »
Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

364
Kenko has better IQ & compatibility than Canon 1.4 MK2.  There is no reason to buy Canon 1.4 MK2.  However, you really should consider Canon 1.4x MK3, which has better IQ and better compatibility.

 can you site a source.  I  was  lead to believe that the mkii and mkiii are identical in image quality but where they differ is in build quality.

I used a Canon mkII 1.4x TC for quite a few years and them bought a mkIII before I sold the mkII.
So for a few months and was able to compare them side by side.
The mkIII has a slightly longer reach, I think the mkII was slightly under 1.4x and the mkIII is slightly over. The mkIII renders slightly brighter exposures for the same settings....which leads me to belive it's a bit brighter. The AF speed and tracking is slighly slower but more accurate with the mkIII over the mkII. The mkIII is slightly sharper and has slightly more constrast / colours. The mkIII frame corners are better, less vignetting and sharper. It's not a night and day experiance, but the mkIII is noticably better image quality wise.

365
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: October 23, 2013, 03:30:15 AM »
Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens  ::)
I kinda agree with you.

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame.

How hard can it be? :P It feels like we've been waiting an eternity for a real "Nikon 14-24-killer", and I do think people would pay solid money for this lens. But still nothing from Canon! .. As CR-guy recently said: "Not even a whisper".

Whay cannot Canon crack this nut? Are they just afraid to hurt the sales of the 14L and 24L?

And what makes the Nikkor lens so great? It's good at shooting lens charts and that's about it. Sharp wide open, sure...but most landscape uses stop down for DOF...and there is lettle difference between it and the 16-35IIL when stopped down. It's a royal PITA to use filters with and it's exessively large and bulky. It's heavily corrected...so it's pretty much useless of shooting people or group shots....which is 80% of professional wide lens use. For architecture, TS-e are a better choice....so I struggle to see where this lens excells...except in the minds of a few lens review sites. As a photographic tool, it doens't seem to master any one genre but detract from most. Landscapes, there are better choices. Group shots, there are far better choices. Architecture, there are far better choices....so what's it good for? Oh yes, shooting lens charts and brick walls....in the mean time a 16-35IIL is generally a far better photographic tool.

366
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 21, 2013, 04:07:28 AM »
This is a very interesting/nice development ... I really wanted Canon/Nikon to come up with a full frame DSLR coz I'd feel a lot more comfortable in investing in Nikon gear than Sony ... if Canon does not announce something similar I'll happily buy the Nikon FF mirrorless ... but if Canon announces one before the Nikon is available for purchase I'll wait for Canon ... and I don't really care if its a retro design or not as long as it is relatively small size with small prime lenses ... putting zoom lenses or bigger lenses on mirror less cameras defeats the purpose of "small form factor".

I'd really love a digital AE-1.  I don't really care much if it's mirrorless or dslr.  As long as it has the look, IQ and competitive price, it'll be one thing to consider.  :)  It's like somebody revived Elvis.   ;D
I still have an AE-1 and an A1...both great slrs for their time. But the current entry level xxxD camera is better specced and better featured than even the A1, let alone AE-1. The closest thing we've seen to an AE-1 was the original 300D. The modern comparison would be a 6D...and that's a far superior camera than anything from the 70's and 80's (even superior to the mighty T-90). Such is progress.

I'm not that fussed with hybrids / ragefinder / mirrorless cameras. They have their place in the market, but I like a true optical viewfinder which looks though the lens. It's the joy of DSLR's and a key feature. Yes it makes the camerea heavier, yes it adds bulk and yes it causes an enlarged distance from the rear of the lens to the ensor to accomodate the mirror mechanism...but it's just SO much nicer to use.

367
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 58/1.4 - $1,700!!!
« on: October 17, 2013, 04:20:10 PM »
58mm????  A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

I bet the reason is technical, just like the new $4000 Zeiss is a 55, not a 50.

Bear in mind, though, that focal length and aperture are often rounded when stated.

For instance, if you look at the patent below, the 14/2.8 is actually a 14.17mm F2.89, and the 35/1.4 is 35.50mm F1.45. And I've seen worse discrepancies. Your 50/1.4 may actually be, say, a 53/1.49... Nikon could have called the lens a 55 or a 60, maybe they just decided to be more accurate about it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii/

Yep, there's a focal length difference between the 50L and 50mm f1.4 which rarely gets noticed. The 50mm f1.4 USM is slightly longer than the 50L.

368
Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2013, 09:56:20 AM »
What reliability concerns do you have?

It broke down twice due to water/mist/dew/... getting in, when I saw the second repair estimate I decided that buying the L version is cheaper for outdoor shooting near ground level. Of course the non-L is fine if you use it indoors or very, very carefully outdoors, the iq is nearly the same and the IS doesn't make a difference near 1:1

My 100LIS macro is a little sharper than my non L was. The zoom ring on the L is a lot smoother and better geared. For macro work, this is essential. The body shell on the L is mostly magnesium / aluminium alloy, which is why it feels like plastic. It's not cool to the touch. The IS unit is great for some types of photos. When I shoot ring shots, wide open at f2.8 it's amazing. But for 1:1 stuff, a tripod is needed. The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too.

369
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 16, 2013, 09:47:46 AM »
Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" ::)

On Sigma website before it was taken down:
    Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
    Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
    Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
    Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
    Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
    Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
    Filter size: 82mm
    HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
    Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
    OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
    Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
    Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
    Mount conversion service available
    Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

You could always buy a Sigma dock and spend an hour or so fixing Sigma's poor QC for them at your expense :D

Seriously, I can't see any benefit this lens can offer a Canon user. I'm sure it's been brought out to bring a popular Canon lens formula to Nikon and Sigma mounts. For Canon users...the 24-105 f4 LIS is most likely going to be a better choice. The Canon one has been around for so long, it's very cheap for what it does!

370
in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.

This indicates the center is way better than mid-frame to edges.

dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.

... if looking at them at the camera lcd, or you're really drunk and everything gets fuzzy :-p ... no, really, for certain pictures with a lot of background blur where nr doesn't have that much of an impact Canon aps-c shots might be ok @100% crop, but iso3200 is where the small sensor really drops the ball. Face it, a aps-c with this Sigma cannot replace a ff+200-400 :-o

the review goes in to detail of center sharpness on both bodies and such. I have researched this lens pretty heavily so i am pretty sure of what its qualities are.

here are the points i am making:

1) 120-300 on a crop body will act in practice as 192-480 on full frame
2) the lens sharpness, build quality are by all accounts in real reviews to be in the same category as the canon primes
3) its a stop faster than the 200-400 the consensus is that ff is 1.5 or 2 stops better than aps-c so you have a one stop equalizer
4) if you are really concerned about the depth of field, they should be very similar wide open

from what i have seen, the canon 300ii and the 200-400 are better on ff but its close, i have read that the sigma is slightly softer than the canon 300ii but not by much.

so as i said before, i think the sigma 120-300 on a crop body is a good alternative to the 200-400 on ff unless money is not a concern and you just want the absolute best that can be had

It's not a 120-300mm, please understand that. It's a 120-280mm and that's quite short. The max focal legth is the same as a 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC. This short coming magnifies with a 1.6x crop to only 450mm not a 480mm.
At close focussing distances, this lens looses a massive amount of focal length. By my measurements is around 240mm at 3m. By MFD it's even lower and not that different to a 70-200 f2.8. So lets look at those figures at close distance, on a full frame at MFD it's a 120-240mm.
Then there's the engineering aspect, it's not particularly durable. Just look back though this thread. There's been a lot of warrenty claims for such a low volume lens. I would question it's long term resell value and durability.
9/10 I was better served using a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 1.4x TC. For the other 1/10 I was better served by other lenses (300mm f2.8 LIS mk I for instance).

371
Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it.  Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS.  Why?  Because IT'S A CANON "L"...

Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less.

That's exactly the conclusion I came to when I had one. Why pay for a lens which was short on it's focal length, darker than it's stated aperture, looses a ton of focal length at close distances, has irratic and slow AF and an OS system which is pretty clunky? It's unneccisarily heavy and very bulky. I've found my 400 2.8 LIS easier to handle for some reason.
When I compared it against my 70-200 2.8 LIS II with or with out TC's I found it a far better option. Even with the 1 stop drop with a 1.4x TC.

372
in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.

This indicates the center is way better than mid-frame to edges.

dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.

... if looking at them at the camera lcd, or you're really drunk and everything gets fuzzy :-p ... no, really, for certain pictures with a lot of background blur where nr doesn't have that much of an impact Canon aps-c shots might be ok @100% crop, but iso3200 is where the small sensor really drops the ball. Face it, a aps-c with this Sigma cannot replace a ff+200-400 :-o

I agree with you Marsu42. I would question any lens review which thinks that a 70D is anywhere near close to the IQ of a 6D between 400-3200iso....there is a lot more between those sensors and Aliasing filters than just that. My old 7D was questionable over 400 iso. The iso noise ramps steadily and I have yet found a 1.6 crop camera which come close to a full frame output and i'm not just talking about iso noise.

The problem I find with a lot of Sigma users these days is they emotionally fool themselves themselves that they are buying something identical for less..get one of those...only a lot cheaper...aren't I cleaver....when in reality they are buying something a lot less for less. A 200-400LIS on a full frame will blow away a 120-300 OS on a 70D in nearly every measurable area. The two are not equal and the reality is that the sigma doesn't come close. It is cheaper becuase it is cheaper. You get what you pay for.
It's a questionable lens, innovative - yes, but deeply flawed.   

373
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 15, 2013, 03:46:01 AM »
While interesting, a 24-70 2.8 OS would have made an even more exciting combatant.
If you think that adding an image stabiliser will make a mediocre lens greater?
The only people this lens will please are Sigma fans and kid people who buy it that they have got a cheaper equivelent of the Canon and is there fore better and that they are smart purchasers....

374
I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.
On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.

an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens regardless of whether you put it on full frame and crop out a square or on a crop body.

what i am saying is that comparing the 120-300 on a crop to the 200-400 on ff is going to be very similar in practice, standing in the same spot zoomed in they will frame about the same. without doing a shootout you can't say if the iq will be the same but i am thinking it is from what i have seen.

the 120-300 is a 2.8 so its a stop faster and will allow 1 stop lower iso in the same scene framed the same way with the same dof as the f4 lens on the ff camera

it may not be the same its hard to say without a shootout, maybe the 120-300 is better? maybe the 200-400? it would be fun to try i think the results would be closer than you think. and the thing you are gaining is $8400.00

The lens may be f2.8 but it's one part in a chain of parts. The change in camera format (full frame vs 1.62x crop) will dictate it's Iso performance, resolved detail, effective DOF and effective angle of view. A 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D is not the same as a 200-400 f4 L Is on a 1Dx....not even close. Sure it's cheaper but the image quality, IS sstem, AF speed, Weather sealing, Out of focus rendering, AF tracking and contrast will be worse. Expect a night and day experiance between them. If you are so sure, hire them all and do a comparision. I have a 400mm f2.8 L IS and I compared it against a 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D vs a 5DIII on my big 400. The Sigma lens was good but in reality it didn't come close for all the reasons I mentioned.

375
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2013, 05:58:41 AM »
Very happy if canon 7D MkII will come with a swiveling LCD!! Think a swiveling LCD will help lot in DSLR Videography!!

Not going to happen... destroys the purpose of indestructibility and weatherproofing.
If you have the swivel open and you drop the DSLR, its going to break.
Too many creases between the swivel parts that make it less waterproof.

If you like swivel screen so much stick with the 70D.

Canon have gone on record to say that they can't make a swivelling LCD screen which is robust enough to be classified as "Professional Grade". So we won't be seeing one on a 1D or 1X series.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 49