December 20, 2014, 11:51:46 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
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1 Announcement Q2 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 02, 2013, 05:07:44 AM »
Q2 of 2014?  Really?  Same time as the 7D MK2 is rmoured to be outed.  Yet no lens announcements  :(  Just in time for the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, so it might be worth keeing an eye out during the matches for any "new" lenses, like the 200-400 was trialled in anger at the Olympics last year....

Should hopefully bring down the 1DMK4 to a more affordable price, so that might be a viable alternative to the 7D2 if the 7D2 isn't in the shops by August 2014 so I can shoot lots of wildlife.  Fingers crossed  :)

The big white teles are announced way ahead of time and I don't think there's much left to refresh at the top end. Maybe a 800mm f5.6 mkII or a 200mm f2 mk II....but neither of those would be particularly big announcements. We're waiting for a pair of longer TS-e replacements....again not a big announcement item. Then there's the rumored 180mm macro replacement...again, another quiet lens.
The 1DX will always be a premium product, with a high cost regardless of the cost reduction. It's been out for a few years now and it's time for a cost reduction.
 

362
Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: November 02, 2013, 05:01:48 AM »
For my professional endeavors, I pretty much have all the kit I need or want.
But for personal and travel use, I'm in the need for something smaller and lighter.
A 24-105L and 70-300L / 70-200 f4 LIS is a hard combo to beat.
It's light and with a wide focal range too....ho hum.

363
Lenses / Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« on: October 29, 2013, 05:21:04 AM »
[...] the current L lens is a pretty old design [...]

The 17 year "pretty old design" is the reason why this lens is so good. With the current trend, I am afraid that the new one will be made for chart shooters and will screw the bokeh.

Not that there is no room for improvement - better coating and IS would be welcome but I am afraid that the IS may pose design restrictions which would change the character of this lens.

What a bizarre thing to say. I can't think of any of the newer mkII lenses which have worse out of focus rendering than the mk I versions. 24mm f1.4L mkII comes to mind. All of the big white tele zooms. The 70-200 f2.8 II LIS is another example, in fact it's only slightly better than the mk I.

The 135mm f2.0 L's bokeh is pretty bad when stopped down due to uneven or non-rounded aperture blades. Drop to f2.8 or f4 and see the Bokeh shape....pretty mis-shapen

364
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2013, 05:15:33 AM »
One thing that I notice is mising from the "spec list" and that no-one seems to have picked up on, which IMHO is Canon's greatest development in the past 10-20 years - the lockable Mode Dial!

Fit one of those and I'm sold!  ;)

Funny thing is that both my A1 and AE-1 program cameras have lockable mode dials. The later EOS 650 cameras has their mode dial pointing towards the photographer...so the lock aspect wasn't needed. When we went digital, Canon seemed to loose this feature....only to re-implement it back again on the 60D after a lot of complaints (ie 5 years at least). It was available as a cost upgrade on a 7D and 5DII models.

365
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 28, 2013, 05:28:15 PM »
I own both a 7D and the 5DIII. The results of the 5DIII are generally so much better, in terms of focus accuracy, color, dynamics and ISO (in RAW). The 7D is hard pressed going above 400 ISO for bird photograpy. With the 5DIII you can take photo's at 1600 ISO without problems, or even higher depending on the circumstances.

But in many cases I need or can use the extra 1.6 crop factor. So having a marriage between the 5DIII type quality, with a APS C camera, and high speed would be great. Basically a top of the line crop camera. I assume the innovative video will be the dual pixel 70D, plus other features?

I will get this the day it gets out.

That's exactly the same results as I saw with my 7D (before I sold it recently). 400 iso or lower and slightly softer / milkier images than my 5DII / III's were producing.

366
Lenses / Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« on: October 28, 2013, 08:00:50 AM »
I use my copy (135mm f2 L) quite a lot. maybe not as much as my 16-35IIL, 35mm f1.4L or my 85mm f1.2 IIL. But it is used quite often. It works really well with extenders too, adding to it's versatility.
There's certainly room for improvement, my copy is looking a bit bashed up. It could do with weather sealing, although I've not had any issues with my copy and mine's got quite wet at times.
Mine's lost a screw on the front ring. I think there's certainly a capacity to push the design to f1.8, while pushing the filter size to 77mm. There's the option of adding an IS unit to the lens, as long as it doen't degrade the stunning Image Quality which the current version offers.
One of the joys of the current 135L is that it's a convenient size and weight. It's not too obtrusive and it's quite light and easy to handle.

367
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.

368
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.

369
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?

370
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.

371
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.

372
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.

373
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.

374
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.

375
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!

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