April 16, 2014, 08:24:02 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 6 ... 35
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:53:50 AM »
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release.  The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.

Is Coma performance particularly important for landscapes? Wide open, how about at f11?

Canon General / Re: Gear envy
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:51:15 AM »
Not a single 24-70 - that's surprising.
On Canon's CPS blog, one of the photographers said that they shipped this gear by boat to Russia and so the photographers were asked to give them whatever gear they could do without during the long transit period. I'm guessing most of them held onto their 24-70s and other core lenses.

At the Olympics there's not much call for a medium range lens. Most of the photographic content occurs at the very long or very wide end of the focal range. A 24-70 isn't very wide and it's certainly not very long.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2014, 01:13:38 PM »
It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event.

A lens is different. I would not mind testing a new lens on my favourite top of the range body.

But if I was at either of those two events mentioned (Sochi and Brazil), I would want the 1D X and only the 1D X (in multiples).

Not really, I'm guessing they would be using it initially alongside other cameras (1Dx) and will start using it during the early heats to get accustomed to it. I seriously anyone would be using one for the finals or portfolio work.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 29, 2014, 03:58:50 PM »
But a camera isn't judged by IQ alone...it's just one feature. The 5DIII is a very rounded camera and probably the most versatile currently available. But there's a die hard group who only want the very top tier IQ, with the rest of the camera lacking...ie 5D / 5DII. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 29, 2014, 10:45:15 AM »
Yepp. I think the Nikon D4s is no catch for the 1Dx, it's just closing the gap. It's just newer, so what? The D3s beats the "newer" D4 in a lot of situations...

For Canon I don't think its nearly as important to have the latest greatest camera in this section of the market, even if the new Nikon were slightly better I think they would be happy to leave it another year or two until the more natural end of the 1DX lifecycle to update.

Good point, Canon has the luxury of approaching it from a position of strength.  Either way though, (based on previous product cycle durations)...I see a 2015 development, or even very likely a replacement announcement for the 1DX, with units being widely available to everyone by spring or summer 2016, if not before.  I'd be more surprised if units are actually on sale before the end of 2015.  That might mean a development announcement (or even a reliable rumor of one)...this year in 2014.

The Rio summer Olympics, will surely not come before a 1DX replacement is not only set in concrete, but in full production. 

It need not have vastly more MP...anywhere from 20 to 26 (or perhaps slightly more if they would just bite their lip and include some in-camera sensor crop modes...for instance a 1.2x crop would be ideal...such as Nikon has done for going on a decade now).

The real and more pressing question for Canon, is when will the 5D4 be available?  2014 or 2015?  I would be surprised if it's before 2015, but it would speak well for Canon if that happened.  It would mean they are really focused on not only testing new technology, but perfecting it more quickly than they have been doing the past 5 years or so...at least in my opinion!
I don't get your remark about the 5D. It hasn't been around even two years and still has no real competition in the market.

Was thinking the same thing Re:5d4.  The 5d series seems to be following a similar upgrade path as the 1 series - so, if history repeats we'll see a spec list for the 1dx, followed by silence, followed by spec sheet for a 5d4 in late 2015, then the 5d4 will hit the shelves in the spring of 2016..if we see it in 2015 it will be at the tail end of 2015..

I for one would rather them wait till 2016 - if that means totally new sensor, new digic, better DR...more MP's aren't what I NEED, but, I wouldn't say no to that as long as more MP's don't gimp any of the current features and capabilities of the 5d3. 

either way, this is where I like that canon can do what they are doing from a strength position - they can hold steady, make the 5d4 and 1dx2 what it needs to be, not a rushed product that amazes on one end but falls short on many others...

The 1DX was "introduced" before the 5D3, so I suppose a 1DX replacement might get released before a 5D4.  However, the 5D3 was delayed a bit longer than it should have been...likely because it got essentially the same AF sensor as the 1DX (but they wanted the 1DX to have it first...also there was the earthquake and nuclear meltdown...). 

Remember the 5D2 came out in 2008, where the 1D4 came out a year later, late 2009...yet got replaced by the 1DX first.  The first 5D was released in 2005, was it not?  That was a 3 year replacement cycle...

In my speculation, I feel that a 5D4 will not be getting some ground breaking AF sensor inherited from a 1DX2 (and thus might not need to be released afterward), so I was assuming a 5D3 replacement might happen before a 1DX replacement.

Anything is possible...it just seems to me the 5D3 might get replaced first this time...especially if Canon actually do introduce a new 1 series body soon, such as 2014.

The 1Dx doesn't need replacing yet. It's still as fresh as the day it was anounced. The 5DIII is in the same situation really, it has no direct rival. I think that Canon could easily build a high mega pixel camera around a 5DIII body and call it something like a 5Dx and I'm sure it'll sell and sell. There really is no need in putting this sensor into a 1D series camera body.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 28, 2014, 06:46:04 AM »
If they released this, it would be the ultimate landscape zoom assuming the optics are good...

A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8...

Hope this one comes out!  Given Canon's current lineup, it makes more sense than a 14-24 f/2.8.

Why does everyone assume a wide angle is perfect for landscape?

FWIW, I've watched professionals use the 16-35 when shooting models...

Because land is bigger than models...........

11mm might be a bit wide for most fashion work..
24~28mm works great..

If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens?  I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.

"A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8..."

what about the 14mmm prime???? Wider than the 16-35, less distortion, better IQ than the 8-15mm...it's a lens on my list to check out for sure!!!!

I find it very amusing to hear that the 14mm has less distortion...on a wide lens there is no such thing. A fish eye has no distortion...if you shoot a circulr object to the edge of the frame....it stays circular, but straight lines become curved. With a rectilinear corrected wide lens, stright lines remain straight but circles to the edge of the frame become distorted and heavily egg shaped....so no good for portraits or group shots.
Various wide lenses correct straight lines to various degrees. But there is always distortion present depending on the subject's shape and where it is in the frame.
The 16-35IIL walks an interesting path half way between fully corrected rectilinear and uncorrected (fish eye type of distortion). This allows a medium degree of correction, which can be pushed further in Post Production very easily. A fully corrected recilinear lens is quite rare and not particularly versatile...a 14mm and Sigma 12-24mm comes to mind. They pretty much become architecture and landscape lenses and not great outside of those genres. Where as a 16-35IIL is far more versatile and less extream correction. At the other end of the scale is a 8-15mm L fish eye zoom which is completely uncorrected and not very versatile either.
I don't see that a 12-24 /11-24 / 14L / 14-24mm lens as a replacement to a 16-35IIL. No it compliments but doesn't replace. I have never found a single ultra wide lens which "does it all". I currently have four and I can't see that this will ever change. Sigma 12-24mm, TS-e 17L, 16-35IIL and 8-15L fisheye. Guess which one gets used the most and offeres me the best display of portfolio grade photographs?
If this new Canon does get released....I'll be swapping out my Sigma for it, but keeping the other three lenses.
If I look at my lens arsenal, I have a lot of lenses which cover the 24-35mm range. Not all lenses perform the same with the same look for their focal lengths

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:06:19 PM »
Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

Remember to get the tripod collar for it too, the Canon one. The Chinese ones fall apart quickly. Cost in a 1.4x TC too, it's great on this lens.
I prefer the 16-35IIL, it's got an extra stop, it's slightly wider, it flares slightly less in sunrise / sunsets and the sun star is far nicer.

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:02:49 PM »
Thank you all again for your comments :)

GMCPhotographics and Rienzphotoz, because of your comments I am still strongly considering the Tamron 24-70. So thank you!

Hey, your welcome and show me your photos when your done!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 35