Messages

16

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Is this a G1X killer?

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:57:03 AM »

The G series bodies are rather large and bulky, unlike the S100 which I can wear on my belt. So I believe this guy is a competitor to the S100.

However, as much as I like the idea of large sensor small cameras (and may be buying one), I'm not sure I get the point. They'll never be as good as the DSLR, and the DLSRs will never be as small and lightweight as a pocket cam.

I love my S100 for the small file size, good enough shots, GPS, quick and easy movies, metal body and ease of use. Would I pay twice as much for twice the sensor size? Not sure.

I think you need to take a look at the images comming from the G1X because they're every bit as good as a DSLR.  In fact I hear people saying the images are better than the Nikon D700 & D3 with the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 and that's from two different sources.
Then there's the statement from Canon that their new compacts will have 'similar' image quality.
Large sensor compacts might not yet be as small as a true compact, but they're a fantastic development.  Take a look at the 'is the DSLR becomming an endagered species' thread to see what other people think, and some amazing images taken on mirrorless cameras.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becomming an endangered species?

« on: June 01, 2012, 01:06:58 PM »

Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it.  Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.

Last month Canon held a management briefing here  The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:

"we will further differentiate and enhance our lineup by launching new cameras offering the image qualities that approaches SLR cameras; furthering the improvement in design and qualities, and by incorporating features such as network, connectivity capabilities."



Now I'm sure that there will be those who view this as some kind of heresy and won't believe that this is even possible, but have a look at these images taken with the Olympus E-M5 and a Canon FD 50-300mm f/4.5L and then ask yourself seriously if a DSLR would have returned better image quality.

Falling sales of high end product will reduce profits, and put pressure on manufacturers to raise high prices even higher, but what is the real point of paying so much for something which isn't returning images significantly better than those which can be obtained for a tenth of the outlay?  Of course we know that clients expect to see a big camera, better than something they might own, and for those users, there's little choice

When you take 50,000 Photos a year for live events, weddings, studio photos, concerts, and many other things, films workflow can be a strain to manage, tag, print, copy, email, scan for clients. Digital is king for speed while I feel film is for medium or large format jobs which require the extra detail and DR.  IE: architecture & Landscapes.

The 35mm film format isnt worth the extra processing and cost for me. Its detail isnt worth it compared to just shooting digital.

Also, No one says you have to shoot with the latestest and greatest gear. A Good full-frame 5Dc and an EG-S screen can run you as low as 800$ and has AF if you'd like to use it. Thats a bargian compared to processing and drum scans to get every ounce of IQ from a slide.

Just my 2 Cents.

You do know that the Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a 16 MP digital mirrorless camera ?

18

EOS Bodies / Is the DSLR in danger of becomming an endangered species?

« on: June 01, 2012, 03:58:41 AM »

Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it.  Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.

Last month Canon held a management briefing here  The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:

"we will further differentiate and enhance our lineup by launching new cameras offering the image qualities that approaches SLR cameras; furthering the improvement in design and qualities, and by incorporating features such as network, connectivity capabilities."



Now I'm sure that there will be those who view this as some kind of heresy and won't believe that this is even possible, but have a look at these images taken with the Olympus E-M5 and a Canon FD 50-300mm f/4.5L and then ask yourself seriously if a DSLR would have returned better image quality.

Falling sales of high end product will reduce profits, and put pressure on manufacturers to raise high prices even higher, but what is the real point of paying so much for something which isn't returning images significantly better than those which can be obtained for a tenth of the outlay?  Of course we know that clients expect to see a big camera, better than something they might own, and for those users, there's little choice

19

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: May 26, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »

"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?

Want a blurred background?  Then use a prime!  2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

20

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Anyone have the g1x and are happy with when your dslr is not around?

« on: May 24, 2012, 09:54:52 AM »

Sorry but the image quality from the G1X is of commercial quality - approaching that of the 5D MkII or the Nikon D700, Whereas the S100 will not cut it as a commercial quality camera.  There's a country mile between them in terms of image quality.
True it's not a speed demon in terms of focus speeds, but it's no worse than the G12 and I believe the S100 autofocus is very similar.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Vs Regular DSLR -- Your thoughts???

« on: May 18, 2012, 11:53:38 AM »

The G1X has shown that it is possible to now make a 'compact' camera with image quality better than a crop frame DSLR and approaching that of a FF model.  Technology is advancing at such a pace that providing the lens is good then the difference between the high end and the low end is becomming very small.

So the mirrorless camera gets the G1X sensor and the Digic V and assuming a decent set of interchangeable lenses a lot of the advantages of a large DSLR are lost.  Here are the issues though:

Which client is going to accept that such a small camera can produce images are as good as a large DSLR?  There's still a lot to be said for the lights & magic show.

Full Frame is never going to be attractive in this format, not if image quality is the main goal.  The physics mean that the EF lenses are going to be needed to produce the image circle needed, and you end up with a camera like the NEX series - a tiny body with a huge great lens on the front.

But if you want to be a lot lower profile then they could be an attractive alternative.  The UK is full of scroats, now one of the most violent societies in the world - even worse than South Africa, even carrying a compact can attract unwanted attention, a DSLR is like putting up a 'ROB ME' sign.  Then there's the sheer cost of the latest high end DSLRs - many pros I know are not bothering to upgrade this time, and quite a few have said that the price of a new body would buy them a medium format system with a 39MP back, which will blow away any DSLR in terms of IQ.

So for times when there isn't a client to impress - out doing architechture or street scenes perhaps, they're never going to notice any difference in IQ because there isn't enough to see unless it's massively blown up, and people don't get quite so bent out of shape seeing a small camera pointed at them.

I realise some of this is heresey especially for gear heads, but having a pro friend with a Nikon D3 24 - 70mm f/2.8 and a G1X and hearing him confirming my feelings when he says the little camera produces better images, just says to me that the days of camera companies being able to charge stratospheric prices for kit are numbered, and that can only be a good thing for all of us.

22

Lenses / Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: April 26, 2012, 03:01:52 PM »

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

This lens is half the price of the Canon version and it has VC (IS), when the results are this good what is the point in paying twice as much for a lens which hasn't even made it to market properly yet, weighs a ton & doesn't have IS?

23

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III in camera lens aberration correction

« on: April 24, 2012, 06:29:05 AM »

Yes that can happen, but it's only when you push the lens to extremes, and with that knowledge any user should with minimal adjustment be able to work around to prevent it, and not looking for a cure in post production.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III in camera lens aberration correction

« on: April 24, 2012, 03:48:13 AM »

I just wonder what you're doing to get the 85mm f/1.8 to produce so many CAs as it's not a lens which is prone to them at all! Neither is the 50mm f/1.4 so this has to be something which you're doing wrong.

Photozone tests:

85mm) Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are basically a non-issue - this is a very rare characteristic.

50mm)  Similar to most other fix-focal lenses chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are very low and nothing to worry about.

My advice would be to work on your technique it's better to avoid problems than to try to remove them in post processing.  The lens hoods for these lenses are not supplied with them, so it might be worth buying them, and try to avoid the worst high light levels and sharp edges.

Then again the more I think about this the less sense it makes!  Taking portraits with a lens wide open and you're getting CA's?  on the face??  The background should be blurred out so the only sharp contrast possible is in the in focus areas, i.e. on the face.  I've never come across anyone getting CA's in this situation I might have suggested a faulty lens, but it's happening with both of them, are you sure that you're identifying this correctly?  There are lots of other potential issues when you open a wide aperture lens up.

25

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon FA-DC58C Filter adapter for G1X What a Rip Off !!

« on: April 19, 2012, 03:50:24 AM »

The lensmate lookie likie is now available  at $22.95 you will also need the 58mm pinch type lens cover if you want to leave it on for $5.95.  There are some die cast metal Chinese versions available on Ebay, I would suggest you avoid them as the lens barrel is plastic and will be easily damaged by the cheap casting.

26

EOS Bodies / Finding specific camera rumours

« on: April 18, 2012, 07:32:26 AM »

It used to be the case that we could search for rumours via a list on the right hand side of the home page, but now that list has gone replaced by a list of forum topics (useless I can look at those myself) so searching for the 7D replacement requires a search which then includes every single item which mentions the old 7D.  Am I missing something?  The list was good because it featured products which weren't direct replacements and many may not have heard about.

27

Lenses / Re: 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)

« on: April 16, 2012, 02:17:06 PM »

Well thoughts & advice you might not be prepared for!

Firstly a monopod is not going to give enough stability to render IS redundant.  You'll get about a one stop advantage with a monopod, a far cry from the 4 stops IS gives.

300 & 400mm are both two short for birds so you'll be needing a teleconverter for those, my suggestion is a new or recent second hand Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS lens.  Amazing image quality and takes a teleconverter very well, plus 4 stop OS system.  With a 2X you get 240 - 600mm f/5.6 or with a 1.4X 170 - 420mm f/4  This is the most flexible range of focal length possible and gives the biggest bang for your buck, the image quality is really very good so no worries there.

If money was no object then I'd buy both of the big whites - new!  However most of us live in the real world and are forced to compromise.  If I were buying new  I'd still think about the Sigma simply because of its sheer flexibility, when considering an older design I'd definitely go for the Sigma.  You really do benefit from IS / OS especially at these focal lengths and the 400mm f/2.8 is a very big & heavy lens, no IS means a tripod - always.  Both the Sigma & Canon 300mm f/2.8 lenses are heavy but not as bad as the 400mm f/2.8

Of course your main priority might be to own one of the big white lenses and showing off might be the biggest attaction of owning one of these lenses (it is for many owners).  It doesn't last though as it's just too high profile for many, and you may well consider buying a camoflague cover especially for birds!

28

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Anyone have the g1x and are happy with when your dslr is not around?

« on: April 16, 2012, 06:07:10 AM »

You'd need to define better!

In terms of image quality there's no way the 60D with a kit lens will outperform it, but it does have an issue with the closest focus distance and presumably a software focus limit into what is laughably termed 'macro'.  This happens a long way from the subject and can be very annoying when auto focus can't lock and you need to manually switch it to macro.  I assume that this is to prevent the lens hunting through its focus range and speed things up, but as things stand it's a pain.  This doesn't happen with jpeg, it's a RAW issue.

The battery life is comparatively poor with a very real 250 shot capacity, you might need a spare to carry around, start to use video and batteries are eaten with surprising speed.

Having said the minus points, it's reasonably light and compact, with good build quality.  The image quality and high Iso performance is just amazing, expecially compared to the G12 which it's not much bigger than.  There should be some more reasonably priced filter adaptors comming along soon and a set of 58mm close focus filters will  help to reduce the macro problems.

29

Lenses / Re: 24-105 f/4 & 5d3 vs 24-70 f/2.8 & 5d2

« on: April 02, 2012, 04:52:12 PM »

So now the next lens on my list is the 70-200 f/4 IS L.  I was waiting to see how the 24-105 fared before I made my decision on 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, my mind is now made up.  F/4 it is...smaller, lighter, cheaper, and bright enough for the 5d III!

Optically, it's the worst lens I own, but it's versatility means it's what's on my camera most of the time.

So you haven't got any of the Canon wide angles then? 

30

Lenses / Re: How about Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HS

« on: April 02, 2012, 04:48:56 PM »

Careful of the Sigma, it's noted for focus shift, where the focus point changes when the lens stops down.  It won't be noticed if you shoot wide open or if there's enough DoF, but if you're stopping down to say f/2 then it could be a problem.  Those people who don't report issues could be forgetting where they placed the focus point!  It all depends on how you shoot as to whether this lens will suit you, but bear in mind that the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens despite its elderly design.