April 23, 2014, 04:58:38 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 130
1606
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Brand Tripod Mount Ring vs 3rd Party
« on: October 09, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »
I have first hand experience with both... I borrowed the 70-200 from CPS before I bought the lens.  The lens was equipped (from CPS with the canon tripod mount ring) and I loved the lens enough to commit to buy it once I sent the lens back.  The problem was the lens, as i found out, didn't have a ring... so I bought a third party to use when I get my lens... The ring surprisingly got to me early... so early that I had the lens for a day or two left to try out both rings... The difference is big but minimal at the same time... The canon mount locks firm.... even before you tighten the set screw... The 3rd party feel loose until you tighten the screw fully, and even at that you have to tighten it a bit just to catch.  Also the difference is the canon one feels like it's a heaveir allow metal, similar to the construction of the lens itself... whereas the 3rd party, while not necessarily plastic feeling, but is considerably lighter and flimsier feeling compared to both... The 3rd party, when fully secured, is tight and secure and I'd trust it to an extent, however compared to the canon, it just is not quite the same. 

1607
Lenses / Re: super telephoto prices
« on: October 07, 2011, 02:06:27 PM »
Back in the day, the rule of thumb was to spend 2x the amount on lenses vs camera body for optimum results... while camera prices have jumped from the film to digital age, lenses hasn't made as much of a jump.  Perhaps this is just evening out the ratio and thinning the herd sort of speak..  Plus when you take in account the time, precision, skill and effort to design, create, and mass produce these glass, there must be a high element of rejects on the manufacturing side, especially on these big whites that we all love... That all takes $$ or in this case, $$$$$.  =)

1608
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 03:00:28 PM »
awinphoto makes a pretty good point here.  I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon.  after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.

the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)

Thanks... You know, I dont envy the canon lens design engineers... Not only do they have to find new ways to design these lens elements to bend light and not only meet up in unison to create a sharp image, but also get enough light lined up to create a sharp image across the entire frame, and oh yeah, consumers want a 2.8 aperture, oh and it cant be too similar to Sonys/Nikons/Carl Zeiss/etc patents... And then once it's all done, how to make it at a price point where people would want to buy it... Then again thats why they make the money they do... To invalidate "lesser" lenses such as the 17-40/16-35 especially compared to the 14-24 is just not the same, they are two separate animals, different strengths... I do think at one day sooner than later Canon will once again own not only the telephoto lineup but also the ultrawides, but until then there are options... There's TSE lenses which you can rent if need be if you need those critical shots, do pano style shots with 50% overlaps so the sweet spot of the lenses cover the entire scene you wish to cover, merge in photoshop... Quick, easy, and can make stunning photos... That's how I made many of my architecture shots...

1609
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 01:32:27 PM »
It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.

I donno man.  I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources.  And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason.  That's where those zooms step in.  Nikon understands this, in my opinion.  That's why the 14-24 exists.  Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16.  Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?

I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35  and $1000 more than the 17-40.  If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is.  I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial.  I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths... 

1610
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 05, 2011, 10:43:01 AM »
It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use. 

1611
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 50mm 1.8
« on: October 04, 2011, 05:22:40 PM »
Maybe you're just shooting in a too well lit spot too!!!

You might wanna try a faster shutter speed too, images with just be cleaner...

Faster shutters will lead to a choppy look on video... try neutral density filters... If you dont have any, try a simple polarizing filter... It knocks down 2 stops of light right there... It also can make for a more interesting scene.  Also shoot ISO 100. 

1612
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 12:27:18 PM »
If true (very hard to believe) and Canon doesn't respond, then Canon will loose all of its userbase within month.

This cracks me up. You really think that pro photographers are chomping at the bit to be able to take 7,311 x 4,874 pictures instead of 5,616 × 3,744? They will cast off all their thousands of dollars in Canon lenses and flashes and go buy the equivalent Nikon gear? Taking pictures that are 1700 pixels wider is an overwhelmingly compelling feature to a pro? I guess they feel limited artistically by the extra resolution? Get real.

I'm a pro photographer and I would look forward to a canon equivalent to this camera.... I'm too invested and shot too long with canon to switch but I on occasion shoot for backgrounds on tradeshow displays... Now I either shoot in peices and merge the photos in Photoshop to create one large photo or upsample in fractals to get the large print... less upsampling or less piecing together to get a natively suitable shot at 150DPI, the better... and no, medium format or large format digi backs aren't in mine or my clients budgets...

1613
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 11:34:40 AM »
I wonder how Nikon users will deal with the double think a camera like this will have them spouting.  For years they've been saying that 12MP is in fact better, less is more and other such- more images per GB - clients don't need or want such big files, bigger pixel sites etc etc.  A 36MP camera will suddenly turn all that on its head, and they'll be having to argue the same words that Canon FF users have been using all these years.

I was wondering the same thing

1614
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 10:59:56 AM »
I think this will be a fine camera, basically an improved D3x at a lower price.

First, there's going to be a gap at Nikon, the D700 is right now at $2600, the D800 will be $4000. I think something at $$2600-3200 wouldn't be bad to release, especially because I think many Nikon users want a new FF camera, just not with that many pixels. So either a D800, D700x that has 24-30MP with faster performance.

That means Canon has to announce a 5D Mark III and another camera, either 5Ds Mark III that could have also improved video, or perhaps a 3D/6D line to compete with Nikon's second model (not the D800).

And about file sizes - luckily it has USB 3.0 so at least at transferring it won't be so long. Editing and saving - well, that's horrible but no one is forcing you to buy the camera. SSD disks are getting cheaper (though not as cheap as most of us would want them to be), speeds are getting better and sizes are increasing.

And about lenses not resolving details - I am very confident all lenses out there, especially prime, will be able to match up to such high pixels.

What makes you think that the D800 isn't the D700 replacement at it's rough price point and the D700 will drop in price, just like when the 5d mark II came out and dropped the 5d in price?  Nikon and Canon has done that in the past such as when the D300 took over the D200 series and such... I dont think the D800 would be just a new camera in the series but a replacement for the D700...

1615
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 10:48:54 AM »
neuro, you know more about the nitty gritty but if a 5dii roughly matches a 20D crop, then a 36mp would roughly come out to a 13.7mp sensor crop?  Am i on the target... the 40D (12mp) was infamous for image quality and the 50D (15mp) was starting to break apart... perhaps this will fall in that happy medium.  Regarding the storage, I just bought a 1tb hard drive with 800 firewire connectivity for a hair over $100... I'm sure I could pick up a 2TB USB for about that price... I know it's an inconvenience, but just like how you had to organize film in the old days, you got to organize digital files.  Plus unlike film, we can delete the bad images to save space... I'd say bring it on provided image quality and ISO performance doesn't suffer...

1616
United States / Re: Tripod Collar.
« on: October 02, 2011, 08:30:42 PM »
Dont forget about the ebay option... You dont have to get a cheap knock off, see if they have the OEM goods... That's where i got my collar for my 70-200... Dont think i spent more than $30

1617
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 03:28:04 PM »
I'm all for the discovery of the truth, so lets drop the intensity of light debate (even though, all things being equal, the bigger mirror, the more light, even if the center portion that would be collected by a crop sensor may or may not be equal intensities, the extra surrounding information may or may not be enough to affect exposure and light), but lets assume that's all equal... Let's take a 40D and a 5D mark 2 (same AF system)... Assuming the AF points are pretty much in equal or equal like proportion to the frame on the 40D and 5d mark II or at least the individual AF sensor size within the frame, and since the 5D is 1.6x bigger, then that would possibly mean, at least to the layman, that assuming the AF sensor isn't necessarily bigger, but if there were lets say 20 pixels of information per each sensor size on a crop sensor, on a full frame, there would be 36 pixels, hence more information going to the sensor, which allows it to be better in low light, which is the original problem that was in question.  Any debates about this thinking?

Yes.  First, let's just clarify the difference in sensor size so there's no confusion for others.  1.6x refers to the diagonal measurement.  The FF sensor is actually 2.5 times larger in area than the APS-C sensor.

You may realize this but it's not clear from your statements and others may not know.  The AF sensor is completely separate from the image sensor (it's usually at the bottom of DSLR camera bodies) so therefore the relative size, resolution, pixel pitch, etc. between image sensors in various cameras has nothing to do with the AF sensors in all those cameras.  The AF sensors do not need to scale (in terms of size or pixel size) along with the image sensors.

I'm not really sure exactly what you mean by "more information going to the sensor" but that's not really how phase detect AF works.

I should have used some other form of measurement, but I was referring to size of each AF sensor compared from a crop camera to a full frame So in relation IF a sensor in a crop camera covered an area compard to the same sensor in a full frame, all things being equal, would be covering 1.6x more information

1618
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 02:51:21 PM »
I'm all for the discovery of the truth, so lets drop the intensity of light debate (even though, all things being equal, the bigger mirror, the more light, even if the center portion that would be collected by a crop sensor may or may not be equal intensities, the extra surrounding information may or may not be enough to affect exposure and light), but lets assume that's all equal... Let's take a 40D and a 5D mark 2 (same AF system)... Assuming the AF points are pretty much in equal or equal like proportion to the frame on the 40D and 5d mark II or at least the individual AF sensor size within the frame, and since the 5D is 1.6x bigger, then that would possibly mean, at least to the layman, that assuming the AF sensor isn't necessarily bigger, but if there were lets say 20 pixels of information per each sensor size on a crop sensor, on a full frame, there would be 36 pixels, hence more information going to the sensor, which allows it to be better in low light, which is the original problem that was in question.  Any debates about this thinking? 

1619
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 02:06:50 PM »
The focus sensor isn't smaller but the light allowed through to the mirror to the AF sensor is proportional by the diminished light.... Canon isn't going to waste money putting a full frame size mirror into a crop body when it doesn't need it.  Plus by doing so, you would see image you wouldn't be getting anyways...  When you read reviews about the 5D's viewfinder, you read adjectives such as Big, bright, pictureframe... when you do the math, it makes perfect sense...

You are missing the point completely and I won't argue it further than this: When I bounce a laser pointer off a mirror onto a wall, the brightness of the laser dot on the wall doesn't change depending on the size of the mirror I bounce it off of.

And I wont argue this matter any futher. any single point in a F5.6 exposure (with the same shutter) would be letting in 2x the light in every part of the frame than a F8 exposure... Same with the mirror. 

1620
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 12:27:13 PM »
Dont get me wrong, I have the 7D and shoot regularly with 7D... I shoot almost 90% of my shots with that great camera... but it does have it's limitations and when the new 5d's are released... can you imagine what the 7D AF with the more light input of the 5D can pump out?  When that camera comes, if it has the same AF as the 7D, i'm dumping my 7D's in favor of the 5d's...

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 130