Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern... CONTINUOUS raw recording @ 24fps on 5D3

« on: May 16, 2013, 03:37:49 AM »

Slighly not safe for work, but hilarious with regard to the ML breakthrough...

Hitler finds out about ML breakthrough!!
Hitler finds out about Magic Lantern RAW video for Canon DSLRs

 

That made me start the day with a laugh

2

Canon General / Re: Announcement: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 14, 2013, 02:27:41 AM »

MTF charts look quite impressive.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon wins big at TIPA

« on: May 13, 2013, 12:10:29 PM »

TIPA is a mystery
I have a good friend who has been a member of  the TIPA jury for many years, their have their meetings and vote for equipments they have not tried or seen .

+1

Best pro camera Leica M instead of 1DX? Disputable.

Anyway, Canon won 5 prizes. Nikon and Samsung won 4; 3 for Fuji, Sony, and Panasonic. Wouldn't quite say that Canon won big time...

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SL1 or Fuji X-EX1 or Sony Nex 6?? Would like your thoughts

« on: May 13, 2013, 08:18:38 AM »

I currently own a 60D with various EF lenses. I don't always want to lug that around and would like something lighter and smaller but still be able to get quality shots. While I know the SL1 can't be put in your pocket it can be thrown in a purse. All I would need is the body. My son has the Fuji which is fantastic but your talking 3x the price. Any thoughts? None of the stores around has the SL1 in yet so I can't really play with it.
Thanks !!!
thruthelense

That. The SL1 will not solve the problem. You get a smaller body, but the lenses are not going to get any smaller - you actually might end up with a very unbalanced body/lens combo. The 40mm pancake imho is too long for a walkaround on APS-C (64mm equivalent).

The NEX-6 + PowerZoom imho is the best solution for IQ, portability, features and price. It's a good mount with many lens options from Sigma, Zeiss etc. The RX100 is also a nice addition to a main DSLR kit.

The fuji IMHO is even a tad better, but then again you loose some choice in terms of available lenses.

Olympus and Panasonic make fine cameras in MFT format. The sensor is kinda small, but here again great selection of lenses from many manufacturers.

5

PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:32:09 AM »

So the thing Canon needed to upgrade, the lens, is no different then the S100.  The camera also looks much more slippery then my S100.  I'm guessing the sensor is the same and the only upgrade will be the digic 6 processor which will be of no help because you'll shot in raw.

Pity because if the RX200 rumours are true, it seems that Sony stepped up in the lens department:

http://photorumors.com/2013/05/05/rumors-sony-rx200-coming-in-june-with-a-built-in-pop-up-viewfinder/

6

Lenses / Re: Sigma 120-300m F2.8 DG OS HSM (S) First review

« on: May 12, 2013, 07:53:13 AM »

Nice lens, but not working well with TC is not nice...

The previous version worked far better with Sigma TCs than with other brands. It might be the case as it took the 2x TC quite well.

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:30:32 PM »

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

That's an interesting question.

The way I see it, photography is cheating. By its own definition. It's about offering a fragment of reality from a perspective that you choose, carrying a visual message that you choose. It's not different from fiction, theatre, music, dance etc. If someone expect a pic to be a faithful reproduction of reality it's his problem, because it's like watching Harry Potter and thinking that Hogwarts actually exists.

Retouching is retouching. Making a composite, IMHO, is not ethically different from smoothening someone's skin, removing blemishes, saturating colors, etc.

You are either a purist that doesn't touch his RAW files (and who would want that?), or when you start compromising and editing then the acceptable limit of that is debatable. It actually becomes a mere matter of making sensible, tasteful retouches.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 08, 2013, 09:52:42 AM »

thanks for all the input ,  yes i had it on one shot focus, i used back button focus also.

i like waht people have done with the picture, but my point wasnt really about the composition, i have many variatins of this photo examp[e, more sky, less sky, foreground people at different area of the frame etc l its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from. even when processing, im struggling with getting good punchy images. i did used to shoot raw before aswell.

i suppose my problem could be dealing with subject matter, the heat and humidity might be one fo the problems i was encountering, plus possibly poor quality Polariser. i was going for the wider landscapes this time, rather than a 'street' style were everything is closer.

Photos on snow/sand in a sunny day are tricky. Haze (especially in long shots), reflections, dark shadows, etc.

The polarizer is supposed to solve some of the issue. It might be that you didn't set in the right position.

9

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Samyang 24mm f/3.5 ED Tilt-Shift in Stock

« on: May 08, 2013, 07:00:10 AM »

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed. I was hoping it to reach the Canikon level of performance at f/5.6 maybe.

However, their 24mm (non TS) is maybe the weakest or at least the most controversial of their lineup. Hopefully they'll do a better 90/2.8 or something like that.

10

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: May 08, 2013, 06:45:06 AM »

I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

Because other manufacturers have no problem at all. Every camera and lens is just perfect, no sample variation, no manufacturing tolerances. None of that. I wonder why they keep offering AFMA on high-end models though?

And of course the possibility to have AFMA on 4 distances and for zooms at 4 extensions (i.e. 16 total parameters) is really really bad. Ridiculous that it even allows users to MA their lenses on bodies without an AFMA feature. Poor bastards with a 60D should just knock their head on Canon's manufacturing tolerances, because this is what they paid for. And for 60 bucks? Puah. When Canikon will do the same they will charge 200-300 and people will be happy then.

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

11

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2013, 10:52:38 AM »

I actually think that we are all agreeing that if the new version is much better, its price will be much higher than the current offering.

To make an analogy, for Nikon users their 300/4 is the best choice for IQ at a reasonable price. The new 80-400G is better in many ways, but the price is exhorbitant. Canon users are even better served by the current 100-400 and 400/5.6 prime. So I wonder if a new killer 100-400 at a killer price is going to be such a good deal for Canon users.

Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.

12

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2013, 10:25:25 AM »

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens??   The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper.  Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces.  Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

Great, I'm glad that I made your day. However...

• I don't see cannibalization between the 70-200 as they are differentiated in price, aperture, and IS. They go by the simple principle that you pay more for wider aperture and IS and they serve different segments of the market.
• The 70-300L and non-L are differentiated very well in price and performance.
• The 70-300L and 100-400L are differentiated by those 100mm of focal length and portability.
• The 400/5.6 has been for many a 1:1 alternative to the zoom. Similar price, similar application, better IQ at the price of less flexibility. If the new 100-400 puts it to shame, the price will reflect it and so again no cannibalization. If they can make a much better zoom, they can make an even better prime. Eventually Canon will release a new 400/5.6 and the situation will be even again.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the price of the new Nikon 80-400G is ridiculous, but Nikon can get away with that because the previous version was crappy and the upgrade is substantial. The current 100-400L is quite good and making it astonishingly better will be more difficult. If they do, the price will be such that many will wonder if the previous version was a better deal. So I don't know of what imaginary fanboyism you're talking about.

13

Lenses / Re: A review of the Samyang Tilt Shift

« on: May 01, 2013, 06:51:10 AM »

Unfortunately they tested it on the D700 - a very forth-coming sensor.

14

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2013, 06:49:02 AM »

Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.

The Sony 70-400G seems to be a great lens too.

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

15

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:45:18 PM »

Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality.

If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.

Sorry, I admit my fault.

I tried twice to explain that my point is to frame this lens in the price range of other products of similar quality, also high-lighting that it offers something different from Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Whatever and thus it's probably targeted at a different audience. You don't buy a Zeiss because there's no other good lens available in market; you buy a Zeiss because you want a Zeiss - for a number of reasons.

No way I could succeed in my purpose. Unfortunately you are tenaciously remarking that you wouldn't replace your 135L for it.