December 21, 2014, 05:20:56 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 56
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 07:48:12 AM »
My thoughts exactly.

Question is: Do thoughts (and forum posts) translate into action eventually?

Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

How big "big" is depends on the net gain/loss after buying new equipment - and I know my equipment hasn't got pristine looks because I'm outdoors a lot and horses and such are always interested in inspecting my camera up close :-)

*And* then there's the psychological factor (I'm with Canon since the mid-90s) *and* the Canon/Nikon usability differences *and* the time/hassle to actually switch (time is money). So imho the threshold is very high, that's why Canon gets away with being current Canon.

In my case yes, they translated into action :)

Yes, the interface is different, menu layout is different etc. I also had the same feelings, as for everything in life one always has doubts leaving the known for the unknown. However, I'm not a pro, so I'm not losing money while I get used to the new interface - which btw only takes about one week between reading the manual and actually figuring out the instructions practically. I seriously miss certain things from Canon, but then you see how photos look like and you just forget about everything else. I think I got the best camera/lenses in their price range with the D600, 85/1.8G and Sigma 35/1.4. I feel again like I am the limiting factor.

The fact is, as long as people keep buying Canon stuff, Canon will be encouraged to go down this way. In one sense I did a favor to myself and everyone by not buying any product from Canon's recent offering.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor
« on: March 29, 2013, 06:43:50 AM »
DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest  things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.


No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2013, 06:34:45 AM »
And at those prices i'd probably recommend the D7100 unless Canon has some sensor magic up their sleeves.

... to *new* users, but those will probably go for a sub-€1000 camera (xxxd/xxd) while the existing users will "upgrade" ...

I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs.

.. but given the market saturaration with lenses/flashes/other single-brand equipment Canon knows existing users seldom switch brands - you loose money selling gear and you have to get used to a new usability.

So how much would you pay to be able to stick to your old system? €500? €1000? That's what Canon can add on top of the camera price as seen on the 5d3 - and then there's the early adopter's fee of €200-€500. A "reasonable" price will only be achieved after about 2 years after rtm.
with the price of the updated Canon glass and the premium prices of new bodies compared to their competition, I wouldn't pay anything "stick to my old system."
In fact, I was pretty perturbed at getting screwed on both sides of the equation, both lenses and bodies. So perturbed that I switched to a D700, which is just insanely awesome at $1500 bucks, as well as the 24-70G, which is also unbelievably nice, and which i bought for 700 bucks less than the new Canon version.

My thoughts exactly. Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

I went FF with a Nikon D600 and I'm very happy. While Canon can still hold an edge in the pro segment, Nikon offers much more in the enthusiast segment. I experienced that first-hand.

However, I'm still in the market for a fast crop body for my wildlife shooting. I would be happy to buy a Canon body to pair with the 70-300 L or the 100-400 L. However, if Canon keeps going on offering less for more money, I'll switch completely to Nikon. The D7100 is a hell of a camera at a very reasonable price point; the D5200 is even better value for money, and the flip screen is nice for macro shots and a couple other things. I'm also interested in Sony: their 70-400 is a great lens and the traslucent mirror thing allows them to reach 12 fps on the a77.

If you need a good camera now, buy a D5200 or a D7100. You're hardly going to regret it. I'm planning this purchase in around 1 year from now. We'll see how the situation will look like...

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:58:07 AM »
It looks like a very nice camera. However, it doesn't really come out as the "mini 1Dx" it was supposed to be.

I agree with whoever said that, except for the 10 fps, they look more like 70D-like specs.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed
« on: March 27, 2013, 11:53:29 AM »
I'm not sure this is much of a disappointment, since as far as I understand the optical design is unchanged from the existing model. And we can be sure the new one will be significantly more expensive. Of course we have to wait and see if this is how it plays out.

I'm more annoyed the street price dropped some 20% since I bought the current version, but have no regrets as it is a good leans already.

Where did you read that it was the same optical formula?  I'm not doubting you - I just hadn't read that and was curious.

The optical formula is pretty much the same, and this is not a bad thing. Read the opinions of whoever has it, they will tell you it's prime-like.

What they did is using their new composite material for the housing (same as the 35mm), adding support for the USB dock and few customizable quirks via software like focus limiters etc.

It's fascinating how the only people defending Canon's latest releases all own either a 5D3 or a 1DX, and as such, are probably not going to buy a Rebel. If yes, only as back-back-back-back-up body.

Maybe your perspective would be a bit more accurate if that was the only Canon camera in your budget. Sure, one can switch to Nikon, but it has a cost to rebuild a lens kit, and money is the problem to begin with. Otherwise we would all buy a 5D3 and a D800E and lots of top glass and be happy ever after.

I bought a D600 and I'm building a set of lenses in F-mount. I didn't like it. Switching brand is always some sort of hassle and economic inconvenience. I could afford it and it worked very well for me, in the sense that I'm very satisfied with my purchase. But I understand that not everyone can afford to do so. This doesn't make them a bunch of childish whiners. As a matter of fact, I would hardly advise anyone to buy a 700D over a D5200.

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: March 22, 2013, 08:00:12 AM »
Hello everybody,

I think that everyone was at least once surprised with the difference of a product review (mainly lenses)
that was done by different reviewers.

So that pushed me to make this Poll, to see the users opinion and maybe the credibility of the reviewers.

Lets have some FUN  ;)

Roger at lens rental is invaluable because he has the possibility to test a bunch of lenses, thus getting more reliable data from a statistic point of view.

DXO is the best in terms of scientific approach. Photozone and lenstip are also quite good and systematic. However, one thing I don't like about lenstip is that sometimes I feel like they consider lenses more like mere pieces of glass than like instruments for taking pictures. DPReview has so insanely long and redundant reviews that make it a pain to read them through. For a subjective, non-scientific yet interesting evaluation I also like The Digital Picture.

The worst is certainly Ken Rockwell. He'll say anything people want to read.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 22, 2013, 03:44:11 AM »

Yeah, right - incredible iq from this sensor (in comparison to a mobile phone?), crisp/detailed images with a kit lens and shooting in low-light on crop (with tripod?) ... the Canon marketing guys are about to be hit by lightning.

Unlikely ... or else they would already have been struck by lightning for royally screwing up the AF on the 6D.


All the field reports I've heard of the 6D suggests that it actually has quite remarkable autofocus performance, including that it focusses better in very dim light than any other camera ever made.

Sure, it doesn't have as many points. And, yes -- of course! -- it doesn't perform as well as Canon's top-of-the-line cameras like the 1Dx and 5DIII. But it would seem to have the best autofocus of any midrange camera ever made.

If that's a royal screwup, I sure wish I could screw up that royally more often....



Lenses / Re: Best lens from my set for nightclubs?
« on: March 21, 2013, 09:31:14 AM »
24-105 @5.6 and speedlite. Many shots in the club are group shots, you can't go with shallow dof.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:21:20 AM »
All hail the Canon 553D!  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 21, 2013, 07:24:37 AM »

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia :o

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens :o

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

Not to mention the new Sigma 17-70. Add the new Nikkor 1.8 G primes, the DX primes, the very good walkarounds like 18-105 and 18-300, etc. I could add the 200-400/4 too, but that's not the point: as I said I'm not talking about the +1000-1500$ segment. If price is never a problem, Canon is indeed quite good.

I also never stated that Nikon system is perfect. I stated that Canon is failing in delivering quality at a reasonable price. I'm talking about the segment of market made of people willing to spend some good money, but below the pro-gear price range. With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers. If there is always more value in non-Canon lenses, which means one ends up buying mostly non-Canon lenses, there's very few reasons to stick with Canon cameras. On top of that, as I mentioned before, below the 3000$ price range, Nikon cameras offer more than their Canon counterparts for less money. But the same is true for the mirrorless and CSC segment, clearly dominated by Fuji, Olympus and Sony.

The bigger picture of Canon's recent releases has been: we don't care about the mid-price segment. That's what people complain about, and what's perfectly embodied by old sensor technology and stripped-down-to-the-bone bodies. Sensor shortcomings go down much easier if paired to a good set of features (like the 5D3 or 1DX) or a more affordable price. Unfortunately that's not the case.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D, DIGIC 6 & 18mp Sensors
« on: March 21, 2013, 05:27:50 AM »
I am afraid they did the same as with the 5D2/3.

Basically as many MP, basically same sensor tech, but new processor and maybe stronger AA filter to get better high-iso and video performance.
You seem to have conveniently forgot the new 63 zone dual-layer metering sensor,  new 61-point high density reticular autofocus, including up to 41 cross-type AF points and 5 dual diagonal AF points, , new in-built HDR, new dual slots for CF and SD cards (just to name a few) ... well I suppose when one does not want to accept facts it is hard to see ::)
let's see if this camera looks better than the D7100.

I've used EOS 60D & EOS 7D for over 3 years (sold them to upgrade to 5D MK III and some L glass), I currently own a Nikon D7000 ... D7000 is a camera that fills the gap between 60D and 7D i.e. a little better than 60D and not as good as 7D ... the same applies to D7100 i.e. it will fill the gap between EOS 70D & EOS 7D II

Talking about trolls... what's the point in mentioning other features when the topic is the new sensor? We're comparing this seemingly new sensor to the old one. Same amount of MP sounds a lot like marginal upgrade, that's the point in question.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 21, 2013, 04:55:31 AM »
Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."

It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.

Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options. If you disagree, the Pavlovian response of the troll patrol is to claim that the equipment doesn't matter. Criticism of Canon is simply prima facie evidence that you, sir, are a bad photographer.

Like me. I'm a bad photographer every time I take my 5D2 outdoors on a bright day. It's blown highlight city unless I mount and fiddle with ND filters, keep the horizon out of the composition, exposure compensate well to the left, or bracket and hope that nothing moves. But wanting more dynamic range, like, dare I say, Nikon's D800? That just proves I'm an incompetent whiner.

If you haven't figured it out already, Canosony, know this: there are a fair number of people on this forum who seem to think that any criticism of their chosen camera maker is tantamount to questioning their sexual endowment. You know how touchy people can be about that.

It ought to be possible to state a simple fact--such as the comparatively limited dynamic range of Canons sensors--without people immediately becoming defensive and resorting to name-calling. And it's a pity one can't. A number of knowledgeable people do bring up interesting and important issues in this forum.  But all too many CR threads (like this one) quickly degenerate into the same tired, vitriolic defense of Canon as the only true photographic religion.

I can only speak for myself, Canosony, but there are people on this forum who would make me proud to wear the scarlet T of trolldom. As proof, let me throw this additional oil on the fire. I've come to rely almost exclusively on my cell phone when I want simple candids to share with family without the bother of a lot of post-processing. And it's not because I'm oblivious to IQ in those shots. On the contrary, I use my cell phone because under artificial light its simple camera nails white balance time after time. Can we expect as much from the world's largest manufacturer of photographic equipment? Not in my experience. Under the same conditions, and no matter what white balance setting I use, my 5D2 and S95 turn people colors never seen in nature.

Of course, 90% of all photographers don't need or care about accurate white balance anyway. It's picky and churlish of me to point out this niggling shortcoming. So smite away,  guardians of the gate.

I often felt the same.
Seems like if 1DX + 24-70 L II are unrivaled in many respects, then all of Canon lineup is to be considered on the same level.

I often hear this DR thing about Nikon cameras, and that as far as everything else is concerned they are worse. Seriously?

Is the 1DX better than the D4? Probably.
Is the 5D3 better than the D800? Disputable, mostly it depends on the application. Sure the 5D3 is more expensive.
Is the 6D better than the D600? Disputable - but leaning toward most likely not. And the D600 is again cheaper.

Below that, every Nikon Camera crushes its Canon equivalent in terms of IQ (aka sensor), MP, AF, features, etc. And price. And that's not only Nikon, before I get called Nikon troll of fanboy. Even Pentax has better sensors. Olympus, Fuji and Sony are lightyears ahead in CSC and mirrorless. Panasonic and Samsung seem to get better and better too.

How about lenses? Yes, Canon has some great ones and even unique, especially in the +1500$ range. But below that? Would we like to compare mid-priced primes and zooms? Would we like to assess Canon's deficiency in providing good value for money for the enthusiasts, or just students and other hobbyst who won't/can't shell out several grands each time? Affordable Canon lenses are most often old and not comparable to competing products in the same price range. Luckily Tamron and Sigma are seeing to that, providing excellent lenses at reasonable prices.

Funniest thing I always hear is that Canon is better because of the easier UI. Apparently the average Canon user can't stand reading a manual and going through the most gentle learning curve. That's much more important than IQ, value for money, etc. Nikon... izzz... diffeekoolt... me no undestandz...

So Canon is kinda becoming like Leica: great system, but the entry fee is quite steep. Are you willing to spend 5000-10000$ for your gear? Then yes, Canon is competitive in that segment. Are you willing to spend 1000-4000$ (which is not small money, as a matter of fact)? Then Canon is the worst you can buy. Buy anything from Canon below the 5D3 and L glass (some, not even all of them are that good) and you're sure getting much less than with competing products but paying much more.

But no, it's just whining... Canon products are good enough. As Curmudgeon stated, owners of 1DX like to say that gear doesn't matter. Complaining about plain discrepancies between performance and pricing of Canon's recent releases is a symptom of poor skill and knowledge. Canon cameras are the most sold, so they must be better.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D, DIGIC 6 & 18mp Sensors
« on: March 21, 2013, 03:57:23 AM »
I am afraid they did the same as with the 5D2/3.

Basically as many MP, basically same sensor tech, but new processor and maybe stronger AA filter to get better high-iso and video performance.

Actually, I have to say I am surprised to see a Digic 6 already. Might be that Canon has better means to upgrade the processor than the sensor.

However, time will tell.

I am in the market for a crop camera to pair with a good tele. Between 6D and D600 I already chose the D600; let's see if this camera looks better than the D7100.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 56