April 23, 2014, 04:14:42 PM

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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 163
1861
Lenses / Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:02:01 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

1862
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:57:53 PM »
unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L


Exactly.  It has very similar IQ.  I'm not saying it's not a great lens, it's just not $1100 better than the 1.4.  The 1.4 is sharper stopped down.  I"m not one to bank on reviews, as I have all 3 50mm lenses, but read this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I guess Bryan and I think alike?  If you want to spend $1499 on a lens that doesn't perform better at f/2.8 and narrower than a lens that costs $369, it's your money.  I happen to use the lens f/1.2 to 2 and it looks great, so that's why I have it.  But my photos at low ISO outdoors are actually better and sharper with the 1.4.

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8.  The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

1863
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 09:08:22 AM »
"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!

Sorry, I was only talking CANON lenses.

1864
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:08:39 AM »
I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG.  The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down.  It is sharp wide open.  I'm in agreement with you on this one.

1865
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:06:04 AM »
There's nothing magical about it........


........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.

Daniel, as much as I respect you as a person and a photographer (and I do) that photo proves nothing.  The 50 f/1.4 for all we know could have taken the exact same photo.  If I shoot out in daylight at low ISO on a 1Ds3 or 5D3, my photos from the two lenses are exactly the same.  There is no $1100 difference.  I'll agree with you that the 50L lens is sharper 1.2 to 2, but beyond that it isn't.  Low to mid ISO the 1.4 lens performs just as well, which is why everyone is questionning the price.  Most pros that I know prefer the 24-70L zoom lens over any of Canon's 50's.  I personally like 50mm, so I own all 3, but I'll be the first to admit the 50L was way overpriced.  I will probably keep it because I like the build quality.

1866
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:46:44 PM »
Not from me.  I have the 50 f/1.2L and will probably sell it.  It's not worth the extra money and outdoors at low ISO the 50 f/1.4 color rendition is actually slightly better, especially on my 1Ds 3.  There's nothing magical about it particularly, and side-by-side images, even wide, aren't any different to me.  Another point, stopped down narrower than f/4, both the 1.4 and 1.8 lens are sharper, which matters to me.  I've been told I'm wrong on this point yet I see it in my images, and Bryan Carnathan's charts show what I get.  The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  After that, the 1.4 matches it or does slightly better, and this is well documented in all reviews of the lenses.

If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses.

1867
I would be interested to see the 1Dmk4 added into the mix

I think we know what the outcome would be...  :-*

I agree that that would be a more relevant comparison.  Afterall, Canon stated itself that the 1DX replaces the 1Ds3 and 1D4.  When I get my 1DX, there will be a full review/comparison among the 3 cameras. 

I got a notification from B&H today about shipping and in my zeal to obtain the 1DX, it wasn't the camera that was being shipped, but rather a lens that I forgot about that was backordered :).

1868
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:24:47 PM »
I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?

Not sure I'd put 2 "much-es" in that statement.

You're ruining my bait :).  I'm waiting on a lecture of how the D800 sales blasted the 5D Mark III sales (whether true or not, I'm waiting for the lecture nonetheless).

1869
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:22:11 PM »
That and a supertele lens.

Repeats to self...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that (except maybe the 24-70/2.8 II)...I will keep saving for the 500/4 II and not buy another lens before that...

I will be there like a Catholic nun to rap your knuckles as you go to click the "Buy" button on B&H's website for the 24-70L II lens. 

1870
You are a wedding photographer. If you feel strongly about APS-H, then explain how it would be superior for your profession to the 5DIII which Canon targeted specifically to wedding photographers (among others). If you can build a compelling case as to why APS-H would give you something you can't get and need with the 5DIII, then that would add to the conversation.

An APS-H body is a great complementary body to shoot with full frame
I would much rather shoot a 16-35 f2.8L II on an APS-H body (20mm to 46mm) than the current 24-70 on full frame coupled with a full frame body and 85 f1.4 you can shoot pretty much everything
I cant wait to see the new 24-70 to see if it can make this reason for using APS-H at weddings redundant
even though sometimes i find the 24mm wide end a little tight however now I have the 20mm voigtlander pancake this can be quite easily solved for those select shots where I want to go to 20mm

IMO I would not pay someone to shoot my wedding with an APS-C camera

My 1D Mark IV is fantastic at outdoor track and field.  I can take a 300mm lens and put it on and get 390mm.  Too far?  Unscrew the camera and slap on a 5D Mark III.  It's great.

1871
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:47:52 PM »
I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?

1872
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:13:19 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

It looks like you are content with 5D2's IQ. Others like myself are not. My point is that people are showing their denial and even blaming DxO for not giving their 5D3 a good IQ score. The fact remains, IQ wise(which I personally consider the HEART of a camera), 5D3 has no improvement, thus a failure in my opinion. That is not to say that good photographers cannot take awesome shots. They have and will continue to do so.

I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of.  Photography I suppose was just all crap?

1873
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:10:36 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.

Do you own a 5D Mark II or III?  Have you ever?  Do you own a D800/E?  Have you ever?  If so, thanks for your valuable opinions.  If not, at least we know you can read reviews.

1874
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:24:22 PM »
5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ.  That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me :), my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's.  The shadows are much better.  JPEGS even better.  IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer.  Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent.  This is a subjective comparison.

1875
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:19:49 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

Pages: 1 ... 123 124 [125] 126 127 ... 163