« on: October 09, 2013, 11:42:48 PM »
Only thing I cared about in the thing was the lens. Was the venerable 150-600 L FD I saw?
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.
What could you add to the 70D to make it more video oriented?
Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder?
Faster frame rates below 1080p?
Higher resolution (4k)?
Smooth digital video zoom from full-frame to 1:1?
Quad pixel for 4-way AF sensors on every pixel?
Some sort of power zoom lens system?
A ton! No line skipping for FAR less aliasing and moire and better SNR. Focus peaking, live 10x focus box, RAW video recording, non-mangled up compressed video/HDMI out video, zebras, zoomed modes including 1:1, 4k, etc. etc.
I know it's popular if you are a still shooter to laugh off video, but seriously why not expand your creativity to new world. 5D3 ML RAW video is pretty stunning! Some things work better as video, just as some work better as stills and many work equally as well.
I, for one, am a bit tired of my bodies being "video oriented". My 5DII, 7D and 60D have not shot a second of video. I guess I'll just have to hang on to them until the pendulum swings a bit in the other direction.
4QuoteJust because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.
people romanticize the film days and wet processes like they brought some unquestionable truth to the medium. it has always been about image capture --> image processing --> image presentation. nothing has changed in the fundamentals of photography...nothing.
how it is done is far less important than how well it is done.
Great bird shots!
You can bend that piece back a couple of times and then you have to replace the barrel. It's easier to just always leave the hood on and to develop the habit of just setting the focus to past infinity when you stow the lens.
Also worth noting is that for as deep in as you dug, you're not that much further from being able to replace the focus motor and gear train assembly (it's all one part). The motor burns out and the gears can tear up.
The Ballad of Brave Sir Fifty
Bravely bold Sir Fifty rode forth from Calumet
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Fifty!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Fifty!
He was not in the least bit scared to filled with fungal growth,
Or to have his aperture fail, and his blades broken;
To have his casing split, and his motor burned away;
And his gears all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Fifty!
His threads smashed in and his barrel torn out
And his switches popped off and his ribbons unplugged
And his electronics scraped and his mount fall off
And his primary--
I'm looking for a good lens review website.
One site that I really like is DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews?sort=brand), in particular their sharpness charts (example: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/4). However, they have a very limited database, only 11 Canon lenses as of now.
I also like The Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx) and Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/), but they tend to be more on the subjective side of reviews: not a lot of numbers and charts to compare across. Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly what I'm looking for.
DxOMark (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings) has a pretty extensive database, and although some of their reviews can be very controversial here, I have no reason to believe they are not doing a proper job. However, I find most of their charts using colors instead of lines and numbers difficult to compare objectively. Also, sometimes I don't understand their testing criteria.
For instance, the 85/1.8 vs. the 100/2 on the 5DIII: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/241/%28brand%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/798/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0
The 85 is sharper (15 vs 14), has better transmission (2 vs 2.2) and less aberration (3 vs 5). The 100 has slightly less distortion (0.3% vs 0.4%) and vignetting (1.4 vs 1.6). Pretty similar numbers, I'd say. Yet, the 100 has a score of 30 while the 85 gets only 26. And I don't understand why they always seem to say that all lenses are best wide open ("Best at f=100mm & f/2", "Best at f=85mm & f/1.8")
Another example, Sigma 18-35/1.8 vs. Sigma 35/1.4 on the 7D: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/1141/%28lens2%29/1056/%28brand1%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28brand2%29/Sigma/%28camera2%29/619
The 35 has better transmission (1.6 vs 1.8 ), distortion (0.2% vs 0.3%), vignetting (0.8 vs 1.1), and aberration (5 vs 7). The 18-35 is only slightly sharper (13 vs 12), yet the 18-35 has a score of 24 and the 35 only 22. I don't understand their numbers.
Also, highly regarded lenses, like the EF-S 10-22 or the 16-35/2.8L, have some relatively poor numbers on DxOMark.
My ideal site would be like DPReview with a database the size of DxOMark :-) What do you recommend?