October 24, 2014, 07:28:30 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 - heptagon

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13
61
EOS Bodies / Re: 600D vs 100D
« on: March 21, 2013, 11:43:26 AM »
Anyone have any idea how the SL1will stack up against the 5Dii / iii in low light? I'm a 5Dii owner and want to know if I can get decent high ISO out of it as a backup camera...

Probably about the same as how the 4Ti does now.

Probably the same as the T3i, T2i, 60D, 7D... all have basically the same sensor technology.

62
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 19, 2013, 06:56:40 PM »
Some think that the number of pixels defines sensor technology.  That's why we had megapixel wars, because the uneducated masses think that more is always better.

Besides pixel count there is dynamic range and color sensitivity. Higher pixel count while keeping the noise levels down is a net plus. You can always reduce pixel count in software but you cannot increase it.

True. 
 
However, MP count does not define technology, and it creates issues for many users who do not own or want to own the fastest and  latest computers.  My D800 low light images took way to long to render in LR 4 on my fairly new computer, and NR or brush actions took a almost unbearable amount of time.  I used it for a couple low light events, and processing 500 images took far too much time, so I sold it.  The 5D MK III images process very quickly. I also found that even with high end Nikon glass, I usually could not take advantage of all those pixels.  The best images were definitely better, but in the end, it wasn't worth the time to process them.
I could see a landscape photographer who took a few images and had time to process them being very happy with a high mp camera, but not the average Rebel user.
Of course, there will always be those who brag about how many MP their camera has, but only a few who can take advantage and actually get more detail.  In any event, a user will not get worse images, that's not a concern.

Well that's what I call an educated opinion - rarely found around here in the heat of the discussion.

What i'd like to see is an sensor with a pixel resolution much beyond the diffraction limit (i.e. about 16 times the megapixels we have now) which makes antialiasing filters and demosaicing virtually redundant. From this sensor we can downsample by a factor of 2 to 10 in order to get processable and sharp images without the problems at pixel-level we have today. I'm sure this will happen within 5-15 years but i'm not sure if canon or nikon are the first to introduce this technology. Maybe canon has development started on something like this because while it won't perform very well in the high-iso-regime it will surely blow minds in the low-iso-regime (ISO25).

63
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:12:56 PM »
Some think that the number of pixels defines sensor technology.  That's why we had megapixel wars, because the uneducated masses think that more is always better.

Besides pixel count there is dynamic range and color sensitivity. Higher pixel count while keeping the noise levels down is a net plus. You can always reduce pixel count in software but you cannot increase it.

64
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: March 16, 2013, 10:58:15 AM »
can a mod please check the IP´s of all these one-post-posters poping up here lately?

it kind of struck me that there are so many new users here who have nothing to tell beside how great nikon is.   ::)

i smell a troll....

It's just how awesome Nikon cameras are. Face it: There are situations (Landscape, Studio) where Canon can't compete anymore and Nikon has taken the lead. If only the lenses would be compatible or Nikon would produce a camera with EF mount...

65
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:17:17 AM »
@Radiating

There is one difference though. Bigger pixels mean MORE noise. That is because of the larger surface and volume of the pixels the thermal and readout noise will increase. Therefore if high DOF is a requirement a smaller sensor will likely be the winner considering image quality. Especially when small sensors allow back illumination with very high quantum efficiencies. Small sensors hit the diffraction limit though which will limit their resolution.

66
Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 07, 2013, 01:47:25 AM »
27.2-88 f/4.48 would be equivalent for taking identical pictures.

67
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Extenders - Kenko vs Canon 1.4's & 2.0's
« on: February 24, 2013, 02:30:53 AM »
Yes, in macro work is extenders can be useful. One thing I found handy about using an extender is that your subject is bigger in camera. Especially with TS-E lenses where it is hard to focus manually.

Most opinions I heard about the 1.4x were positive. Using the 2x-Extender under good conditions really allows to extract more detail from the subject that it would have been possible without extender. This is especially true when using current FF-cameras. Look at the second image here where the flower is a) cropped-magnified and b) photographed with an 1.4x/2x extender:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

One downside by using an extender I found is that the whole image quality degrades i.e. lower contrast, CA, distortion etc. You have to use postprocessing to achieve the quality of the naked lens.

You should also consider using a crop camera. Especially the predicted 7D-II with 24MP already provides a much higher resolution (in pixels per mm) than the full-frame-cameras. That is like a 18MP full-Frame with a 2x-Extender built in.

68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Extenders - Kenko vs Canon 1.4's & 2.0's
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:48:21 AM »
You should only consider extenders if cropping won't do it. The extender basically is an magnifying glass making the image bigger but doesn't add sharpness if the lens doesn't already have much more sharpness than the sensor.

Regarding sharpness there are very mixed reports. It seems to depend on the lens-extender combination how well it works. If you are unlucky and the manufacturing errors of both devices add up you'll get poor quality even though both alone seem ok. Canon extenders are designed to work well with the long lenses (300 and up). That's also the reason why they are so expensive. If you spend 10k on a lens 1k for the extenders won't hurt.

Focusing is slower but works well for me (canon 2x-III) with very good light. Also stopping down one stop is needed to achieve acceptable image quality (F2.8 original lens * 2 extender * 1.4 = F8).

This site has some information on and comparisons of teleconverters:
http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php

69
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 21, 2013, 10:46:42 AM »
The 200 f/2 L beats the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II easily.

EF-S lenses are sharper (lp/mm, not lp/ph) in general, so if you have a crop camera use good crop glass for maximum sharpness.

70
Lenses / Re: Canon 2X extender : Mk2 vs Mk3 on 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM
« on: February 17, 2013, 03:41:48 PM »
My experience with 70-200 L II IS and 2x III on a crop body is that you have stop down to f/8 or else the image will be too soft. Also hand-holding 400mm is hell. You need fast shutter speeds and with f/8 or f/11 you will need a lot of light. Direct sunlit subjects are best in this case.

71
I think it depends on the location where one buys the camera. Locally (Germany) the 5D III is 2750 and the kit is 3550 and the 24-105 alone is 800, so no savings here right now. At ebay usually 600-750 are paid for that lens used.

72
Thank you all for the many helpful replies.

I'm going to upgrade from a 550D to a 5DIII (6D probably wouldn't do it) and need a standard zoom. I already own the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II therefore the extra range of the 105 is not all that much important. Having a canon lens on a canon body would be worth some premium however if the Tamron seems to work well it should be OK, too. Robust build quality isn't a No. 1 concern as I don't shoot professionally. The Tamron seems to be OK for me in this regard. As I need more of a walk-around-lens than a studio lens I think that the image stabilization is important for me and f/2.8 is nice to have for lower light. For studio work with flash all three seem to be ok except for portraits where the canon 24-70 f/2.8 II shines wide open. I think I can pass on that one. (For now.)

Sample variations seem to be a big concern but that is also true for the canon lenses especially early in the production. I've read some stories where somebody tested one, then another one, then about 5 Tamron lenses in order to find one which worked as expected over the whole zoom range. But then he was satisfied. Also Canon L lenses sometimes don't work as expected and have to be sent back. I will need to consider that and buy at a store where I know that returns work well.

It's still a close call but all in all I'm leaning towards the Tamron 24-70 or a really cheap, good, used Canon 24-105 if I find an opportunity. The Canon 24-70 L II is good but I think that I couldn't put it to use enough to justify the extra money for it also the missing IS would be a disadvantage in many situations since I usually don't carry a tripod.

73
Hello dear photographers,

who has experience with at least two of the lenses Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II? I'm particularly interested in how well they perform for specific applications. Which one did you pick after comparing and why?

The Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS have about the same resolution. Do they perform similar in practice or do you prefer one over the other for some reasons. When do you actually use f/2.8?

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly is the sharpest of those lenses but it lacks IS which makes me believe that hand-held it may be impossible to obtain this resolution and the IS lens actually may win.

At 70mm f/8 all lenses look very similar:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=4&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

This makes me believe that they all are "good enough" for Studio settings when shallow DoF isn't required.


In contrast the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly loses to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm f/2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

So for shallow DoF portraits it wouldn't even be a second choice (135 prime would be the first) but still costs double of the other lenses. If you got the 24-60 L II, what was the reason to justify the extra cost?

Thanks for sharing your experience,
Heptagon

74
Lenses / Re: TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift for product photography?
« on: February 13, 2013, 03:29:50 PM »
I've been doing some food photography with the 100 macro lately, and the DOF limitations have gotten me thinking about TS-E's.  What are people's thoughts on getting the 90 versus the 45 with a 2X telecoverter?  Seems like the latter would be more versatile, but is there a big IQ tradeoff?

Huge trade off, don't do it. The 90 is a very sharp lens, the 45 not so much, with the 2x convertor the 45 becomes practically useless.

If the lens is less sharp than the camera, there's no point in using a TC, just crop it and you still have a better quality.

75
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: To buy the 6D or the 5DM3 and Which Lens
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:57:47 PM »
Heh, I have the same question right now. 

I'm undecided between Canon 24-105 L f/4 IS, Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly has the advantage of resolution wide open but it lacks IS and is much more expensive. I'm not sure if this lens is worth it and if the lack of IS isn't worse than having a little less resolution with the Tamron. But then one can compare the Tamron with the Canon 24-105. They have comparable resolution and contrast. Which of these would you take and what would you shoot with it? Do you need f/2.8 or would you use f/5.6 or higher anyways?

Also between the 6D and 5D III, clearly the 5D III has the better autofocus but if one only uses the center point that doesn't matter. Then the 6D should have slightly better image quality. But it has only one card slot, so a no-go for many professionals. I'd like to take the 5D III because I'd like to experiment with that autofocus and maybe later I can switch back or upgrade to the 6D II in a few years.

So many options, so many opinions...

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13