September 30, 2014, 07:08:17 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
... for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially :). ...

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford ;).

+1.44, which is essential the FF equivalent to +0.9  ;)

For shooting crop events with crop bodies, such as the 7D or 7D2, the 17-55 2.8 is tough to beat (unless you go with primes).  But, there's no question that a FF body with the 24-105L edges it out with better low light performance, longer reach, and slightly smaller DOF.  This is exactly why I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 to the 5D3/24-105L.  The OP will essentially enjoy his new 5D3/24-70 2.8II.  :)

Yes, that's the essence of the APS-C conspiracy :).
I think Sigma 18-35/1.8ART beats 17-55/2.8 easily.

2
Canon General / Re: How Soon We Forget!
« on: Today at 03:41:06 AM »
Well, after playing with some A7S 12mp RAW files, I've concluded that it's lacking resolution, just a bit. For today's highres displays (like 4K) 16mp would have been much better :).

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:18:30 PM »
If you don't intend to upgrade to full frame within the foreseeable future then I'd recommend getting the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 as your workhorse lens for weddings and events.  From my experience, Canon lenses tend to have a better resale value in the long run so if you do plan to transition to full frame you'll likely get more from the resale value compared to the Sigma.

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS v2 is a fantastic lens, but it's very heavy and I rarely use it on my 60D because of the crop factor when I shoot indoor events or weddings.  Instead, I use it on my 5Dmk3.  However, if you're shooting sports then the crop factor could be a benefit for the added reach.

+0.9 :)

IMHO, Sigma 18-35/1.8ART is the best choice for crop at the moment. Without any BUT's or alternatives :)

One of biggest problems with the 7D is that there are no good L zoom lenses for general purpose shooting. There is nothing equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L with high build quality and weather sealing.

Technically true.  There isn't an L-glass equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L for crop bodies.  But, the 17-55 f2.8 is essentially L-glass without the weather sealing.  True, the build quality of the 24-70 and the 24-105 feels better, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 17-55 f2.8.  Put a good clear filter and you'll "seal" it from dust.

Well, essentially, 24-105L costs as much as 17-55/2.8, but on FF it is better in every way + 7D2 costs near as much as 6D (which, IMHO, is much better than APS-C), so, for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially :). EF 24-70/2.8L'II is much more expensive than Sigma 18-35/1.8ART and its range is pretty awkward on APS-C, but on FF it is wider, longer and better (IQ, build, L) than Sigma 18-35/1.8ART on crop, so it may be worth it.

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford ;).

4
More pixels on the bird. That is what I get with crop camera. Pixel density. If I were shooting stuffed birds I would use full frame and the 180 mm macro lens. In real life, it is hard to get enough pixels on the bird.

Hmm, at these prices it is cheaper to buy the bird :)).

6
Thanks privatebydesign - I was actually effectively eliminating reach by pairing the 7DII with a 1.4x (rather than a 2x on the 5DIII) though this would still give me 70mm more on the 7D. In this instance is it possible IQ may be comparable between 5DIII+300II+2xIII vs 7DII+300II+1.4xIII?

That's an interesting question. There was a similar debate ("FF vs crop", maybe 4 or 5 years ago, can't remember the source right now) in which some people demonstrated 5D2+1.4x+tele.lens being as good or better than 7D+tele.lens.

7
I hope I'm not high jacking this thread ... It's gone way too scientific for me to comprehend fully despite trawling tHrough the posts.

Would it be a reasonable conclusion to draw that at low ISO (100-400), the difference between the APS-C and the FF is negligible, thereby meaning that the reach benefit could be satisfactorily obtained at the low ISOs?

There is always a difference. It may only be negligible for those who don't care.

Thanks. What differences would be obvious and what would be the ones you would look for? Again, I'm talking only of low ISO.

Sharpness, contrast, aberrations.

Hmm ... so basically sharpness and contrast are the obvious ones and the aberrations would be the one you would look for. Thanks for this.

To my mind sharpness has been relative, depending more on the available light and the focusing. Why the FF should be sharper is something I've not really understood.

BTW, wouldn't the aberrations be caused by the lens instead of the camera body?

(Hint) Diffraction-limited optics = FF sharper, either because the pixels are larger or there is more of them.
Aberrations are caused by the lens. If a lens is producing (let's say) 3 pixel wide aberration on 20mp FF sensor, then the same lens will produce 5 pixels wide aberration on 20mp APS-C sensor just because those pixels are 1.6x smaller and denser. Simple math here.
Hi,
   IMHO, it's not a straight forward answer... yes, a crop sensor will "amplify" the lens aberrations, but if you are using a FF lens on a crop sensor especially a good FF lens, you might get better IQ as the lens usually perform better at the center area... Look at any MTF lens and you'll see a lot of lens start to degrade after the 15mm mark, but a crop sensor user can basically ignore anything after the 10mm on the MTF chart.

   Have a nice day.

No, not really. Imagine that you have ~50mp FF sensor and ~20mp APS-C sensor. Both would produce the same level of IQ, only FF gives you 2.5 times more of it + you can crop it to get exactly same thing. Using smaller sensor for a lens with soft corners is a lousy excuse. Theoretically, we can take each lens element and cut it down to APS-C image circle requirements and it wouldn't be the perfect formula. It would have unnecessarily thick glass. The secret lies in proportions. You can visualize the FF lens image quality as a 3D graph in a shape of a cone. Now if you cut it down to an APS-C size, you still get a cone. This way you may get rid of the problematic corners, but the sharpest part of it (the middle) won't be as sharp as FF. It's a compromise and a big one.

8
I hope I'm not high jacking this thread ... It's gone way too scientific for me to comprehend fully despite trawling tHrough the posts.

Would it be a reasonable conclusion to draw that at low ISO (100-400), the difference between the APS-C and the FF is negligible, thereby meaning that the reach benefit could be satisfactorily obtained at the low ISOs?

There is always a difference. It may only be negligible for those who don't care.

Thanks. What differences would be obvious and what would be the ones you would look for? Again, I'm talking only of low ISO.

Sharpness, contrast, aberrations.

Hmm ... so basically sharpness and contrast are the obvious ones and the aberrations would be the one you would look for. Thanks for this.

To my mind sharpness has been relative, depending more on the available light and the focusing. Why the FF should be sharper is something I've not really understood.

BTW, wouldn't the aberrations be caused by the lens instead of the camera body?

(Hint) Diffraction-limited optics = FF sharper, either because the pixels are larger or there is more of them.
Aberrations are caused by the lens. If a lens is producing (let's say) 3 pixel wide aberration on 20mp FF sensor, then the same lens will produce 5 pixels wide aberration on 20mp APS-C sensor just because those pixels are 1.6x smaller and denser. Simple math here.

9
I hope I'm not high jacking this thread ... It's gone way too scientific for me to comprehend fully despite trawling tHrough the posts.

Would it be a reasonable conclusion to draw that at low ISO (100-400), the difference between the APS-C and the FF is negligible, thereby meaning that the reach benefit could be satisfactorily obtained at the low ISOs?

There is always a difference. It may only be negligible for those who don't care.

Thanks. What differences would be obvious and what would be the ones you would look for? Again, I'm talking only of low ISO.

Sharpness, contrast, aberrations.

10
I hope I'm not high jacking this thread ... It's gone way too scientific for me to comprehend fully despite trawling tHrough the posts.

Would it be a reasonable conclusion to draw that at low ISO (100-400), the difference between the APS-C and the FF is negligible, thereby meaning that the reach benefit could be satisfactorily obtained at the low ISOs?

There is always a difference. It may only be negligible for those who don't care.

11
Thanks ecka for your reply. I must admit I don't really get it. What I don't understand is that a given lens produces an in focus image circle and either a crop or FF sensor is "placed" in that circle, albeit with different numbers/size of pixels and the 2 images are very different. The fact that the 2 sensors are a different size appears irrelevant. The FF will cover more of the image circle than the crop sensor.

Can anyone give me a structured/scientific explanation as to what's happening please... thanks...

If you can't understand a simple explanation, what makes you think that you will understand the scientific one? Or then you'll just take it on faith, because some book knows better? I'm sorry, I don't get your logic :).

First, you must understand how optics work, I mean physics. Every optical system is diffraction-limited (which means there is a limited maximum resolution it is able to project) and you can't just put whatever number of pixels you want (or imagine) and still get a perfectly sharp image. Sensor size is very relevant. Read a book ;).

12
Can anyone tell me why the same lens on a crop vs FF body show different sharpness as measured by DXO and seen on the-digital-picture lens quality tool... thanks..?

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D__619

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Because on crop you are using only 40% of the glass to get the same picture, which leads to lower sharpness and contrast as well as stronger aberrations (because you are putting more pixels there).

14
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:29:55 PM »
Guys, if you were recommend one CF model for the 7Dii, what would it be?
It depends on what you shoot, but the I'd go for at least 32GB and probably 64GB and the latest 1066x / 1067x cards from Sandisk or Lexar.  They aren't cheap, but will last you for many years.  Also, Adorama runs really good sales on the Lexar cards pretty frequently.  The 1000x cards are a good compromise if you don't want to spend so much, but make sure you don't fall for the 800x cards.  They are a lot cheaper, but they only read a 800x, and write far slower.  It's great to download, but lousy for burst shooting.

I don't know, maybe UDMA6 or UDMA7 (133+MB/s) card makes a lot of sense for large amounts of data transfer through USB3 reader, but I think that anything with ~60+MB/s is fine. Sandisk, Lexar, Kingston, Transcend... doesn't really matter. I would go for better price.

15
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:12:49 PM »
I prefer CF.
Both formats can be fast enough and 7D's big memory buffer makes it even more irrelevant for most users. However, CF cards tend to work faster, even when compared to higher rated SD cards. That depends on your camera as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkRiIbxNzwQ
SD cards are cheaper, because they are more popular and have wider field of use (because they are smaller, simpler, use less power and because they became cheap). They are not really better in speed or data safety. CF cards (even dual slots) are used in professional gear for a reason. Just don't buy cheap counterfeit pin-benders.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44