December 18, 2014, 05:49:39 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 46
211
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:12:49 AM »
Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.

Is there any camera that can capture a real photograph by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a real photograph. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.

212
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »
And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

DoF is dependant on the 'circle of confusion' (CoC) of the sensor, which is determined by the pixel size.
Smaller pixels have smaller CoC so the DoF will be narrower - all else being equal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Phil.

That's not it. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from the same distance, you get the same DoF, but 2.5 times smaller FoV on APSC camera. If you use the same lens (same FL) to shoot a scene with both APSC and FF cameras from different distances to achieve the same framing, then you get different DoF. So, when you are using 35/1.4 on APSC the FL doesn't change, it's still 35mm, but you are using it at a longer distance than on FF, but now it is cropped, so the FoV is 56mm equivalent and that's why you are getting deeper DoF. In other words, you are cropping 56mm FoV out of 35mm FoV shot at a longer distance.

213
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:36:42 PM »
I love my primes... and I shot with a 50mm f1.8 for a year or two as my primary lens... but I'm not sure on what planet someone buys a 24 mm lens as their primary do it all lens alone.  No zooms... no other primes... no flashes.

And I realize what sites through the view finder is comparable... but if you give me as a beginner a pile of cash... I don't think I will go out and buy a 24mm prime.

There are many. X100 has 35mm equivalent lens and people love it :). EOS-M has 22mm prime lens which is 35mm equivalent too. I'm using 40STM pancake a lot and it is very close to 35mm. It is a very popular standard focal length. I agree that 24L is not the lens to begin with on crop (huge, heavy, expensive), but for "glass before body" kind of thinking it may be an option.

Quote
With that 1700 I can get a combination of the following depending on what I want to shoot:

Tokina 11-16
Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Sigma 35 art
Canon 50mm f1.4
A 100mm f2.8L is
A 135 f2L
A 70-200 f4L IS
A 430 or 580 ex speedlite...

Mix and match as much as you like... and you will have greater flexibility in your photographic efforts.  True the images will not be quite as nice as a full frame alternative.

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS
Nothing impressive for the price :). I have a friend who decided to add a FF camera, so he would have twice more camera/lens combinations with his current lens collection (L zooms mostly), but now I see that he is not using his 550D anymore. 5D3 is so much better, he says :). Now I have to convince him to shoot RAW :D.

Quote
I might be doing a disservice to the 24mm, but it isn't about the individual maximization of the images as much add having the tools to get the images... and a crop will get you there until you have the coin for full frame. 

I feel as though I missing something that needs to be said...

Also... I don't like the math of your example.

That's just one of many possible examples, like FF+85/1.8USM vs Crop+50L, or FF+135L vs Crop+85L

Quote
2650 for the 6d and the 35...
2150ish for the t2i and the 24mm...

Well, you can get a used 5D2 for as low as 1k these days. My point is that you can get a much better combo for just a few hundred $ extra.

Quote
Let's knock off 500 from the full frame option and we are looking at a 35 f2 is.. and suddenly image quality starts to even out...


214
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:29:11 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

Boil it down.  I think I understand what you are saying and then just as quickly I don't have a clue.

I'm saying that 6D+Sigma 35/1.4 (or even 35/2 IS USM) is much better than T2i+24L'II.

215
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:59:20 AM »

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

I don't think I was saying you should never upgrade your body... but with limited funds and the presumption of good light, you will be better off with a crop sensor plus s good L lenses versus a full frame and a 28-135.

Not to long ago a guy was asking if he should get a5d mkiii to pair with his 70-300... and everyone but me said Heck yes... I don't know if I'm clairvoyant, but I eventually got it out of him that his lens was a 75- 300, which is one of the worst lenses canon makes. 

So with the money, I'd rather spend 3000 on a 24-105, a t3i, a 70-200 f4L IS, and a 580 ex ii over the full frame alternative.  And with my math... I still have enough for a tokina wide angle or some nice primes...

Full frame is great... but you really should have some lenses to complement it.

As for resale value... yeah... that's the only way I can afford being in photography.

If I buy a lens for 1000, use it for 3 years and then sell it for 850, then I rented the lens for $50 per year... which in my opinion ifs well worth the effort.  But more often than not, I buy a lens for 700, and sell it for 850... so they pay me  $50 a year to keep their lens warn and in good condition.  And I'm happy to oblige.

Somehow most people think that FF is only better for low light and that it is the only advantage over APSC (or maybe they don't care about the rest), while there is actually much more than that (at least 2.5x more). Same people are most likely to support the in-camera JPG propaganda, because they don't care about the difference. If you take 5 different cameras (different brands) and get it all right in camera for shooting the same scene, you'll still get 5 different photographs. Then what? Choose the one you like best and declare all the rest a blasphemy? But do you remember that you did everything right in each camera? That makes no sense. Let's do science, not religion. 24-105L on 6D won't scream "you need something wider!".

216
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 26, 2014, 08:09:14 AM »

The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.
That's a leftover from the film era, when the body was mostly a light-tight box for your lenses and for your sensor (film), and no one caring about quality were shooting APS.

Now, an FF body will make your L lenses work better.


I still agree with the sentiment... for 2 reasons... Lenses don't depreciate quickly... so you are better off running your body into the ground (150K of actuations) because it won't really be worth that much after a few years when you try and sell it.  Point in case... the 1d iii which sold for $6K and is now selling for $1k.  Whereas... if you bought a few nice lenses, you can still get well more than 16% of their original value.

And you can put an L lens on an older body and still get fantastic results... depending on what you are shooting.  If it is landscape or portraiture, the advances in high iso performance and AF performance are minimized and you can still get some amazing images using an older XTi.  Heck... if you are still rocking the t2i, there haven't really been that many advances along the lines of the crop sensors that would warrant buying a t5i. 

When I sold my XS... it was a wash... when I sold my 60D, I lost $200 in depreciation... and when I sell my 5D mkiii, I will lose around $1000 in depreciation... which kills me.  But maybe I avoid that by just using the mkiii until it dies in 10 years.

If you can throw $10'000 on glass, but you cannot justify spending more than $500 on a body, then you are being unreasonable. APSC sensors are only using 40% of the L glass potential. Even if you only got 3 or 4 lenses and use them / love them equally, then each one will only get a quarter of your attention, while the body is used for 100% of the time. If you worry so much about the resale value, then why not buying used bodies? I'm sure about one thing - I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II instead of a Rebel with some zooms (for the same price). Yes, I'm not one of those "covering the range" people.
I think that there is a conflict between two topics - "lenses before body" and "FF vs Crop" - which shouldn't be merged. However, when they do merge we get "$10'000 of L before FF" which sounds like "marriage without sex", or "FF with only $8000 of L" which sounds like fun (and the right way to do it), or "FF before any L" which sounds like "sex before marriage" (kinda fun too :), for a hobby).

217
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 12, 2014, 03:33:38 AM »

218
Lenses / Re: More EF pancakes?
« on: February 11, 2014, 03:37:59 PM »
mMmmmm ... 20mm pancake :P sounds delicious.

219
Camera Body Gallery / Re: Anything shot with Sony A7R
« on: February 11, 2014, 12:20:16 AM »
Thank you for sharing. I envy you guys so much :). I'm a huge FF mirrorless fanboy and I was spreading this "ideology" online for years. However, now, when it is actually happening, I cannot join the club due to financial difficulties :(. I may have to tier down from 6D to something more humble, soon :). So, please, keep them coming.

220
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: February 10, 2014, 11:58:15 PM »

IMG_1941 by ecka84, on Flickr
Very nice capture. Colors, composition, DOF, bokeh ... the lot :)

Thanks :)

221
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 07:42:37 PM »
Relax :). It may cost even less than 35Art, like $799.
35Art MSRP:$1,400.00 - Price:$899.00
50Art MSRP:$1,300.00 - Price:$799.00
...makes sense?

222
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: February 04, 2014, 04:37:19 AM »

IMG_1941 by ecka84, on Flickr

223
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: January 08, 2014, 12:29:35 PM »
6D + EF 40mm f/2.8 STM  ISO-12800


IMG_3625 by ecka84, on Flickr

224
The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

Just because you don't personally use or like a lens doesn't make it "gimmicky". 

The original 50/1.0 lens, which you call "horrible", was almost unique in its time and still makes beautiful photos at f/1.0:  http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263

The 50/2.5 macro is for any purpose you want to use it, not just macro.  It's cheap and sharp, though it has the old buzzy AF motor.  Cheap + sharp + 1:2 macro = a good combination.

The 40/2.8 is a wonderful pancake lens and is a cheap way of shrinking your big dslr and still having really sharp photos.  Brilliant and a joy to use.  Cheap + sharp + very small = a good combination

You're right, the 50/1.8 is "just" a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes.  But wait, that's a good thing.  What's wrong with that?  That actually makes some people very happy.

The "horrible" 50/1.2L which you compare to a plastic Lensbaby has been used for a tremendous amount of professional work.  It is good enough for David Burnett, Sebastiao Salgado and Mario Sorrenti, but not good enough for you?  And this guy seems to make decent photos with it:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/ ... not bad for using what you say is "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period."

As for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 having more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released prior to 2013 ... not exactly.  That would easily have been the Leica 50/1.4 Summiluxhttp://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In the Lensrentals "Great 50mm Shootout", you'll note that both Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L scored higher in resolution than any of the 50's from Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.  That's pretty good for lenses you consider gimmicky or not good.  Leica scored higher, but Leica is in a much higher price category.

Moreover, just looking at lens in EF-mount, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 clearly beats the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.

... which is a $1200 manual focus f/2 macro lens. Lensrentals clearly shows that Nikkor 50/1.4 beats all of it's price category rivals and Sigma is the sharpest in the center, while the good old plastic-fantastic 50/1.8II would put all them to shame, for the price that is :).
I'm not a pixel-peeper, but I do prefer sharp-cropping over soft-zooming. Any decent lens can produce perfectly good and sharp snapshots. Actually, you don't need a DSLR for that (or anything with a big sensor, you can make bokeh in photoshop these days :) ). 50L is not my dream fifty, nor is the 50/1.4USM. If the new Sigma 50/1.4 is anything like their 35Art, then I'm getting one, but for now - nothing beats my 40.

225
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: January 07, 2014, 05:56:39 PM »
6D + Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro
crazy crop, 1/9 of the frame (~450mm equivalent)
I guess the lack of AA filter works for me ;)


IMG_3300 by ecka84, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 46