December 22, 2014, 09:23:55 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 47
226
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

227
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.

228
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

229
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon abandoned EOS M?
« on: January 04, 2014, 05:39:17 PM »
Sonyalpharumors.com has recently posted a link to the top-selling mirrorless and DSLR cameras in Japan http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/2013-sales-sony-nex-5r-is-the-most-sold-mirrorless-camera-in-japan/

According to this link, Canon EOS-M is the second top-selling mirrorless camera in Japan. I know it's not worldwide but anyway, it seems that Japanese like it.

Another interesting thing is that EOS Kiss X5 (T3i) is the top-selling DSLR in Japan.

DSLR percentages:
Canon share: 48.7%
Nikon share: 41.5%
Ricoh share: 3.4%
Sony share: 1.7%

Mirrorless percentages:
Olympus: 25.4%
Sony: 23.1%
Panasonic: 11.5%
Canon: 9.2%
Ricoh: 7.8%
Nikon: 5.7%

Canon's single EOS M body gets 9.2%, while Panasonic's 10 (ish) bodies are getting only 11.5%? :D

230
Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: December 09, 2013, 10:13:19 AM »
I'm not sure if I would prefer EF-M dedicated Samyang 10/2.8 over the normal one (with EF mount) + adapter.
...

Since I already have the adapter I think I'd go for the EF mount after checking the specs on the 16f2, http://www.syopt.co.kr/common/pdf/f=16mm.pdf.  The EF mount is 585g and a length of 89.4mm while the EF-M mount is 615g and a length of 115.4mm.   You don't get a smaller form factor for the M, you just get a built in adapter.  The EF-M mount is about 75g lighter than the combo if that makes a difference.  I assume the 10F2.8 would be a similar story.

The 300mm is a more compact design at only 320g and 73.7mm on the M, http://www.syopt.co.kr/common/pdf/f=300mm.pdf.  It doesn't have an EF equivalent.  Maybe there will be other lenses like this in the future targeted for the smaller form factor bodies.

And that is going to be the basic problem with 3rd party options.  The lenses designed for M specifically benefit from being designed for the flange and are nicely compact.  Lenses that are designed for APS-C with an M mount are not really specifically designed for the body and won't have the great small form factor.  Still, better to have some options than no options...and Canon hasn't exactly been pumping out the lenses.

Yes. Perhaps that's because Canon is marketing it as a pure consumer product (EF-M system), so 1-2(3) lenses is enough, and if you are an enthusiast, then you must add the EF-to-EF-M adapter, or skip the whole thing and get a Rebel (which lacks a lot of dedicated, affordable primes as well). I think that Canon non-professional product segmentation/politics is a big mess, god help them ...
Their only APSC DSLR UWA lens is the EF-S10-22USM and they are squeezing this lemon for 10 years. It is decent quality, but now they are expecting Americans to use it on EOS-M or something? Who's making these crazy decisions? :) They should learn from Sony - "If you can't make something, buy someone who can".

231
Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: December 08, 2013, 06:49:22 PM »
I was really excited to see this lens coming for one huge reason:  towards the end of the video I saw this and took a screenshot of it:

This is the first third party lens I have seen that supports the EOS-M mount.  That's exciting, because it speaks to at least some confidence that the mount isn't going to be abandoned.  I've already put in a request to review the lens when it launched in an M mount, so here's hoping that will happen.

I thought that Samyang 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS and 300mm f/6.3 ED UMC CS Reflex Mirror Lens was the first third party lenses for Canon M mount.

I checked the Samyang site, and you are right, although I've not yet seen a retailer selling them in that mount.

Terrific news!  Thanks for posting this.

I had no idea any third party manufacturers were looking to add lenses for the EOS-M mount.  Obviously Samyang feels there is sufficient market for M mount lenses, maybe other third parties will follow suit?

I'm not sure if I would prefer EF-M dedicated Samyang 10/2.8 over the normal one (with EF mount) + adapter.
I've checked some sample images taken with this new 300/6.3 Mirror lens, and it produces such interesting bokeh effect, just like the rest of it's family :), only this one seems to be a bit sharper.

232
Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: December 07, 2013, 03:09:45 PM »
I was really excited to see this lens coming for one huge reason:  towards the end of the video I saw this and took a screenshot of it:

This is the first third party lens I have seen that supports the EOS-M mount.  That's exciting, because it speaks to at least some confidence that the mount isn't going to be abandoned.  I've already put in a request to review the lens when it launched in an M mount, so here's hoping that will happen.

I thought that Samyang 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS and 300mm f/6.3 ED UMC CS Reflex Mirror Lens was the first third party lenses for Canon M mount.

233
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any reason to choose a 7D over a 70D?
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:47:51 PM »
3 simple reasons:
Speed - fps and buffer size that can do 25RAW series;
CF - faster and safer;
Build and ergonomics.

234
Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm f/2.8 Lens: Thoughts? Reviews? Is it worth getting?
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:38:58 PM »
It works beautifully on FF, but it's a different story on APSC.
The worst thing about the "focus by wire" is that Canon didn't figure out how to make it go back to infinity automatically when the battery dies. Small, sharp, very nice bokeh, reasonably priced.

235
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Image Quality - Body vs Lens?
« on: November 15, 2013, 07:57:48 AM »
I think this answer is a bit more complex than simply answering "body vs lens".

If you are talking about a Canon 70D with a 50mm f/1.8 vs. a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L , then the answer will be LENS.

But, if you are talking about a Canon T3i with a 50mm f/1.2L vs a Canon 6D with a 85mm f/1.8, then the answer will be BODY.

While the LENS has a huge impact, so does the BODY.  But, the biggest impact the body has is FULL FRAME vs CROP.  So, you are probably better upgrading the LENS instead of upgrading to another crop body.  But if you are moving to FULL FRAME, you may get superior image quality by upgrading the BODY instead of the lens.
+1

Been there, done that. No more crops for me. Basically speaking, FF+zoom ~ APSC+prime, but FF+prime level is unreachable for crops. Maybe the new Sigma 18-35/1.8 on crop is close to f/2.8 zoom on FF (still not as good), but it's size (as big and heavy as 24-70LII) and price ($900) puts things back in their places. No free candy there.
On the other hand, any decent modern lens can produce decent quality images. The new EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM is considerably better and cheaper than the older EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM and, in many cases, it's not bad enough for upgrading to 70-300L.
IMHO, upgrading is not about mixing priorities, "FF vs better lenses" is like "bees vs honey", they should go together. Every L lens deserves a FF body :). Size matters, specially in physics. Bigger sensor will always give you more ... , due to either bigger pixel size or their quantity.

236
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: November 10, 2013, 06:03:11 PM »
ISO 12,800:  this is one area of unquestioned strength on the 6D.  It's high ISO performance may be the best in Canon's lineup.


The Moose of Algonquin Park by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Beautiful shot. I have not tried all the cameras in Canon's lineup, but 6D does a much better job at ISO 1600+, than the 5D2 (remember those purple shadows and stuff? :) ).

237
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Want to get a 50
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:22:52 AM »
50 for f/1.4 - Sigma 50/1.4 HSM
50 for f/2+ - Canon 50/1.4 USM
50 for f/2.8+ - Canon 40/2.8 STM

238
EOS Bodies / Re: Sensor Dust - DSLR vs Mirrorless
« on: October 23, 2013, 12:06:04 PM »
What really matters is that mirrorless camera sensor cleaning is much easier, because dust WILL get inside any interchangeable lens camera, eventually. :)

239
Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 22, 2013, 07:01:38 AM »
Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?

Not really. You can always make the flange distance as long as you want: just make the rear end of a lens longer. As stupid as it may sound, this is exactly what Samyang is doing with their lenses for the new Sonys: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/16/samyang-announces-five-full-frame-e-mount-lenses

It's like using the EF-EOS M adapter, which defeats the point of having smaller camera - whatever you save on body depth you lose on camera length.

I think the question is - 'What's the point of making such small APS-C mirrorless camera?'. Better grip, bigger battery and vari-angle LCD would add a lot of value to a camera.

240
Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 21, 2013, 01:46:24 PM »
FF mirrorless advantages:
great lens adaptability (including rangefinder optics);
EVF (yes it does have many advantages over OVF);
manual focus (EVF + focus peaking);
easier sensor cleaning procedure;
no mirror - less vibration, longer life;
size and weight;
lower price (than FF DSLR);
perfect for landscape, portrait, macro, astro and video.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 47