September 18, 2014, 04:08:23 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] 4 5 ... 43
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:22:31 PM »
Have both!  I have the 6D and 7D.  Each has its strong points.  However, I tend to shoot wide more than tele, and FF gives me that.  You can always crop narrower but never wider!

You can stitch ;).

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:26:16 AM »
Thanks for your replies so far.  To answer one question - yes I shoot in raw and process in Lightroom.  My ideal solution would be a 24-105 mkii with equivalent sharpness to the other recent releases from Canon, but it doesn't seem likely this is going to be released.  Purchasing the 6D with 24-105 plus the 16-35 f4 will cost in the vicinity of $4000 aus, which I am prepared to pay to get the quality if the 24-105 on FF will deliver significantly sharper images than the 18-135 STM on crop.  However if this isn't the case then I can probably do a 7d mkii body and keep the rest of my kit for around $1500 aus (guessing at the price here). 
I accept the 24-104 won't be in quite the same league as the other 2 L zooms, but will it be significantly better than what I have now?

Well, sometimes my 500D with 18-55IS produced perfectly nice and sharp images and 7D wasn't that much different. Now 6D is just delivering it most of the time (instead of sometimes) even with non-L lenses. 40mm pancake is my walkabout.
There are no L EF-S lenses or even good+fast+cheap(affordable) primes (my weapon of choice) and I wouldn't be surprised if 7D'II cost more than 6D, so FF is a win-win for me.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 06:08:16 AM »
So my current issues are:
1)  I want a general improvement in the sharpness of my pics as I tend to like having them printed reasonably large and I think the current EFS lenses just won't give me the image quality I would like.

What size are your prints?
Are you shooting RAW and doing some post processing later? If not, then perhaps you should.

2)  Shooting around dusk with my 18-135 walkabout (even in dark shade sometimes), I am either getting blurred photos due to having to drop the shutter speed to low (even with IS) or bumping the ISO too high and getting unacceptable levels of noise.

Well, there is Sigma 18-35/1.8, but you won't like the focal range :).

I have been purchasing my recent lenses with a view to eventually going full frame (can't wait to play with the 70-300 - my first L lens)
My thoughts have been to upgrade to a 6D with a 24-105 as a walkabout, use the 70-300L as my long lens, a 16-35 F4 as my wide angle and keep the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF as well as low light.  The 6D will solve my issues with noise and ISO whilst the L series lenses will solve my sharpness problems.

Makes sense.

I have read about the 6D AF issues, and don't think that will be an issue for me as most of my shots are static and for the odd shot of action I can use the centre point and crop later.

Works for me :).

The area I want some feedback on is the 24-105.  From all that I have read the newer 24-70 is lots better, but I won't go with that lens as that would give me a similar range on FF to the original 18-55 on crop that I found too limiting initially.  I know that the 24-105 will be shorter than the 18-135 (equivalent approx. 216 mm), but I think I could live with 105, but definitely not 70 on the long end.  I have read plenty of reviews and opinions on the 24-105 to believe that as an L lens it is pretty average and has a lot of distortion at around 24mm. 

So my questions are:
1)  Will the 24-105 provide a significant IQ improvement when used on FF compared to using the 18-135 STM on a crop.  I am not interested in using the 24-105 on a crop camera, so many of the comments I have read which compare using both on a crop camera are not applicable to my scenario as in that case they would only be using the centre of the 24-105 not the full view.

I think that even the old EF 28-135 IS USM on 6D would be better than EF-S 18-135 on a Rebel.

2)  Should I stick with the 18-135 STM and wait for the 7D mkii which I expect will also have significantly improved noise / ISO and will solve that problem for me, but will then still leave me with the image quality issues from the EFS lens, as I don't see any better quality walkabout lens that will suit me if using a crop sensor.  (The 24-105 would not be wide enough for me on a crop).

So what do you think - 6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L or 7D mkii, EFS 10-22, EFS 18-135 STM, 70-300L.

Wait for Photokina first. 6D Mark II may be coming soon as well :)
6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L would definitely give you more potential.

Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 15, 2014, 06:09:58 AM »
1. UV filters cause flare.
2. UV filters may cause AF problems.
3. UV filters may cause vignetting on wide angle lenses.
4. Some UV filters may cause slight color tint (haze filters), lower contrast and sharpness.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: August 14, 2014, 06:58:01 AM »
My missing Art lens list is:
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART
Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART is an interesting option. I have the old one, but it is the worst lens I have and the only one of my lenses I would prefer not to buy. It is capable to give very good results. Sometimes... Look at any birds on my website: - all ware taken with that lens. But sometimes it just keeps failing. E.g. I shoot in good light from tripod with remote release and fine-focusing with liveview, fast shutter, no wind or earthquakes, but the result is damn blurry! Very inconsistent. Maybe it is just a bad copy. Anyway, with current level of Sigma's lenses it is very interesting to see such lens reworked. And OS would be a very useful thing on it. Kinda love and hate story, which probably would be better with the renewed version :)
And if we speak about birding – 100-300 is too short actually. Even with TC x1.4. So the rumored 300-600mm f/? OS Sport would also be interesting. I hope it will be constant f/4. It is not an easy task, but really isn't something impossible for Sigma. What I would be even more interested to see is a refresh of their super-telephoto primes! I do hope one day to get something like 500mm f/4 IS, but Canon's options are insanely expensive. Something IQ-comparable from Sigma for half the price and I'm in! :)

Yes, I remember all the old Σ100-300/4 reviews being very controversial, due to obvious reasons like bad QC and copy variation. Now, the new Σ120-300/2.8 is just crazy good (for a sigma zoom :) ), even with TCs. IMHO, the updated Σ100-300/4 (or 300-600mm) should be really good.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 02:16:44 PM »
I thought I was a pixel-peeper (sometimes), but this guy ... he's comparing images at 4:1 magnification ???. How is it even called ? pixel-trolling? :)) Everything looks identically awful at 4:1. Other than that, it is a good review ;).

Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 07:47:06 PM »

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

 ... or makes you crippled.

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 06, 2014, 10:43:17 AM »
I would have said my light meter a few months ago and now I can't stop using it. It's very practical.

But my least use piece of kit is my 40 mm panny. It just sits there in neglect in my camera bag as an object used only when I don't use a 50mm.
There's definitely a common theme of little love for the 40mm.  It's a great lens for the money, but other than stitched panos and serving as a body cap for some, it just doesn't seem to fit in most people's workflow.

And yet its CR image gallery has more pages than some popular Ls :).

Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 09:29:17 AM »
Everyone is welcome to critique, praise or ignore my stuff :). Please, don't be shy.
I don't think we need special critique threads. When in normal threads (showing off threads :) ) some stuff is being ignored, that could only mean two things - people are speechless after seeing it, or it may just be kind of boring (no words needed). However, I think that countless comments like "great!", "nice!", "lovely!", "adorable!", "I like number 7" or "I hate you, your amazing images made me G.A.S" etc. are reeaally unnecessary. IMO, we all learn what we like by watching other people work and by comparing it. Every image is a free lesson of good or bad photography, you decide. I'm sharing images just because I like to participate in evolution of photography.

Reviews / Re: 70D - I think I will keep it but . . .
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:15:23 AM »
Not as Thrilled -

The still image quality is not as good as my fuji x100s.  It's just not as sharp and detailed. Maybe I need to get a fixed lens though for a fair comparison.

Yes, you do. Maybe you need to try some fuji zoom lenses too :).

Lenses / Re: Lens setup for wedding photography
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:37:14 AM »
Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art would be perfect, but ...
From what you've got, my main lens would be EF-S 18-55 IS STM, because there is no other standard zoom (or prime) in your collection. Versatility is very important in these situations. Carrying a full bag of gear and constantly changing lenses can be really frustrating (that's why we hire an official photographer, for money :) ).
Bringing a Speedlite may be a good idea, for "fixing" the bad and mixed lighting, just try not to interfere with the main photographer.
50/1.8 is great for some portraits and creative stuff, if you think you will have time for that.
Just have fun.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 05, 2014, 04:50:05 AM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.


Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

I switched from 500D (I think 50D has the same sensor) to 7D (back in 2010), which was quite a bit better in noise department. 500D/50D seemed more grainy.
I always tried to keep my 7D macro shots under ISO 800, but now, with 6D I can go up to ISO 3200.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:45:21 PM »
Wow.  Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

He may have been harsh, but his point stands. The web is loaded with clean, sharp, detailed 7D images with gorgeous color. If you are not producing work with similar IQ it is not the camera model. Either you have a faulty unit or your technique is flawed, and it's usually the latter.

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF. They didn't notice any horrible noise. The "7D is noisy!" meme gets annoying to those who don't seem to have any problem producing excellent images with it.

Now if we're talking high ISO...yes, the 7D is noisy and soft vs. the 5D2 and especially the 6D, 5D3, and 1DX. But so is pretty much every other crop sensor. Granted newer sensors are better, but still pale in comparison to the latest FF sensors at high ISO.

Well, it is called photoshop ;). Any big sensor camera can produce clean, sharp, detailed images these days.
As a former 7D user (and I did like that camera very much) I must say that my 6D has a lot more potential for what I do - lower noise, lower aberrations, better subject isolation, better contrast (and micro contrast), better sharpness, better cropability, better DR, nicer bokeh, wider and better range of lenses (specially primes, while equivalent crop lenses are either just as big, as heavy, as expensive and still inferior, or do not exist). Every review is subjective, every professional has his own opinion, but we should only discuss facts. Let's keep all the prejudice out of it. Science and religion don't mix.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 04, 2014, 10:27:20 AM »
2. EVF lag -- this is pretty close; current best is about 30% more than human visual system lag

Which lag are you talking about?
The LiveView lag
The after shot blackout lag
The shutter lag
I call "EVF lag" the total lag difference compared to DSLR.
Mirrorless burst mode lag is pretty bad :).

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:47:50 PM »
EVF lag.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 43