September 23, 2014, 02:38:00 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 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 43
316
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 17, 2013, 04:58:02 AM »
What I'd most like to see is a line of EF-S prime lenses, starting with about a 14–18mm pancake.

Longer ef-s primes won't happen because you can just plug a shorter ef lens and use it with the 1.6x crop factor, the smaller aps-c mirror is only an advantage for wide angle lenses.

As for wa/uwa ef-s prime, imho that won't happen either because ef-s is either for amateurs who are supposed to be happy with zooms or for people who want to use tele lenses for more reach...


Just wait till Samyang brings the 10/2.8 UMC for APS-C ;)

Quote

50mm F/1.4 USM II

+1 ... but the reason why this didn't happen yet might be to protect the sales of the expensive 50/1.2, if the 50/1.4 gets any better with a "real" usm drive there'll be little reason to buy the good-bokeh mediocre-sharpness L - so probably they'll either replace both or none.

Actually, I would be much more interested in 50/2 IS USM Macro, or even a cheap 50/1.8 STM. I think that the rest of Sigma's prime "jewels" (50/1.4 and 85/1.4) will be reborn into A series pretty soon, and only after that ... Canon will be forced to do something about it.

317
Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?
« on: May 17, 2013, 01:41:44 AM »
Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

318
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 16, 2013, 12:14:03 PM »
1. 14-24mm F/2.8L USM
2. 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II
3. 50mm 1.4 II USM
4. 24-70 F/2.8L IS
5. 135mm F/1.8L IS USM

Poll is Locked and These are the Top 5 Lenses selected. Freebie Info for any R&D dept's wanting to make $$$$$$$.

Number 4 is the least probable lens to come out any time soon. There have been two new 24-70Ls not so long ago (24-70/2.8L'II and 24-70/4L IS). It should be disqualified :D. 35L'II should be on that list.

319
Lenses / Re: 50 f1.4 vs 85 f1.8.....
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:12:17 PM »
A lot of my photos are head or head & torso shots, so I could go either way, just am not sure which is a better lens as the 50 is pretty old, but people say it's still great. When comparing them on the Digital Pic website, the 85 looked to have a better result on the charts.

The 85/1.8 is better, as long as you keep specular highlights out of the pics (LoCA is bad).

+1
I'm using 150/2.8 on FF (which gives similar angle and DoF) and it is a great combo.

320
Disappointed by the "artifically" looking (to much contrast, noise,...) IQ of the testes 100D, I check the  Olympus OM-D and  Sony NEX-7 in the next two weeks...

I don't think that 100D IQ is noticeably different from 60D or any other camera that shares the same/similar sensor. I don't know what tests are you talking about, but I strongly advise against judging cameras by their default JPEG settings, which are mostly represented by the early samples floating around. IMHO, every "IQ-hungry" person should be shooting RAW and getting the desired result in post. From my experience, no camera can produce an image which mirrors reality. Human vision has much much wider dynamic range than any DSLR or Mirrorless. Did you try the HDR mode?

321
Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:55:47 AM »
Sometimes I think that a nice and small ~20mm f/4 prime (pancake maybe) would be my perfect UWA lens.

322
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 09, 2013, 10:01:58 AM »
I want EF 35mm f/1.2L USM  ;D

323
EOS 100D/SL1 + Sigma 8-16 DC HSM ?

Actually too wide to be usefull in most instances...

It may be so + I forgot that sigma 8-16mm isn't a filter-friendly lens :D, which is one of the OP's preferences. Then it must be EF-S 15-85IS USM

324
EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2013, 08:29:42 AM »
It's the price of an M!

If you had an NEX already... well can see the point up to a point.

If you didn't, you'd just buy an M, wouldn't you?

Thanks for the metabones link. 

I had forgotton all about it, despite posting a link on this forum when it was announced.  Silly me, I must have written it off in my mind.

No problem :). You may be right about the price, for most of us it seems like an overpriced toy. However, EOS-M adapter has no "fullframatron" mode :D. I'd probably just buy a 6D or the M, or both.

325
EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2013, 07:03:07 AM »
For me a csc only has the csc main selling point with a pancake lens.

99% of the time my M will have the 22mm fitted and will fit in my pocket in a way that a DSLR wouldn't.

It'll be miles better IQ than the SX230 that lives in my glovebox.

And if I'm going to bastardize the CSC concept by putting anything other than a pancake on it, then it might as well be a lens that I already own, and I can't do that with a panasonic, fuji or sony.

For me, and I'm feeling increasingly isolated, the M makes quite a lot of sense used in the way it was designed to be used, which was never as an SLR beater, in the same way that none of the other CSCs are SLR beaters.


Cant mount huh?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4749919445_f173f0928a.jpg

I'm sorry your EOS M is on the 4th page of this list, but there ARE mirrorless cameras out there that beat most dslrs

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/List-view
Mount with AF?  Mount with aperture control? Sorry when I said 'mount' I meant mount and work, othereise, where's the gaffer tape?

I'm just sorry you read through 4 pages of dxo to make your point.

When hou buy your next car, ask the garage to remove the gear box before you take it out.  Buy the car based purely on the torque charts.   Doesn't work, does it?

Funny how all the canon-biased reviewers who slate the af also praise the iq of the m.

"Mount with AF?  Mount with aperture control?" - Yes. It's not cheap and the AF may be worse than EOS-M, but you can use your Canon lenses on NEX cameras.

http://youtu.be/tVOhac0FQkw

326
EOS-M / Re: Subsequent m naming...
« on: May 04, 2013, 11:43:48 AM »
EOS M2i :D

327
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon 14 mm vs Zeiss 15 mm
« on: May 04, 2013, 02:50:25 AM »
Zeiss 15 is definitely better, if you don't need AF, but they both can't beat Samyang 14/2.8 UMC, for the price :)

within reason I would select the best IQ and let price be a secondary consideration.  How is the Samyang IQ and will it stand up to usage

Canon 14L'II
 - soft corners, high aberrations, no front filter, unpleasant bokeh (in my opinion)
 + dust-moisture-proofed, relatively low distortion (for this lens class), AF

Carl Zeiss 15/2.8
 - bigger and heavier than other 2
 + sharp, relatively low distortion (for this lens class), low aberrations, great focusing ring, 95mm front filter, decent bokeh

Samyang 14/2.8 UMC
 - strong and complicated distortion, no front filter
 + sharp, low aberrations, great focusing ring, low price, decent bokeh

I'd say that Zeiss 15 is the best of this 3, but it is the most expensive. Samyang 14 - best price/performance. Canon 14 is not worth its $.

P.S. If you don't care much about size/weight, high price, AF, slightly narrower angle and aperture, then maybe Canon TS-E 17/4L is what you are looking for. 17L would be on the top of my list if I could afford it :).

328
PowerShot / Re: Canon SX50 Review - Best Superzoom yet.
« on: May 03, 2013, 04:07:26 AM »
I'm surprised by this outcome. I cropped the pictures so that they all showed the same area. It appears to me that the SX50 picture quality of a similarly distanced object is roughly the same as my 5D Mark III with 100-400 + Canon 2X teleconverter, and looks much better than my 7D with 100-400 + Canon 2X teleconverter. 

I would have thought the 7D would have performed the best since it was shooting at a 1250mm equivalent, equal to the 1249mm equivalent of the SX50, but with presumably better picture quality.

Anyone have thoughts? The only thing I can think is that I was handholding all the cameras and maybe the SX50 has better IS than the IS on the 100-499??  And the SX50 is obviously a lot lighter and would be prone less to shake.
From what I can see, the images made with 7D & 5D MK III seem blurry ... I think this is most likely due to the IS issue as you mentioned (i.e. the IS not being able to sufficiently cope with the weight of the DSLR+big lens+2X tele-converter combo) ... it would be nice to see the same images made using a tripod.
That being said, the SX50 seems to be a really handy tool in certain situations ... I just ordered the Nikon D7100 and a few other accessories (should be delivered tomorrow) ... will have to wait till I sell my current D7000 to buy this little beauty Canon SX50.

All three are blurry, because at such distances the light is traveling through a very blurry air mixture (a lot of it). No matter how stable your gear is, even if you use the best optics in the world, you are going to get this kind of blur anyway.
Several years ago I've made images using 400D + Sigma 50-500 (at 500) + Sigma 2+ convertor (i.e effective FOV @ 1600mm) on and they were a lot sharper than the above pics ... although I agree with you that atmosphere will cause haze/blur with such huge distances, images will be sharper (than the above 3 images) if you use a proper tripod.

Your pictures may have been sharper due to better atmospheric conditions as well. You are right, a proper tripod does help. However, I don't see any motion blur problems here. A good handholding technique works great for fast shutter speeds like 1/1600sec (SX50), 1/1250sec (7D) and 1/800sec (5D3).

329
PowerShot / Re: Canon SX50 Review - Best Superzoom yet.
« on: May 03, 2013, 03:04:00 AM »
I'm surprised by this outcome. I cropped the pictures so that they all showed the same area. It appears to me that the SX50 picture quality of a similarly distanced object is roughly the same as my 5D Mark III with 100-400 + Canon 2X teleconverter, and looks much better than my 7D with 100-400 + Canon 2X teleconverter. 

I would have thought the 7D would have performed the best since it was shooting at a 1250mm equivalent, equal to the 1249mm equivalent of the SX50, but with presumably better picture quality.

Anyone have thoughts? The only thing I can think is that I was handholding all the cameras and maybe the SX50 has better IS than the IS on the 100-499??  And the SX50 is obviously a lot lighter and would be prone less to shake.
From what I can see, the images made with 7D & 5D MK III seem blurry ... I think this is most likely due to the IS issue as you mentioned (i.e. the IS not being able to sufficiently cope with the weight of the DSLR+big lens+2X tele-converter combo) ... it would be nice to see the same images made using a tripod.
That being said, the SX50 seems to be a really handy tool in certain situations ... I just ordered the Nikon D7100 and a few other accessories (should be delivered tomorrow) ... will have to wait till I sell my current D7000 to buy this little beauty Canon SX50.

All three are blurry, because at such distances the light is traveling through a very blurry air mixture (a lot of it). No matter how stable your gear is, even if you use the best optics in the world, you are going to get this kind of blur anyway.

330
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon 14 mm vs Zeiss 15 mm
« on: May 03, 2013, 01:45:43 AM »
Zeiss 15 is definitely better, if you don't need AF, but they both can't beat Samyang 14/2.8 UMC, for the price :)

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 43