April 20, 2014, 09:15:50 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 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 35
346
Lenses / Re: 40mm Pancake Killed the 50mm??
« on: July 16, 2012, 03:07:13 PM »
There was a time when I was looking for a nice 50 prime for my 7D, but I didn't buy the Canon 50/1.4 because I knew that it is too soft at 1.4 so wouldn't use it wide open anyway. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body. However, to make a fast prime really shine, you need a FF camera. Some say that Canon 50/1.4 is pretty decent wide open on a FF camera.

Reasons why I bought my 40mm:
[nice optics and compact design]
[smooth and silent focus ring]
[good price and it fits FF]
[I use a flash for low light, not a wide aperture lens]
[FF DoF seems to be much thinner than APS-C, so f/2.8 is fine]
[when I want a shallow DoF I reach for something like 85/1.8 anyway...]
[it's a nice high-tech EOS body cap :), now I can take my camera everywhere (in a small case) and not look like a tourist :)]

347
Lenses / Re: Samyang 35 1.4 adds grain?
« on: July 15, 2012, 01:40:22 PM »
The difference between Zeiss and Samyang 35/1.4 is that Zeiss has electronic aperture control. Samyang doesn't, it's all mechanical (good for Nikon :) ). IMHO, that chip isn't a must-have for that lens. It works for focus confirmation and adding some EXIF data like lens focal length or focus distance (I'm not sure about the last one), but you won't get any aperture information. I tried the focus confirmation with some lenses and it seems pretty useless for me. I think that MF screen is a better tool for that.

Thank you. Unfortunately I have (for the moment) decided not to buy the 1dx and am using the 5d3. Cant change screens on that!!!... :(

Well, MF screen seems to work great when shooting through the OVF, but I'm using LiveView for manual focusing. I think it's the most accurate tool for focus and exposure.

348
Lenses / Re: Samyang 35 1.4 adds grain?
« on: July 15, 2012, 12:58:00 PM »
The difference between Zeiss and Samyang 35/1.4 is that Zeiss has electronic aperture control. Samyang doesn't, it's all mechanical (good for Nikon :) ). IMHO, that chip isn't a must-have for that lens. It works for focus confirmation and adding some EXIF data like lens focal length or focus distance (I'm not sure about the last one), but you won't get any aperture information. I tried the focus confirmation with some lenses and it seems pretty useless for me. I think that MF screen is a better tool for that.

349
Lenses / Re: Samyang 35 1.4 adds grain?
« on: July 14, 2012, 03:27:10 PM »
That's normal.  Put the 50mm f1.8 on, stop down to f22, and press the depth of field preview button--it will look the same.

Most lenses are always wide open through the viewfinder then they stop down briefly before each photo is taken.  The Samyang is fully manual and does not do this; it's like the DOF preview button is on all the time.  The grain is the texture of the ground glass.

+1

I think that the grain comes from 7D's grainy focusing screen, not the lens.

350
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 07:29:43 PM »

I believe you :). However, when I don't need high image quality, I don't even need a big sensor camera for that shot, P&S or a smartphone would do. When I look at all the 5D2 features, I realize that I don't really need a DSLR. What I need is FF mirrorless. If only Leica M9 had LiveView, EVF and was like 4 times cheaper  ::) ...
For example, I never (or like once a year) use P, Av, Tv, B, CA or AUTO. All I want is C1,C2 and M mode + autoISO, autoSS, autoF settings in it. So, it is possible to integrate the whole mode dial into the ON/OFF switch :D and add a 3rd dial + some buttons instead. Simple is perfect. Or maybe that's just me...

So you want a low IQ P&S with 1 series controls?

Actually, I think most people want the same thing I do: a pocketable integrated-lens design with a full-sized 645-format  hundred-megapickle sensor and a TS-E 12-1200 f/0.95 IS AF that does 30 FPS with a million-shot RAW buffer, and it should cost $49.95 before rebates.

The only real debate here is over which compromises people would be happiest with, and we're seeing that the things people here care most about are the things that Canon's PowerShot and Rebel customers care least about, and vice-versa.

So it's no wonder that the mirrorless camera will be a huge disappointment to the peanut gallery while simultaneously becoming Canon's best-selling, most profitable line of cameras.

Cheers,

b&

You are overreacting ;). Most P&S users do not care about what brand cameras they use ... :D and they don't post about it online.

351
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 07:09:27 PM »
So you want a low IQ P&S with 1 series controls?

No. Why?
Do you want one?

352
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 03:17:27 PM »
Simple is perfect. Or maybe that's just me...

It's not just you...but you and your brethren are not only one of the smallest minorities in Canon's set of customers, you're also generally willing to make do with the offerings they have. Either you'll decide you're okay with APS-C and go with mirrorless for its pocketability, or you'll decide you can live with the bulk of a 5DIII.

Yes, I'll be just another unsatisfied customer, who would buy a FF mirrorless camera from whatever manufacturer that actually make such a camera, and then sell my Canon toys the next day :).

Quote
The target audience for mirrorless (again, think of soccer moms) won't put up with the extra expense for full frame, and the target audience for full frame (wedding pros and the like) couldn't give a damn about camera size and will laugh at you if you suggest they can do without the viewfinder.

I feel your pain, but Canon doesn't....

b&

Who decided that there has to be only one Canon mirrorless? Why not 2 or 3 ... and one of those could be FF :)

353
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 02:26:15 PM »
It seems like many people are underestimating "image quality" just because they don't care.

Oh, believe me. I care about image quality. That's why I use a 5DIII and my favorite lens right now is a tossup between the TS-E 24 II and the 400 f/2.8 II -- and why I've got an iPF8100 sitting ten feet away from me.

But you and me, we're not the market that Canon is targeting with the mirrorless cameras. And, in that market, the APS-C sensor is overkill -- but, of course overkill in a good way such that it gives the users plenty of margin for error without any significant penalty.

Of the list of problems that a mirrorless camera is meant to solve, image quality isn't even on the radar. And of the list of problems that a full-frame sensor can potentially solve...well, there isn't even any hint of a hypothetical overlap with the list of problems that mirrorless is supposed to solve. Full frame is only needed when the image quality (including resolution, low-light capability, control over depth of field, and the rest) of APS-C isn't good enough, and we've already established that APS-C is <i>far</i> more than good enough for the target market.

Cheers,

b&

I believe you :). However, when I don't need high image quality, I don't even need a big sensor camera for that shot, P&S or a smartphone would do. When I look at all the 5D2 features, I realize that I don't really need a DSLR. What I need is FF mirrorless. If only Leica M9 had LiveView, EVF and was like 4 times cheaper  ::) ...
For example, I never (or like once a year) use P, Av, Tv, B, CA or AUTO. All I want is C1,C2 and M mode + autoISO, autoSS, autoF settings in it. So, it is possible to integrate the whole mode dial into the ON/OFF switch :D and add a 3rd dial + some buttons instead. Simple is perfect. Or maybe that's just me...

354
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 11:17:35 AM »
I think long term DSLRs will go so we will end up with full size with EVT
It may be so. (I hope)
Quote

If the compact mirrorless with exchangeable lens takes off then I would expect to see white lens for them with a native mount.
I wouldn't :). I think that a lens adapter would work just fine. However it may be coming much much later, when all the Pro DSLR series will be replaced by mirrorless systems.
Quote

To have compact and full size bodies would mean the end of the Rebel sized bodies and format.
Not everybody wants a smaller body, many are using battery grips with their Rebels, 60Ds/7Ds/5Ds and they like the size of it.

355
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 07:13:08 AM »
For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

Using large whites is as much a reason for IQ than closeups. I use a 200 f/2 rather than the 70-200 f/2.8 for the better IQ. The 100-400L does not compare with the 400 f/2.8 either

Well, first of all, why would you use large whites with a mirrorless camera?

Quote
Why not? Is there something saying that mirrorless IQ has to be poor?
The reply was in response to the comment about cropping rather than long lens

You may use mirrorless with large whites, but would you buy one specifically for that purpose or choose to use it instead of your DSLR for any reason? It could be nice for video using EVF, but you can use a Z-finder on your DSLR as well.
..and yes, heavy cropping is no good for bokeh, you just have to get closer with a FF camera. :)

356
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 06:39:04 AM »
For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

Using large whites is as much a reason for IQ than closeups. I use a 200 f/2 rather than the 70-200 f/2.8 for the better IQ. The 100-400L does not compare with the 400 f/2.8 either

Well, first of all, why would you use large whites with a mirrorless camera?

Quote
Cropping has the effect of reducing the bg blur that you would get with a longer lens

So, are you going closer to the lion just to get that bg blur you want? :D (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Now seriously, if I put something like 85L on my 5D2, there is nothing in the APS-C world I could compare it to, even 85/1.8 on FF is unbeatable for the price (opposed to 50/1L on crop). FF wins in bokeh competition any day of the year. The distance is an important factor. To get the same framing with the same lens on both FF and crop cameras you have to be closer when using FF and that's where the bonus bokeh comes from. More on that, using a crop sensor camera and cropping FF image to match it (same lens on both cameras), gets you to a similar result without any compromises in bg blur. So, in my mind, FF is a win/win.
24-105L on FF > 17-55/2.8 on APS-C, while price and weight are the same + 24-105L has wider (15-65/2.5 equivalent) focal range as well as dust and moisture resistance. If not cropping, 40/2.8 on FF equals 25/1.8 on crop, which wouldn't be a pancake lens for $199 (or could it be?).

357
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 04:28:13 AM »
I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

But that's just image quality again. Boost the ISO by a stop or two and you get pretty much the same shot as on full frame, just with more noise. Now, downsample that frame to 1024x768, to post on the Web or send in an email, and the noise vanishes.

Would you be satisfied with the image quality? Obviously not. But 99 44/100% of Rebel owners would be thrilled with it, and that's why we're not going to see a full-frame mirrorless.

b&

It seems like many people are underestimating "image quality" just because they don't care. For me, it is not about noise in unreasonably high ISO shots or gigantic prints, but about clear, sharp and not smeared details of an image with fully usable resolution. I often find 100% crops from my 5D2 (good lighting, low ISO, sharp lens) being high quality images by themselves, while the 18mp APS-C is really pushing it. Most of the time, high resolution APS-C may be reasonable for prints, but it is an overkill (+ many compromises) for digital use. For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

358
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]
« on: July 12, 2012, 02:59:29 PM »
I hope not. That will make it not even coat-pocketable.

im not sure if "pocketable" is a concern for canon when it comes to the new mirrorless camera.
APS-C is not the way to go then. the body can be small but as you see on NEX.. the lenses are not.

they will sure try to make it smaller then the SX1... but i would not be suprised when it resembles a bridge/DSLR look.
It will be coat-pocketable if a pancake prime is used. The zooms are too big.

Even 5D is coat-pocketable if a pancake prime is used :D. However, I wouldn't carry it in a pocket anyways ... a small camera bag is much much better for carrying such expensive and fragile equipment.

359
EOS Bodies / Re: How would you upgrade?
« on: June 25, 2012, 05:24:11 AM »
I am looking at two upgrade options, give me your thoughts on what you would do.  I currently have one body, a 40d, which has served me well.  Lenses: 28-135, 100 macro, 100-400L, 70-200L II.  I do a wide variety of outdoor photography, landscapes, wildlife, birds, flowers, and macro shots.  I do no "people" work of any sort.  I am ready to uprade and here are the options I am considering.

1. Get a 5d Mk III with the kit 24-105L and keep my 40d as well.

2. Get a 5d Mk II with the kit 24-105 and a 7d body, sell my 40d.

I can do either of these for about the same amount of money right now.

I forgot to mention that I would be selling the 28-135 in both of these scenarios.

5D3 is a better camera. However, if you compare your 40D image with a cropped 5D3 image (8.5 megapixel ~3570x2380), there may be no reason for keeping 40D. :) I assume that you are not a professional photographer and in that case (probably) there is no need for more than 1 DSLR body. If the only reason for 2 bodies is that you want to have both FF and 1.6x crop options, then you have to decide which sensor size is more important for you. You can do everything with just 7D or 5D3 alone. 5D3 has better AF and image quality, but you will need bigger/heavier and more expensive lenses to match the reach of 1.6x crop. If your plan is to use 40D for telephoto and 5D3 for landscapes, flowers or macro (things that do not require top tier AF system or done better using manual focus), then it's hard to justify buying 5D3 over 5D2.
I noticed that your widest lens on 40D is 28-135mm, so if you won't be using any UWA lenses, then 1D4 may be the camera for you.

360
If I had the money I'd get:
TS-E 17mm f/4L - for landscapes and architecture
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - for indoor
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 - for macro and portraits

or EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM - if manual focus is out of the question
or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM + Sigma APO 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro - if you can justify buying 4 primes.

I wouldn't use a prime lens for action and sports, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a better tool for that.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 35