January 27, 2015, 07:27:25 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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 25, 2015, 01:00:08 PM »
But concerning clean shadows: Your wish is granted instantly, because the 1dx/6d sensors are a *big* leap from the 5d2. I recently shot with a 5d2 from a friend of mine and was stunned how much banding it produced after postprocessing operations that I do with the 6d raw files all the time.

The 5D3 was released after the 1DX so just because a camera is a "later release" from Canon means nothing. The problem was the 5D3's sensor is more like they took the 5D2 sensor and just put it back in the oven to reheat. Will  Canon do that again? Wait and see.

The MkIII is not too bad, really. I find it gives me about one more stop than the MkII and much,much less banding. Mind I shoot in MRAW/SRAW1 with both bodies so this includes the downsampling effect (~10.5 megapixels effectively). Yes, ~10 megapixels really is enough for my purposes.

Please, mrsfotografie, tell me why are you not happy with the Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0?
It is supposed to be of very high optical quality and reasonably priced. In fact, I though I might actually get one.
As you said, there is so much more tempting stuff from Canon for the EF that you'd really have to be a Sony fanatic to buy a Zeiss Touit or whatever for 1000 dollars when you can get a 16-35 f/4 at that price and it is quand meme something else, totally. Value is something where Sony is seriously lagging behind.

martti, the 12mm is a very good optic and lives up to its reputation, there's some CA but that's easily corrected. Reason for selling it would be that it is a pain to correctly focus manually, even with focus peaking enabled and especially when stopped down. The focus peaking does not clearly enough identify what is in focus and what is not, when dealing with such a short focal length. This is not really a problem in itself because you can check the result on the screen or in the viewfinder, but it means that shooting with this lens is cumbersome if you want to shoot fast and move on. I don't see myself using this lens if I would have the zoom because the times when I need a fast aperture in such a wide angle lens are fairly limited (and for low light use I'd be shooting with my 5DMkIII anyway).

And yes I totally agree the Sony lenses are overpriced. I have the 16-70mm but comparing it to my 24-105L (size, weathersealing), the price just isn't right. The 10-18 is also a pricey piece of glass. And as for those Touit's, something like that deserves a full frame sensor.

A casual test with the EF 20mm f/2.8 + Metabones adapter fails: Camera either takes a picture or crashes. Either there is an f-stop indicator or not. Clearly, no reason to try to take pictures with this setup.
The 40mm pancake does not focus, of course not but it does not crash the camera either.  Why should you want to  lug around a 60mm-equivalent f/2.8 which does not autofocus and which is not especially compact either? No particular reason in my mind. Then I tried the 50mm f/1.4 which has a hopelessly shallow DOF. It communicates OK with the a6000 but then again, why should you ever use a combination like this?
Clearly, the 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss seems enormously agile and useful after these three attempts.

I prefer to use my old FD(n)/FL lenses, either with a Metabones optical adapter or with a plain adapter, and then use focus peaking. Disadvantage= no AF. Advantages however: cheap, good and mostly relatively small lenses (re-use old stuff), no compatibility issues. And when I need AF I will most definitely use native e-mount lenses as listed in my signature. (FWIW the 16-70 Zeiss is very much like the 24-105 Canon) I'm thinking about getting the 10-18 too, (and sell the 12mm Samyang) but not so sure because there's more glass I'd like for my EF system. Choices, choices....


This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
It is scary.
Sony is going to eat up the Canonists who have not been brainwashed as such as yet.
When I was talking about the UI (user interface) this is what I meant.
Sony is almost there but not quite yet. Close enough, though. I will shoot with the EF lenses with an adapter.
AF, AE with adapters...or...maybe I just get rid of the heavy glass.

An eye-opening video.

The a6000 is a very good camera and it is a LOT better to use than the NEX-6 that I owned previously, but the a6000 is still not quite as good to use as a Canon DSLR. Having said that, the NEX-6 had already replaced my old little 400D for those times when I wanted to travel light and still bring a good camera. The a6000 reaffirmed that decision tenfold. But still, my FF Canons deliver where it counts.

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 12:59:23 PM »
If it is the same as the quality of the 7D mark II then I will pass on it.

For my purposes I need clean pictures and the quality I want I get up to ISO 1600 on 5D mark III. The 7D mark II comes upto ISO 800 at that quality. I need ISO 1600 regularly at the dances I shoot for the spot lighted sequences. I am going to rent the 7d mark II this year to test it myself before making a decision.

Even if it is good enough for me, I think I would prefer two cameras with different lenses so that I don't have to do the switching dance as much. I don't expect the same AF system on this 50mp behemoth.

Lots of choices coming for canon shooters. Maybe that will put an end to the switchers!

It doesn't sound like you need 50mp for your purposes either...  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:22:52 AM »
Will this be the first time Canon comes with two versions? I so doubt this….

Not really, they've made a few 'a' models especially suited for astrophotography. Compare:



Lenses / Re: 17-40 ---> 16-35 f4
« on: January 23, 2015, 02:45:29 PM »
I'm still chugging along with my 17-40L. Together with the 24-105L it is the core of my travel lens kit, and with a EW-83H hood of which I've trimmed the side petals I am able to use the same modified hood on both lenses, very convenient because it actually saves a lot of space.

Mind, if I required a wide angle zoom more outside of travel, I would consider the 16-35 f/4 but as a kit I prefer the 17-40 with the 24-105. For day to day shooting I more often use wa primes but who knows at some point I may get the 16-35 f/4 too.

I saw this heavy lens on the Photokina :), it was really big and sadly behind a showcase.
I'm wonder about tests and shots!

Hmmm "really big" = "less exciting". Of course I know physics demands a certain size vs a certain constant aperture but still, portability is an important factor. If you look at the trend in lens releases you need to be He-man to carry 3 lenses or more...

these types of responses are laughable.  You complain because a lens it too heavy and so you wont buy it.  Then when canon or any manufacturer makes a lens that is light people say it feels cheap and that it cant possibly have good optics and heaven for bid they use "plastic" to cut weight.  Then when they have a plastic, that is all people comment about and instantly shun the lens because of it.  i.e. plastic mounts in EF-S lenses.  physics wont let you have it both ways and it is not like they are that heavy.  i don't know how some of you can poor milk in your cereal in the morning with that 8+ lb milk jug.  you must use the little kid cartons.

Sorry for the rant, it just gets old reading contradicting complaints about lens weight.

No problem I have a background in mechanical design so I know exactly the nuances you're talking about. Any good design has some compromises. The trick is to get the best possible product with the least compromises (but there must always be some). Also, each individual has different needs so what may be an advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. For me, there is a limit to the bulk I'm prepared to carry and yes I will compromise a little in image quality if needed. Also, good thermoplastics can provide a good quality, yet light weight build. The main challenge I think is to reduce the amount of glass because that definitely throws more weight in the balance.

I totally understand not wanting a heavy lens, but I've never found weight to be a valid critique of a lens. There are many other options out there that compromise on speed/aperture and IS/VC to achieve a lighter load. This lens doesn't compromise on those aspects, and the trade off is that it weighs more. I know most everybody understands that, so why still bring it up?

Although maybe I'm bias, because I do work out  8)

If it's too big/heavy, then you may choose not to take it to the place where you shoot photo's....  ::)

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art
« on: January 22, 2015, 02:09:35 PM »
And I could always use my 40mm if I want something light.

I still don't "get" the 40. I mean, I own it. I've used it. But it mostly sits on my desk. Just not my thing, but if I was walking around a lot more yeah, it's a no-brainer to drop in the bag or even a pocket!

I had a 40 mm Voigtlander and found the focal length, well... boring.

I saw this heavy lens on the Photokina :), it was really big and sadly behind a showcase.
I'm wonder about tests and shots!

Hmmm "really big" = "less exciting". Of course I know physics demands a certain size vs a certain constant aperture but still, portability is an important factor. If you look at the trend in lens releases you need to be He-man to carry 3 lenses or more...

Wow, unexpected.. cool!  8)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
« on: January 22, 2015, 01:43:59 AM »
I bought this lens, and after extensively comparing it to my Canon 24-70 f2.8, I sold the Canon. This is an outstanding lens.

Same here, I love it too.

If you are comparing the Sigma to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 Mk I it should be noted that I sold my 24-70 f2.8 too, but after getting the 24-105L, because the 24-105L had much better resolution and I was more pleased with the color saturation it provided. The Canon 24-70 f2.8 Mk I just wasn't that great.

I think a more direct comparison between the 24-105's probably leaves little to be desired over the Canon especially if you like to process in DPP (like me) and thus have the OEM Canon lens profiles and camera settings available in post. Other than this I *really* dislike lenses with a duo-cam zoom mechanism such as this Sigma has for mechanical reasons and the appearance which associates it with cheap, wobbly builds of the past.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art
« on: January 20, 2015, 02:55:13 PM »
Nice review, Justin.  It's not a perfect lens, and it is too big, but it would still be my choice at the moment for a reasonably affordable 50mm prime.

I am still waiting for Canon to bring us an equivalent of the 35IS in a 50mm.  If it was similarly sized and performed similarly, it would be be my choice.

I'm fortunate to have a good copy of the Sigma f/1.4 EX and prefer the look created by the 'traditional' double Gauss design. It's a lot smaller too although it is not a small lens in itself. Sigma managed to persuade me with the 35mm A, not so with the 50mm A so I will be hanging on to the old 'EX' for the foreseeable time...

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 18, 2015, 11:18:31 AM »
Seebi Island, Musandam (Oman).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99