November 01, 2014, 07:16:36 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 - sdsr

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
1
The grass is always greener on the other side, and it is still greener on the other side after you changed the sides:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/30/technology/sony/index.html?iid=TL_Popular

There is not everything better with another camera system or manufacturer; Sony also has its problems.

Right.  For now I'm rather enjoying being on three sides of the fence (or three sides of two fences, or something), owning Olympus m43, Sony mirrorless & Canon dslr.  I enjoy using Sony mirrorless the most, but if Canon were to release a high MP mirrorless camera that could accommodate via adapters at least the range of lenses a Sony mirrorless body can - well, one can hope - Sony's camera business might vanish overnight.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 6d vs 24-70mm mark ii
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:01:13 PM »
For the reasons given by others already, I would go with the 6D too; superb image quality and you will likely appreciate the high ISO performance.  What's more, all your lenses will suddenly provide a much much wider angle of view, providing significantly different ways of looking at the world - it's rather like replacing everything at once.  And since you already have 17-40 and 70-200, you might want to consider selling both your 7D and your 24-70 (much of whose angle of view on your 7D will be covered by your 70-200 on the 6D) and buying a decent prime or two to fill in the gap and/or allow you to play around with even shallower focus (if that's of any interest to you) - a fast 50mm, or an 85mm portrait lens, say.  Or you may decide that the gap doesn't need filling....

3

It's always been curious to me how mirrorless lovers just assume that everyone wants something uber-tiny, or to give up their OVF for an EVF, or what an electronic shutter, or anything like that.


I think you forgot to put "some" before "mirrorless."  Most of that doesn't apply to me, and it presumably doesn't apply to those who buy near-dslr-size mirrorless bodies made by Olympus & Panasonic; and more than a few of us prefer EVFs to OVFs (esp. those of us who like using manual lenses).  If my preferences put me in a tiny minority, that's fine with me!

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are the Canon fun Pentaxian colors?
« on: October 26, 2014, 10:12:03 PM »

And read the Pentax press statement: these special editions will "make digital SLR photography even more fun." Well how am I supposed to have fun now with my black Canon? They are sucking the joy of photography right out of me!  :o


Funnily enough, Pentax recently added a fair amount of joy to my photography - in the form of a 40+-year-old 50mm 1.4 lens which I attach to my Sony a7r.  Both of which are, of course, jet black, as they should be.   :P

5

....

Then, compare the light blue swatch on the color checker card at say ISO 6400 RAW, the one just above the black swatch in the lower right corner. Also, make sure you are in print mode. I've been comparing the 7D II and the D7100. The difference should be pretty obvious.

....


Noticeable, certainly - but again, it varies with where you look - if you move up and compare the four squares above that the relative slight advantages seem to flip - especially the pale turquoise/cyan square at the top right, which is clearly much noisier on the D7100 than the 7DII, so much so that the noise almost hides the splotchiness.  (And there seems to be something seriously wrong with whatever was done to the D7100 file if you look at the fake ferns to the right of there - the olive tint of the top layer of ferns is exaggerated and carries half way down into the emerald green of the finer-textured fake ferns below until there's a clean dividing line, almost as though a square of yellow film had been placed there - odd; it doesn't happen in the patch of fake greenery in the lower left corner.)  So it still seems to me that, viewed at print size, the differences among all four cameras in the OP's link, as revealed in this test at least, are trivial and not consistent.  (That's not to say, of course, that *you* should find them trivial, but perhaps you could agree that they're small enough not to matter to many/most others....)

6

it's not possible to select the 7D in their new comparison tool on DPR.


?  If you click on the OP's link, it's one of the three cameras selected to compare with the 7DII (it's right next to it).

7
On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least.

You can see the hair and read the text in all samples. The difference in sharpness you observe is probably equal to moving the detail, sharpening, and/or clarity sliders a bit.

In any case, this would be invisible outside of pixel peeping. "Head and shoulders better", in my book, means you can clearly and reliably see the difference at normal, or least large, print sizes.

Isn't the difference in detail viewing it full size largely a resolution issue?  There's effectively greater magnification, so it's not surprising that the two 24mp sensors reveal a bit more detail no matter where you look (the Sony looks a bit better to me than the Nikon in that regard, but who knows to what extent that's because of the sensor).  But it's not what I would call a head-and-shoulders difference either, and when you view the "print size" option you could go blind trying to spot any but microscopic differences which wouldn't ever be noticeable in real life.  Differences among lenses, user competence, lighting, processing, etc. are all going to make a much bigger effect on images created with these cameras than differences among their sensors.

They all seem pretty close regarding noise as well if you choose the print-size option - though the 7DII seems impressive in that regard viewed full-size too.  As for the blotchiness issue, this seems to vary from camera to camera, depending on where you look on the test, doesn't it?  It seems to me that in some areas one performs better than the others, but in another a different camera does.  (To make things more interesting in a different direction, toss into the mix at print size one of the Olympus OM-Ds at 1600 or lower - not much difference there, either.) 

I'm not sure how much one can learn from this comparison tool (one could probably assume before seeing it that a slightly higher resolution sensor would reveal a bit more detail on close inspection), but it does seem to support the proposition that the 7DII's impressive-sounding high-tech/pro-level features don't come at the cost of a sensor that's uncompetitive with other APS-C cameras.  (Other tests elsewhere may suggest otherwise, I suppose, but I suspect they won't.)  If I were interested in an APS-C camera with such features I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.

8
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 25, 2014, 12:55:43 PM »

I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).

That's why I like c. 50mm macro lenses too, and that 55mm AI-S Nikkor is one of my favorite lenses - the best $125 I've ever spent and one of the reasons I'm glad to have a FF mirrorless camera (my lens is second hand, but I understand you can still buy new copies from Adorama or some such).

9
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 25, 2014, 12:29:32 AM »

However the EF 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are horrible wide open in cameras with high megapixels. They just can't handle it, plus the CA in the bokeh which is terrible and unfixable in post process


The EF 85 1.8 does have its flaws (esp purple fringing - but that's true of the 85L too), and if Canon were to replace it with something along the lines of the 24/28/35mm IS I would likely buy one if it fixed the purple fringing.  But "horrible" wide open on high MP sensors?   Perhaps my standards are low, or I don't photograph the right sort of thing in the right sort of conditions (or both), but that's not the adjective I would use.  Shortly after I bought my a7r - which, of course, has a much higher MP sensor than anything Canon currently offers - I spent a few hours on a couple of days wandering around taking casual photos last Spring (all hand held, manual focus).  Few of them were wide open, but I uploaded some of those that are, with crops, here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125326482@N07/sets/72157648538042789/

I think the lens holds up rather well technically (whether the photos are otherwise worth looking at is another matter).  It may not be an Otus, or even the 85L, but given its size and price I'm not inclined to complain too much.  And if you stop it down a bit on an a7r....

10
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:20:25 PM »
Which lens is better: KONICA 135MM F/3.2 HEXANON AR or PENTAX 135MM F/2.5 SMC TAKUMAR M42.
Better, as in sharper for micro shots attached to the EOS-M with some extension tube and an adapter?

I can't answer that question directly (I have the Konica Hexanon 135 3.2 and 135 2.8s from Olympus and Vivitar ($28!), along with the Canon 135mm L) but allow me to suggest another for you to consider as well, the highly regarded Vivitar 135mm 2.8 close-focusing - it's bigger than the standard Vivitar 135mm 2.8 (though not as big as the Konica-Hexanon) but allows you to focus much closer than any of the others and, depending on what you want to do with it, this may make extension tubes etc. unnecessary (on the other hand, if mine's typical, it's probably not as good at capturing detail on distant subjects as the others I have).  To find out more, this may be a good place to start (it's where I first learned about it, I think):

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-1-2-close-focusing.html

I should perhaps warn you, if you're interested, that this lens seldom shows up on ebay (I've never seen it at KEH/Adorama/B&H) and when it does, as often as not it's not this lens at all but the regular Vivitar 135mm 2.8 misidentified (whether the sellers are clueless or devious I can't say) - but it's easy enough to figure out. All you have to do is look at the photo the seller provides of the front of the lens - it will have "close focusing" (among other things) written on it.  (Despite the evident scarcity of the real thing, it's still not expensive - I don't think I paid more than $120 for mine, which seems to be in good condition and even came with its original case.)

All that said, you might find the ergonomics of the bigger 135mm MF lenses a tad awkward (to say the least) on an EOS M - they're all metal and even the smaller ones are heavy for their size compared to most modern lenses (I use mine on mirrorless Sonys).

11
First, ask yourself why did you buy mirrorless camera over DSLR? I highly recommend staying with their native lenses - smaller, lighter, more balance and most important of all faster AF.

Otherwise, there is no true benefits carrying mirrorless with an adaptor and larger EF lenses.

Oh I don't know - there are advantages to mirrorless cameras that have nothing to do with size (disadvantages too, from certain perspectives); besides, the OP may already own a bunch of EF lenses and want to start there.

Anyway, the standard Metabones adapter provides EXIF data, in-camera aperture change (crucial with EF/EF-S lenses, of course), IS support and, for some lenses, AF - but Dylan's right: if you need fast AF, let alone the astonishingly fast AF you get from EF lenses on Canon dslrs (or native lenses on the Sony), you will be very disappointed/frustrated.  Speed varies (fastest in my experience is the very lightweight EF-S 10-18mm), but it's never fast enough to use on anything that moves (it seems to be accurate, though, and of course you're spared back/front focus issues).  You may find MF preferable, in part because the a6000, like all the better mirrorless bodies, makes MF easy, worlds apart from any dslr (or slr, for that matter).  And if you do, you may want to try a few cheap old MF lenses (there are lots of good tips online) and adapters; the focusing rings on those are in a different class from anything I've encountered on a lens made for a dslr, even L lenses. 

(I've not tried any of Metabones' speed boosters, partly because I have a ff mirrorless camera, partly because for the price of one of those I could buy a handful of MF lenses.)


12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How Strong is a Sony Lens Mount
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:48:30 PM »

Roger was responding to the posts about loosening the mount screws to simulate the issue.  He said that loosening the screws will always cause it to happen and I agree.
 

Umm - What Cicala wrote, titling his response "Shame on you Fotodiox" was this:

"For loosening the screws in their demo camera before making that video. We've got dozens and dozens of A7s and I'd never seen flex like that. But if I loosened each mounting screw 1/2 turn, I got flex exactly like that."

(Lots of other sensible-looking posts in that thread too.)  I think msm's perspective is quite plausible.  There may be some problematic bodies (I have no idea, but Cicala has seen more than probably anyone else), but it's not at all clear what "the issue" was that people were complaining about - slight rotational play, clueless mishandling or something else, let alone whether any mere "wriggling" had any effect whatever on the images produced.  The idea that Fotodiox is responding to demand rather than trying to create it by exploiting internet chitchat is a tad naive (even if they were it's not clear exactly what the demand is or whether this will satisfy it).  And based on my experience with their lens adapters - usually perfectly fine except sometimes with inaccurate infinity stops - I doubt Fotodiox are the last word in mechanical finesse and I certainly won't be buying one of these things for my A7r or A6000 (nor, when I attach my 70-300L to either one, would it occur to me to pick the combination up by the body...). 

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxO mark: here we go again!!!
« on: October 24, 2014, 06:22:25 PM »
From Nikon rumors:

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/10/23/nikon-d750-camera-tested-at-dxomark.aspx/

Let the trashing begin.

I think the one that I find most amusing is that they rate the Nikon D810 higher in low-light ISO performance than the 6D. Yet, if you use the comparisons on DPReview even a blind squirrel can see how awful the D810 is at higher ISOs.

I don't think the dpreview comparison tool (assuming that's what you're referring to) shows that, but then I'm not a blind squirrel  :P.  The problem with that tool is that it's misleading unless you compare cameras with similar resolution because they don't up/downscale images according to the comparison you're making.  If you compare a 36mp image at 100% with a 21mp image at 100% you get greater magnification with the former, and that includes the noise.  You would have to upscale the 6D image or downscale the 810 image to compare them properly (which is how they do it at photographylife.com, for instance).  As it is, notwithstanding that there seemed some areas where the 810 did better (I just did the comparison at ISO6400), but I won't comment further as I've not so much as touched a D810 and don't plan to.  (I keep meaning to do a similar comparison between my 6D and 5DIII vs my Sony A7r but I'm too lazy....)

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 14, 2014, 12:01:56 AM »
One advantage of crop is that after buying the camera body you will have more money left over to but an excellent lens. The higher quality lens will have more effect on the quality of the image then the camera  :P

Perhaps, but as a general rule, as Neuro and others have pointed out, any given lens (assuming you can attach it to both) generates better images on a FF body than it does on an APS-C body; I think it would be a shame to buy an excellent lens (let alone all the high-end lenses listed by the OP) and then restrict yourself to using it on an APS-C body. 

(One could, in fact, make the opposite argument - that owning a FF body allows you to save money on lenses, at least in some circumstances (there's no FF equivalent to the remarkably cheap Canon 10-18mm, for instance), sometimes astonishingly so - there are some ridiculously cheap old manual prime lenses that make amazingly good photos when attached to a mirrorless FF body (perhaps they do on dslrs too, but mirrorless bodies make it incomparably easier to use such lenses).  E.g. while everyone else has been getting worked up over the Sigma 50mm Art (which I'm sure is wonderful), I've been greatly enjoying using, on my Sony a7r, a Pentax/Super-Tak 50mm 1.4 (c. $90), a Minolta/Rokkor X 50mm 1.4 (c. $50) and a Nikkor 55mm 2.8 macro (but superb even at infinity - c. $100); but then I don't shoot sports, BIF etc....)

Anyway, in terms of sheer image quality, other things being equal, FF wins, for the reasons given by others (Sporgon's point is especially good).  I have a couple of APS-C bodies, but I'm really not sure why.  That said, whether the differences are of any significance, or are even noticeable at all, is another matter.  It all rather depends on how the resulting images are viewed and how critical the viewer is (the same goes for differences in image quality among lenses, for that matter), and an APS-C body may make more sense for reasons unrelated to sheer image quality.

For me, the issue gets more interesting if you throw M43 into the mix, because that system, unlike APS-C, provides a big advantage over FF in terms of weight/bulk while providing image quality that rivals APS-C, albeit with a loss of shallowness of focus (plus, it tends to cost more than APS-C dslrs).  Of course, it can't compare to FF at high ISOs (it's not much different from APS-C), but if you're not trying to freeze action, that's not an issue - thanks to the extremely effective IBIS in more recent Olympus M43 bodies (E-M5 and later), I have little difficulty in keeping the ISO at 200 most of the time, and, of course, since it's IBIS it applies to any lens you attach.

So there may not be an easy answer....

 



     

15

Enthusiasm and tech are not synonymous, my experience over the last 30+ years of serious photography has been that enthusiasm trumps pretty much everything, sure there will always be images that are just not possible without the latest or greatest, but from what I have seen, none of us, including myself, are shooting them.


That's probably right.  But in my experience it's not really either/or: better equipment, up to a point (doesn't have to be "latest or greatest" - the original question simply referred to equipment that was better than you started with), boosts enthusiasm by making the learning process easier and more enjoyable.  Those who have said that experience/learning/technique/an artistic eye matter most have a point, obviously, but it's easier to achieve those things when you're not hampered by, say, inferior focusing mechanisms (too few focus points, inconsistent/inaccurate AF lenses, design that effectively makes MF near-impossible, etc.), bad ergonomics (esp. burying important controls in intimidatingly complex menus) and so on, and when the resulting images look inherently better (less noise etc.). 

("Better" is relative anyway and needn't be expensive.  There was no such option when I bought my first dslr, but for my purposes, miles "better" than the Nikon dslr I started out with would have been a good mirrorless body with a few old MF lenses and perhaps a couple of good modern AF lenses - it's easier to learn what the controls do if they're easily accessible and you can see their effect as you look through the viewfinder, and incomparably easier to MF when magnification and focus peaking show up there as well  - for me, at any rate.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47