December 20, 2014, 09:07:09 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 ... 48
1
I like the a7 series a lot (I have a7r and am currently trying an a7s) for the usual reasons given by those who like them (but perhaps mostly because I very much like using old MF lenses, and they're easier to use with mirrorless cameras than anything else), though I've kept Canon as well (for now, anyway).  You will likely love the image quality and, provided you stick with slow or immobile subjects, find the focus performance just fine (no need for AFMA doesn't hurt).  Colors are a bit different from Canon's, but at least as good - but, I tend to think, this isn't really an issue since you can tweak color easily enough with software.  The two primes are superb, better than the closest Canon equivalents.  I've not used any of the zooms; from what I've read the 16-35 f4 may be even slightly better than the recent Canon, but I doubt that's true of the others.

But my main reason for replying is to question your premise.  We're still dealing with FF cameras here, so the lenses, esp. the zooms, are going to be much the same size as the Canon equivalents you're using.  And if you're using f/2/8 zooms and want to keep doing so, well, there's no sign of such things showing up via Sony itself.  Nor are there any very fast primes yet.  In other words, the main weight saving will be the difference in body weights.  Depending on what lenses you use, that difference may end up being relatively trivial - if you stick with the two primes, yes, it's a nice light compact set-up, but otherwise....  You may end up needing reasons in addition to saving your back to justify the addition/switch (resolution, low ISO noise, IBIS if you get the a7II - maybe a forthcoming a7rII or a9? - ability to attach just about any lens, etc.).

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 7D mark II
« on: December 10, 2014, 09:16:43 PM »
Given the op's camera use, leaving aside the relative merits of 6D vs APS-C, would there be much point in getting a 7DII rather than the less expensive 70D?  I suspect the real world image quality differences are trivial or negligible.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Reviewing Olympus 40-150/2.8
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:54:40 AM »

Yes..the MFT system has developed nicely with very good Panasonic and Olympus primes & zooms. The higher end lenses are coming all the time and you have a lot of other manufacturers joinin the fray like Zeiss and Voigtlander making native mount lenses.  There are a lot of very good choices.  The system has its limitations but you can really squeeze a LOT out of it and walk around with a VERY light kit. It brings a lot of fun and spontaneity back into photography for me.  I really have a lot of freedom and fun while capturing great images.
I just sold a print yesterday to someone from this kit. They did not ask me what camera system I used. They just loved the image!  8)

Yes, it's can be wonderfully light, but when you take depth of focus (and other) equivalence into account, you're paying a lot for the light weight.  There's no equivalent of the cheap f/1.8 "nifty fifty", and someone who likes fast lenses because of the shallow focus you can achieve rather than keeping shutter speeds high has to pay a very high price for the equivalent of even 1.8 - sure, there are lots of interesting f/0.95, 1.2, etc. options from, especially, third parties, but they're very expensive, not that small, and not that light and, often, mf only.  A couple of days ago I saw someone online singing the praises of the newish Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2, in part because, at $1500 it's a few hundred dollars cheaper (and smaller and lighter) than its equivalent, the Canon 85mm f/1.2.  It's probably a wonderful lens, but of course that's not its equivalent at all, except in terms of shutter speeds for any given ISO.  At which point $1500 no longer looks like any sort of bargain.  The inexpensive m43 lenses tend to be zooms, most of which (of those I've tried, anyway), aren't very good.

You can always go the vintage, MF route via adapters and try to save money there (leaving aside the other attractions of such lenses), but the crop factor makes it hard to find worth while lenses that give you a "normal" angle of view (and impossible to go really wide); and since such lenses are usually metal, they're not light.... 

The same is true for camera bodies.  The OM-D's are great, but a FF Sony a7 right now is smaller than, and costs less than, the top-line OM-D, which in turn costs not that much less than the new Sony a7II.  And during the recent Black Friday sales you could by an APS-C Sony a6000, which is smaller and lighter than most (all) M43 cameras which have an EVF, for $450 from a reputable dealer.

So, cute and convenient, yes, and with near-APS-C quality, but at a price....


4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Reviewing Olympus 40-150/2.8
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:20:49 AM »
I had Olympus E-M1 + 40-150 2.8 for a test one weekend and I can say that I'm very impressed by this lens. It feels very well on E-M1, have very useful range and fast AF(even with the new 1.4 TC). Oh, the optic quality? It's fantastic! The only problem could be that the lens is so sharp and flawless that don't make dreamy bokeh. 


I'm sure it's wonderful, as several Olympus lenses are, but the reason why you're not finding "dreamy bokeh" (though it's clear from your photos and others online that the bokeh, as far as it goes, is rather nice) is because of the crop factor - in ff terms you're never getting depth of focus shallower than what, f/5.6?  Many lenses create lovely bokeh at 5.6, but....

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Reviewing Olympus 40-150/2.8
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:14:05 AM »
Reading elsewhere, does the E-M1 have a base ISO of 200?

http://sensorgen.info/OlympusOM-D-E-M1.html

Yes, with ISO 100 "expansion" - there are discussions about this online, of course.  Pixel-peeping is rewarded by light noise in blue skies, etc., as a result.

6
Photography Technique / Re: Yet another crop vs full frame thread
« on: December 08, 2014, 04:33:54 PM »
Sorry to say that it's not done by just taking two fast shots and compare.

Well, that`s exactly what you do when you take bird photos. You don`t have time for pixel-peeping, all you have to do is to take the shot.
The question was a simple one: which photo has more detail?
To me the answer is obvious, no matter the DOF or the aperture. In this particular situation the crop sensor camera provides more detail. Period!


Yes, but it's not clear why - as others have noted, the 5DIII image looks worse than it should, for whatever reason.  And if you're going to make such a comparison, you should crop the FF image so that it matches the APS-C one.  Your response to Maximilian misses the point - to test whether FF cropped or APS-C uncropped is better, taking casual photos isn't the way to do it; you make a careful comparison in circumstances that allow it and then apply the results in the field.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 08, 2014, 09:35:05 AM »
Who talks about not knowing anyone who buys Nikon?  Aren't most people who read this forum aware that Canon & Nikon dominate the non-smartphone camera market by a wide margin?  Don't we all see Nikon cameras being used, even if not quite as many as Canon?  Either way, the buying habits of one person don't do anything except disprove an assertion that no-one has made and has no bearing at all on whether Nikon "is always making a loss" or how well Nikon cameras rate at amazon.  The apt response is "so what?" - just as it would be if I mentioned that I started with Nikon, switched to Pentax, and then switched to Canon, which I've kept but supplemented with Olympus & Sony.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 07, 2014, 09:16:39 PM »

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the crop image quality after a decade of full frame. I don't have any trouble telling 5D2/3 files from 7D2 at 100% in lightroom. I suppose I knew that would be the case but the reality is still  a bit disappointing. It seems like Canon should be a little further along with the IQ by now. But, I'm getting shots that I just couldn't get with the 5D3 and my lenses so "it is what it is". It is an absolute hoot to shoot with but IQ is not up to full frame specs. Apparently the laws of physics are alive and well.


As you suggest, it's not surprising (you can see the same thing if you do comparisons with the relevant tool at thedigitalpicture.com), and it's not a reflection of Canon's IQ backwardness that it's FF sensors make better images than its APS-C - the same lens tends to make slightly better images on a FF sensor than on a crop sensor, regardless of camera brand; I see it on my Canon FF vs APS-C bodies (I don't have a 7DII, but at most I would expect it to narrow the difference), and also my Sony a7r vs a6000.  Pixel peeping is more fun with FF sensors.... 

9
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 10:53:41 PM »
The A7s and r?  They're just over grown compacts with large sensors.  They should cost under $1k and be sold in the checkout line at Walmart.

I hope writing that made you feel better.

10
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 10:49:15 PM »

BTW, Sony fans, IBIS may be great for many commonly used focal length lenses, but it is severely challenged when using supertelephoto lenses.


Perhaps, but even if IBIS is less effective for longer lenses, it will surely be better than nothing (it will be nice to get some sort of stabilization for my Canon 135L).  And if the lens has IS you can decide to use that instead, just as you can now when attaching Panasonic lenses to Olympus bodies (apparently Sony's IBIS works in conjunction with, rather than as an alternative to, the IS in Sony lenses). 

11
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:52:53 PM »

....  7d2 ... is not a revolution of technology, so its hardly a gme changer.

But a7 is.
First ff mirrorles. Yep i know about leica, but its too exotic and pricey
A7r offers really nice sensor in a compact body
And a7s low light performance is incredible. In a light and small package.
A7ii first ff ibis.
And they can easily use canon lenses with af. You can call it a first step to universal lens mount if you want.

Im not a sonynfanboy, just a general phot shooter and a7 looks very promising to me

Disputing the meaning of "game changer" seems pointless to me (and regardless of whether it qualifies, I have no doubt the 7DII is excellent for what it is), but regardless of that I'm very partial to the Sony a7 line myself - I've owned an a7r for almost a year, was impressed by the a7s I recently rented, and am tempted by the a7II.  However, to say that "they can easily use canon lenses with af" is highly misleading.  On these bodies AF doesn't work at all with some Canon lenses (and may not work at all for most third party Canon-mount lenses), and when it does, while accurate (no AFMA required), it's slow - so slow that it's useless on anything that isn't essentially motionless.  Much of the time mf is faster (though mf just works better with lenses designed for mf rather than af). 

So far, these cute little Sonys seem to me to serve a fairly specific range of people - those prefer small camera bodies, prefer mirrorless, don't need long/fast lenses and aren't much interested in sport/BIF photography and/or prefer using old (or indeed, any) manual focus lenses.  I have no idea how big that range is (it does include me...), but it may be rather small, esp. the mf lens subcategory.

As for Canon ripping us off (as someone put it) by putting IS in lenses only, just how much cheaper would the already cheap 10-18mm lens be without it?  Does anyone know what proportion of the price of the 24/28/35 IS primes is attributable to IS?  I wish every Canon EF/EF-S lens had it....

12
Lenses / Re: Lens Fungus - Advice Needed
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:58:01 AM »
Since the fungus doesn't have any effect on the images you make with the lens, and you really want to be rid of it, you could try selling it if you explain the situation and provide a suitable photo recently taken with it.  You probably won't get much for it, of course. But why not just keep on using the lens until it affects your images (presumably you should keep it stored separately from your other lenses)?  Look at it this way: it's a relatively inexpensive lens which has evidently served you well for several years; so you've probably gotten your money's worth out of it, figuratively if not literally.  I would rather buy a used one (or a used L) than spend any more getting it cleaned.

13
Lenses / Re: What is your favorite lens/camera combo in your camerabag?
« on: December 02, 2014, 04:17:54 PM »
It used to be 6D or 5DIII + 70-300L or 70-200 f4 IS L + something shorter and faster, but during the past year I've mainly been using mirrorless cameras and find myself less interested in reach than before and increasingly fond of manual focusing; the resulting loss of weight/bulk has made the process more enjoyable for me.  When I'm wandering around town I'll typically just take a Sony a7r or a6000 + one or two lenses, usually old mf but sometimes Canon EF.  During a recent trip each time I went out I had a small bag that contained Sony a7r + Olympus 24mm 2.8 + Sony/Zeiss 35mm + Pentax Super-Tak 50 1.4 or Nikon 55mm macro + Nikon 100mm E series, and sometimes just the camera + 50mm.  Light, compact, not obtrusive, and technically very satisfying.  (If Canon were to conjure up a similar camera body, so much the better....)     

14
Reviews / Re: www.photozone.de reviewed EF-S 24/2.8 STM
« on: November 28, 2014, 07:25:26 PM »

A 24/2.8 with a large enough image circle for full frame would be no more compact than the 24/2.8 IS. Geometry is driven more by angle of view than absolute focal length - study the cross sections of other 24mm lenses for crop and full frame lenses.


My Olympus/Zuiko 24mm 2.8 is quite a bit more compact than the 24mm IS, and not much thicker than my Canon 40mm pancake.  Is that because it's MF only?

(It's nice, by the way, to see that despite the complaints we often read about Canon pricing, this new Canon EF-S pancake, like the recent 10-18mm, is a remarkable bargain.)


15

Pentax users are often quite avid about their equipment and I can often see why from the results I've obtained with my gear. (Tho I'm wondering about the results I'd get using a Sony A72 with K-mount adapter instead)

Rather nice, I expect - I haven't a clue how Pentax AF lenses (if that's what you have) work via adapters (can you change apertures?), but I love the images I get from my elderly Pentax/Super-Tak lenses on my A7r; it doesn't hurt that they're superbly made, a pleasure to look at and handle and inexpensive to boot.  With IBIS, so much the better. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48