September 02, 2014, 07:01:49 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 - sdsr

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D

Yes. Especially when there are three Sony FF bodies that you can adapt Canon lenses to and still have aperture control, AF, and IS! You don't even have to switch, just add. AF is dog slow, but who cares for a high DR landscape?

If you're posting in thread after thread on a Canon forum complaining about DR but you haven't switched or added a Sony A7 body, then DR isn't actually the issue.

You have a point.  Depending on what you like to photograph and can afford, the "grass is greener" effect can largely be averted by mixing brands; and mirrorless bodies make that rather easy if you don't mind fiddling with adapters, manual focus, etc.  (I've been enjoying the process of taking photos more, not less, since taking on this somewhat less convenient approach.) 

But if anyone thinks the whining etc. here is predictable and tedious, try m43 rumors, where there seems to be none of the depth of discussion/knowledge found here, and where every topic, no matter what, gets invaded by fools whining about the fact that because 43 sensors are smaller than aps-c & ff the cameras are crap and not worth anyone's attention, and seems dominated by cheerleading fanboys. 

2

Not to forget: good close focus capabilites welcome, sth. like 1:3.5 or 1:4 would be great!


Is a fast 85mm (or longer) lens that focuses close technically possible?  I ask because I'm pretty sure I've never seen one that focuses closer than c. 3 feet - which is the main reason why, for all that I like fast 85mm lenses, I end up using my 100L more often.

As for the original question, I would be interested if it got rid of the 85L's purple fringing and had IS, but those who are hoping such a thing would cost <$1000 seem a tad optimistic.  Focusing speed doesn't matter much to me (I've been contemplating buying a MF Canon 85 1.2 to use on my A7r; much cheaper than the current 85L).

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 05:32:55 PM »

3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?


Probably because the Hasselblad Lunar doesn't merely use a Sony sensor - it's essentially a now-discontinued Sony Nex 7 (the whole camera, not just the sensor) with hideous Hasselblad artefacts (grip, etc.) stuck on parts of the exterior and a fancy case, for which they charge c. eight times as much as the Sony original.  (I imagine it sells, to the extent it does, merely because it's expensive; if it were as cheap as it looks....) 

As for the rest, Jrista and others have said all that needs to be said, probably.  Depending on what you shoot you may well find that the differences among various sensors are pretty trivial.  I happily use Canon FF & APS-C, Sony FF & APS-C and Olympus M43 (a model with yet another Sony sensor, though that isn't why I bought it).  My preference for Sony among these is partly for those instances where the sensor makes a difference, but mainly because I prefer mirrorless to dslr.

4
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:55:57 PM »

My intention is to have a good quality walkabout all in one solution when on holiday etc with the wife.  Pickup the 6D and 24-105 and off we go with no need to swap out lenses. I am hoping to see a good IQ improvement over the 550D and 18-135 STM.


I'm sure you will (and you will likely be amazed by how much better 6D + 24-105 is in low light/high ISO).  One caveat, though - when you use your 18-135, how often are you near the long end?  You doubtless know this already, but in case you don't, while the 24-105 is usefully wider than the 18-135, it's less than half as long (the FF equiv. of 135mm is 216mm); so the 24-105 doesn't provide the same "all in one" convenience.  You may find the 70-300L more useful than you expect!  (For similar convenience, the Tamron 28-300 may be worth checking out; I've seen some fairly good reviews of it.)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:27:09 PM »
Given what I use cameras for (no sports or equivalent, for instance), I have no interest in it or any other large, expensive "professional" APS-C dslr body unless its image quality is superior to current FF (which it surely won't be); otherwise it would have no advantages for me over my SL1 and Sony a6000 (both of which are cheap), let alone my FF bodies. 

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:40:54 PM »

I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often.  Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II.  Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...

I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term.  Just guessing, though.


You may be right about all that, though it's perhaps ironic that for some (doubtless a tiny minority) part of the appeal of mirrorless bodies is the ability to use lenses that aren't being made any more....  Plus, you have to wonder - yet again - at Sony's RX10 and the slightly newer Panasonic equivalent, with their supposedly excellent longish zoom lenses, which must make a lot of potential customers wonder why they should bother with Sony's and Panasonic's other mirrorless bodies.

As for an earlier point you were making about mirrorless needing to be small, that may end up being true from a marketing perspective, but for some of us (who knows how many  - I suspect few, though) mirrorless has appeal independent of size (I prefer EVFs and the absence of AFMA-causing mirrors, for instance).  But if you do want to keep it small, you can compensate quite a bit for loss of reach, while keeping decent-size sensors, if you boost resolution.  The extent to which you can crop on a Sony a7r when using a very sharp lens such as the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 is remarkable.  And if you don't insist on speed, Sony (85mm 2.8) and Nikon (film-era 100mm 2.8 E) have shown that you can go fairly long while remaining remarkably small and light.

7

Do I but the Sigma 14-24mm OS which takes 82mm filters, although all my other lenses take 77mm filters, and also lose 13° of angle of view compared to the Canon 16-35mm f/4? I think not.

I'm sure these lenses will be good for others, but I will skip them for now.

Well, yes, but it's easy to get excellent lenses in the 24mm-35mm range.  It isn't at the ultra-wide end, and the difference between 14 and 16 isn't as trivial as it looks if you're into that sort of thing (you may not be of course; it's rather a niche interest).  Of course, if Sigma had been able to conjure up a significant improvement to it's 12-24mm that would have been even better.  Perhaps 14mm is the practical limit for such things.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 13, 2014, 08:14:28 PM »
How is the viewfinder on the SL-1? I looked through a 450D the other day and was shocked by the tininess of the OVF. I like to see what I'm doing and for that reason I actually like the EVF on my NEX - it's much bigger than the OVF of a traditional xxx(x)D body.

It's very small compared to a Sony a7r, a6000 or OM-D EM1 (or, as I understand it, the latest top-level Fuji X).  I much prefer a decent EVF.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:06:37 PM »
I always thought the SL-1 looked interesting for use on a telescope with its low weight. How is the iso performance ? I use the 5DmIII for wide field but still use the 40D when I need to get closer ( and lighter), and it stinks above iso 800.

High ISO performance is much the same as other recent Canon APS-C bodies (you can see for yourself at dpreview).  I've never used a 40D, so I can't say how it compares to that, though.  Of course, it's nowhere near as good as 5DIII or 6D.  As a sort of experiment, I took a SL1 + Sigma 18-250 to Longwood Gardens last weekend, left my A7r + lenses in the car, and ended up taking quite a few photos at ISO 3200 (the max I set) as the light dropped.  I'm in the middle of processing the results; if you don't peer in too closely, I think they're not bad - though I'll be returning soon with FF & faster lenses....

10
EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:43:52 PM »

Excellent thread.  This topic has vexed me on 5D3 flower work.  The 5D3 has always been oversaturated on reds in my hands, and I seem to lose something when I try to rein in the reds in RAW processing.


You and others single out the 5DIII, but I'm pretty sure I've had the same problem with all the Canon cameras I own or have used (5DII and more recent models, both FF and APS-C).  Is that true for you too?  (I also find a related issue: even if I get reds to look right in LR, the process of exporting it to JPEG often screws up the results).  For a while I more-or-less gave up photographing red flowers....

Other cameras I use/have used seem to treat red as a problem and understate it, at least when it's a component of other colours.  The first time I photographed purple petunias with my Pentax K5 (I no longer own it), they came out almost pure blue, while my two Sonys (FF & APSC) do something similar, though not to the same extent (it may not be a Sony sensor thing - I'm pretty sure my OM-D doesn't do this, but it, like the K5, has a Sony sensor); so instead of taming reds I end up adding a bit of red to the purple tone in LR. 

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:47:17 PM »

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

Well, I have both (Canon 5DIII, 6D & SL1, and Sony a7r & a6000) and can certainly see differences between FF and APSC (and between the 5DIII and 6D, for that matter), both within and between camps.  I've not done anything resembling scientific testing, but I get the impression that the differences are similar (though at least for low ISO noise the Sony camp wins because their APS-C and FF sensors both have less noise at low ISOs and better DR). 

I've never used a 7D, though that doesn't really affect the point I was trying to make with my comment above, which is merely that whether something is noticeable, whether a difference is negligible, depends on who's looking, how and why, so that some of this evident disagreement may be in some sense spurious.  You could sit two people, A and B, side-by-side in front of the same photograph and A could say to B "they look the same to me", B could respond "but what about (say) this patch of noise here?" and A could in turn respond "Oh, OK, I see that now that you point it out, but it's not the sort of thing I notice because for me it's an unimportant element in how a photo looks".  (I've actually done something like this myself.)  But if A were instead to respond to B "no, I don't see it at all," that could mean that A or B needs new glasses....

12
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.


Are your non-center focus problems via AF or MF?  Have you had similar problems with other non-native lenses?  (Unfortunately I don't own a 85L.)  If this is mainly an AF thing, it's perhaps just as well I do MF instead!  As for shutter vibrations, while I don't seem to have been as affected as you, it would certainly nice if Sony could fix this (it doesn't seem to be an issue with the other two A7 bodies).

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:32:53 PM »

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.


I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as the Canon lenses I've tried on my a7r and a6000 seem to produce results at least as good as (better, to the extent the extra resolution & dr matter) they do on my Canon bodies (I say "seem to" because I've not done anything resembling a scientific comparison, merely taken shots of similar things in similar conditions).  And I'm very pleased with the results I'm getting with most of the old legacy lenses (various brands) I've been using, though with them I have nothing to compare the results to except the photos I've taken using them on my OM-D, where similar adapters are involved. 

But you're certainly right about AF - if you need to photograph moving things or use the camera in other situations when you don't have a few seconds to spare, AF with the metabones adapter is, as they readily admit up-front, useless.  I don't think anyone claims otherwise.  But if you're willing to wait, the AF is, in my experience, accurate and it's nice not to have to worry about AFMA.  I tend to think MF is faster, though, and it's partly the opportunity to use old MF lenses easily that makes me a fan of mirrorless cameras, regardless of who makes them (I rather like the process of manually focusing, and good MF lenses are far nicer to use that way than any AF lens I've used).  (And when you're photographing static subjects, I'm not even sure that AF, even with native lenses, is much faster, if at all, unless you already have a focus point over the subject - in the time you've moved the focus point to where you want it, you could likely have manually focused too, especially if what you're focusing on is small and located among other things that may distract the camera's AF).

In any event, no, these cameras certainly aren't for everyone....

14
Lenses / Re: advice for new lens?please
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:00:36 PM »
I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography


Since you do mostly "street" photography and still-life, it's not clear to me why you need more than what you have, except you may want something wider for building interiors and narrow streets.  Zooms are useful for obvious reasons, but at the long end, unless you really like lugging heavy things around, I would forget about a 70-200 2.8 and get the f4 IS or 70-300L instead; besides, in a city chances are you would find the range of a 24-105 much more useful except for occasions when you want shallower focus, and you already have primes that provide this.  Depending on where you travel to and how much time you have, I suspect you may find it more enjoyable overall to just take no more than one or two lenses each time you leave your hotel, but that's just me (yes, you may miss something, but everything we do has an opportunity cost...). 

15
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:56:35 PM »

It's a stupid thread and a stupid question.  Everybody else is trying to be nice and skirt round that fact.

...

For an untrained amateur with deep pockets and a gnawing desire to have the best toys, most expensive toys in the playground, they will make your life harder.

This is a premise that we need to accept.... modern dslr technology can make the most rancidly untalented photographer turn out reasonable shots. 

....


Perhaps it would have been better to ask it elsewhere instead, but why is the question "stupid"?  And what do "untrained amateurs with deep pockets", "rancidly untalented" or otherwise, have to do with the answer?  Or do you know something about the OP that the rest of us don't?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45