January 28, 2015, 11:24:43 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 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 50
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 03:48:42 PM »
Personally, I'd love to have the Nikon D810, but only if I could put my Canon glass on it!
Nikon doesn't make the high quality glass that I need, for the lenses that I use.  For example: Canon TSE 24mm mark2.

I'll take this opportunity to trot out one of my favorite photo wishes: an industry-standard SLR mount so we can freely interchange cameras and lenses across manufacturers.

Ain't gonna happen in the U.S.  Hey, EU!  We need your regulatory assistance here!   8)

Agreed.  I've probably said much the same thing in response to similar posts of yours, but you can come close to that with a decent mirrorless body + adapters, provided you're willing to forego fast AF or, in most cases, any sort of AF (which of course rules this option out completely for many).  Of course, given that one of the best features of Canon lenses is their extremely fast, accurate AF, it would be nice if Canon were to provide us with such a mirrorless body.... 

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:48:07 PM »
Hi Sabaki.
Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.

I agree.  In fact almost all Sabaki's lenses can conjure up nice bokeh in the right circumstances.  Blurring isn't just the result of aperture - distance from the subject, distance of background from subject, and lens magnification all matter too (along with other factors, such as the number of aperture blades and their shape) - though of course, other things being equal, the faster the aperture the better.  But other things aren't always equal - 85mm lenses tend to have a mfd of at least 3 feet, and you may well be able to get more/better background blur with a slower lens that magnifies more or lets you get closer or both (e.g. the 100L).  Toss in the effect of switching to FF and it probably makes sense to suggest Sabaki doesn't buy any lenses yet - s/he may get enough blurring with what s/he already has.  Of course, if one can afford an 85L, it's hard to go wrong (aside from the terrible purple fringing - scarcely better, if at all, than the 85mm 1.8 in that regard).

It may also be worth noting that the meaning of "bokeh monster" may not be clear-cut.  In my experience lenses vary in bokeh appeal depending on the circumstances - I have fast lenses that create beautiful smooth blurred background effects if you can get fairly close to the subject but that, as you get further from the subject and/or the background is farther from the subject, create backgrounds that are far less smooth and even unpleasant.  Some fast lenses, especially older ones, have aberrations which rather than creating a smooth blur add a distinctive character to the blur, including, in some instances, giving the effect of making out of focus highlights appear to swirl around the subject (this especially happens with lenses that create "cats' eyes" rather than smooth circles towards corners).  Lenses with fewer aperture blades make out of focus highlights rapidly become less round (hexagonal, etc.) as you stop them down (a few old Russian lenses, which have up to 20 blades, never do so).  Some lenses described as bokeh monsters are manual only (e.g. the Tokina 90mm 2.5 macro that's dubbed "Bokina" in some, um, circles).  And so on.

So it all rather depends on the effects you want, the subjects you like to photograph and the conditions you're likely to be presented with.  Which is why you might as well wait and see what you can achieve with your current lenses on your 6D when you get it; it would be a shame to spend all that money on an 85L only to discover that you can get the effects you want with your 100L....

EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:44:05 PM »
It depends on what you mean by "worth it".  As you may have noticed, lots of vintage manual lenses are cheap, and lots of those can be very good to superb; it's an inexpensive way to play around with a variety of lenses.  Given the tiny size of the M you'll likely want small lenses.  If so, Pentax is perhaps the best place to start - a few weeks ago a bought a Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 for c. $100 which makes excellent images, and an even smaller Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 for less than half that.  Check out the pentax forum for vast numbers of user reviews.  Your 100L is a marvelous lens, of course, but you might rather use something a lot smaller, such as the superb Nikon 55mm 2.8 macro (if you want to get close) or the Nikon E series 100mm 2.8, which looks tiny next to a 100L.  I recently bought both those lenses in excellent shape for c. $120 each (and could have paid less if I had tried harder).  With the right adapters, the range to choose from is vast.  (I use them on my Olympus M43 and Sony a7r & a6000, but I don't see why they wouldn't work at least as well on an EOS-M.)

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Inspirational...
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:36:03 AM »
Great locations a little too much post but this is my dream too.

"A little too much" for me too.  They look like good photos that, for my taste, would look much better had someone else processed them.

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:28:14 AM »
Lots of people around here "look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS" too.  In the (perhaps unlikely) event that's an accurate translation, I'm not sure it follows from that comment that a high resolution camera is "on the way," a phrase that suggests a degree of imminence rather than a vague prediction of something that might happen in a year or three. 

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 22, 2014, 10:29:53 AM »
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

I don't disagree with any of that (to the extent you're talking about AFMA adjustments rather than inconsistency).  My comment wasn't specifically about Sigma, though it seems more of their lenses need adjusting than others and more of them focus inconsistently within any given AFMA tweak.  But after using a variety of mirrorless cameras over the past 18 months, where AFMA simply isn't an issue, I'm getting less tolerant of/patient with this aspect of dslr technology.  As for inconsistency within any given AFMA adjustment, presumably mirrorless isn't helpful, but manual focusing avoids that and mirrorless cameras make manual focusing easy (I recently bought an EF-mount version of the excellent Sigma 70mm macro and have been using it on my A7r rather than my 5DIII - so no focusing problems at all aside from incompetence at my end...).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:07:33 PM »

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

I don't think you're right about off-brand combinations.  In LR, I can use a profile for any lens I attach to my Sony A7r & a6000 (provided they have one for that lens in the first place, of course); with my Canon lenses, the corrections seem to work exactly the same way regardless of whether they're on my Sony or Canon bodies.  The only difference is that with off-brand lenses you have to take an additional step and manually select the lens - you can't just check a box and have the corrections applied automatically.

As for Nikon, do their dslr in-camera corrections apply to RAW files as well to jpegs?  That seems to be the case with m43 cameras (at least when using LR), but is it true of Nikon dslrs too?

Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:53:30 PM »
The 16-35L IS and the 10-18mm IS alone make this year great for Canon users. If they add the 100-400LII, it would be the year of the lens.

Exactly - those two excellent wide zooms aren't bad for half a year.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 15, 2014, 03:32:33 PM »
Just got my RMA from B&H.  Simply don't want to deal with the dock.  Also, just read on the lensrental site that they have had "multiple" problems with the lens locking up during adjustment on the dock.

And I don't play the "good copy" game.

Lovely bokeh, all around IQ, but I'm too spoiled by AF to give it up for MF!   :-X

I expect that if I ever decide I want this lens I'll buy an EF mount but use it on my Sony A7r, where MF is easy. But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.  (Speaking of MF, I've recently been greatly enjoying a 50mm 1.4 Pentax/Takumar; excellent image quality, small, fairly light and, to these eyes, more attractive... and it just works.  All for c. $100.)

Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 15, 2014, 03:16:13 PM »

(sorry everyone for going so far off-topic ;) )

Thanks for doing so!

EOS-M / Re: How Much Would You Pay...
« on: July 15, 2014, 03:04:04 PM »
For $1.5K you can buy a Sony A7, which will give you much the same high ISO performance you're asking for (you're not going to get it via current technology on APS-C).  For <$600 you can buy a Sony a6000, which may be as good as the 70D in terms of your AF requirements (I don't know first hand as I don't shoot fast moving subjects and have never used a 70D, but reviewers seem impressed by the a6000's AF) and has better image quality than an M (good though that is).  As far as APS-C and FF mirrorless bodies are concerned, those (and the other two A7 bodies) are what Canon would need to match or surpass (IBIS would be nice) as far as I'm concerned.  If Canon did such a thing - I guess it's not impossible - I would pay at least those prices; but I wouldn't pay a penny if it/they didn't/don't have a built-in EVF.

Two questions:

What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?

What can another brand put into theirs to make Canon envious?

At the moment I can't think of anything to answer either of those questions.  Anyone?


Making it interesting to those who read this forum and making it something that consumers are going to want to buy are probably rather different things.  I have no clue about the latter.  To interest me it would have to be something like the Sony a6000 but with IBIS added, and that surely won't happen.  As for Canon being envious, they may be noticing the slight uptick in mirrorless sales in recent months, but otherwise they seem to be doing rather well as it is (even if some might think they don't deserve to).

Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 11, 2014, 04:01:23 PM »
As you say, old MF lenses provide a cheap, engaging adventure, often with superb results too.

I like the way you put it, and it's so true. I picked up a Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO the other day that gives stunning results on my NEX, both with a Metabones Speed Booster and without. It's strange to say, and unexpected for a Sigma, but optically that lens is in 'L' territory. Maybe that's why it (deservedly) carries a red stripe.

Thanks for the tip!  So far my dabbling in old MF lenses has been limited to primes, so that might be fun to try.

Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 11, 2014, 03:47:47 PM »

Tourists are on holiday, not a photography shoot. Let them enjoy their holidays and their snapshots. Life is complicated enough as it is.

Yes, of course; to that extent you and acutancephotography are right - A-mode is just fine (but then if snapshots are the criterion, one has to wonder why they're using a dslr of any sort in the first place...).  What amuses/interests me is the implicit assumption that tourist photography is just about replicating postcards and providing photos of husbands/wives posing awkwardly in front of monuments - or is that simply what the term has come to mean (just as "soccer mom" has somehow come, rather insultingly, in the US to be the archetype of a certain sort of clueless/lazy/uninterested photographer)?  Maybe that's Dylan777's point.

Regardless of that, is it really still the case that in A mode you can't select focus points? That would drive me nuts.  (The only camera I have with me is a Sony a6000, but as the lens attached to it is an elderly Pentax-M I can't use the camera in either of its two "intelligent auto" modes to find out first-hand.)


I know I want 4.0 for the weight savings, and non-IS version is not an option. Is the 2.8 really that much better if I don't need 2.8 aperture?

As everyone else has been saying, no, not much better (probably not better at all unless you do side-by-side comparisons at 100%), unless you need the extra speed.  For that matter, one could say much the same thing of the 70-300L (where the extra focal length makes up for differences in aperture with regard to depth of focus - plus, it has very smooth bokeh).

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 50