August 30, 2014, 04:28:24 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 ... 45

The OP specifically indicate that he/she wants a body other than Rebel. Whilst T2i/T3i are capable cameras, they don't match his criteria of choice.

True, but the reasons ezpop gave for wanting a more advanced APS-C than Rebel are that they look better and are "more sturdy", and maybe he also wants AFMA.  But unless he really needs AFMA (and maybe he does - I have no idea), really cares what it looks like, and would really benefit from the difference in sturdiness; and since he plans to take landscapes and portraits - it's far from obvious that a Rebel won't meet his actual criteria.  A recent Rebel, including the SL1, will likely have better image quality than a 7D or the others he mentions, especially at higher ISOs.

Or he could try something entirely different; for instance, a Sony a6000 is inexpensive (its immediate predecessor is now much cheaper still) and, with suitable adapters, can be used for any Canon lens he already has and just about any other lens you care to mention. It's mirrorless, so AFMA simply isn't an issue, and the wide range of good, old manual focus lenses available extremely cheaply provides a rather different and perhaps even cooler way to learn photography - and in the looks and handling department they win hands down (well, to me, anyway).  (Better sensor in many ways too, probably.) Just a - perhaps irrelevant - thought....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 04:03:56 PM »

Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out.  And an older lens is a good way to save money.  Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.  ;)

Oh, such people are not hypothetical at all - you should visit m43 rumors some time!  If privatebydesign and neuro were to  pay them a visit, they would be kept busy for days....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:22:27 PM »

When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture.  That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.

Yes, it's a marvelous lens and, despite the longer DoF cf FF equivalents, has superb bokeh and I very much enjoy using mine.  It is, however, fairly expensive (c. $900) and, by m43 standards, rather heavy; and I can't help pointing out that the rather impressive Nikon 100mm 2.8 E series manual lens, for which I paid c. $120 a couple of weeks ago, provides the same focal length when I attach it to my Sony a6000, has excellent image quality and, even including the adapter, that combination is smaller and weighs less than my OM-D E-M5 & Olympus 75mm and cost vastly less.  Of course, you have to be willing to fool around with manual focusing and forego IS, and your basic point about the compactness of m43 gear remains valid, but still....

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 11:24:17 AM »
It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

I've no idea how they compare, but if you really want to go wide, the Sigma 8-24mm is still probably the widest non-fisheye zoom; it's surprisingly (?) good but costs more than twice as much, is rather heavy, and has no IS.  I look forward to better reviews (and with better photos, too...). 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 30, 2014, 04:15:16 PM »
Has the inertia factor been discussed at all?  The heavier the body and lens are, the more resistant to movement/torque they are.  Our are we assuming in this dystopian future the camera fully adjusts for all hand shake and movement?

You may have a point.  I read somewhere recently about a pro photographer whose solution to the Sony A7r shutter-shock problem was to attach a 24oz metal plate to it!  (I'm not in the least bit tempted to emulate this....)

On the other hand, the current Olympus OM-D IBIS & light lens combinations seem to combat this very well - perhaps they have the balance right; they allow successful hand-held shooting at ridiculously low shutter speeds.  It would be nice if Sony could change how the shutter in the A7r works and add IBIS to its successor (or if Canon could conjure up something similar).

I have the 6d and its really a fantastic sensor! BUT I would love to also have a D800E type Canon, for those times I print huge and where the 6D just cannot resolve all the detail as I would like.

True enough, and no doubt Canon will release a high mp camera sooner or later - it's no wizardry, their crop sensors already have higher per-area resolution so they'd only need to copy that process to full frame...

... Problem is: only few lenses are able to resolve this esp. on ff to the borders, so for my current 17-40L + 70-300L setup 20mp is quite enough or I'd be capturing more high-res blur and handling 50mb+ raw files :-p

For your raw files be >50mb, the Canon sensor you're imagining would have to be considerably higher resolution than what's in a Sony A7r or Nikon D800.  The raw files my A7r makes are c. 35mb, while the raw files from the D800e I once rented are c. 38mb.

As for how many lenses can keep up in terms of resolution, are you sure?  The Canon EF lenses I've attached to my Sony A7r can all create images that look amazing when viewed at 100%; and the same is true of images I've made from some older manual lenses, including most recently an inexpensive Vivitar 55mm macro lens (at non-macro distances, what's more).  It's true that you can see differences among lenses in terms of resolution on 36mp FF sensors, but (1) you can on Canon's 23mp sensors too and (2) it doesn't matter - the results still look impressive either way.  This frequently stated complaint/worry/concern (or whatever it is) strikes me as overrated.

None of which is a comment on the quality of Canon sensors, by the way - the high ISO performance of my 6D never stops impressing me.

Software & Accessories / Re: Shooting in the rain
« on: May 30, 2014, 10:30:27 AM »
Few days ago i was shooting in the light rain without any kind of protection. Actually it was really raining only a little.

I wonder  how much of raining is acceptable to you when shooting without rain cover? I have 5D III and as far as I know, it should be quite well resistant. But how is with lenses? Particularly with extended zoom lenses like 24-70/2.8 as in my case. I was shooting with 70-200 too, but because it doesn't have extending part it should be more resistant, I think.

I've been taken by surprise a few times, with nothing to protect me or the camera: 5DII + 300mm f4 in an unexpected thunderstorm, 5DIII + 70-300L in an hour's worth of steady snow (I would shake it off the lens ever few minutes, but that was it), Olympus OM-D E-M5 + 60mm macro (both rainproof by design) and Sony A7r + 55mm 1.8 together in steady light rain (enough to soak me, with drops of water dripping down my neck from my hair for most of my hour-long drive afterwards).  In each case (except for the Olympus) I wouldn't have been at all surprised if everything had been ruined, but they all came through unscathed.  Perhaps equipment is tougher than we fear, but I never feel comfortable in such situations and wouldn't deliberately choose to repeat them. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 29, 2014, 05:04:46 PM »
Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.

If size and weight is not a factor, I don't think this discussion would've existed in the first place, as most everyone would've remained on DSLRs, A7 wouldn't be the answer in this case. But if size and weight is a factor, then going down to Fuji and M43rd is necessary.

The other problem with A7 is the lens line-up.....

If size and weight really matter, M43 beats Fuji easily (and, perhaps more important, Olympus M43 bodies have excellent IBIS, something which I don't think any Fuji X camera has); and it's worth noting that the Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is more-or-less the same size and weight as its Olympus M43 equivalent, the 17mm 1.8....

You're right, in a way, re the A7 series lens line-up, but it can be augmented easily enough by the impatient via adapters and I rather doubt any Fuji-X lens-body combination can conjure up images as good as a Sony A7/A7r + either Sony/Zeiss prime (or, for that matter, a Sony a6000 plus same).  There's much that's appealing about Fuji-X cameras, but until they overcome their obsession with smoothness and noise-suppression (at the expense of clarity/detail) I won't consider buying another.  You may think the Canon SL1 is a piece of cheap junk compared to a Fuji X, but I prefer the images I get from my SL1 to those I got from one of the latter during the brief time I owned it.

I find it more than a tad perverse that the top-of-the-line APS-C and M43 mirrorless camera bodies from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic cost around the same as a Sony A7....

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 29, 2014, 04:30:47 PM »

I did some comparison and the fuji has less noise at the higher iso's for sure.

I briefly owned a Fuji X series camera and got the impression that while it had less noise at high ISOs, this was merely because it applied aggressive noise reduction even to RAW files - its files had much less detail than equivalents from my other cameras, mirrorless and otherwise (in fact I noticed a relative lack of sharpness at any ISO, an impression confirmed by just about every photo I've seen online taken with any Fuji X-series camera).  For that and other reasons I returned it.  I really wanted to like the images it created because I find the cameras themselves very appealing aesthetically and in terms of design, but among mirrorless cameras I prefer the results from my Olympus and Sonys.  This seems to be rather a minority view, however.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 28, 2014, 11:23:48 AM »

For those that think you can't get good bokeh with M4/3, check-out Robin Wong's work with a 75mm f/1.8  How to Box a Chicken and Portrait of a Stranger, they look good to me.

And not just that lens - the other m43 primes I have that are long enough to significantly blur the background (Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4, Olympus 45mm 1.8 & Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro), and some of the zooms, create beautifully soft-edged bokeh - as of course do a vast array of other lenses which can be attached to a mirrorless camera via an adapter.  The reduced size of the sensor doesn't change the bokeh the lens is capable of, though of course the crop factor affects the relative distances for any particular framing with any particular lens and, thus, the extent to which the background will be out of focus.  (I've recently been enjoying using an inexpensive manual Vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro lens on my Olympus OM-D, Sony a6000 and Sony a7r and enjoying the different results from three different sensor sizes.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 27, 2014, 11:37:09 AM »

The full frame mirrorless many recommend like the Sony a7/a7r is deceiving because though the body is small, the lenses are literally still as big as DSLR full frame lenses - in fact the 55mm f/1.8 for the Sony A7 is twice the size of the Canon 50mm 1.4!   So you have this tiny body but still have to lug around the big lenses making the ordeal pointless and an ergonomic mess IMO.

Your general point may be right, but the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 isn't twice as big as the Canon 50mm 1.4 - it's a bit longer (71mm vs 50mm), but somewhat narrower (64mm vs 73mm) and weighs slightly less (281g vs 290g) (data from dpreview as I'm too lazy to measure mine, but it seems about right).  It's also optically superior to the Canon, though of course not quite as fast (if you don't mind manual focus, the Canon, by the way, works very nicely on a Sony A7/A7r, the mirrorless technology avoiding the back/front-focusing issues often complained about with this lens). 

The Sony/Zeiss 35mm  2.8 is tiny, almost exactly the same size as its micro 43 equivalent, the Olympus 17mm 1.8 (both weigh 120g, there's a whopping 1mm difference in length and 4mm difference in diameter).  It's optically superior too.

As for the original question, it depends on what he wants to use the camera for and what he wants to do with the resulting photos.  If weight and bulk matter a lot and lens versatility matters, micro 43 wins out - optically much the same as most APS-C, the lenses - some of which are excellent, esp. the closest equivalent of the 135L, the Olympus 75mm 1.8 - are all much smaller than dslr equivalents, and if you buy an Olympus body, you get excellent image stabilization for any lens you attach, which makes up for at least some of the low light disadvantage these bodies have cf FF.  Whether what is perhaps the main difference - relatively longer depth of focus - matters is a matter of taste (the bokeh can be superb, though). 

If you don't mind the various compromises involved with the Sony A7/A7r (shortage of native lenses, not designed for herons-catching-fish, etc.), the image quality is unsurpassed (except perhaps by the 6D and 1Dx in very low light), and they're small and light. 

If you like playing around with old manual lenses (or new ones, for that matter), on mirrorless bodies focusing is much easier than on any dslr.  AF is better in at least some respects too - you can move focus points just about anywhere in the viewfinder (especially beneficial if you want to avoid the problems that come with focus-recompose) and there's no issue with front/back focusing.

Or a high-end point-and-should may suffice.

Anyway, they all have their pros and cons.  I used not to mind (much) carrying around FF dslrs and a lens or three, but having spent the last few months using an A7r, A6000 and Olympus OMD-EM5 almost exclusively, my 6D and 5DIII feel terribly bulky and heavy on the few occasions I've used them and I just don't enjoy the process of taking photos as much; for now I'll keep at least one of them, but I'm not sure for how much longer.  We're all different, though, so it's hard to make any sort of specific recommendation. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSRL Camera for travel
« on: May 23, 2014, 12:10:27 PM »
If you want to stay with Canon, I too would suggest the SL1, which produces image quality at least as good as any other Canon APS-C body (except perhaps the 70D and leaving aside such things as AF points and the inability to microadjust AF) and - at least if you're in the US - can be bought very inexpensively.  I keep reading good things about the most recent Sigma 18-250mm OS Macro and if you act within the next few days, you can buy a new one from Adorama for a mere $260; you'll find a link + code for the extra discount at - hold your nose -  It's currently on backorder, but maybe it would arrive before you leave (I just ordered one for such a purpose; at that price it was hard to resist).  Anyway, an SL1 + that zoom + one or two small primes you already own may well be more than enough.  The same might be true of the EOS-M, if you can do without a viewfinder and don't mind the rather laggy performance.

Vacations pose rather a dilemma, don't they?  If you're going somewhere special, it seems silly to compromise on image quality, but you don't want to ruin your day by lugging around heavy expensive stuff.  To go smaller/lighter than the SL1 + above, you would need to switch to an entirely different system such as Micro 43, or get a relatively expensive high-end point-and-shoot (such as the tiny Sony RX100 series or the bigger Sony RX10) or, for optimal image quality, a Sony A7/7r and its two primes. But those options will all cost more (a lot more, in some cases) and, depending on what sort of images you take and what you plan to do with them, the differences in quality may well be negligible to nonexistent (some of the options will be inferior). 


Or they decided to do the hard thing (refreshing a large portion of their lens lineup) before doing the relatively easy thing (increasing pixel density in a single body). As has been noted numerous times, both the optics and the electronics net the effective system resolution, hence the 5D3 + lenses resolving better on average than the D800 + lenses.

Sure; but didn't Roger Cicala at lensrentals show that while the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II is a higher-resolution lens than the Tamron equivalent, the Tamron on a Nikon D800 outresolves the Canon on a 5DIII?  Reports suggest that the Canon performs awfully well on a Sony A7r (I wonder if anyone has done a similar comparison with both lenses on an A7/A7r).

It may well be that most people don't "need" more resolution, and that many of those who think they want it would be disappointed when they got it, but would anyone here complain if Canon released a relatively affordable (i.e. comparable to Sony) FF camera with higher resolution and better low ISO performance (especially if it also had at least as good high ISO performance as the 6D/1Dx)?  I wouldn't - especially if it were also mirrorless, so we could avoid the tiresome back/front-focus problems that seem to affect so many lenses. 


If you are consistently cropping for added zoom, you have the wrong lens or are standing in the wrong place.

Perhaps.  But swap "sometimes" for "consistently" and bear in mind that a small mirrorless FF camera + Zeiss/Sony 35mm or 55mm (or one of the smaller Canon - or anyone else's for that matter - primes) weighs little and is really easy to carry around all day; and the higher the resolution the easier it is to forego carrying around a longer lens as well.   


in addition to your Canon does not require any kind of lens selling or trading in for new set of crappy Nikon lenses.  trust me , Nikon just go down and down from now on since Sony just announced using its best sensor for only its own camera

Could you explain it a bit, how can Sony cameras use Canon lenses better than Nikon?

If you're asking whether Canon lenses work better on Sony A7/A7r bodies than Nikon lenses do, the latest metabones EF-Nex/e-mount adapter provides aperture control for most/many (all?) EF lenses and (if you're not in a hurry) AF for some.  I don't think there's a Nikon-Nex equivalent yet.  Provided you don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture control, manual Nikon lenses (you need the aperture ring) work just fine on the Sonys (as do a vast range of manual lenses - that's part of the appeal of mirrorless cameras).  This has nothing in particular to do with FF, by the way - the metabones EF adapter works just the same on Sony's APS-C mirrorless bodies.

If you're asking whether Canon lenses work better on Sony mirrorless cameras than they do on Nikon cameras, I don't think it's physically possible to attach an EF Canon lens to a Nikon body; so the question doesn't really arise. (Or am I wrong about this?) 

For whatever it's worth, in my experience Canon lenses work superbly on Sony mirrorless bodies - leaving aside AF issues (accuracy is dead-on; speed, on the other hand...).  And that's true not just of L lenses but even such lowly old-timers as the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8.  When I get caught up with processing photos I'll probably post a few on this forum - though by now that point has been made by others elsewhere.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 45