April 19, 2014, 08:41:23 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 4 ... 35

Test results demonstrate that Canon  EF24-70mm f/2.8 M2 is much superior to Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS in resolution and color reproduction and overall image quality .  Especially this is noticable at 70mm focal length .
From test pictures it is obvious that even on 36mpx   Sony a7R body  Canon  EF24-70mm f/2.8 M2 still does not reach it's limit in resolution power.  This combination is perfect one when focus speed is not important.
On the other end  Sony a7R with  Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS  is a fairly good combination as general purpose  walk-around point and shoot camera.

I also tested Canon TSE 17  on a7R and image quality , color rendering and resulution is also of top possible quality. 
It seems that Canon TSE 17 the same as Canon  EF24-70mm f/2.8 M2 still does not reach it's resolution power limit on a7R
Canon TSE 17  on Sony  a7R  looks as  perfect  combination for Architecture and Landscape photograpy.

Sony/Zeiss don't seem to have figured out how to make a first rate zoom for their A7s yet.  If you compared the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 you would have seen a significant difference too (the 35mm 2.8 as well, probably).  But you don't need to attach Canon lens as new/expensive as the Canon 24-70II - you can get fantastic images from many much less expensive Canon lenses on the A7r, even such bargains as the 40mm pancake and 85mm 1.8 - if nothing else, the A7r shows just how good many Canon lenses are!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 04, 2014, 11:22:15 AM »
I am learning to shoot large format 4 x 5 (B&W), and am awaiting my first photo encounter with a high-end Canon or Nikon user. Great opportunity for reverse snobbery - film, old format, old bellows camera, really old (circa 1960) single-coated lens.

Good for you!  A couple of years ago I came across someone photographing autumn leaves behind some historic buildings here in Philadelphia using a similar camera on a huge wooden tripod - looked marvelous.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 03, 2014, 11:09:58 AM »
Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.
If someone wants to own a 1DX or 5D MK III and use it in P or Auto mode, why not, its their their money and their choice ... when more people buy high end DSLR's, its better for the manufacturer and the customer - they get volumes and we get lower prices.

Quite so.  Aside from that, the advantages of Av etc. apply just as much to Rebels, and the advantages of FF - esp. low noise - apply regardless of whether you use Av or P etc.; and while you can learn how to use these various controls on a Rebel, it's actually easier to do so on more advanced cameras as they make it easier to use them - easier still if you have a camera with an EVF that lets you see the effect of the changes you make as you look through the viewfinder - and provide a better viewfinder to boot.  I dare say that, for many, a fancy camera is overkill (esp. if all you're going to do with the results is post them on, say, facebook), but that's their loss, not anyone else's.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sonay Alpha a6000
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:42:03 AM »
The performance of the A6000 looks awesome, and the price point is very good...Sony is bringing it's A game!  This looks like a great little travel camera for work trips, and I think I'll be purchasing one.

Help me to understand why Canon/Nikon full frame cameras don't offer the same wide area coverage of focus points as the Sony A6000???

Maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps this is a mirrorless vs (d)slr thing?  Every mirrorless camera I've used has a wide area of coverage, whether FF (Sony), APS-C (Fuji) or Micro 4/3 (Olympus, Panasonic), while every dslr I've used, FF or APS-C, has the focus points lumped in the middle, regardless of how many of them there are (there's better coverage with APS-C, but that seems to merely reflect the crop factor - the FF Nikon D600 has the same focus system, more or less, as the APS-C D7000, but because the sensor is so much smaller on the D7000 the focus points cover more of the sensor).  This is one reason why I prefer mirrorless.

It's becoming harder to convince my friends that buying only Canon gear is the right thing to do.

Sigma have put out some amazing lenses in the last two years and Canon's only memorable release is the Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 L II.

I guess "memorable" is subjective, but over the past couple of years Canon has released, in addition to the lens you mentioned, the 24-70 f4, 24IS, 28IS, 35IS, 40mm pancake, and 200-400L, all of which are first rate regardless of whether one may actually want any of them.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 03:55:59 PM »

As you point out, the only people who have to wait are brand loyalists.  Obviously some people have to be, but those who don't might as well do what some of us have done and supplement our Canon bodies with an A7r.  I love mine, both with its superb native primes and my Canon EF lenses (plus a few old manual focus lenses) - so much so that I'm not sure which is my second camera....

I'm not necessarily a brand loyalist but the economic reality is that I have invested in Canon and to change to a completely incompatible brand now isn't feasible for me. I have looked closely at the A7r for that reason but there seem to be three big question marks - light leak, AF performance and IQ when using an EF adaptor. You clearly love your A7r but what is your experience with these issues if you don't mind me asking?

I don't mind at all. 

1. It's not a "completely incompatible" system; they overlap.  Whether they overlap enough for your purposes I can't say, of course.  I would also say that for many people a complete switch to Sony wouldn't be sensible or desirable, and that I have no intention of doing so.  For me it's a marvelous adjunct which, in some situations, would be my go-to camera - at least until Canon comes up with a close substitute (high resolution, mirrorless, no loss of EF performance, etc. - preferably with IBIS...).   

2. The light leak applies under very limited circumstances, apparently (very long exposures in near-total darkness but with a bright light hitting part of the lens mount), and doesn't only apply to Sony cameras.  Check out Roger Cicala's blog post on the subject at lensrentals.  I never shoot in such conditions, so it's simply not an issue for me (or, I suspect, for 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time).  The shutter-shock problem is far more real (see below).

3.  AF performance with EF lenses is unquestionably inferior in terms of speed - it's not *that* slow, but if you're used to the near-instantaneous focusing you get with the best Canon lens/body combinations it will seem slow (rather comical too - it ambles towards the subject, pauses, goes a bit beyond and then comes back); and it's slow compared to native FE lenses, of course.  But it's probably not inferior in terms of accuracy; in some respects it's superior: one benefit of a mirrorless body is that with on-sensor focusing there's no need to worry about back/front focusing.  If you plan to use it to photograph things that don't move, it's not an issue.  But don't even consider it if you want to photograph sports, children running around, herons-catching-fish, etc. and rely on AF to do so.

4.  As for IQ, I've used these EF lenses: 24-105L, 28mm 2.8 IS, 40mm, 85mm 1.8, 100 L (no AF with this, but the other electronic connections work) and 70-200 f4 IS.  I haven't performed anything resembling a scientific comparison of these lenses on the A7R vs 5DIII or 6D, but I feel confident in saying that not only is the image quality not inferior on the Sony body it's probably superior (I was shocked by the superb image quality I was able to get from the 85mm 1.8 when I first attached it). 

At the time I decided to buy an A7R I had used one exclusively with Canon lenses - it was because the results were so good that I wanted one, and it was not until I had owned it for a while that I bought the two native FE primes; they're superb too, especially the remarkable 55mm 1.8. 

Having said all that, there may well be Canon lenses that don't work as well on the two Sony A7s - I have no first hand knowledge one way or another - but based on what I've read the main problems are with wide angle Leica lenses due to a design that simply doesn't apply to Canon lenses.  I would also add that if you want to use old Canon MF lenses, it's far easier to manually focus on a mirrorless camera (thanks to magnification and focus peaking) than it is on any dslr, especially if you use wide apertures; and Sony's focus peaking and magnification work at least as well as anyone else's.

5.  One flaw you didn't mention is the much-discussed shutter-shock.  This is real, and, in my experience, shows up if your shutter speed is 1/100-1/125, regardless of the lens (apparently it's worse if you use a tripod, but I don't and thus can't comment).  It doesn't seem to be a problem at other speeds, including slower speeds (though you may encounter the usual too-slow-shutter problems if you're not using a lens with IS; IS has no effect on shutter-shock, of course); I've taken plenty of sharp photos at 1/60 (a speed these cameras seem inordinately fond of if you let them decide the shutter speed).  If you avoid 1/100-1/125 you'll be fine.

I hope some of this helps.  Far more competent/savvy/knowledgeable people than I have written about all of this, though, so don't rely  too much on what I've written!

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:20:52 PM »


A perfect second camera will be the A7r ...which means the waiting's theoretically over..once I have it, no matter how good the rumored megapixel offering will be, I wont buy another camera for at least three years. The best thing about mirror less is that we are not tied to one brand anymore. I can walk into a shop today and get a camera that will fit my TS24...36mp and that lens sounds very tempting to me!

Why are we waiting so long for Canons megapixel offering?

As you point out, the only people who have to wait are brand loyalists.  Obviously some people have to be, but those who don't might as well do what some of us have done and supplement our Canon bodies with an A7r.  I love mine, both with its superb native primes and my Canon EF lenses (plus a few old manual focus lenses) - so much so that I'm not sure which is my second camera....

EOS Bodies / Re: Much Ado About Nothing at NAB 2014 From Canon
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:07:01 PM »
I'm a fairly 'long-time' Canon guy...started shooting with a new Ellan II in the 90's.  I have bought numerous Canons: Ellan II, 20D, 5D, 1DSII, 5D2 plus numerous P&S's.  I still have my 5D2 as the 5D3 wasn't enough of an upgrade for me to spend the money.  The last two years I have also been shooting an XPro1 with the 35mm, 23mm and some Leica glass.

The sad truth is I find myself shooting less and less with my 5D2.  I wish Canon would come out with something new and groundbreaking to make me excited about the brand again.  Even their foray into mirrorless was a joke; coming out with the 'M' when they had the opportunity to produce something exciting along the lines of Fuji and/or Sony A7R.

I understand your complaint, but one nice aspect of the A7R (unless you want it for sports/herons-catching-fish etc.) is how well it works with Canon lenses (others too, of course), even those for which the latest metabones adapter doesn't provide AF (I recently spent some time using mine with the 100L, using MF & the A7R's focus peaking, with - to my pleasant surprise - a high success rate).  Buying one may not make you excited about the Canon brand again, but it might make you excited about your Canon lenses again, especially given your remarks in a later post re an interest in landscape photography.   I've not done anything resembling a scientific comparison, but I'm pretty sure that the images my Canon lenses make with my A7R are even better than the images they make with my 6D & 5DIII.  Brand loyalty is all very well, but promiscuity is more fun.

I get the impression from your various responses to answers to your initial question that you really want to buy a 135L, so why not just go ahead?  If you find that it doesn't add anything useful after all, you'll likely be able to sell it for around what you paid for it. 

I would be surprised if you didn't find the bokeh better from the 135mm wide open than from your 70-200 wide open, but the same is true of your 100L, and, as privatebydesign points out, the fact that you can get much closer to your subject with the 100L makes it potentially an even better blur-machine than the 135L - depending, of course, on how far you want to/can be from your subject.  It may be that the 135L provides better bokeh on objects farther from the subject - I've not done any direct comparisons myself, but you can probably find some online if interested - and the 135L avoids the hunting that you can get with the 100L, albeit at the expense of focus distance and IS.  But given how context-specific these perhaps rather fine differences are, it's much better to compare them first hand if you can.  (I've ended up with both the 100L & 135L, don't expect to sell either one,  and prefer the 70-300L to the 70-200L 2.8, but that's just me.)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX mini – I'm speechless
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:41:40 PM »
Maybe I'm just feeling like a Luddite today, but I am having a very bad reaction to Samsung's latest camera – or more accurately to the way it is being promoted.

The camera features a solid premium metal body with a luxurious leatherette finish, making the camera the natural choice for style-conscious shooters looking to make a statement.

Is this really where photography is headed?

95.4% of photos are of food on plates in restaurants and bad group portraits of drunks (including selfies).

Selfies aren't new, of course, and some are actually quite good, even if a camera wasn't involved:


As for "luxurious leatherette", that almost as good as a former classical CD producer who once described a large Cortot box set as being presented in "a luxurious cardboard box" and didn't get it when I teased him for it. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Banding/Posterization in Blue Sky
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:29:34 PM »
This may not be very helpful, but I've never noticed posterization via my 6D.  As for dust spots, it's perhaps silly but while I expect to get a few over time, and while they're seldom a problem for me, it annoys me quite a bit if a new camera arrives with them.  My first 5DII arrived with a large dark dust spot (much more intrusive than yours) that showed up at much wider apertures than f22 (as I never shoot anywhere near f22 I wouldn't care what showed up at that aperture anyway) that didn't go away easily, so I returned it; the next one was perfect (as were my subsequent 6D and 5DIII). 

Of course, this is nowhere near as bad as the infamous Pentax K5 sensor stains (which couldn't be cleaned off, but at least they acknowledged the problem) or the far worse Nikon D600 problem (which they refuse to acknowledge expressly, issuing the D610 instead).  But if it annoys you, and if you regularly shoot at apertures where you can actually see the spots in your photos, send it back and try another.

Blimey, there are a lot of handbags being thrown around in this thread!

Chill out guys!!

A Handbag ?! Small | Large

Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 18, 2014, 02:50:02 PM »
Only you know whether you really need 2.8; if you don't, I would echo the recommendations for the 70-300L (probably the Canon lens I use the most) or 70-200 f4 IS L - both are far easier to carry around than the 70-200 2.8 II (the 70-200 f4 is lighter than the 70-300L, though not by a lot) and are mechanically and optically superb.  Or you may want to try the latest 55-250 before jumping in - the superiority of the Ls is much less obvious on APSC than FF.  (I have no idea, however, how any of these compare in terms of usefulness for video.)

Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 05:16:15 PM »
If you want some idea of the difference switching to FF and a 70-200 might make, try the comparison tool at The Digital Picture.  Here's a comparison of 60D + 70-300 IS vs 1DS III + 70-200 F4 IS:


plug in the 70-300 L too and compare that.  There's the crop factor to figure in too, of course.

I've never owned a 60D, but I'm pretty sure the results I got with a 70-300 IS were sharper than you got here when I owned a Rebel.  I wonder if you have a bad copy (given the range of reactions to this lens, there seems to be considerable variation among copies).  You may want to take a few shots of various things at 300mm and see if any of them look sharper than this photo.  The problem may have nothing to do with you at all.  What's more, the whole image, viewed closely, looks mushy, though - is this typical of what you get at ISO 400 on your 60D (I would have guessed it was much higher than that)? Do images from your other lenses look like this at ISO 400?  You may want to compare your 15-85 with your 70-300 where they overlap as well.  If they look similarly mushy at ISO 400 maybe there's a problem with your 60D? (One processing tip - it would help a little if you removed the purple fringing along the border of the snow.)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 6D Body $1499
« on: March 15, 2014, 05:42:50 PM »
Speaking of this, what would you say about complementing my 70D/35mm lens with an UWA or replacing the 70D with a 6D to get a wider (likely wide enough in most cases) view with the same 35mm lens? 
Also, is 24mm usually enough in most cases for indoor/real-estate/architecture photography?
And, while we're at it, has anyone missed the "crop" factor when moving on to full-frame?

Whether 24mm (on FF, I assume you mean) is wide enough depends on the size of what you're trying to photograph, how much of it you're trying to get into the frame and how far away you can or want get from whatever it is - i.e., how "tight" the conditions are.  Sometimes 24mm will be too wide, sometimes not wide enough (ditto when you're trying to benefit from the exaggerated perspective of a wide lens in other contexts).  It's hard to be more precise without knowing exactly what you have in mind.   Ideally, you could find out first hand by renting something.  (E.g. Sigma 8-16 or 18-35 for your 70D or 6D + Canon 16-35 or 17-40 or 24-105.)

If you get a 6D to supplement your 70D, you will be amazed at how much less noise you see in low light/high ISO images (among other things) and in many situations may well find yourself preferring the images you get from a 6D, leaving aside crop factor considerations (most if not all EF lenses work better on FF than APS-C bodies).

Hard to say whether you would miss the crop factor either; depending on the lens, cropping a 6D image may result in an image at least as good if not better than the uncropped 70D equivalent, though of course that doesn't help with framing.  I've been wondering whether I need to think about a longer native lens for the Sony A7r I recently bought, but the combination of its high resolution with the remarkable sharpness of the Sony-Zeiss 55mm 1.8 allows so much cropping, with excellent results, that I don't feel any particular rush to get anything longer.  (I have an APS-C Canon, but I don't think I've used it since I bought it because, good though it is, my FF Canons make better images.  On the other hand, I use my Olympus M4/3 quite often, and it of course crops more.  Who knows how you would react....)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35