March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 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] 4 5 ... 53
EOS-M / Re: First Images of the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 04, 2015, 11:19:12 AM »

Same here. You - or at least I - have to love a camera, or you won't take it with you, and then what's the point? And alongside other things like specs, usability and how it feels in your hand, aesthetics also come into that.

You guys should really switch to Nikon...

Why?  That thing looks hideous, and I rather doubt that someone who thought it looked good would take photos I would want to look at.  The suggestion that aesthetics should play no role whatsoever in evaluating a camera strikes me as rather odd, at least to the extent one regards photography as an aesthetic activity.  Cameras and lenses may just be tools, but it's hardly obvious why anyone who cares about how things look when making images should switch off his/her aesthetic sense when looking at those tools.  Part of the appeal for me of vintage lenses - especially those with scalloped focusing rings - is their appearance and the tactile pleasure using them.  I wouldn't use them if they made inferior images, but many don't.  Rather, they make the whole process of taking photos more enjoyable. 

This view isn't as rare as you might think, either.  Complete strangers have come up me and said "what a beautiful camera" when I've had my silver-trim OMD EM5 around my neck, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that much of the appeal of the Fuji-X cameras is their appearance.

EOS Bodies / Re: Best Lenses for the Canon 5Ds
« on: February 03, 2015, 04:49:39 PM »

I'd expect that the best lens [...] on a existing FF will be the best on a higher MP FF.... f you like your existing lens, it will be capable of sharper images with a higher MP body.

Exactly.  I'm sure Canon (or Nikon or...) would like everyone to replace all their lenses when they buy the new 50MP cameras, just as Nikon seemed to want everyone to do when they bought their first D800, but this is just marketing nonsense, isn't it?  I currently have FF bodies with 12MP (Sony) 20MP (Canon) and 36MP (Sony) and lenses ranging from old manual focus, through several Canon Ls to the two Sony/Zeiss e-mount primes; all of them make sharper, more detailed images on the 36MP sensor than they do on the 20 or 12 (which isn't to say the difference is immediately obvious); and I've not seen any reason to suspect that 50MP will be any different (the resolution difference between 36 and 50 is 18%, if Thom Hogan is correct - should that matter?).  That's not to say, of course, that even better lenses with greater sharpness, better corners, fewer aberrations, etc., won't make even better images, but it's surely not the case that putting, say, an 85mm 1.8 on one of the new bodies is a waste of its sensor.  But I guess we'll find out for sure soon enough....

Lenses / Re: Canon 135L vs Canon 200L 2.8
« on: February 03, 2015, 04:24:54 PM »
Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time :D

I owned both simultaneously for a while but ended up keeping only the 135, though I can't remember why (probably because I found 135mm a bit more useful) and occasionally think of buying a 200mm again. In terms of image quality it's a toss-up, including sharpness and bokeh (beautifully soft in both cases, though it's perhaps worth noting that their apertures both have 8 straight blades, so that out-of-focus highlights don't remain round as you close them down; the 100L with its 9 rounded blades is more useful if that particular detail is of concern).  Neither has IS, of course, so it's a bit easier to hand-hold the 135 than the 200 at any aperture and, of course, it's a bit faster; and the 135 is a bit smaller and lighter and has a somewhat shorter minimum focus distance - which may or may not matter to you.  If fine differences in sharpness (do they matter to you in portraits?) are of concern, you could run comparisons at, but I suspect you would find them barely distinguishable, if at all, in practice.  It might make most sense to decide based on the focal length you find more useful - or you could simply toss a coin; you can't really make a bad choice given these two alternatives....

On the other hand, if you don't plan to use either of them wide open, you might find the 70-200 F4 L more useful; it too has excellent image quality, costs around the same as the 135L and has very good IS, which may prove extremely useful.

EOS-M / Re: First Image of the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:33:15 PM »

If Canon wants to compete it needs an EVF model. If this does not come with an EVF built in, then there isn't much hope for Canon to compete in a ruthless market segment.

I'm sure you're right.  After all, the EOS M was merely the second-best selling MILC in the largest geographical market for the segment, beating out models from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic despite lacking an EVF.  Not competitive at all, right?   ::)

I'm not sure what year you're referring to, but Canon doesn't seem to have done very well relative to certain other companies in the Japanese mirrorless segment in 2014, if the info. here is accurate:

(Of course, none of them did all that well, period....) 

It would be interesting to know what portion of sales in the mirrorless market is taken by cameras that don't have viewfinders (lower-end m43 and Sony bodies don't, for instance), and what proportion of people who buy mirrorless cameras with viewfinders don't use the viewfinder anyway.

EOS-M / Re: First Image of the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:20:26 PM »
Why do I have this feeling the pricing will disappoint us?

Wait a year!

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs. DSLR
« on: February 03, 2015, 11:49:19 AM »
I guess dslrs will eventually die out - technology tends to become obsolete, after all - but there's no sign they're doing so yet despite the endless predictions on mirrorless sites.  As for whether mirrorless cameras deserve to make them obsolete now because of the inherent advantages of mirrorless (which is probably what such commentators mean to say), it's a matter of preference whether the benefits of mirrorless are in fact an advantage to anyone.  My preference is for mirrorless because, among other things, I prefer EVFs, like using old MF lenses (MF is easier on mirrorless cameras than any other sort, and getting exposure right is easier with EVFs) and, when I do use AF don't want to have to even think about AFMA issues; plus, they tend to be smaller, which is nice when you're able to use smaller lenses.  Given the state of current technology, if I routinely photographed birds flying around, fast-moving sports, etc., my preference would probably be dslrs (I still own a couple), though evidently more than a few people manage those things with mirrorless cameras.  Are there enough such people to influence the market one way or another?  I don't know (though I hope the interest in old manual lenses remains small enough to stop prices increasing too much!).

All that said, I have no idea to what extent camera-buying decisions are based on such considerations or something else entirely ("I want one that's white" "I'll buy a Nikon because I like Ashton Kutcher" etc.).  And if phone cameras keep getting better any sort of pure camera may end up being a niche product of interest to only a tiny minority, in which case the whole inquiry may become moot....   

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM
« on: February 03, 2015, 11:27:01 AM »
Lots of nice photos in this thread.  Do any of you know (first hand or otherwise) whether this lens has suffered from the AF inconsistency problems that people complain about re some of Sigma's primes?

EOS-M / Re: First Image of the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 03, 2015, 11:21:11 AM »

Given my (admittedly somewhat dated) experience with Olympus' in-body IS I have to agree. It never seemed to make that much of a difference, maybe 1 stop at best, especially at long focal lengths. When I switched to Canon, the lens-based IS was a revelation. Not sure how the new system in the Sony will compare.

If your Olympus experience predates the OMD EM5, you might be pleasantly surprised by subsequent developments (including the EM5).  Then again, apparently it's easier to do IBIS for smaller sensors such as m4/3 than it is for FF, which is why many seem to be finding the IBIS in the Sony a7II less effective than in the various OMDs.  But needn't be an either/or thing - with Sony the IBIS works in conjunction with the IS in lenses that have it, and with Olympus you can use Panasonic lenses if you prefer IS - but not all of those do, which is why IBIS is welcome even if it's less effective than IS.  Aside from long telephoto lenses few recent primes have IS and no older ones do, and some is better than none....

As for someone else's comment about lack of an EVF being a marketing disaster, while I won't buy a camera that doesn't have a viewfinder I wonder just how many people agree - most people seem quite happy to take photos with phones and ipads etc. and anything else that can be attached to a "selfie stick"; my hunch is that few who started out that way as photographers would miss it if the camera they move "up" to doesn't have one either.

Lenses / Re: New 50mm & 70-300mm Coming Soon? [CR2]
« on: February 03, 2015, 11:01:59 AM »

* 70-300: While I'm happy that my good ol' 70-300L won't be obsoleted during the next days, the lack of an "L" update is puzzling as this lens imho isn't sharp enough for the upcoming 50mp sensor.

Maybe your standards are higher than mine, or something will happen at 50mp that doesn't at 36mp, but I'm rather impressed by the images my 70-300L makes via my Sony a7r (the ergonomics of that combination are another matter, though!).

A new 50mm 1.4 with IS would be nice, but presumably we'll get a 50mm f2 IS for $800 whose price will, if we're lucky, drop by 33% in a year.

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?
« on: February 02, 2015, 05:12:35 PM »
You need to tweak the choices a bit - it's the a7s that's 12MP, not the a7r (someone may have pointed this out already).

Anyway, it's hard to say.  I own three FF cameras - 6D (20MP), a7r (36) and a7s (12) - and most of the time any of them is more than good enough for my purposes in all sorts of ways, including resolution.  I was bowled over by the images obtainable via the a7r when I first bought it and still am and perhaps the similar quality in 50MP would be even more appealing for cropping purposes (not to mention the the sheer pleasure of peering closely and finding details you didn't realize were there).  But at the other extreme there's much to be said for the a7s with it's 12MP, and the difference in processing speed and resulting file size is far from subtle (with the 6D somewhere in between); and when you throw in such bonuses as a completely silent shutter and being able to easily use a very good f/.95 lens on a really low noise sensor it becomes more appealing still.  Plus, I prefer small and mirrorless. 

In other words, to state the obvious, mere resolution isn't dispositive.  If someone (I guess we'll have to wait longer for Canon to do it) were to conjure up a camera with >36MP sensor + mirrorless + smallish + at least a7s noise performance + IBIS, I would certainly be interested.  (Unless something magically weird happens between 36 and 50 MP, worries about lens performance seem unfounded - all manner of lenses, new and old, perform superbly on 36MP.)  I expect the new Canon dslrs will be great, but they're not for me, regardless of how many MP they have.


IMO, if the DSLR makers continue to try to drive sales by only incremental improvements in NR and pushing features other than portability and ease of use, they may as well embrace their position right next to jazz, manual transmissions, classical music, and high end audio gear.

Especially if they're relying on tweaks to cameras that cost >$3000.  Even if the new 50MP Canons are the best dslrs ever, the suggestion that the upshot will be a sufficient boost in sales to halt the overall decline seems a tad optimistic.

EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:55:22 PM »

Don't know you personally (thank goodness...) but I bought the 6D as opposed to Nikon's similar FF offerings because I consider Canon's IQ to be superior.  Bought an SL1 a couple months ago rather than the Nikon D3300 (i was able to compare the two) because I prefer the Canon's IQ.  For people who look at actual photos rather than spec sheets, IQ is admittedly subjective, but I strongly prefer the look of Canon especially their ability to produce more pleasing colors.  Also like their better contrast.  In my opinion, the very poor color that I have seen with the Sony A7 models sample pics makes them rank even lower in IQ.  I have noticed in reviews of the new Sony A7II that the reviewers consider the color dramatically improved.  That may be a good sign for Sony, but just confirms how poor the color is in the original A7 models.

I wouldn't call color and contrast gimmicks.

Well, no, but are you referring to unprocessed RAW files (which are easily tweaked in software), camera-generated JPEGs (which can be adjusted in-camera by adjusting a vast array of color/tone/sharpness/contrast settings), camera-generated JPEGs at default settings, or something else? 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Opinions on Sigma 85/1.4?
« on: January 26, 2015, 02:56:34 PM »
OP here. Thanks for all your input.

I have compared IQ on The Digital Picture's site and the Canon 85/1.2 seems to have a LOT more color fringing than the Sigma 85/1.4. Has anyone verified this in practical terms? And, in general, the Sigma just seems to have better IQ all around. I am also aware of some reported MFA needed, via Roger at LensRentals.

You can find quite a few blogs and sites comparing the two in various ways.  E.g. you might find this useful, esp. re confirming your conclusion re purple fringing:

As does this, which concentrates on purple fringing:

You'll also find others comparing bokeh etc.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Opinions on Sigma 85/1.4?
« on: January 26, 2015, 12:09:14 PM »

For truelly unique looks:
Helios 40-2
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (15 blades)

Thanks for the interesting links!  Next to the Helios - new variants can still be bought, apparently, even via amazon - my Jupiter 9 seems tiny (I'm fond of it for other reasons too, including its 15 blade aperture, which remains more-or-less round at you stop it down; presumably the Tair 11a, with its 20 aperture blades, is even better in that regard). 

It's rather amusing to read reviews of lenses like these done by current lens testers with the usual current biases.  For instance, as you may have seen, in the "verdict" portion of its review of the Helios 40-2 Photozone starts out by saying that "technically the lens is no good," before going on to explain (some of) the appeal of the images you can make with it - an appeal which, presumably, is a function of how the lens performs technically....

There's also a lot to be said for the various Pentax/Takumar 85mms, though the images they make are less "interesting".  These mf lenses are all far easier to use with EVFs, of course - I hope Canon obliges before too long.

Canon General / Re: Photographer Petitions Canon for Left Handed Camera
« on: January 26, 2015, 11:08:33 AM »

I'm a left hander and prefer the so-called right-hand cameras we have today -- this because it's more crucial for me to be able to pull focus with my left. 

-- peer

Same here.  As for the woman whose plight prompted this thread, it must be hard to use any but the smallest cameras with one hand, regardless of how it's designed.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53