October 20, 2014, 05:53:42 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 46
Canon General / Re: So what have we bought this Black... Er, Weekend?
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:34:25 PM »
I didn't buy any camera-related items in a BF sale this year, but I did buy the newest Olympus OMD and zoom lens and an 4/3-M43 adapter before the Olympus deal expired (it had nothing to do with BF) and, at the opposite end of the price scale, three "legacy" manual lenses (Olympus OM and Minolta) with suitable adapters - just for the heck of it (and dirt cheap for reasons unrelated to BF).

People that want small body cameras in the USA and Europe have already moved or jumped to other manufacturers and Canon is too late to the market. Canon realize this and hence why the other EOS-M lens has never been made available in the USA.

Wrong. (a) After severe price cut, the EOS M is selling well relative to other mirrorless cameras in the market, particularly the A7/A7R (b) In USA and Europe, DSLRs outsell mirrorless cams by 9.5:1 and 8.5:1 respectively, so there's no point in shipping mirrorless cameras to these continents now.

I don't think your posts are contradictory, despite your opening word - Canon arrived late with an overpriced, inferior product which didn't sell until they improved the focus speed and slashed the price dramatically.  How many here would have bought it without the price drop?  I certainly wouldn't have.  The new M won't have that price advantage any more. 

Do you (or anyone else) know how the M sells in Asia relative to other mirrorless cameras before vs after the price drop (assuming there was a comparable price drop there)?  It's unclear what its appeal would be to anyone relative to the competition (M43, Fuji, Sony etc.), unless you're someone with Canon lenses who doesn't want to jump ship, doesn't mind the extra bulk of using them on the M, and thinks the SL1 is too big.

Canon, of course, can say there's no point selling small mirrorless cameras in the West if it can make more money from selling dslrs there.  Those of us who like mirrorless (regardless of size) are lucky that several of the companies who specialize in them don't have that choice and, instead of retreating, seem instead (perhaps foolishly) to be trying even harder (much harder than Canon and Nikon, it seems) to make their mirrorless bodies even more appealing.  They're the only new cameras released this year that have grabbed my interest, at any rate.  (If one of Canon's rumored new FF cameras happened to be mirrorless (big would be fine with me) and with in-body IS, I would happily buy one, but it doesn't seem likely.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Gets Official
« on: December 03, 2013, 10:15:05 AM »

My assumption is that Canon (as many other large corporations) believes in statistics when it takes market decisions.

And judging by CIPA statistics primary mirrorless market is Japan (and Asia) where mirrorless hold about ~ 35% of "interchangeable lens cameras" market (the rest are DSLRs ~ 65%).

In Americas mirrorless is only 8-10% while DSLRs hold whole 90-92%.

So, what you see as "EOS M" and "EOS M2" are tiny cameras with minimalistic design that are targeted for Japan (in first place).

You may well be right.  Doesn't matter to me because it doesn't seem much improved over the first version, which I hated using, and because I'm generally not persuaded that tiny camera bodies are a useful vehicle for anything other than small lenses - which most EF & EF-S lenses aren't.  Over the past weekend you could (in the  US) buy a Rebel SL1, kit lens included, for c. $400; makes more sense to me (I bought one a month or two ago for $450).  For small size/weight, M43 still wins as far as I'm concerned.

Lenses / Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:47:15 AM »
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority.  Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me).  As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it).  Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 23, 2013, 10:48:24 AM »

The Sigma is sharper at f1.8 than the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is at f2.8, so I'm guessing it's the best zoom on APS-C unless the 24-70mm f2.8 II is dramatically better than the 70-200.

Is it sharper than the 70-200 on crop?


And it only seems to be sharper wide open than the 24-70II in the corners at its shortest focal lenght, and advantage that seems to go away as the focal length increases.


That said, I suspect there's little if any difference in real life (though of course 1.8 is much more useful on a crop body than 2.8 for other reasons).  If you switch bodies to FF in those comparisons for the Canon lenses, the result is more than subtly different.

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 23, 2013, 10:30:21 AM »
the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35

you can see that the overall scores are pretty close on the 2 combos, the ff combo is sharper but both combos are plenty sharp and will give you good results with similar dof.

the ff combo is $5700 the aps-c combo is $2100

It would be more useful to see side-by-side photos of actual things; they may (or may not) look much the same, depending on the subject, how the photo is displayed, etc.  But see this:


And, more interesting perhaps, given your evident determination to find the most expensive FF gear, compare the Sigma with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC:


or, less expensive still (around the same price as the Sigma 18-35), the Sigma 24-70 2.8


To the extent that such photos are revealing, the FF all look quite a bit sharper to me.




This just became my new favorite video ever.
Could anyone just transcribe this part, i can't get it....?
"You shoot a lot of sports ? Moving action ? You take hundreds of pictured "[what ?] [cats & fish ?]" ... ? Cause otherwise you don't need a 1D".
Thanks...I hardly try to improve my accent...

"herons catching fish."  (Many thanks to paul13walnut5 for finding it!)

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 22, 2013, 08:16:40 PM »

you think the squirrel shot is soft? it was iso 1600 300mm + 2xii on a crop body from about 50 yards away and its plenty sharp enough to see the individual hairs on the tail.

If I can barge into your exchange with Pi, I'm afraid I agree with him.  The image looks just fine at the small size it appears at in this forum (not surprising), but not the image you provided for download.  Yes, you can see some individual hairs on the tail, but the fur on the body looks almost splotchy - whether because of processing or some other reason I can't say, of course, but other things being equal it doesn't look as though the camera does all that well at ISO 1600 (if you think the 6D's RAW files would look the same at ISO 1600...).  Maybe the original looks better and something was lost in your downsizing.  Otherwise, while I've never used the lens you used for that photo, so I can't say for sure, I would expect that a good copy (there seems to be some variation out there; the good ones are remarkably sharp) of the Panasonic 100-300 at 300 on a recent m4/3 body would do a better job than this particular combination did, and that my Sigma 50-500 on my 5DIII or 6D would do a better job too.  (Maybe someone out there has done a suitable comparison that's more useful than my speculation.)

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 22, 2013, 08:01:02 PM »
well i will start with the first lens in the list the sigma 8-16, its wider than anything except the sigma 12-24 for ff i think and the 8-16 on an aps-c body gives better results sraight up head to head than the 12-24 on a ff so thats one reason to go with a crop

I owned the Sigma 8-16 when I owned a Pentax K-5 and it was a good lens (though for reasons that aren't entirely clear, more than a few of the photos I took with it are completely soft on one side), far better than the closest Tamron equivalent.  But does it give better results than the 12-24 on FF?  This doesn't suggest so:


Maybe there are real world comparisons out there which support your conclusion (or vice versa); I don't know. 

But assuming the crop version is better, you could take your approach an end up elsewhere.  If the extra couple of mm at the wide end don't matter much, the Nikon 14-whateveritis is better; so that's one reason to go FF Nikon.  The 4/3 Olympus 7-14 and M4/3 Panasonic 7-14 perform better than the Sigma too, which is one reason to get the new OMD for the former or a Panasonic M43 for the latter (for some reason the Panasonic has purple flare issues on all Olympus bodies).  So if wide angle matters, but 14 will do instead of 12 (in ff terms), one shouldn't bother with Canon at all....

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 22, 2013, 06:00:40 PM »
canon does make some good lenses for aps-c but they don't really have a complete system. sigma does you can get

70d $1200
sigma 8-16 $600
sigma 18-35 $900
sigma 50-150 $1000
sigma 120-300 $3600 its a ff lens but seems better suited as an aps-c wildlife lens to me
thats $7,300
that will get you a system that performs very well and is comparable to the system below

5diii $3400
16-35 $1700
24-70ii $2300
70-200ii $2200
200-400 $12000
that's  $21,600

the aps-c system is wider, the ff longer on the tele end. the 200-400 has a built in extender getting you 560 f5.6 the sigma is 300 x 1.6=480 f2.8 and the ff system has better iso performance so the aps-c system uses faster lenses to help compensate for this.

all and all there are some advantages to the ff system but $14,300 worth?

dpr says that the raw files from the 70d and 6d are indistinguishable up to about iso 3200, the 70d has a better af system than the 6d so i think you have to use the 5diii as a comparison model for now, the 7dii will probably be more equal

I think there are a few mistakes in your analysis, even leaving aside problems with inconsistent autofocus.  When you say that according to dpr "the raw files from the 70D and 6D are indistinguishable up to about ISO 3200", and assuming they do say such a thing (surely they don't) what exactly were they referring to?  Noise?  The various other factors we refer to as "image quality"? If so, I don't believe them and have seen nothing in any other review site to suggest that's true; my experience with recent Canon crop bodies and 5DII, 5DIII and 6D doesn't either.  Whether the AF system of the 70D is better than that in the 6D rather depends on what you're shooting.

Anyway, one could as easily come up with a FF system that's vastly cheaper than the one you assembled, and I bet the resulting images would nevertheless be better than those created by your crop system (which would still be very good, of course):

6D - $1500-$1900 (depending on sales)
17-40L c. $800 (often much less)
Canon 24-105L c. $800 but even cheaper if bought as the 6D's kit lens
Canon 70-200 f4 IS (c. $1100 on sale) or 70-300L (c. $1300 on sale)
Canon 100-400L c. $1500 but often less on sale

The lenses you list for your FF selection may perform better still, but they're all Canon's most expensive in each category; if you're going to list them for FF, you might as well put them on your crop list too - they work on both, after all.  If you insist on f2.8 lenses, feel free to substitute Tamron equivalents for 24-70 and 70-200; but note that, as others have explained, 2.8 on crop doesn't perform the same as 2.8 on FF.  And the only reason why your Canon FF system doesn't go as wide as your Canon crop system is that for some reason you stayed with Canon for the FF system; Sigma makes a lens for FF that's exactly the same range as the 8-16....


But then again there plenty of rich fools who think they need a 1DX and 200-400 f/4L 1.4x to take pictures of their cat! I guess for some it's a status symbol. Porsche? Check! Butler? Check! Most expensive camera in the world? Check! 

There was a wonderful geeky moment on an episode of VEEP (a very good HBO sitcom) in which the Vice President hires a professional photographer for some event.  An annoying character who works in the White House sees his camera and asks him what it is.  An exchange along these lines (but better than I'm describing it, of course) follows:

A: It's a 5D
Q: (With smug look of superiority) Ha. I have a 1D.
A: Oh yeah? Take a lot of sports/action shots do you?
Q, missing the point, continues the exchange briefly and ends up looking as much of an idiot as he usually does, only this time for a reason that only a rather small portion of the audience was likely to appreciate. 


The only comment I really dislike is actually meant as a compliment - someone or some group will see me wandering through a park etc. with a FF Canon and biggish lens of some sort, say something like "you must be a good photographer; could you take my/our photo?" and hand me a smartphone or point-and-shoot which I haven't a clue how to use, which makes me feel like an idiot; the resulting photo is probably dreadful, but luckily I don't get to see it....

This happened to me a lot in Santorini (very picturesque Greek island) when wandering around with my DSLR on a tripod.  I always responded "I'll take your picture with your camera, if I can first take your picture with _my_ camera"!  I collected several nice portraits of people I never knew this way.

What a good idea.  After I've obliged and taken their photo with their cellphone, and when it's too late, I sometimes wonder whether I should have offered to use my camera instead and email them the results - but that might seem a tad creepy.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 11:46:11 AM »
KEN ROCKWELL - I have never seen any at least acceptable photo from this guy.
Who is giving anything for his advice?

If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.

Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 11:42:42 AM »
he gets under my skin sometimes but he can write a good article, his piece on the "leica man" is a great read. the world would be a duller place without KR


Duller, perhaps, and yes, he sometimes makes good points; and he sometimes provides useful information (e.g. yesterday he linked to a remarkable deal on the 28mm IS at Adorama that was not mentioned here as far as I can tell) but his presentation of those points is terrible - unless you like badly written, unedited stream-of-consciousness stuff that constantly repeats itself and contradicts itself from one article to the next (FF is better, no it's not; don't shoot raw, shoot raw; I never use a tripod, these were shot with a tripod; etc., etc.).   Leaving content aside, he badly needs an editor.  That said, given how popular his site is he doesn't have much incentive to do anything about it....

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 11:52:13 AM »

To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.

Yes, it's better if you need the extra DR at low ISOs, and it's better if you need the extra resolution and have the know-how to make the most of it, but I wonder how many people need or want either.  When I rented a D800E to see what all the fuss was about, aside from those two aspects of sensor performance I didn't notice any difference between the photos I took with it and my 5DIII aside from slight differences in color (I preferred the Canon colors, but presumably the differences could have been edited away).  So I think the statement that the IQ of the D800 "is certainly better" needs some modification.  And once the caveats are noted, and once we remember that photos are made with cameras and lenses, the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800/800e is perhaps not the mystery in need of explanation that some seem to think it is.

(I hadn't planned to jump ship; rather, I was wondering whether I wanted a FF Nikon as well - but as those two areas of sensor superiority don't matter that much to me, and since I don't like Nikon's ergonomics and don't know of many Nikon lenses that are as good as Canon's in the focal lengths that matter to me, I decided I didn't want one.  Others, of course, may well have reacted differently.)

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 46