August 01, 2014, 09:28:27 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 44
301
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 11, 2013, 02:56:41 PM »
http://photographylife.com/announcing-the-nikon-dfb-burberry-edition#more-63460

Too bad they went and ruined it with the bit in bold italics at the end.

302
Canon General / Re: How to teach a friend Photography...
« on: November 07, 2013, 05:24:18 PM »
You've received a lot of good advice already.  All I would like to add for now is three specific suggestions, based in part on friends/colleagues I've helped buy cameras but who complain that their photos never look as good as they think mine do - which to some extent tends to turn on issues concerning light and/or sharpness.

1. I'm not sure a standard kit lens is a good place to start unless she will be photographing things that are fairly close and in good light.  An inexpensive decent prime might be better (or, if you want a zoom, one that's sharper and faster).  I had forgotten what kit lenses are like until I was tempted last week by a very good deal I ran across on the Canon SL1. I didn't want the kit lens, but it was cheaper to buy the camera with it than without and I thought I might as well try it.  The camera arrived on a cloudy day, by the time the battery was charged it was getting late in the afternoon, and the image quality was unacceptable in just about every way.  So I tried a variety of primes in both better and worse light and the improvement was shocking (if not surprising).  I say all this because someone moving up to a dslr will likely be wanting/expecting a significant improvement in image quality, and unless you're teaching her in bright light a slow zoom might result in disappointment.

2. In my limited experience, novices want to take photos indoors at home.  As we know, the best way to improve such photos is to avoid the camera's flash and instead use ambient light + fast prime and/or use bounce flash.  But novices (in my limited experience, anyway) tend to be intimidated by adding an external flash; if that's true of your neighbor, it would be helpful if you could demonstrate that it's beneficial and nothing to be intimidated by.

3. Talking of intimidation, I know several people who seem to have an attitude towards RAW files that borders on phobia even after I've shown them the benefits of shooting RAW + JPEG.  Assuming you get as far as photo processing, you might want to introduce her to the wonderful world of RAW (assuming you agree that it's better...).

Good luck!

303
It's impressive that the K3 can do as well as it seems to here, but I don't think these images support their conclusions.  Rather, they confirm what anyone who has used fairly recent Nikon cameras probably knows - that for similar settings Nikons tend to overexpose compared to other cameras (I learned that with my first dslr, a D3100, but I've seen the same thing on the D600 and D800e I've rented; my father always has the exposure compensation on his D7000 set at least at -0.3).  I suspect that if you reduced the exposure a bit in LR or some other software the Nikon images would look at least as contrasty, colorful etc. as the Pentax ones.  And if you look carefully at the photo of the barbed wire fence, you will see that while one of the barbs in the Nikon image is more-or-less in focus (I assumed that's what they focused on), it isn't in the Pentax image (nor is anything else, quite).  I have no idea why; maybe it's user error, or maybe it's a reflection of what those of us who have owned Pentax cameras/lenses know - whatever other virtues they may have (remarkable DR being chief among them, probably), focus speed/accuracy isn't one of them.  Some of the images also reflect the Pentax tendency to boost blues; look at the spruce tree shot, for instance (I once took a photo of a patch of dark purple petunias with my K5; in the resulting photo they were pure dark blue...). 

304
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are DSLRs so Big?
« on: November 04, 2013, 07:01:10 PM »

I admit to a bit of bias here, as I  have serious doubts that mirrorless will ever supplant DSLRS. I don't really buy into the idea that the smaller size of a mirrorless makes it that much more desirable for many photographers.

Small size clearly seems to matter to some, though (but, given the poor sales history of M43 cameras, not *that* much).  This is hardly a representative sampling, of course, but all the friends I have who have sought my advice re buying a (better) camera in the last few years, especially women, want something small enough to fit in a largeish handbag; and some of them consider cameras/lenses which strike me as light to be heavy, including such a lightweight combination as a Nikon D3200/Rebel + a couple of kit lenses.  (I persuaded a colleague to get at least one of the smaller M43s, but she was unwilling to buy a Panasonic/Leica 25mm for it because it was "much heavier" than the other M43 lenses of similar focal length - we're talking a difference of a couple of ounces here; she stated it in grams to make it sound more dramatic...).

For my part, if the lenses can be kept small, I'll take a small body; and small systems are nicer to carry around all day on vacation, etc. But I would rather handle a larger camera; my fondness for the OM-D EM5 is mainly because of how well it works (and because I like how it looks).  Big lenses on a small body is a combination that doesn't appeal to me at all.

305

I just don't get it. It's got a prism and optical viewfinder, so it will not be small.  It's just a vintage film camera hiding modern tech beneath.  This is a fashion-skinned DSLR.

It's like they are going after (a) film users and (b) Fuji users who still want to look cool but with a larger sensor.  Or -- big reach here -- Leica users who really want autofocus?  (Surely they'd go with the new Sony rigs, right?)


So you *do* get it!  I like the idea of it, but unless that's an amazing sensor it's overpriced (though not, of course, in comparison with a D4).  And while I like the look of some retro cameras (they strike me as far more attractive than most other stuff designed in the 60s-80s), this could do with a dose of elegance (someone should send them an Olympus EM5...).  The fact that it's not small isn't a problem - it's FF, so it needs to be a decent size to support all but the smallest FF lenses, unlike the new Sonys; unlike the new Sonys, there's a better array of native lenses to attach; and maybe it will prove less of a chore to use than Nikon dslrs, with their convoluted ergonomics.

It would be interesting to know just how important all the stuff I consider extraneous is to dslr-buying public; every time I see a list of features in an ad or review I lose interest half way through (I'm always amused by lengthy reviews which leave image quality to the end and explain that while the camera is ahead of the competition in every way, the photos don't look anything special).  Will people be put off by the "less is more" list of features here?  How many people willing to spend $2700 on a Nikon a camera body will want a sensor with fewer than half the number of MPs of a D800, fewer AF points than a D800, no video, etc.?  (Repeat the question in comparison to a D600, for that matter.)

Maybe it will do well and encourage a competitor to come up with something similar, but more elegant and more competitively priced....

306
Well, the 6D has what is effectively a 1-point AF system.

A bit of an exaggeration...  I often use the outer focal points on my 6D.  Yes, the center point is much better, but the outer points are not bad in decent light.  I can nail shallow DOF with the outer points.

I bought a 5DIII after I had owned a 6D (and 5DII) and can't say I noticed much better accuracy in very low light comparing the 6D and 5DIII (I'm referring to static subjects; I hardly ever shoot anything else).  What is nice, though, is having far more AF points to work with.  Too bad they don't cover a larger area on the viewfinder (it's rather a shock switching from my OM-D, with its (highly accurate) focus points over almost all the image area, back to a FF dslr - doesn't matter which - with the small area of AF coverage).  During the week I rented a Sigma 35mm 1.4 I had no problems with it on the 6D (didn't yet have a 5DIII), though of course a week hardly allows for thorough testing.

If the OP is really concerned about the performance of the 6D with one of the lenses mentioned, why not rent one and find out first hand (assuming you live somewhere where that's an option)?

307

But with a metabones smart adapter you can best of both worlds , a7r sensor+canon glass (even though AF is gonna be slow).
An a7r ,35 2.8 , metabones adapter, and grip sounds like a pretty nice addition for someone with canon bodies/glass wanting that sensor performance in such a compact housing.

Actually, most of those a7r sales are probably gonna be canon users wanting 36mp in a compact body.
I am wondering who sony is targeting with the a7r, an a7r with 2 lenses seems pretty pricy for a family, especially with all those phones around.

If I was new on the market , I would not invest in sony ( lets say an a7 and couple of those new lenses)
The lenses are smaller, hence slower, but surprisingly I find them rather expensive.
The same goes if you intend to use sony's adapter to use a mount lenses, you do get the a77 AF capabilites (which is build into the adapter), but again quite expensive ( especially 300 2.8 and 500 f4 compared to others).

Unless you're going to put a Canon lens on your A7/R that's no bigger than, say, the 100mm f/2, what's the appeal of "such compact housing?"  In terms of ergonomics, putting an 85 L, not to mention a 70-200 2.8 L II or heavier, on a small body is surely quite unappealing unless you're using a tripod (in which case the size of the housing hardly matters, does it?).  The same goes for the better Sony and Minolta lenses, only with them there's an additional problem - Canon puts IS in lots of its lenses, especially its bigger ones.  None of Sony's (or Minolta's) equivalent A mount lenses has IS because Sony Alpha bodies all have IBIS - but these two don't have IBIS....  And you're right - the new Sony lenses are indeed expensive (and, for the most part, don't seem very appealing or useful except to the extent they have IS). 

308
I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?



The suggestion that these new Sonys can be used as a stop-gap until Canon comes out with sensors with higher DR etc. is interesting, and it may end up being the best way to use them.  It's hardly the obvious market for them, though.  Presumably Sony makes them small to compete with M43 and other small cameras, and Sony doubtless hopes that someone like me, who very much likes his/her mirrorless OM-D, will jump at the chance to own a camera that's much the same size but with a bigger, better sensor.  The problem is, that's not what it will be like at all.  M43 lenses can be so small because the sensor is smallish.  We've been told that Leica makes some small FF lenses, but few can afford them, few will want to use manual focus, and as far as I know the longest focal length of any Leica is 135mm.  Few Sony or vintage Minolta FF lenses are small (and regardless of size, most good Minolta lenses, being metal, are relatively heavy) and because all prior FF Sony cameras have IBIS, none of the relevant lenses do except some of those made specifically for the new cameras (and none of those look appealing, do they?).  So unless you're willing to limit the focal range of your lenses, you'll end up with a small camera body with big, unstabilized lenses, thereby missing much of the point of small cameras - low weight, low bulk, unobtrusiveness, stealth, etc.  So far, M43 still seems to be the way to go as far as such considerations go.

And when it comes to the model with the higher MP count, as the test report cited above and many users of the D800 explain, to get full benefit of all that extra resolution you will need either impeccable hand-holding technique (especially since there's no IBIS) or a tripod; and if you need a tripod, there goes an advantage of a small camera body - you would likely be better off with a larger body.  I could be wrong, but I suspect a rather large number of those who buy that body will end up with photos that are best not viewed at 100% or cropped much; and if you're not going to do either of those things, how many need a 36mp sensor in the first place?


309


Quote
[Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.

Platitude. Again.

The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.

Right; but it may suggest that for "plenty of great photographers" it doesn't matter and thus that the whole issue is overrated.  It seems to bug a lot of people that perfectly legitimate responses to the statement "Sony makes better sensors than Canon" include not only "I wish Canon would catch up" and "I want one" but also "So what?"

(For whatever it's worth, I quite agree that extra DR would be nice in some circumstances, including those you set forth.)

310
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I hate to say you told me so, but...
« on: November 02, 2013, 06:03:45 PM »
I'm glad you like the new OM-D EM1 - except that its viewfinder isn't as good, and aside from photographing things that move, the EM5's performance is much the same, and very impressive it is, too; using the Canon M after owning the OM-D for several months, despite the potentially excellent image quality, was frustrating.  If Canon could somehow acquire/develop similar mirrorless performance for a body (preferably FF - I don't care if it's big, and preferably with IBIS) that could take its pre-existing lenses, I would be all over it.  Meanwhile, don't mind owning both systems.  On top of everything else, it's remarkable how good the images taken with Olympus 4/3 sensors can be: like Pentax and Nikon, they seem to get better performance out of Sony's sensors than Sony does, which seems a tad counter-intuitive (if they can conjure up such quality from those smallish sensors, imagine what they could do with a FF sensor...).

311
EOS Bodies / Re: to all the Megapixel and DR whiners....
« on: November 02, 2013, 04:18:18 PM »
i wonder why donĀ“t you just go to CHANGE.ORG and create a petition to canon?

instead you waste days of your lifetime whining and complaining on a forum no canon official (who has something to say) visits.

nobody from you has enough energy to do somenthing that at least has a small chance to be usefull?

 :P  ;)

I don't think you quite understand whining.  Doing something that might (however unlikely) actually bring about change - petitions to Canon, switching brands, petitioning others to switch brands en masse, etc. - is not a substitute....

312
Lenses / Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« on: November 02, 2013, 04:05:10 PM »

In body stabilizers  :)

Yes, please - not that I expect it to happen, but if Panasonic can start doing it after years of doing it in-lens only....  Meanwhile, I'm hoping that Sony will have abandoned it's STM technology and provide better high ISO in its next Alphas; several old Minolta lenses look rather appealing, especially coupled Sony's IBIS; and if Pentax ever made a FF camera that would liven things up too.

313
Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 09:20:49 PM »
Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.

Since no-one else seems to have done so yet, I might as well give the obligatory warning re the Sigma, i.e. that you should be prepared to try several copies - this lens seems more prone to sample variations than most.  The copy I bought was so terrible in every way (it didn't seem to want to focus on anything, not even the wrong thing) that I found it annoying; I decided to stay with my Canon 1.4 (which is just fine) and not seek a better copy. 

What do you want the lens for? The 1.2 would likely be overkill (or even pointless) unless you're into very shallow focus effects.  If you're not, the Canon 1.4 is a very good lens - though it might be worth waiting a bit to see whether rumors of a new Canon 50mm IS or an upgraded Sigma 1.4 pan out.

314
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:40:18 PM »

I don't understand some of the fascination with a smaller, lighter body. The whole advantage of the DSLR is that the lenses are interchangeable. If you aren't going to carry additional lenses, why even have a interchangeable lens system. And, if you are going to carry additional lenses, the weight and bulk of those lenses make the bulk of the actual camera kind of irrelevant.

In fact, one of the of the advantages of the DSLR over the mirrorless cameras is with large lenses. A small mirrorless might have some advantage with a lens up to about 135mm equivalent. But, once you get beyond that, does it really matter how big the camera is? (BTW, I just looked at their website and it looks like Leica doesn't even sell a lens longer than 135 for their M system)

Same with the fascination with a full-frame mirrorless system. If the main selling point is size and convenience, much of that will be lost with the larger format.


I think you're exactly right.  You can't have a small system unless you can keep the lenses small, and beyond a certain lens size ergonomics makes small camera bodies a nuisance.  Until there's some technological revolution that lets FF lenses resemble M43 lenses in size and weight - as you point out, Leica don't have anything longer than 135mm, and how small is that lens anyway? - the new small mirrorless Sony FF bodies will only provide a size advantage for those interested in lenses of a rather limited focal length.  I would love it if a bag of FF lenses  could be as light as my bag of M43 lenses, but....

315
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:26:15 PM »
Two aspects everyone is missing ...

DSLR's outsell "mirrorless" cameras simply because, for the most part, a DSLR is priced lower. For example, over here a new Canon EOS 100D cost ZAR6500,00 ... but an Olympus E-M5 cost ZAR12500,00 (both body only, same as the EOS 70D).

Well, that's logical...compare the price of a mirrorless camera near the top of the lineup with a dSLR on the low end of entry level.   Try comparing apples to apples, like the SL1/100D with a lower-end Oly Pen or Sony NEX - I think you'll find no one is missing anything.

Quite so.  At amazon for the past several months you could, and still can, buy a M43 Panasonic G5 with kit lens for $400 or body-only for $330; it's a good camera and, not surprisingly, one of amazon's best sellers, apparently.  I don't think any new dslr costs as little as that (certainly not the SL1/100D).

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 44