August 23, 2014, 09:40:23 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 ... 45
Lenses / Re: Which lens to start with?
« on: November 19, 2013, 10:55:26 AM »
With regard to the "traveling to Scotland" aspect of your question, depending on where you're coming from and how you're getting there you may not want to be lugging around lots of heavy/bulky equipment, so as others have suggested I would recommend one or two of the more recent wide-ish primes to complement your 100L or, if that's not long enough an excellent zoom that's not too heavy/bulky.  E.g.:

24mm IS + 35mm IS + 70-300L or 70-200L/IS/f4 or

28mm IS + 40mm pancake + either of the above zooms

24mm IS + 50mm 1.4 + 100L (you may want to add a 50 1.4 anyway if you venture into gloomy churches etc.)

or, depending on how wide you think you need to go, you could perhaps make do with just two: 28mm IS or 40mm + 100L or one of the zooms

If you want to spend a lot more and don't mind the extra weight and foregoing IS, the 24-70II + either longer zoom

If you don't want primes and do want IS and don't mind the extra weight, Tamron 24-70 + either longer zoom

If weight and price aren't issues, 24-70LII + 70-200 2.8 IS II + tripod.

(If it were me, I would probably take the second option, but it's not....)


I spent an hour today with the A7r and the A7 and comparing to the 5D3, the AF is definately not as fast but it's not slow either.
The continuous focusing is no where near the fails quite miserably actually but thankfully what i shoot, i don't use continuous AF. Surprisingly, i find the A7 even slower to focus than the a7r with the same lens.

The EVF is still not as nice to look at compared to the OVF but i guess you get used to it.. IQ however, even SOOC, that's where the 5D3 even with a good prime can't match the A7r.

Ultimately, if you are looking at something to dethrone the 5D3, this isn't going to do it except in terms of IQ. Everything else, i think the 5D3 is better.

But for me, it's light, REALLY small in the hands, fantastic IQ even SOOC jpg and it's exactly what i need for what i shoot.

Out of curiosity, was this hand-held or on a tripod?


"THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties." — That is your theory.  It's not supported by actual photos, let alone "tons" of them.  And I'm talking about actual photos, not DxO tests.  My point — that Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for years — is proven by actual work by real photographers.

I think you're somewhat missing his point - if some landscapes (or anything else - needn't be landscapes) haven't been captured because of dynamic range extremes, the evidence is either negative (you delete the photo as beyond rescue or don't bother to try taking it in the first place) or photos where you can see that some shadows are too dark or some highlights have been blown to retain shadow detail.  You can't count the former, while the latter are a matter of taste - so you can't really count them, either.  One may not need to do so often, but there's no question that if you try to recover underexposed portions of photos you'll get less noise in those areas via a Sony sensor in a Nikon or Pentax or Olympus camera than you will, in varying degrees (6D is better than 5DII or III, for instance).  Have you never wanted/needed to do this? 

The fact that tons of great landscape etc. photos have been taken with Canons is not a counterargument (there are plenty of great photos which aren't very good from a technical standpoint; if a photo's good enough chances are you don't even think about such things); the photos are great despite, not because of, the technical limitations of the camera, and they wouldn't be worse if they had been taken with a camera with greater DR. The question is whether there would be more good photos if cameras had greater DR.  It's hard to see why this question could have a negative answer (except maybe of the when-I-was-a-lad-we-walked-to-school-barefoot sort, i.e. that having to work around limitations makes you take better photos).

If the sensor that Panasonic and Fuji (I think) are working on lives up to its promise, it should blow everything else away, but apparently we won't see it in a camera for another year or so - at which point the focus of DR whining will presumably shift a little....  With luck this silly debate will eventually become obsolete.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any reason to choose a 7D over a 70D?
« on: November 15, 2013, 08:03:24 PM »
Thanks for the replies. She doesn't shoot fast actionall that often and so I have advised her to get the 70D.

Cheers ... J.R.

What sort of "upgrade" is she looking for?  If she just wants better image quality, wouldn't she be better off sticking with her Rebel and buying a good prime or two instead or, if she already has some, moving up to a 6D? In some recent sales I've seen they don't cost much more than a new 70D.

Lenses / Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« on: November 15, 2013, 07:42:53 PM »
He did a similar thing with a Leica prime vs Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mark I
and went one praising how "superior" the Leica was in term of sharpness

It was the biggest facepalm to me.
You need compare zoom vs zoom.

What's wrong with comparing primes to zooms?  Because everyone knows primes are better?  Perhaps - but how do they know unless they compare?  Besides, in more than one discussion here you will find people telling us how the Canon 24-70 is at least as good as a collection of primes in that range, and presumably they know that because....

Lenses / Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« on: November 15, 2013, 07:40:49 PM »
Of course the comparison is a joke. Not so much the zoom vs prime, lets face it if you want the best 135 format landscape combo that is a comparatively minor consideration. But he fails in so much else, as Neuro has pointed out you can't do lens sharpness tests with AF, that is an AF test! Nikon have moved far beyond the 12mp D700 sensor, and Canon have moved on from the 5D MkII. He states that he opened them all as the same file size, this means he used interpolation on opening, well that is not a normalser of any value, certainly not at the opening stage.

No, there are so many issues with his testing methodology, what he has managed to demonstrate is that critical manual focusing in static situationsnis better than AF, and, if you compare 12mp sensors with a good lens against 21mp sensors with a not as good lens then mess around with interpolation and make up an impressive sounding "print size" the reader can draw zero conclusions re today's achievable image making capabilities with either lens.

Sure, but he did this comparison in 2009 and complains about the lack of a Nikon camera with better resolution to test the lens; so whatever other flaws the comparison may have, as a practical matter - and the point of his comparison was to show what happens if you put a particular lens on a particular body - it's obsolete.  His site is cluttered with such stuff which he ought to delete.

I probably shouldn't even wade into this, but I can't help myself.

I just don't get mirrorless. Well...I sorta do...I kinda get Fuji mirrorless, but that's about it.

I don't get interchangeable lenses on a mirrorless. If I want a smaller, fake Leica body I'd want a single, fixed lens moderate zoom (24mm-100mm for example). I'm not going to use a 200mm 2.8 lens on a mirrorless camera, much less a 70-300 or 100-400 zoom. No point. I'd rather pay a little more, get a stellar zoom that I can use under all conditions and save the interchangeable lenses for the DSLR, which is a lot more practical form factor for changing lenses.

I don't get interchangeable prime lenses on a mirrorless. If I have to carry two-three lenses what advantage does a mirrorless have?

I don't get electronic viewfinders for the sake of electronic viewfinders. Maybe the technology will get there someday, but it's not there today. That's one thing I like about Fuji. They found a nice way to blend optical and electronic.

You have a point, at least as far as FF mirrorless is concerned: if the point is to go small and light the lenses prevent that from happening unless Sony or whoever comes up with a range of small lenses, which presumably means no fast zooms of any focal length and no primes longer than c. 100mm.  Maybe my perspective is odd because I often want to go much longer than that (my "go to" FF lens is 70-300L), but I wonder how appealing such limitations are.  If size/weight really matter, m43 makes more sense to me, especially given how surprisingly well the latest models do in combination with the primes and better zooms.

But mirrorless has an appeal that has nothing to do with size.  Once you've experienced the accuracy (for still subjects, at any rate, but that seems to be changing) and speed of focus points that almost cover the entire viewfinder/monitor (well, that's true of Olympus and Panasonic - their rivals don't seem to have caught up yet), you feel a bit limited when you return to a FF dslr which, no matter how many focus points it may have, limits them all to a fairly small proportion of the frame.  And while I get why many don't like EVFs, not only are they improving simply as viewing devices (among other things, the latest Olympus has a viewfinder that's second only to the 1Dx in magnification, apparently) they make it much easier to control the image you're creating since you can see the effects of changes in exposure etc. while looking through the viewfinder.  This may not matter to you, but some of us find it helpful. 

So if Canon's next FF camera were around the size of a 6D or 5DIII, and otherwise performed at least as well as those two, and mirrorless, I would buy one without the slightest hesitation.  Maybe noone else would....  (And if sensor technology were to improve in such a way that the difference between FF and m43 shrank further, I wouldn't object to that, either.)


On that site, a member raised  an interesting point ... which I agree with and it is one of the reasons why I am apprehensive about getting any Sony gear:
"This is my biggest concern, That I’ll get the camera in Dec and then in Feb they’ll release an IBIS version and make all future lenses without IBIS after the 2 already announced. Leaving early adopters with only a couple of IS lenses"

Note: IBIS = In Body Image Stabilization

This is a serious concern, inasmuch as all the Sony & Minolta A-mount lenses one (well, I) might have hoped to use on these cameras were designed without stabilization because Sony's dslrs all have IBIS.  Do we know why they dropped it for the A7s?  Is it not possible to have FF sensor + IBIS in a body that size?  The Olympus OMD EM5 has what was at the time state-of-the-art IBIS and it has the same size body, give or take a few mm, but of course a significantly smaller sensor. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel SL1/Kiss X7 in White
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:18:55 AM »
But is the camera the same "white" as Canon's "white" lenses? Otherwise, the white lenses will just look dirty.

Agree; either that or a botched attempt to match (or both).  The photos suggest it's white, not the ugly shade of washed-out beige inflicted on those marvelous lenses.  Then again, it probably doesn't matter - the SL-1 is a bit small for those lenses; it works best with primes.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:37:37 AM »

As I said, it is easy to spot and smell both types. In any thread they will inevitably praise or defend Canon, no matter what "silly and immature" products they just may have launched. Things like white/colored versions of low-specced products. Who would really want a black or white SL-1 complete with slapping mirror and a sorry tiny, "tunnel-vision" pentamirror viewfinder and only one dial for settings, when Canon could also offer us a really good and even smaller EOS-M2 with a decent EVF and AF-performance matching the SL-1 ... at a similar price of course, since it is cheaper to produce a mirrorless camera than a DSLR. Especially the SL-1, which is pitched directly at "compact-camera upgraders" who are not likely to already have an extensive collection of EF/L/ or EF-S glass? They'd be happy to start with even smaller EF-M lenses.

Oh dear. Well, I happen to own a 5DIII, a 6D and an Olympus OMD EM5, and briefly owned and disliked an M -  and, despite that, I was curious enough to try an SL-1 when some online vendor was selling them new for c. $450 with 18-55 STM kit lens (I didn't, and still don't, want the kit lens, but it was cheaper to buy it with than without - go figure).  The images it makes are as good as the M's, but it works much better and is ergonomically far preferable(for me, anyway) to an M, not just because it has a viewfinder (which may not be as good as a FF's viewfinder but hardly gets in the way) but because lenses balance better on it.  One control wheel is enough when, as this does, the camera has excellent touch-screen controls.  I'll probably keep it. 

I dare say Canon could make an M that works as well (in some respects it should work better), but what makes you think that mirrorless = cheaper if it has a "decent" EVF attached?  The current state of the art EVF, when sold separately, costs close to $300.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 13, 2013, 03:01:44 PM »
No EVF?  What a COLOSSAL waste!  P&S vs enthusiast?  How much could it cost to provide an OPTIONAL evf.  The camera has tons of possibilities and I like mine, but is useless at arms length.  Delkin used to make a pyramid-shaped device with an eyepiece to see the rear screens when they small.  That would be better than no eye level vf.  Ugh.

I din't know if it is the engineers or the marketeers, but they are proving to be absolute morons.

I've no idea what an optional evf would cost Canon to make, but the excellent one Olympus makes for some of its m43 bodies sells for c. $400 (evidently it's the same as the evf in the new OMD EM1, which is state of the art for now).  As for the M, I was lucky enough to sell mine for more than I paid for it - even though that was a mere $300, it was too much for the annoyance generated by using it. 


It will be interesting to see how well the A7R works hand-held - as anyone who has used or read about the D800 knows, all those megapixels make any imperfections in your technique (and lenses) glaringly obvious.  I suspect that the A7 works better for such use.  Both would have benefited from IBIS.

The number of megapixels make no difference if you print at the same size.

Maybe not, but a selling point of high MP sensors is the heavy cropping they allow (and, relatedly, the remarkable amounts of detail you can see when the image on a large monitor).


Also these tests with JPG OOC are sort of pointless because they don't reflect how cameras are really used in real life - see lenstip's image samples.

That's especially true of a camera whose size is a big selling point.  These test shots were all done in a studio on a tripod, but much of the appeal of a small camera is that it's something you can use "on the go", relatively inconspicuously, spontaneously and fast - i.e., without a tripod.  It will be interesting to see how well the A7R works hand-held - as anyone who has used or read about the D800 knows, all those megapixels make any imperfections in your technique (and lenses) glaringly obvious.  I suspect that the A7 works better for such use.  Both would have benefited from IBIS.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 11, 2013, 02:56:41 PM »

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

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!

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 45