September 18, 2014, 04:10:19 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 ... 46
301
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.

302
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?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

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.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

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.

303
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:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

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:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=805&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

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

304

This

http://youtu.be/n5aAYpwB5zc

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!)

305
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.)

306
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:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=710&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=369&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

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....

307
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....

308

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. 

309

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.

310
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.

311
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

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm

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....

312
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.)

313
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 21, 2013, 11:34:53 AM »
Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition.  Did Macy's tell Gimbels?  Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.

exactly. Unfortunately the FT consortium decided on a sensor size that turned out to be too small. Had they chose 36x24mm "FF" or rather "Kleinbild" ... things might be much better for us ... as customers. :-)

But the selling point (small though it may be) of M43 is the M bit - a good, small, light system.  Had they chosen to go FF they might be able to continue to make small bodies, but the lenses would have to be the same size as those of everyone else who makes FF lenses - so they would no longer have a small, light system.  I guess we'll find out whether they made the wrong decision when the mirrorless Sonys have been around for a while.

314
EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:31:50 AM »
As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies ....

Assuming you're referring to Canon crop cameras I think your premise is false - unless by "performance" you're excluding what ultimately counts, image quality.  Over the past few generations of Canon crop bodies there has been negligible improvement in sensor performance - the images taken with a 70D don't look much different from images taken with a 7D, 60D, or the last few years' worth of Rebels or EOSM, even if it's now easier to reach that result thanks to better AF etc.  The gap in price between crop and FF may be narrowing as the price of the 6D continues to fall, but if anything the gap in image quality between crop and FF has been widening: cf 5DII vs 7D/60D/Rebel and 6D vs 70D/EOSM - the crops have stayed much the same, but the 6D is noticeably better in image quality than the 5DII, which in turn is still considerably better than any of the crops.  (And even when/if Canon does start to introduce crop sensors with significantly improved image quality - 7D2? - the various physical traits referred to by the short-hand phrases "crop factor" and "full frame advantage" will remain.)

Is this really true that FF IQ is so significantly superior to crop ? I think the market is moving rapidly to smaller bodies and smaller high quality lenses.  Sure there are certain aspects of FF especially in the area of DOF that are not achievable with a crop, but ultimately the prosumer like myself, will not justify the cost of FF bodies and lenses. I still think there is a new much bigger prosumer market - that will go for high quality lenses for crops.

It depends what you mean by "significantly" - the differences vary with what you photograph, and in what sorts of light, and how noticeable those differences are varies with how you view the results (monitor size/quality, print size etc.) -  and what's significant to me might be trivial to you, and vice versa.  I was responding specifically to your comment that the gap between FF and crop is narrowing.  At least until now, with Canon the image quality gap has been widening even though the price gap has been narrowing.  If there's a reason for Canon to make new crop-only lenses, it's not because their crop sensors have been improving.  (It's true that there have been improvements in the image quality of crop sensors in other companies - esp. from Fuji and in the better Micro 4/3 cameras, the latter also being first rate in other ways - but Canon doesn't seem much interested so far; maybe the 7D2 will change that, but that will not likely be a bargain either way.)

As for the cost of going FF, well yes, it could be exorbitant.  But if you don't need the fancy AF of the 5DIII/1Dx, there's the 6D, whose image quality is excellent and whose price, if you catch the right sale, isn't that much higher than a 70D.  And FF lenses don't have to be very expensive: if Canon were to issue some crop primes, do you think they would cost less than the 24/28/35 IS series, the 40mm, the 50mm 1.8/1.4, the 85mm 1.8, the 100 f2 or even the 100L or 135L?  I doubt it, and while there may be some room for improvement in some of the older primes, they will still provide better images on FF than they do on crop (and if all you've been using on crop are "consumer" zooms, they will provide much better images on crop too).  If you want a long zoom, the 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-300L may be more expensive than comparable length crop zooms, but I doubt "high quality" zooms for crop would cost much less, if at all (check out the prices of the higher end Pentax zooms - not that there are many of them, and not that they're mechanically anywhere near as good as the two Ls I mentioned).

By the way, is it really clear that "the market" is rapidly moving towards smaller bodies and lenses?  Some companies may be hoping that it is, and that supply will create demand, but so far the demand hasn't kept up outside Japan and neighboring countries even if the products "deserve" it.  (This is a mere anecdote, but when I'm wandering around with my Olympus OMD, even in locations laden with tourists like Independence Mall in Philadelphia or Central Park/Times Sq in NY I can't help noticing that no-one else seems to have such a thing and am sometimes asked whether I'm using a film camera - people seem to have no idea what M43 is or even that Olympus still exists....)  The new Sony FF mirrorless may make a difference, but since they're FF there's a limit to how small the lenses will be (the few they've made for them so far certainly aren't small).   

315
EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 20, 2013, 11:32:34 PM »
As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies ....

Assuming you're referring to Canon crop cameras I think your premise is false - unless by "performance" you're excluding what ultimately counts, image quality.  Over the past few generations of Canon crop bodies there has been negligible improvement in sensor performance - the images taken with a 70D don't look much different from images taken with a 7D, 60D, or the last few years' worth of Rebels or EOSM, even if it's now easier to reach that result thanks to better AF etc.  The gap in price between crop and FF may be narrowing as the price of the 6D continues to fall, but if anything the gap in image quality between crop and FF has been widening: cf 5DII vs 7D/60D/Rebel and 6D vs 70D/EOSM - the crops have stayed much the same, but the 6D is noticeably better in image quality than the 5DII, which in turn is still considerably better than any of the crops.  (And even when/if Canon does start to introduce crop sensors with significantly improved image quality - 7D2? - the various physical traits referred to by the short-hand phrases "crop factor" and "full frame advantage" will remain.)




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