July 30, 2014, 09:09:03 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 43
391
EOS-M / Re: My own take on the EOS M
« on: August 18, 2013, 12:21:30 PM »
Your excellent review seems spot-on to me.  Nice cat portrait too - which, of course, only emphasizes one of the various drawbacks of this camera: it's easy to take such a portrait with a DSLR hand-held, but you needed (as would anyone else) a tripod for that combination of gear - and there's no way either of our cats would sit still while I set up a camera on a tripod; it's hard enough to take the time to remove a lens cap....

392
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5D3 vs 5D2 for indoor rental
« on: August 10, 2013, 05:19:49 PM »
Whether there's a "huge" difference depends on your standards, your eyesight, what you've photographed, how your looking at the photos (what size monitor, what size prints, etc.).   The difference between a T3i and a 5DII (I owned them simultaneously for a while) in low light is significant and quite obvious (as it is between a better APS-C camera such as the Pentax K-5, which I owned before the 5DII, and a 5DII).  The differences among 5DII, 5DIII and 6D are smaller, but still, despite that odd post you linked to at dpreview, noticeable and, to my eyes, significant - so much so that after renting a 6D and 5DIII I quickly bought a 6D and recently replaced my 5DII with a 5DIII.  Partly it's a matter of noise, but not only that - I find that in low light the colours from the 5DIII and 6D are more accurate than those from the 5DII.  As for which one to rent, you might as well go for the 5DIII with its superlative AF system (the 6Ds may be good enough, though, depending on what you shoot; both are better than the 5DII for AF).

At what point the need to apply noise reduction kicks in depends on what you've photographed, how you're going to end up viewing it, and your taste (e.g. I would rather keep some noise to avoid losing significant detail); I recently took some photos outdoors at night, hand held, with my 5DIII and with ISOs going above 8000 and didn't feel any particular need to add any noise reduction in LR.  You might have concluded otherwise.

I'm sure the 2.8 zooms you mention would be just fine (I've used neither; in that range I would rather use a prime or two); but you might also be pleasantly surprised just how good the kit lens (24-105L) is in low light on any of these FF cameras, especially since it has the advantage of IS which, depending on your subject, may be more useful in low light than 2.8 (or, if 70mm is long enough, rent the stabilized Tamron 24-70 instead).

393
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D III?
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:46:41 AM »
Do you live somewhere, such as the US, where it's easy and not that expensive to rent camera bodies?  Ideally, since only you know what you shoot and what your noise tolerances etc. are, you can answer your own questions.  If you can't, what is it that you shoot that makes you believe that the difference in shots  per second between a 7D and 5DIII would matter?  If, as seems to be the case, the 5DIII's autofocus is more accurate, won't that more than make up for the difference? (Maybe it won't.)

Otherwise, I would say what most others have said - if you can afford it, get a 5DIII.

394
You just want DR? No other factors?
Then Sony's rx1 is best mirrorless with highest DR, probably better than the 5d mkiii as well.

Yes, only DR. I got the rest covered with my 5D3.
Improved DR at base ISO is the one important thing Canon has failed to deliver since 2008.

The RX1 is great, but it has a fixed lens that is too long for my work.


Since the RX1's lens is too long for your work, then no, you're not just interested in DR - you need a system with good wide lenses (unless you plan to attach your Canon lenses, which rather defeats the point of getting a small camera).  The best there is M43, where the wide end includes the much-lauded Panasonic 7-14mm, Olympus 9-18 mm, Olympus 12mm and Panasonic 14mm (all x2 for FF equiv.)

The OM-D's Sony sensor has very good dynamic range; I've not compared it directly with my 5D or 5DIII, but I can say that it doesn't seem to have the 5DIII's banding problem (but then neither does the 6D).  That said, Olympus is supposedly announcing an even higher end OM-D in September; perhaps its sensor will be even better than the current OM-D's (the EP5's may be too, for all I know).  Olympus and Sony are collaborating in various ways - Sony is getting Olympus's remarkably IBIS system, and in exchange Olympus is getting improved Sony sensors, so there may be further improvements before too long.

Of course, if you're very patient, the results of this development - assuming they ever show up - will make even the D800 look obsolete:

http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/158209-organic-photo-sensor-dumps-silicon-promises-to-shatter-cmos-imaging-limits

With luck such a sensor will end up in Panasonic M43 bodies....

395
Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 04:09:36 PM »
A picture of a person, taken in public, does not capture anything that the person did not choose to show in the first place (unless we are taking about extraordinary circumstances, like a person falling, etc, that does not apply to the OP).
If the lady did not want her shoes to be seen, she would not have put such shoes on, or her husband/father/mother/whatever would have not let her put them on.  I don't see why random people looking at her shoes is ok, but someone photographing them is not.  Call me culturally insensitive, but I honestly don't see the difference between "seeing" and "photographing"



But some do see a difference.  The Amish, for instance, tend to view photographs as graven images, don't like having their photographs taken, and disapprove of portrait photography.

http://www.padutchcountry.com/towns-and-heritage/amish-country/amish-and-photographs.asp

Fortunately for those who don't respect their views, they're also pacifists....

396
Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 11:50:25 AM »
I am about to tick off some people, but feel the need to say a bit.  I have traveled, and continue to travel, to some remarkable places on the planet.  I have had the opportunity to travel to some of the holiest (insert your own definition here) Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist places on the planet.  Please withhold the commentary about my Western attitude or parochialism.

When in any part of the world, I try to adhere to local cultural and religious sensitivities.  I'd not enter a cathedral during services with a flash nor a Mosque without conservative attire and permission.  I generally ask people before I take their photo.  I take anyone's refusal to be photographed seriously. 

But, seeing a man with a pot belly, t-shirt and baggy jeans smoking a cigarette followed by a woman covered head to foot in fabric (and the appropriate number of paces behind) on a 40 degree Celcius day is not culture or religion.  It is repression and essentially slavery justified as culture and religion.  Once, as part of an educational experience a group of us (male and female) tried on this garb and I can tell you it is pretty miserable. 


I'm not at all "ticked off," but I do find it a bit odd that you don't seem to realize that what you say in your third paragraph is a manifestation of the "Western attitude" mentioned in your first paragraph, not some objective, universal moral truth.

 do you really want to have a philosophical debate about morality?   I'm pretty sure my minor in philosophy prepared me for a moment like this...  unless it was just blow off classes...  then it prepared me for Jack squat.

To the extent your point is that this isn't the best place to debate morality, you may be right - though that debate had already begun when I made my comment.  But I would be quite happy to have a philosophical debate about morality otherwise, elsewhere, and am delighted to learn that you are prepared for one.

397
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 09, 2013, 11:36:32 AM »
Canon has proved they can make a really (too?) small DSLR - I would love to see a mirrorless version of the 70D body (same back plane distance) and a REALLY, REALLY good eye level EVF w/focus peaking and fast FPS. They'd have the real estate where the mirror goes. would people go for it - ??

Given how sales of mirrorless cameras are in decline except for a couple of Asian markets (the only type of non-cellphone camera whose sales increased last year was the dslr), I wouldn't be too optimistic, even though I would like to be - much as I like my FF Canons, I also like my Olympus OM-D and like the idea of FF mirrorless cameras (but only Sony so far has come close to providing that). 

398
Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:51:27 AM »
I am about to tick off some people, but feel the need to say a bit.  I have traveled, and continue to travel, to some remarkable places on the planet.  I have had the opportunity to travel to some of the holiest (insert your own definition here) Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist places on the planet.  Please withhold the commentary about my Western attitude or parochialism.

When in any part of the world, I try to adhere to local cultural and religious sensitivities.  I'd not enter a cathedral during services with a flash nor a Mosque without conservative attire and permission.  I generally ask people before I take their photo.  I take anyone's refusal to be photographed seriously. 

But, seeing a man with a pot belly, t-shirt and baggy jeans smoking a cigarette followed by a woman covered head to foot in fabric (and the appropriate number of paces behind) on a 40 degree Celcius day is not culture or religion.  It is repression and essentially slavery justified as culture and religion.  Once, as part of an educational experience a group of us (male and female) tried on this garb and I can tell you it is pretty miserable. 


I'm not at all "ticked off," but I do find it a bit odd that you don't seem to realize that what you say in your third paragraph is a manifestation of the "Western attitude" mentioned in your first paragraph, not some objective, universal moral truth.

399
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:09:51 AM »
The increases pixel density and faster chips would make APS-C DSLR bodies in the future obsolete. But ... as long as APS-C costs significantly less ($655 for the 60D today on Amazon vs. $2,000 for the 6D), the crop format would keep being a good way to lure enthusiasts into their dSLR system.

Meanwhile, despite falling sales outside parts of Asia, Panasonic and Olympus continue to release sophisticated m43 cameras, with their even smaller sensors, which cost more than entry-level dslrs!

400
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: advice appreciated
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:04:01 PM »


Regarding the lens choice:
Like others, I would not recommend the 18-135, however, I would also not recommend the 70-300. I know many have had great success with both, and though I can only speak for the 70-300 having owned it, the lens never performed for me regarding image quality, speed, accuracy, etc. I may have had a bad copy, but I didn't hesitate to sell it.


There does seem to be either inconsistent performance amongst copies of the Canon 70-300 non-L or different tolerances for its failings; either way, I thought the copy I had was good.  The reason why I recommended it was largely because I was trying to come up with a couple of lenses that would provide a very inexpensive substitute for the OP's Tamron superzoom while also providing, on a 6D, superior image quality to what he was used to.  I agree, of course, that if funds permit, a 6D kit is the safest recommendation, but 105 on FF isn't very long, especially for someone coming from 270mm on crop!

For instance, right now you can buy a 6D body for $1500, a 40mm for $200 (or $150 when it's on sale) or a 50mm 1.8 for $125 new full price, plus a refurbished 70-300 from Adorama for $375; i.e., body + 2 lenses for c. $2000.  Whether the OP would find that useful would depend on what focal lengths he typically uses, of course.....  Wasn't the 6D + 24-105 kit recently absurdly cheap from B&H?  Chances are it will be again before long.

401
Canon General / Re: Failure rates
« on: August 08, 2013, 02:40:55 PM »
I don't know whether such a table as you're asking for exists, but by happy coincidence the latest entry on lensrentals' blog addresses their repair rates over the past year:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog

I haven't read it yet, but if they don't mention the 500mm II, I bet they would be helpful if you sent them an email asking about it - they're an obliging group of people.

402
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: advice appreciated
« on: August 07, 2013, 05:45:54 PM »
I don't think it's true that going FF requires expensive lenses, even if it may be true that for any given lens type spending more will yield better results; but to the extent that's true for FF, it's also true for crop sensor bodies.  I also suspect, though I haven't tested this personally, that a lesser quality lens will yield better results on a FF camera than it will on a crop camera.  Right now, your main problem is that if you bought a FF camera you wouldn't be able to use your Tamron lens on it; you would have to buy a new lens (or three).  And there's no inexpensive FF equivalent of your Tamron.  There are, however, some inexpensive primes and longer zooms you could use, all of which would likely give you better results on FF than you're currently getting (Canon's cheapest lenses, the 50 1.8 and 40 2.8, both work well on FF and will, it seems safe to say, take noticeably better photos than your Tamron zoom).  Given how low the prices for a 6D can be in the US right now, I can see how you might be tempted.  There's a lot you could do with, say, a 6D + 40mm + an inexpensive 70-300 zoom (Canon or Tamron), and it won't cost much.

But as you seem to be in the US and aren't in a hurry, you may want to experiment a little by renting - try, say, a 6D with a less expensive lens or two and compare that to the results you're getting now.  If you like taking photos in low light you may be pleasantly surprised....  Or for your purposes you may not see a big enough reason to upgrade the camera body at all.

403
Lenses / Re: lens vs. body
« on: August 07, 2013, 05:14:32 PM »
I would be inclined to suggest a third option: unless you do a lot of fast action photography, instead of deciding between 5DIII and 70-200 2.8 II, why not split the difference and get a 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L?  Or, as a fourth option, what about renting for your trip?  I wouldn't worry too much about learning a new camera on your trip - it's not as though you're considering switching from Canon to Nikon....

404
Lenses / Re: What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:12:53 AM »
If the minimum focal distance of the 135L is too long, it's even worse with the 85L where you have the same mfd coupled with a shorter focal length.  If you want to get in closer, and get similar blur/bokeh, you need your 100L back....

405
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Decisions decisions...
« on: August 07, 2013, 08:46:55 AM »
A few random thoughts:

1. Assuming you can afford the toys you want, and that you really want them, go for it.  There's no reason why only professionals should have them.  Are there any other hobbies where people keep saying, implicitly or explicitly, that you shouldn't get the best equipment unless you plan to make money from it?  I would forget about that line of argument.

2. Lenses vs bodies.  It depends on what you have and what difference it would make to the sorts of photos you take.  For instance, if you like taking photos in situations where high ISOs are unavoidable and your body has a crop sensor and you have some good lenses, it would make more sense to me to upgrade the body to FF rather than buy more lenses.

3. Following from 2, you have a marvelous camera body already, which may tilt the balance back to lenses.   You seem to be in the US, in which case it's easy to rent photo equipment.  So why not rent a 1DX and find out for yourself whether "general overall IQ" is noticeably better, whether high ISO performance is noticeably better, whether face recognition really works, and whether higher FPS makes a difference to your life? 

4. If your interest in new toys is merely to improve how the photos you take look, or to enable you to take photos you can't take well with the equipment you have, rather than for the sheer fun of playing with new toys, take a look at your portfolio and ask yourself what you wish was different in your photos.  They may well be features - composition, light, etc. - which won't be affected in any way by changing your equipment. 

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 43