September 01, 2014, 10:28:21 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 ... 45
391
EOS Bodies / Re: Advice - worth the jump 550d to 70d?
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:50:34 AM »

But the 70D may well be better than the 6D at focusing on things that move, even something as slow as cricket.... ;)  I'll leave it to others to comment on that, as I don't photograph that sort of thing.  It could be that the two factors you singled out - low light performance and shooting action - lead to conflicting recommendations (the 5DIII will give you both, but at quite a price), so you'll have to decide which of the two matters more.  Any chance of renting in your part of the world so you can find out first hand?

While it would bore everyone to death if I replied to everyone I had to pick up on this too . . . cricket?  Slow?  You might not know it but AI Focus was actually invented specifically for cricket.  You focus on the cricketer and in case something unexpected happens and he actually moves (heaven forbid) you still get the picture!  ;D

It's actually (like so many things when you really analyse them) a really interesting subject.  With the players wearing all white (traditionally at least) you need to be careful on exposure and the action which can actually be quite brutally fast when it does happen keeps you on your toes.  The challenge of getting both the batsman hitting the ball and a fielder catching it as well a second or two later can be quite entertaining as it's so unpredictable!

Oh, I know, I know; you weren't supposed to take my comment seriously.  I grew up in Australia and England and was forced to play it (and rugby) at school.  As a cricket-hating schoolmate of mine described it, hours of boredom interrupted by moments of terror.  Or as Robert Morley once described it on "Any Questions" in the mid 1970s - "an awful, boring game played by awful, boring people and watched by awful, boring people."  But yes, it can't be easy to photograph....

392
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: September 05, 2013, 08:50:32 AM »

I think I'm with that girl.  I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing.  They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense.  I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long.  So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

No, you can't change perspective by foot-zooming; that's why I suggested a couple of primes within that range, not one, and zooms for wider (which will go at least up to 24mm) and longer (which will usually start at 70mm).  But the suggestion was for someone who shares my preferences: I was offering a, um, perspective, not a general recommendation (for all I know, no-one shares that particular preference of mine).  I simply don't find the 24-70 range very useful most of the time. 

I have no doubt the 24-70 is as good as everyone says, but does its AF really "kill" the AF on the new IS primes?  The AF on the 28mm IS I own and the 35mm IS I rented is/was impeccable and very fast, while my second copy of the old 50mm 1.4 (unlike the first one I bought) has been fast and accurate too along with having the obvious advantages of being a faster lens.   

393
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: September 04, 2013, 03:55:37 PM »
What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

I think I'm with that girl.  I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing.  They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense.  I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long.  So I would likely be asking the question in reverse.... 

394
EOS Bodies / Re: Advice - worth the jump 550d to 70d?
« on: September 02, 2013, 09:50:57 AM »
I assume that by improved low light performance you mean both greater focus accuracy and less noise.  I don't know about the former, but based on all the online high ISO examples I've seen online so far, it seems that while there will be a "noticeable" difference, the improvement in image quality at high ISOs will be minor (as it would be even if you switched to APS-C cameras with the best high ISO performance like Pentax). 

The only way you would get a high ISO improvement of the sort that prompted me to make involuntary "wow"-type noises when I made the switch would be if you moved to full frame instead.  Based on your references to cricket and football you're presumably not in the US, so I don't know how prices compare, but here in the US at least if you shop around carefully/wait for special deals the difference in price between a new full-price 70D and a discounted 6D is only a few hundred dollars.  The 6D's focusing accuracy in extremely low light is pretty remarkable, too - at least if the subject isn't moving.  All but one of the lenses you currently own will work on a 6D too, and, what's more, work better; you'll gain at the wide end and although you'll lose reach, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the quality of crops from the 70-300L even at 300mm.  Something to think about, perhaps.

But the 70D may well be better than the 6D at focusing on things that move, even something as slow as cricket.... ;)  I'll leave it to others to comment on that, as I don't photograph that sort of thing.  It could be that the two factors you singled out - low light performance and shooting action - lead to conflicting recommendations (the 5DIII will give you both, but at quite a price), so you'll have to decide which of the two matters more.  Any chance of renting in your part of the world so you can find out first hand?

395
Lenses / Re: Yet another question re ultrawide lenses
« on: August 31, 2013, 09:48:43 PM »
The Zeiss 15mm is the best of the best.  The Samyang 14mm is the worst, but its a cheap throw away lens and you get what you pay for.
 
All lenses have weaknesses, and its difficult to design a FF ultra wide that is affordable.
 
Rent the Zeiss, and you'll be wanting to mortgage your house to buy one.

So I think I probably shouldn't rent one!  Anyway, thanks to you and others for responding.  What I had hoped there might be out there somewhere was the sort of thing Rockwell sometimes does - a comparison with 100% crop examples of umpteen Canon and Nikon cameras at high ISOs, or all Nikon lenses that cover a certain range, only covering more brands, or like lensrentals once did re the sharpest 50mm lens.  Or maybe someone might have chimed in with something I hadn't heard of - "the best I've ever seen is the Minolta XX, which you can use on Sony FF" or some such.  Yes, I know about the digital picture comparison tool, but he only covers Nikon and Canon mounts....

396
Lenses / Re: Yet another question re ultrawide lenses
« on: August 30, 2013, 02:00:58 PM »
Sensor size (and to a lesser extent sensor generation) affects IQ a lot, so I'm not sure if your quest to determine the best lenses independent of the body makes sense.  In general, the larger format will deliver better results.  I liked the 10-22 for the crop camera, but full frame primes are something else.  Canon lacks something to match the Nikon 14-24 but the primes for the Canon system are generally better:  14L II (weakest of the lot), Zeiss 15, TS-E 17, Ziess 21, TS-E 24.  Unfortunately, the are all expensive.

A couple of things prompted my inquiry.  First, comments on this forum to the effect that certain EF-S lenses yield better results than their FF equivalents do on FF (made in particular vis a vis the 17-40); I was skeptical on reading this, and examples weren't provided, but I was in no position to dispute it.  Second, on the one time I did an informal comparison, the Olympus 45mm 1.8 on my OM-D created better (sharper, more contrasty etc.) images than the Canon 85mm 1.8 on my 6D, and I've seen demonstrations (by Steve Huff?) to the effect that the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 on the OM-D creates better images than a Nikon 50mm 1.8 on a Nikon FF (I forget which) (I should note that in both cases the degree by which they're better is rather small and might not be noticeable if you weren't looking for it, but noticeable all the same). 

The closest I've come is a comparison of the Panasonic 7-14 to the Nikon 12-24 on a crop body, which is largely useless because the person seems merely have been set on showing how much more fun photos are when taken at 7mm with the Panasonic than at 12mm on the Nikon; there are no direct comparisons of anything else!

http://cyleow.blogspot.com/2011/03/nikon-12-24-f4-v-panasonic-7-14-f4_12.html

397
Lenses / Yet another question re ultrawide lenses
« on: August 30, 2013, 11:09:13 AM »
I would like a lens, preferably for FF, that goes wider than my 17-40 L and with less mushy corners.  I've rented Sigma 12-24 II and Tokina 16-28 and both of those - the copies I rented, anyway - were much better on the edges and in corners.  I've also owned and/or rented on APS-C Sigma 8-16 (quite good) and Tamron 10-24 (bad), but with no overlap to compare with 17-40 on FF.  (Faster apertures would be preferable as I tend to use such lenses for interiors rather than landscapes, and in buildings where tripods are usually verboten.)

I'm fairly familiar with the various recommendations for lenses that fit on Canon and Nikon bodies, am aware that for many the ne plus ultra zoom is the Nikon 14-24, and have also seen comments here to the effect that some crop lenses for Canon yield better results on crop bodies than FF lenses on FF bodies (though I don't think these have ever been backed up by examples).

My question is cross-format and cross-brand.  What are the best ultrawide lenses, period, regardless of brand or sensor size?  Are there any sites where one can find comparisons showing the same scene shot by, say, Nikon 14-24 on FF vs Panasonic 7-14 (14-28 equiv.) on M43 vs Canon 10-22 on APS-C?  Anyone here have any personal experience of such a comparison?  I've not run across anything along those lines (perhaps it's an unreasonable request), but maybe my searches haven't been thorough enough....   

TIA

398
Lenses / Re: Canon tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses (Comparison)
« on: August 30, 2013, 09:00:48 AM »

Lately there might be a few canon users that feel sad because of being confronted with owning inferior sensors.


I suppose there might be.  But in similar vein, even DxO has this:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

"When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon.

When using specific lenses (such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A) the Nikon can out resolve the Canon. However, taken as a whole, the statistics reveal the EOS 5D MK III is capable of similar sharpness and of achieving a close DxOMark camera/lens score to the Nikon D800. Moreover, that’s despite the latter camera’s 60% extra pixel count."

I'm sure this has been quoted around here before, but I guess it doesn't hurt to repeat it.

399
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 07:57:37 PM »

As far as going into a scene with too much DR... what absolute non-sense...  I've shot back in the days of 4x5 film, shot transparency, medium format, the early canon DSLRs which had what, 5 stops of DR?  If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light.  Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102.  This isn't hard.

In practice, it's often not merely hard but impossible; try doing any of those things inside Notre Dame Cathedral, in Times Square, in the alleys of Lugano or at your local farmer's market and see what happens....

I'll take you up on that challenge... pay my airfare and hotel stay, and I would LOVE to go out shooting and prove you wrong.

Seriously?  Notre Dame, like most such sites in Europe, bans flash and tripods etc., while the use of such equipment as you mention in the other locations I listed would be rude, inconsiderate and risky even if physically possible.  That's not to say one can't take excellent photos in such places (especially if you're not as shadow-phobic as the DR-obsessed seem to be), but you can't "brighten" them.

400
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 6D or 70D dilemma - please help
« on: August 29, 2013, 07:48:22 PM »
When you write that your present camera "it lacks dynamic range for landscapes leaving the sky blue and the ground seemingly dark", presumably you're exposing for the sky rather than the ground?  This is a common problem but it can usually be fixed by experimenting more with exposure, shooting raw and adjusting the results with software.  Do you do that now?  If so, and you're still not satisfied and want to stick with Canon rather than switching to Pentax or Nikon for sensors with greater DR, you would likely find that switching to a FF sensor helps - I find it easier to restore colours to the sky and other areas with washed-out highlights and detail/light  to the dark bits with a FF sensor.  I assume they would beat the 70D in that regard too.

I doubt a 70D or 6D will satisfy all your requirements (though I've never tried photographing planes etc. with my 6D); you will likely need to compromise and thus decide which of your various wants matter most.  Can you rent (or hire or whatever the right verb is in the UK) a 6D and find out first hand?

401
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:38:17 PM »

As far as going into a scene with too much DR... what absolute non-sense...  I've shot back in the days of 4x5 film, shot transparency, medium format, the early canon DSLRs which had what, 5 stops of DR?  If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light.  Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102.  This isn't hard.

In practice, it's often not merely hard but impossible; try doing any of those things inside Notre Dame Cathedral, in Times Square, in the alleys of Lugano or at your local farmer's market and see what happens....

402
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 11:10:11 AM »
I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):


I think we know what it can mean, but it would help if the examples were more appealing.  All you've shown us is that one thing I would rather not look at looks a bit better than another thing I would rather not look at....

As for jumping ship, I think people tend to exaggerate how hard it is.  In the past few years I've jumped ship from Nikon APS-C to Pentax APS-C to Canon FF, bought a second ship (Olympus) and toyed with a third (Nikon FF) before deciding against it after renting a couple.  Each time I switched I sold all the previous equipment I had bought.  Depending on whether I had bought it new or used I received less/more/the same as I had paid for it in the first place.  I may have overall "lost" but I don't look at it that way - I think if it as the (not very high) price of using that equipment during the time I owned it and an extremely useful learning experience.

Pentax, by the way, provided a rather good example of why DR isn't enough.  I owned a K-5, with a K-x as back-up.  At the time there seemed to be fairly wide agreement that the K-5 had the best sensor of any APS-C camera (the same Sony sensor as the D7000 but run by slightly better software), and it was a good camera in other ways too (esp. ergonomics).  The dynamic range was simply astonishing - when I first bought it I would amuse myself by fooling around with deep shadows in DxO and LR, amazed by what it could reveal (not that the results were worth keeping...); and yes, there were a few times, mainly involving sharply contrasting light in the alleys of Lugano, when it proved useful.  But the relative shortage of first rate lenses with fast, accurate focusing soon became old....

403
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 10:46:06 AM »
Not as clean as D7100 even @iso100 :o :o

Yet I look at those two images, and I prefer the one from the 70D.   :o :o

Not having seen the subjects in real life it's hard to say for sure, but the colours look better to me in the Canon photo - the Nikon seems to be suffering from that green bias shared by the D600 and D800.  I thought the D7100 was supposed to be free of that.  But it's hard to compare the two because, for whatever reason, they're not exposed the same: the Canon photo is noticeably darker than the Nikon (in my experience Nikon cameras expose brighter than Canon cameras at the same settings).

404
Lenses / Re: Advice sought on Cropped Frame Wide Lens
« on: August 29, 2013, 10:09:31 AM »
I would suggest you expand your options rather than duplicate with a 17-55, partly because I was quite underwhelmed by that lens when I rented one, partly because if you do want to duplicate you would be better off getting (as someone else suggested) a prime or two within that range (e.g. Canon 50 1.8 or 1.4 or Canon 40mm pancake or Sigma 35 1.4). 

The only time I compared wide APS-C zooms was when I owned a Pentax K-5 - I tried a Tamron 10-24, Sigma 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 - so I have no first hand experience of the Canon equivalent.  I ended up buying the Sigma 8-16 because it was the widest (if you want an ultrawide zoom, why not?) and had the best image quality of the three (worst was the Tamron - low contrast, least sharp, inconsistent exposure, worst purple fringing); I also rather liked that there was no overlap in focal length.  If you get the chance, you may want to rent one along with the Canon and see how they compare first hand.

405
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 28, 2013, 07:15:54 PM »
Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".

Maybe.  But after owning a 5DII for a while and thinking it might be nice to own a Nikon as well, I shelled out a few hundred and rented a D800e and D600 and 5DIII and 6D before buying a 5DIII and 6D and neither a D800e nor D600 - because, for my purposes, the photos I took with the Nikons didn't look any better than the photos I took with the Canons (not quite as good, if anything, but for the most part probably indistinguishable, allowing for lens differences), there's probably only one Nikon lens for which I have any sort of lens envy, and I dislike Nikon's ergonomics.   I suspect one or two others have had similar experiences. 

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 45