November 23, 2014, 07:30:56 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 47
391
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 09, 2013, 04:04:45 PM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
 

Yes, really.  I once accidentally shot some video with a point-and-shoot when I inadvertently knocked it into video mode, but aside from that and the few minutes of frantic kitten activity I intentionally (if cluelessly) shot with my 6D, I've never used the video function of any camera I've owned (when I sell them on ebay, I add a disclaimer to that effect).  I just don't want to do it (and if I did, I would buy a video camera).  This isn't "dismissal" - it's a simple lack of inclination.  Nor does it seem "natural" to me that if you like doing the one you'll like doing the other (it would seem more "natural" to me to want to paint as well as take still photos).  I no more want video in a camera than I want a camera in a phone.

(Nor have I used any camera I've owned to create HDR images, take slow shutter photos of waterfalls, or do various other things I could have done with them.)

392
Lenses / Re: Sell my 85L for these two lenses?
« on: October 08, 2013, 11:50:12 AM »
As someone else has suggested, unless 2.8 isn't fast enough you may want to consider the 100L instead of an 85 - the Canon 85s, whatever other virtues they plainly have, suffer horribly from blueish fringing (different from the standard purple CA) wide open around pale objects that aren't quite in focus.  I've never seen that (or any other visible flaw for that matter) with my 100L, whose only flaw is one all macro lenses have - it doesn't focus fast if you switch suddenly from a close subject to a distant one (or vice versa).  And, thanks to its greater focal length and very short minimal focus distance, you can conjure up marvelous background blur that gives the 85L and 135L a run for their money (for all I know all this is true of the non-L 100mm macro too).  Its advantage over the the Sigma 85mm lens (which is otherwise excellent - or at least the copy I rented was) is greater mechanical consistency - i.e. you will be less likely to need to return it.  The 100L's advantage over all the 85mm and other 100mm lenses for Canon is that it has IS, which can be useful.

As for 35mm, I've not used the 35mm L.  The 35mm IS is excellent, as is the Sigma. both of which I rented when they were new.  The advantage of the former is its IS; the advantage of the latter, aside from the obvious speed factor, is its superior performance with regard to coma - which matters if you do much shooting in low light where there are small, bright points of light; this is nicely shown in the respective reviews at lenstip.  (Unable to decide which one's relative advantages mattered to me more, I procrastinated until the ridiculous short-lived Adorama price reduction on the 28mm IS occurred and bought one of those instead - it's excellent too.)

393
While I owned a 5DII I rented 5DIII and 6D and did some fairly informal comparisons in dimly lit rooms.  I saw a significant difference in the unedited RAW files between the 5DII and the other two, esp. at ISO 3200 and above, not just in terms of noise but also color - at nominally the same settings, the 5DII added a slight orange glow which, if memory serves, increased with the ISO.  Attractive, actually, but not accurate.  The out-of-camera JPEGs were closer.  Between the 6D and 5DIII the difference is fairly subtle, but it's slightly in favor of the 6D; processing may render any differences undetectable.  In terms of shadow noise the 6D is clearly superior to the 5DII and 5DIII - far less banding, if any, if you need to bring out shadow detail (that's true at ISO 100 too, for that matter).  In any event, the differences between the 5DII and 6D at high ISOs, and the amazing center point performance of the 6D even in almost total darkness, drove me to buy a 6D.

As for focusing, at least when photographing things that don't move, I think the difference in terms of accurate focusing between the 6D and 5DIII is exaggerated.  If you're avoiding focus+recompose, obviously the more focus points the better (too bad they can't cover more of the viewfinder on any FF DSLR), especially if you need to be precisely discriminatory in what you're focusing on and the subject is fairly small.  So the 5DIII wins there.  I assumed that where it and the 6D had focus points in much the same place (aside from the center point) that the 5DIII would lock focus more easily, but sitting in a dimly lit room I found that the success rate wasn't much different, if at all.  I can't comment on what happens if you need to focus on moving things in low light, but I imagine the consensus re the superiority of the 5DIII isn't fiction.

Any chance you can rent/borrow and see for yourself?

394
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: x-pro1
« on: September 27, 2013, 11:07:55 AM »
is there a Canon shooter on CR that owns a Fuji x-pro1, im just after a opinion on the Fuji where you like it or not?
on a side note... would'n it be wonderful if Canon made a Camera like this or even better a full frame version, arghhhhhhhhhhhhh ;D

Unless its lenses were limited to focal lengths suitable for pancake lenses, wouldn't FF rather defeat the point of such a camera?  Wouldn't their FF lenses have to be the same size/weight as everyone else's? 

395
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW or JPEG
« on: September 26, 2013, 05:20:40 PM »

Again somebody seems to be missing the point, if green rectangle is jpeg only then Lightroom can't save you. RAW doesn't make anything foolproof, it does expand you capabilities, I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg.

[/quote]

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo.  It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor.  I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor.  I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process.  And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.

That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see.  (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)

It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best). 

396
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Experiences Switching From Nikon
« on: September 26, 2013, 04:23:17 PM »
My serious interest in photography began with my dissatifaction with my first dslr, an entry level Nikon (D3100).  The problem wasn't that I didn't like the photos I could take with it but that I hated the ergonomics of the thing, and when the autofocus stopped working completely while I was on vacation in Paris I stopped trusting it and started investigating alternatives.  For various reasons I ended up with a Pentax K-5, but after a while I decided I wanted to try FF and, as there's no such thing in Pentax-land, rented a 5DII (lingering anti-Nikon bias led me there rather than to a D700) and a couple of lenses and immediately jumped ship again - it was obvious that the picture quality was better, and the mechanical/focusing superiority of the Canon lenses, however well-built Pentax lenses can be, was shocking.  Each time I jumped I sold all the old equipment; "lost" money on the bodies, as I had bought them new, but probably broke even overall on the lenses - those who worry about the cost of jumping ship probably shouldn't.  To the extent I "lost" money I didn't - it was worth it for the use I had of the cameras and for the learning experience.

Since then I've wondered about Nikon FF and, out of sheer curiosity, rented D800e and D600 (+ a few lenses, of course) on the off-chance it seemed like an agreeable idea to add some Nikon equipment to my Canon gear, only to end up spending more on Canon.  I disliked the ergonomics of their FF bodies as much as their intro bodies, and didn't think the lenses I tried were quite as good mechanically.  I don't think there was any significant difference in the resulting images (leaving aside the superior resolution of the 800e and the better dynamic range of both, neither of which would be of much use to me most of the time), but I just don't much like taking photos with Nikon equipment: the mechanical act of taking photos just seems so much more pleasant with Canon (and Pentax).  There are hardly any Nikon FF lenses for which I have lens envy, whereas I would have considerable lens envy if I switched to Nikon.  So instead of adding Nikon, I've taken a rather different route and added smaller stuff - Olympus and Panasonic M43 (I prefer their ergonomics to Nikon's too...).

I can't answer your precise questions re APS-C equipment comparisons, but you might find it useful to try the lens comparisons at the digital picture, where you will be able to compare equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses, at least in terms of sharpness.



 

397
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Experiences Switching From Nikon
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:53:44 PM »
Skulker said: "Its photographers who take pictures not cameras.  ;D"

Indeed. All too easy to forget that!


Photographers can't take pictures without cameras and lenses. 

398
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark II
« on: September 24, 2013, 05:25:42 PM »
The D600 has come to have a bad reputation, and sales are reportedly very slow.  When this happens, a manufacturer often releases a minor update, perhaps with fixes for the issues.  Since the specifications are reportedly identical, it seems to be a cosmetic change, maybe even some internal redesign to make it cheaper to produce.  Canon certainly does that on occasion.
 

I hope it's more than cosmetic and instead fixes the oil/dirt splatter problem which affects the sensors of so many D600s, even refurbished ones.  If they fixed that, even if they didn't remove the drab green tint from the viewfinder (it would be unrealistic to expect them to ditch its typical Nikon ergonomics...) it would be a very appealing camera.

399
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 24, 2013, 05:11:44 PM »
Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??

I don't think anyone's suggested yet that you look at the Digital Picture review of the Sigma. There you will find a bokeh comparison, in particular a comparison of specular highlights among several 35mm f/1.4 lenses at f/4.  Based  purely on his samples I would agree with him that the Canon 35 f/2 IS wins, followed by the Sigma.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

I rented both those lenses together a while back and thought both of them conjured up superb bokeh wide open, barely distinguishable; they're the only 35mms for Canon I've tried.  (If I were buying one, I would plump for the Sigma because of its far superior coma performance.)

400
EOS Bodies / Re: Bad News Closing out 2013? [CR2]
« on: September 22, 2013, 10:46:24 AM »
And what is the point of FF mirrorless? It's compact and lightweight?

Just because mirrorless starts in the p&s region doesn't mean it's only good for holiday snaps!

The main advantage of mirrorless next to the missing mirror (= smaller design) is that the sensor can see the picture all the time, so you can have lots of information previously missing in the evf - like focus peaking, zebras or numerous other electronic hints.

With a good sensor (ff), a good electonic viewfinder and the appropriate software pro mirrorless will make the current dslr designs look like they are from the stone age, "with mirror" will become a nice market in 10 years from now. Why do you think Canon invested so heavily in their dual pixel sensor tech?


That seems about right.  Not only do EVFs give you useful information, without moving your eye from the viewfinder you can see the effects of changing exposure compensation by turning a dial while looking through it (that's true, at least, for my Olympus EM-5), which makes getting exposure exactly right much easier.  Accurate focusing is easier too - no need for microadjustments to align your lens to your camera.

If "compact and lightweight" matter, you're better off with a M43 camera; in addition to the mirrorless advantages mentioned above, the smaller sensor allows smaller, lighter lenses - *that*'s where the main size/weight advantage comes in, not the fact that they're mirrorless.  I may be wrong about this, but except for how it physically connects, the size a lens for a FF camera has to be has little if anything to do with whether there's a mirror in the camera body; and if you're going to lug around a 70-200 f/2.8 FF lens, it doesn't make much difference how big the body is (except that ergonomically a bigger body works better). 

If Canon were to make a mirrorless EVF FF camera much the same size and shape as my 5DIII or 6D, with built-in image stabilization at good as that provided by the top end Olympus bodies, I would be delighted.  But I would also be delighted if sensor technology developed in such a way that m43 sensors became as good as a current FF sensor; the gap keeps shrinking as it is.  I wonder which will happen first....  Interesting times, either way.

401
EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3 versus the 6d image quality
« on: September 22, 2013, 10:07:06 AM »
in terms  of image quality alone are they the same?????

In most situations I suspect you would have a hard time seeing any difference at all, but at very high ISOs the 6D's images look a bit less noisy (or, one might prefer to say, the quality of noise on the 6D is superior), and if you have or want to push shadows a lot, the 6D generates considerably less noise and banding than the 5DIII. 

I usually find DR discussions - esp. in the endless Canon vs Nikon debates - tiresome, especially because the differences between the two groups of sensors strike me as being considerably overstated.  I still do, but I'll note that a week ago the other half (armed with a 6D) and I (armed with a 5DIII) were taking photos at a vintage car show outdoors in the middle of a brilliantly sunny day, i.e. lighting conditions most of us would ordinarily avoid given the choice.  We had no choice (other than not take photos at all), and the circumstances were all wrong for setting up tripods for multiple exposures (we were just taking casual photos for fun and tripods would have been inconsiderate of others).  Unsurprisingly, lots of shadows, including the grass under the cars, came out more-or-less black.  Processing the files in LR, it was easier to bring out clean shadow detail from the 6D's files than from the 5DIII's.  That said, the differences were only really noticeable via pixel-peeping - even viewed on a 30" monitor you would have to look for the noise/banding on the 5DIII's images to notice it; but they're there nevertheless.

If those differences matter to you, then yes, the 6D, in those regards at least, makes better images.   

402
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2 5d3's or 1d x
« on: September 20, 2013, 11:22:29 AM »
I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.

A few questions: Best for what job?  What do you shoot that would benefit from a stop better high ISO performance?  Do the photos you take now suffer in some visible way from inaccurate metering?  Also, while you say you have done macro, in a later post in this thread you say you bought a 24-70 f/4 (which I believe offers only 0.7 magnification) to find out if you need a "dedicated" macro lens; what sort of macro have you done, and in what way(s) would a 1dx help there? 

403
EOS Bodies / Re: Bad News Closing out 2013? [CR2]
« on: September 20, 2013, 10:31:25 AM »

</strong>I think manufacturers are going to ride out a pretty stagnant year and try to build a lot of hype for 2014.



That may be true for Canon & Nikon, but on the Micro 4/3 front, where sales have been worse than dslrs, in the second half of this year Olympus have released two high-end cameras (one of which may be the best such camera so far), Panasonic a high end and two lower level cameras; and at least one other mirrorless company, Fuji, has been rather busy too.  Maybe they're foolish, but some of these products are very appealing.

404
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Camera Dilemma
« on: September 16, 2013, 10:59:29 AM »
It wouldn't work for me as a carry-around-by-itself-all-day camera because it's not a focal length I use all that often (though it might work as an experiment to force me to look at the world differently).  You're not me, of course, but before you take the plunge test whether it would work for you: rent one, or take one of your cameras, set a lens on it at the equivalent focal length (the Sigma on your 5DII, the 17-40 at 22mm on your 7D) and spend a day or three with it. (For my purposes Olympus M43 works better - small, light, excellent lenses, superior focusing etc.)

405
Canon General / Re: Lens advice for New York City
« on: September 16, 2013, 10:47:39 AM »
I would take the 7D (especially if you're going to photograph your wife in the marathon) and leave the 70-200 at home - it's a pain (literally) to lug around all day and if you're anywhere crowded it/you will be a nuisance.  Plus, unless you're in a wide open space, such as the middle of Central Park, or want to focus on some small detail on top of a skyscraper (in which case 200 isn't really long enough anyway), your 18-135 will be more useful.

Unless it's really cheap, I don't see any point *buying* a lens for a short trip like that, especially if you have education expenses to deal with; rent one instead (assuming you live somewhere where that's an option).  The one omission amongst what you own that would be really useful in NY (depending on your taste, of course) is an ultrawide zoom; you can have fun looking up skyscrapers with such a thing, for instance.  Your M/22mm and 50mm should be enough for wandering around at night.  But at least you're in NY: if it suddenly occurs to you that you need a lens you don't have, pay a visit to B&H or Adorama or even J&R.

And don't forget the first rule of packing: no matter which lens(es) you leave behind, you'll wish you had them with you; and if you take them all with you, you won't use most of them....

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 47