April 18, 2014, 01:25:49 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 ... 35
391

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?

Take a look at the tests done at lensrentals, where they test umpteen copies of the same lens; there's considerable variation from copy to copy across brands.  In many cases it won't be obvious and may not even be noticeable, but sometimes it is.  The second copy of the 70-300L I bought was clearly better than the first, while both 70-200 f/2.8 IIs I bought suffered from soft lower-right corners, albeit to different degrees (with the second one I probably wouldn't have noticed had I not looked for it, but I did... and am currently without a copy of that particular lens).  Judging by the comments we see here, the 24-105 seems particularly prone to variation (I seem to have been lucky with mine).  If my other lenses are not as good as they should be, it's to a degree I'm not noticing. 

Bodies vary too, in all sorts of ways - for instance, my first Pentax K-5 was part of a production batch with stained sensors, my first 5DII and Olympus OM-D had dirt on their sensors, while the AF on my very first dslr, a Nikon D3100, broke after four months (am I particularly unlucky?).  I understand that on some bodies the sensor isn't aligned quite properly; and so on.  None of this is risk-free!

392
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy
« on: April 03, 2013, 07:32:00 PM »
How often do you wish you had a wider lens?  If once or twice a month, or more, it would make sense to buy a 17-40.  If you want a 200mm for convenience, I would suggest that you consider a 70-300 L instead - given what you shoot you don't really need speed, in lower light your camera performs well at the required higher ISOs (it works superbly in low light on my 6D in terms of focus accuracy and speed and I imagine it does at least as well on your camera), the range is more convenient than the 200mm prime, the image quality isn't significantly different, and it doesn't weigh much more.  (All that's true of the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but it might seem a bit odd owning two lenses with exactly the same focal length.) 

As for getting a back-up body, I'm a big fan of the 6D, but how often do you wish you had a back-up?  It's a nice idea if you have a spouse etc. you like to go on photo expeditions with so you can share/fight over lenses, and it's nice to have two bodies to minimize lens swapping. 

Or to further your implied pursuit of less weight you could replace your M with an Olympus OM-D - for your $1500 you could buy one of those and a few superb but very lightweight Olympus & Panasonic lenses; I recently did so (I spent rather more than that, though...) am constantly astonished by how little the bag containing it all weighs compared to my FF camera gear - my 70-300L weighs more than all of it combined.

393
Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?
« on: March 30, 2013, 07:14:50 PM »
As you do a lot of hand-held low-light photography, are you bothered by coma?  This seems to be unavoidable with 50mm lenses on FF Canon cameras (and I expect elsewhere too - it was pretty bad on the Pentax 50mm 1.4 I used to own (aps-c, where it should be much less of a problem), while the Nikon 1.8 I tried a few months ago on a FF Nikon was much worse).  Few reviewers seem to comment on this, but lenstip has a separate entry for this on each of its lens reviews, which is useful.  I'm hoping that Sigma will upgrade its 50mm 1.4, not just so that it's better mechanically - the one I bought was one of the duds; it never focused accurately on anything - but better optically too: their new 35mm lens, among its other virtues, has remarkably little coma. 

394
Lenses / Re: Which Super-Zoom is the best?
« on: March 29, 2013, 12:04:35 PM »
With the release of the Canon 100D on the horizon. I wanted to know what is the best super-zoom to buy that my girlfriend could use. She likes photography, but she hates the gear that comes along with it. I'm fine with carrying 3 lens (UWA, 50mm, Tele) but she wants to just have one lens that does it all. She does want the best quality from her gear so I wanted to know which super zoom has the best quality. I understand the negatives of a super zoom lens. So I'm asking everyone out there if they have any recommendations.


What range is included in your "does it all"?  As you doubtless know, no superzoom lens goes really wide, and the longest zooms don't go wide at all (barring point-and-shoots such as the Canon sx50).  And what does "best quality" mean?  (If she likes low light photography, aps-c + superzoom = inferior quality.)  What's more, if she "hates the gear", she should see how such a lens feels when attached to that little camera - it might be quite unbalanced and unpleasant to use....   

But are you sure she wants a dslr at all?  If she doesn't need to zoom in terribly far, a Sony RX100 might make more sense - near-dslr quality, tiny, no lenses to change and easy to use (if you like handling point-and-shoots, that is).  Or, if her dislike of the gear relates mainly to size and weight, what about micro 4/3, where the cameras and lenses are all much smaller and lighter than dslr gear?

395
Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?
« on: March 23, 2013, 03:01:46 PM »
It does seem pointless to make a small camera and not provide any comparably small, high quality lenses (even if with FF, the biggest, heaviest component is often the lenses, not the body you attach them to).  It would be nice if Canon decided to make some small primes that look even half as nice as Pentax's smaller primes do (especially if they work better; e.g. the Pentax 40mm pancake is in a completely different class aesthetically from Canon's, but it doesn't make better images and doesn't focus as accurately...).  But until now, at least, Canon doesn't seem interested in APSC primes, regardless of size and weight.  And won't the target market for this camera also want zooms?  That's where micro 4/3 has a huge advantage - not only does it have an impressive array of small, light, top-quality primes, but most of the zooms are small and light too. 

396
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 refurb or new 7D as backup to 5D3?
« on: March 23, 2013, 02:34:31 PM »

I gave the 6D another hard look.  Anyone who own it - is the lack of thumb-multipoint control tough to get used to?  I love the thumb multi-control.

....

I am impressed with the 6D's noise vs. 5D2.  Obviously, smokes the 7D.  The 5D2 'feels old' after using the 5D3 for almost three months now.

It also feels old after using the 6D, though I'm not sure the results do in decent light (I tend to prefer the colors conjured up by the 6D & 5DIII too, which look a bit more realistic to me, though there's not much in it).  But much of this is rather subjective - I don't love the thumb control (not wild about pushing my thumb against that hard, rather sharp-edged plastic) and probably prefer the multi-thingy control pad on the 6D (+ front wheel for moving the focus point horizontally).  You won't know until you try it; you could always rent one and find out.  Either way, you might conclude that the 6D's superlative low light performance more than makes up for it.  (That said, having recently acquired an Olympus OMD, whose focus points cover almost the entire image, I'm finding the focus points on any DSLR I've used rather limited in that regard.)

397
Thanks everyone. Lots of good advice. Yeah she already ok'd the sony nex 6 and it has an evf so we could keep that but then if I went that route I would consider the nex 3nl since its half the price with all the same stuff she uses. Just not sure if squeezing in the eos would be better for the fact that hopefully i can get her a 17-50 2.8 someday and it would be a better combo. Never been a fan of the 4/3's cameras. She looked at the rx100 and hated the flash placement. I want the eos m but everyone seems to not be satisfied with the af speed and grabbing you kids you need all the speed you can get.

If she wants a camera she can put into a handbag, she mightn't be entirely amused if you handed her a DSLR, no matter how small, with that big, heavy 17-50 2.8 attached to it!  I'm with those who suggest micro 4/3 - which ones have you seen and not been impressed by?  I was more than a little skeptical about all the hoopla around the Olympus OMD E-M5 until I rented one; it's capable of quite spectacular images, especially with some of the available fast, light primes, and it's very hard to find any reviews/comments about it that aren't, well, skepticism-provoking.  (And if you really want an equivalent of that 17-50 2.8, its micro 4/3 equivalent, the Panasonic 12-35, costs around the same but is a fraction of the size and weight.)

As for the flash placement on the excellent Sony RX100, that camera has a rather fast lens and performs more-or-less as well at high ISOs as Canon APS-C cameras (unless the newest two are better in that regard); so there may well be no need to use it anyway.

I wouldn't bother with a DSLR unless she needs the speed of handling which seems to be the sole advantage of an APS-C DSLR. 

But of course, ideally you would take her to a decent camera store that would let her play around with a handful of cameras; B&H in NY at a less busy time of day would be nice....

398
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:28:02 AM »
Canon 550d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 66
Canon 600d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 65
Canon 650d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 62
Canon 700d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 5?
Canon  70d  - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 5?
DxO can take those scores and shove it in their pompous "you know wheres" ... I've seen far too many fantastic images made with every single one of those cameras, listed above, to not take DxO as the word of God.

The fact that it's possible to take fantastic photos with a Rebel is not inconsistent with DXO's scores or the trend they imply, and hardly shows that there aren't better APS-C sensors out there. 

399

why the hell would so many rebel user here and all over the web ask for AFMA then?
please use your brain for a second in this discussion.

Zlatko, as far as I can tell, seems to use his brain rather well, and for periods longer than a second.  Just how many people are we talking about here?  I don't know, but suspect there are relatively few and that they are vastly outweighed by the number of people who either haven't the slightest idea what AFMA is or have but are intimidated by it and/or deterred from trying by Rockwell's warnings.  Rebels have never had it, no?  Yet they sell in rather large quantities, no?  Do other companies' entry level DSLRs have AFMA?

400
I was thinking of maybe a baby DSLR for convenience. BUT, no AFMA no sale. Canon, you just lost a potential sale because you don't realize that the baby DSLR could be for newbies and advanced users who want portability.

Is a baby DSLR that convenient?  Canon's best lenses tend to be rather large and heavy and feel (to me, anyway) a bit awkward on a Rebel and would presumably feel even worse on an even smaller one.  If size and weight are an issue, mirrorless cameras (esp. Micro 4/3) make more sense to me; and with them, AFMA simply isn't an issue.

401
Canon General / Re: Announcements Coming Tonight
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:42:28 AM »
This body looks like a great deal for the price. The problem is that it doesn't have a solid go-to lens in the standard 35-50mm equivalent range for an APS-C sensor. A solid 24mm or 35mm f/2 for under $500 would make this a lot more competitive with the M4/3 offerings coming out. But Canon doesn't have one. This is where dedicated lenses make sense. This is why Fuji's X100s has a dedicated prime. I'd rather have one great non-removable 35mm equivalent lens... than a choice of 2nd rate lenses or over-priced and/or oversized lenses. And rocking a huge lens on an SL1 defeats the purpose of getting a small camera in the first place.

Quite so.  If you want a small camera and can put up with an electronic viewfinder (or none at all), micro 4/3 makes more sense with their range of superb small fast primes and very good zooms (e.g. to my surprise/dismay/delight, the Olympus 45 f1.8 - which weighs all of 4 oz - on my Olympus OMD makes sharper images than the Canon equivalent (85mm f/1.8) on my 6D; the Olympus 75 f/1.8 is better still).   

402
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:58:08 AM »

Because there's only so much that people can tolerate a sensor that wasn't the best out there some years ago already. Lack of innovation about well known limits is what strikes and disappoints. Lack of additional feature to make up for an old sensor plus high price is what many consider to be just too much.


Who are these people who can't tolerate it?  Sure, there's much eye-rolling on this forum (mine included), but I doubt that picky enthusiasts who care enough about this sort of thing to spend time every day reading camera forums are the target customers for Rebels, which seem to have been selling in high quantities over the years regardless of their relative inferiority; they obviously have an appeal, however mystifying that may be to high-end enthusiasts.

For my part, I'm quite happy with my 5DII and 6D (which I prefer to the D600 despite its theoretical inferiority).  When I want something smaller and lighter, I'll be skipping over APS-C altogether (Im selling my back-up Rebel) and using the Olympus OMD that UPS should be delivering today; the combination of its mere 16MP sensor and astonishingly good little M43 lenses takes remarkably good photos for very little weight and bulk. 

403
Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 16, 2013, 03:57:16 PM »
The statement that the 70-300L isn't so good in low light may be true when the lens is attached to some bodies, but in my experience it works superbly when attached to a 6D (the same is likely true of other FF bodies); focus is fast and accurate, and the results look excellent even when the camera is hand held thanks to the first rate IS (provided your subject isn't moving around, at least).  I would (and did) buy it instead of the 300mm f/4.   

404
Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:13:35 PM »
im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens   but cannot afford a nice L lens.

prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.

does any body know a good model from any manufacturer , of course its not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus, bearing all that in mind, whats the best of the worst out there?

thanks for any recommendations


There are fairly inexpensive lenses that don't go beyond 300mm, esp. the 70-300 non-L IS.  It's not quite as good as the 70-300L, but if you get a good copy you might be pleasantly surprised.  I'm not sure what you mean by "cheapish", but the Sigma 50-500 OS does a very good job - not exactly prime lens sharp at 500mm, but better than I expected (heavy, though...).

If you want to zoom as far as 600mm fairly inexpensively you might want to consider taking advantage of the crop factor on a micro 4/3 camera; last weekend I rented such a camera, along with a few lenses, including a Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 equiv.) lens with IS.  I was very pleasantly surprised by the results and compared to my Canon L zooms and Sigma 50-500 it seems to weigh nothing at all....  If that seems at all interesting, take a look here:

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/panasonic-35-100-f2-8-and-100-300-f4-5-6-olympus-omd/



405
I always use it, though I sometimes partially (or completely) undo the vignette "correction" (I never undo the distortion corrections); of course, sometimes the corrections make almost no visible difference. 

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 35