December 20, 2014, 01:51:24 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 ... 48
391
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 27, 2013, 12:02:33 PM »
Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200.  High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...

Beats me - I don't think anyone in this rather odd discussion has defined what "high megapixel" means.  I was merely responding to someone who asserted that that high mp is a niche market and gave as an example the 5DIII.  (I mentioned the D3200, not because I think it has any advantages over the 5DIII but because whatever else it is, it surely isn't a niche market - unless "people who buy Nikon's cheapest dslr" qualify....)

392
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 07:30:49 PM »

...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.

Of course it is a niche market. About the only group of professionals remaining today that constitutes a market of any size are portrait, wedding and event photographers. That's a grueling, highly competitive business with a high failure rate and a high rate of turnover. Canon initially priced the 5DIII at a premium for that market because they were confident that the value added by the camera as a competitive tool would prompt these photographers to buy it. From the sales figures, it's obvious they were right.


? Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200.  High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned. 

393
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?
« on: October 26, 2013, 10:45:32 AM »

You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is much better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size.

The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.

And to enjoy doing so, they may well have to adjust their shooting style and brush up on their technique if not using a tripod.  Consider these comments by Roger Cicala on the D800 at the end of his enthusiastic comments on the rental page for that camera at lensrentals.com:

"All of that [= high praise] being said, I know already that between 25 and 50 people are going to email after using the camera and say their shots didn’t seem much sharper than their old camera. And I’m going to ask to see their pictures. And they’re going to send me shots taken with a nice prime lens at f/1.4. Repeat after me: there is no lens that can do justice to this camera at f/1.4. The best primes can at f/2.0, but most primes will need to be at f/2.8. Even the best zooms will be better at f/4 than f/2.8. If you need to shoot at wide open aperture, save some money and rent a D700."

Presumably that will be true of any camera with a similar sensor.  I happen to like looking at images 100% on a large screen from time to time, just to see how much detail the camera happened to pick up, so I rented a D800E just for the heck of it.  I think he's right.  It also seems to be the case, as others have said, that you have to be able to hold a camera really steady if not using a tripod - in several cases, I found that photos which looked perfectly good viewed at a normal size on a 30" monitor revealed evidence of slight movement at 100%, something I hardly ever see with my FF Canons.  The detail was wonderful, but....

394
Don't care what it's called as long as i get more background blur and more main subject pop at a certain focal length and aperture, distance lens to attractive subject and distance subject to obnoxious, ugly background. Which means i'd rather drop dead than buying another aps-c camera or even worse a thumbnail sized micro thirds camera. Now, when there are finally 36 delivious millions of pixels available in a small package.

And if more dof is needed, i'm going to close down the aperture all the way to f/11 on a full- bore sensored- camera  rather than being limited to f/5.6 on a quarter-sized sensor for fear of  freakin' diffraction.

So much for dof in my shooting. :-)

While it may be true that it's easier to blur out backgrounds using a FF camera, many seem to underestimate what you can achieve with said "thumbnail" M43 sensors.  Here are a couple of photos (JPEGs unaltered, aside from size, from the camera; haven't had time to process the raw files yet) I took walking home from work a couple of days ago with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 + Olympus 75mm.  The beet colored mass is a row of large coleus plants growing in planters along a narrow busy street in the middle of Philadelphia, the green in the background is from trees lining the street a block away, the grays are a department store, the circles are streetlights, traffic, etc.  But you might not immediately know from the first one, shot at 1.8.  You can see a bit more easily in the second photo, shot at 2.8.   And if you go here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47234858@N00/sets/72157636955871633/

you'll see some photos I took with the same camera and the Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens in a liquor store a couple of months ago while waiting for the other half to finish shopping.  Not the ultimate in blur, perhaps, but not bad for a thumbnail....


395

After using their A77 and the 6D, I'd gladly buy your camera for the right price.  Only problem might be is I don't know where you are.  I'm here in Malaysia as an expat.  :)


I'm not sure what you didn't like about the A77, but a huge problem with Sony's fixed translucent mirror cameras, such as the A77 and the FF A99, is that less light reaches the sensor, which presumably explains in large part why the resulting images are so noisy.  One reason why I was interested in the A7, before I learned that unlike all previous Sony A cameras it would have no IBIS, was the prospect of trying some highly regarded Minolta lenses and I decided to stick my toe in the water a couple of days ago by buying the entry level A58 (it nevertheless gets rave reviews in some quarters) and a Minolta 50mm prime, but was so appalled by the noise (even at ISO 400 you wouldn't want to crop much) that I returned it the next day (noise is a problem with the A99 too, I understand, though obviously to a lesser extent).  The A77 is doubtless a better camera in other ways, but it was a huge relief to return to my Olympus OM-D, 6D and 5DIII (and not just because of the image quality).  Whatever other flaws the A7 may have, presumably such noise isn't one of them.

396
EOS Bodies / Re: Sensor Dust - DSLR vs Mirrorless
« on: October 23, 2013, 11:40:21 AM »
One of the arguments I often see from those not enthused with mirrorless cameras is that the sensor is more apt to get dusty - that the mirror somehow magically keeps dust off the sensor.  My OM-D requires less attention than my Canon in that regard. Is anyone aware of a thorough review/test on the subject? I'm inclined to think that the argument has no real merit.


I can't answer your question, but will merely note that my experience, um, mirrors yours - I probably change lenses on my OM-D more often than I do any my dslrs (I mainly use primes on my OM-D), and I've never seen evidence of dust on a photo, whereas I have a couple of times on dslrs (easy enough to remove, though).  Perhaps Olympus has uncommonly effective sensor-cleaning technology?

397

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 


I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

I wrote "in situations where IS is needed".  If you never need it and wouldn't benefit from it, well, good for you.  Either way, the size issue remains - just how much difference does the body size make if you're using something as big and heavy as the 85LII or 24-70 II, and what would the ergonomics be like of attaching one of those to a small body?

398
What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares.  To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two). 

Actually, no. You can also "approximate" what brighter lenses can do on the same format, by using slower lenses, like the 40mm. You do not "approximate", you just accept the results as good enough for your specific purposes. There is also the mirrorless factor which helps with wide primes but the latter is not restricted to m43 as of this week.

Now, if you really want to approximate (what a lowly f/4 zoom on FF can do), you buy some monster like the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0. It is $800 more expensive that the already overpriced 24-70/4 IS, not to mention the 24-105, and 50% heavier, and larger. Or, you buy the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0. It is an 1.65kg monster selling for $2.5K only. The Canon 70-200/4 IS weighs and costs less than half of that and is even smaller. The m43 fans would tell you: those are f/2 zooms, show me an f/2 FF zoom. Well, unless you print that f/2 on your photos, they are f/4 equivalent zooms.


I think this has become a disagreement over use of "approximate".  You seem to be looking for a lens that's a mechanical exact equivalent (I'm familiar with the lenses you're referring to above and I don't disagree with your point).  I was using it in the sense of "closely resembling" - I was referring to the resulting images, not how you achieve them - not "exactly the same".  For instance, although we're often told that m43 isn't good for shallow focus/background blur (this matters to me as I like taking very close-up "portraits" of flowers and other small things with blurred-out backgrounds), I've been pleasantly surprised by just how easy it is to conjure it up with the right combination of lens and relative distances.  If I put the Olympus 60mm macro lens on my E-M5, I can create, say, flower portraits that look similar to flower portraits taken with my 100mm L on my 6D or 5DIII (though to get comparable blur I'll have to get closer); the relative weight of the equipment isn't similar at all.  That's all I meant.  (If I thought they looked *the same* I wouldn't keep the heavy FF stuff.)

399

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


I do, provided size/weight matters - it's still the best affordable compact system.  As far as I can tell there are no pre-existing really small FF Sony or Minolta lenses, prime or zoom, and the new lenses announced for this system  aren't small either; and as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a small FF zoom of any focal length, period (is such a thing physically possible?).  So, if you want to retain compactness, you're limited - barring unknown future developments - to whatever small third party lenses you can attach (assuming they work well via adapters - and given how fussy 36mp sensors seem to be (see comments by Roger Cicala et al.), that's quite an assumption).

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 

If these cameras had IS and an A-mount, I would pre-order one too (I wouldn't care if that required them to be a bit bigger; for me, size is the least of the advantages of ditching the mirror).  Instead, I'll wait and see if Sony makes a mirrorless FF A mount camera (at least one A mount camera will allegedly be announced early next year).  Until then, my Canon FFs and Olympus m43 will do just nicely....

400

More light comes with less DOF (assuming the same QE, etc.). There is no other way. That is why the best way is to think in equivalent terms. 100/2.8 on m43 is like 200/5.6 on FF. Same DOF, same FOV, same noise, same diffraction softening (but different resolution in general). In that sense, 70-200/4 is 1 stop faster that the 35-100/2.8 which is 70-200/5.6 equivalent. BTW, the recent m43 bodies have really good sensors.

Do not mention this to an m43 (only) owner. This makes them mad. They would insist that the 35-100/2.8 is 70-200/2.8 equivalent.


That may all be true, even the bit about making m43-only owners mad (I have two FF Canons and an Olympus E-M5, so I'm not in that category and don't know anyone who is), but I think it misses the point.  What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares.  To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two).  To the extent you can't, the question becomes whether the difference in image quality is offset by the differences in weight, ergonomics, etc.  I can't remember what prompted me to rent an E-M5 (skepticism, probably), but I was amazed by close the images it makes can get when using the better m43 primes (sometimes barely distinguishable, if at all, all aided by such factors as superior IS and focusing accuracy for static subjects); I wouldn't have bought one otherwise. 

But don't tell this to a dslr owner who hasn't used a top-of-the-line m43 camera; it makes them mad....

401
These comments - from a Nikon 800E/Olympus M43 user - seem fairly sensible (in case you don't know of him, his comments and reviews are usually well worth reading):

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/10/16/sony-a7-a7r/


402

I bought the EOS M while it was ~$300 at B&H a month or so ago. The biggest problem with it is the delay from taking a picture after another.



I've heard that the updated Eos M firmware gives faster AF, is that the cause of delay from one picture to the next?


The EOS M I bought from B&H during the sale came with the new firmware and it still had a maddening lag; for that reason, along with the unreliable focusing and lack of a viewfinder, I recently sold it.  Yes, it can take excellent photos, and yes, in that sense it was an amazing bargain, but for me it wasn't worth the annoyance; compared to my Olympus E-M5 the whole experience was an irritating joke.  Surely Canon can do better; perhaps they will.

403

Having used the EM5 for a year, I find that I intensely dislike mirrorless cameras for 2 reasons: (i) EVF (color and brightness never the same as OVF, no matter how fast and high resolving they are) (ii) poor handling, difficult to grip. Since Canon has demonstrated what they can achieve with weight reduction in the 100D, I am hopeful they can produce low weight DSLRs bodies in future.


Have you seen the EVF of the new EM1 (same as the new Olympus EVF you can buy separately)?  Apparently it's the same as the EVF in the Sony (a result of their new collaboration, presumably; I hope Olympus's IBIS is in these new Sonys too).  It's rather different from the EM5's - bigger (still 100% coverage), greater magnification (second only to the Canon 1Dx, apparently), more accurate colors, brighter.  Still not quite OVF, but getting closer, plus it still has all the advantages that EVFs have over OVFs in terms of letting you see exactly what you're doing as you adjust controls.  You might be pleasantly surprised (or not, of course...).

404

As a past user of the Olympus 4/3 cameras (4/3, not micro 4/3), I have been stung by having bought into a dead-end system..... With no warning the system ended.... no more new bodies, no more lenses, nothing said by Olympus.... just silence...  This is why I would only consider Canon or Nikon as a system now... and I went with Canon because of the glass...

Have you read any of the hoopla re the new Olympus OM-D E-M1?  With an adapter (which is, via rebates, free if you buy it with the camera body) it provides full-functionality for Olympus 4/3 lenses, while the camera is better than any of Olympus's 4/3 bodies.  It's evidently meant to be the continuation of that line of cameras as well as their best Micro 4/3.  Looks appealing to me, at any rate.

But so do the new FF mirrorless Sonys.  The appeal isn't so much the size (it might be a nice upgrade from the Micro 4/3 equipment I have, but it's so good that I'm not sure how important that is) but the fact that they're mirrorless, with all the advantages that come with that.  New, small lenses would be nice, but I'm as interested in trying some of the highly regarded Minolta lenses, which might be a bit awkward to use on a tiny body.  As for Canon, I would be happy enough if they made a 6D- or even 5DIII- size body so I could continue using the EF lenses I like; I don't need a new line of tiny toys, though I guess such things are more likely to sell. 

(And speaking of tiny toys, Panasonic is about to launch a tiny M43 camera with a 24-60mm equiv. zoom lens that looks no more than 1/4 inch thick when attached to the camera and not in use.  Toss in the new sensor technology that Fuji and Panasonic are supposedly working on - which may render FF obsolete - and it all becomes simultaneously confusing, interesting and enticing....)
 

405
Lenses / Cicala on Lens testing
« on: October 10, 2013, 02:30:03 PM »
Yet another blog article by Roger Cicala that's worth reading:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/there-is-no-perfect-lens-test-either


Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 48