February 27, 2015, 08:41:50 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 53
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:58:51 PM »
Really interested in seeing the 11-24 reviewed.  It's hard enough framing at 14mm... it'll be interesting to see how 11mm can be used well.

I realize that 1mm makes a significant difference at the wide end, but you can probably get a fairly good idea by renting a Sigma 12-24 (or their 8-16 for APS-C).  Or you could take a look at lots of photos taken at 12mm with the 12-24 here (most seem to be taken with FF cameras; or do a similar search for the Sigma 8-12 @ 8mm) - some users there seem to "get" it:


Lenses / Re: Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:38:40 PM »

... I saw color fringing even on that Otus, from a review a guy tested, he said that it don't do justice on a the small file sizes, but I still say it, and that made me know that no matter how much a lens cost it does have some flaws.

You'll also find purple fringing via the c. $11,000 Leica Noctilux f.95! 

Lenses / Re: Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:19:33 PM »
I've already said it:  the 85L is a specialist lens.  It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night.  It is a low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.  If you can use it for other things, that's great. 

Yeah. You're the man. Clearly Canon is clueless about its own lenses when they say about the 85L: "it really excels as a sports photography lens".

I suggest you write to Canon to correct their inept understanding of how to use their lenses...

A few posts ago you commented on its "sloooow focus".  Hard to imagine how such a lens would "excel[] as a sports photography lens" but perhaps I'm missing something.

It depends in part on what sort of street photography you do and on what sort of streets: in some situations 40mm will be too long, in others too wide (and if you're photographing people, how close are you willing to get? 50mm may be too short), whereas if you want to be able to get shallow focus and/or minimize noise 50 1.8 is better than 40 2.8.  If stealth matters, the 40mm has quieter and faster (and probably more accurate) AF.  Neither weighs much, and neither is big enough to be more noticeable than the other when mounted on a 6D body (who would be scared away by 6D + 50mm 1.8 but not by 6D + 40mm?); if not being noticed is important, get a smaller camera that can be used silently.  If lots of smooth bokeh matters much, look elsewhere. 

Lenstip just re-evaluated the 50m 1.8 - you may want to read their review:


You can, of course, get better lenses than either, but they'll be bigger and heavier and, depending on how you view your images, the differences in image quality may not matter.  Neither lens you're considering is expensive enough to be a worrying waste of money.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:20:19 PM »
Two pounds of a 50 mm lense to lug around and you are all excited about it?
You know, you could actually take those very same  shots with an iPhone and nobody would know the difference.
This is not about photography any longer, this is about consumerism.

Nice review, though.

It's hard to imagine that anyone with an eye for shallow focus couldn't tell the difference, but yes, I find it difficult to summon up a lot of enthusiasm for a bulky, heavy 50mm 1/4 lens that seems to create focusing problems for many users (Canon only?) and/or requires much fiddling around with USB docks and the like.  There's a lot to be said for a $50 mf Minolta Rokkor 1.4....

Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:00:58 PM »
Am I the only one who would perhaps re-write that quote to something like:
either get the left eye or the right eye in focus ... maybe?

You miss the point. If you want to shoot portraits in a distance of 2 metres you're right. But to isolate a tree in 20 metres, this is the way to go. I always hear the same "too small DOF" claims everytime... it's just a matter of your usage. The problem of this 50L f1 is the soft rendering wide open. :)

And that's only a problem if you need/want sharpness at all times and see the quirks of such lenses as flaws rather than characteristics that can be put to worthwhile artistic effect.  I've recently been enjoying using some old 55mm mf 1.2 lenses (Canon, Minolta & Revuenon), all of which would likely be dismissed out of hand by some here at 1.2.  At $4000 or so the Canon f1 is a bit pricey (to put it mildly) for my likely use, but the $800 f0.95 Mitakon-for-Sony seems more than a little interesting. Anyway, let me add to the congratulations - looking forward to more interesting photos than Rockwell provides....


Sony is a champion in making innovations that nobody asked for, and no professional actually use.
I'm being rude and simplistic, but that's what Sony has done in DSLR cameras in recent years. ::)

* Mirrorless: That's cool, but still have shake shutter...
* Panorama mode in camera: Cool, but I prefer to do the stitching on the computer.
* Auto HDR: Cool have it, but I prefer to do on the computer.
* Image Stabilizer on camera: It is nice to have but I'd rather have it on the lens.

I could make a very long list of features that are "cool" for the novice user, but pretty useless for serious photographers (professional or amateur).

It doesn't matter whether professionals or "serious photographers" want this stuff unless they're the bulk of the dslr market; they probably aren't.  Either way, it's hard to imagine why a serious photographer wouldn't want IBIS - lots of the most appealing lenses out there, new and old, don't have IS, and such lenses are more likely to appeal to serious photographers than anyone else (just about every kit lens has it).  Similarly, mirrorless -> EVFs which are the easiest means of focusing MF lenses, which likely aren't of much interest to any but serious photographers.  An unintended (I expect, but who knows?) consequence of Sony's fooling around with innovation is that they've made life much easier for old fogies like me - though presumably there aren't enough of us to make any significant difference to the camera market.  (Being such an old fogey I haven't the slightest interest in the other two features you mention, nor in video, GPS or wifi - but they're all easily ignored.)  With luck Canon will follow suit.


Using a phone, it's difficult to take a good photo of your children in a dimly lit theatre or playing football, netball, cricket, basketball etc etc. Not saying it can't be done, but a DSLR or most recent mirrorless cameras will give you a consistently better result.  People will continue to pay for that. 

Yes, but only those who are aware that their photos could look better, think the difference matters for their intended use, and are prepared to go to the expense and effort of doing something about it.  As someone pointed out earlier, it's like recorded music - the commonest way people experience recorded music today is via lousy headphones attached to ipods, phones, etc., and that will continue to be the case as long as they don't care whether it could sound better and/or aren't interested in the inconvenience/expense of making it sound better.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 13, 2015, 02:44:20 PM »

Not to mention compatibility.  Not all EF lenses will auto focus.  Pure manual lens with out the focus conformation chips will not work on the Metabones so you will need a separate dumb converter if you have those.  All lens will be reported as Sony Lenses.  If you want the correct lens corrections applied in Lightroom you will have to manual select them and or change the lens meta data.  I could go on.  But I think you get the idea. 

Plus, when you do use EF lenses in MF mode (which is often quicker than AF via Metabones), the manual focusing experience isn't as pleasing as it is with lenses designed to be MF exclusively (that that's true on Canon bodies as well, of course).  I'm puzzled, though, by your third sentence - in what way(s) won't they work (or did you mean to omit "out"?)?

As for Dilbert's suggestion (or insistence or whatever it is) that the only thing you lose when adapting lenses is AF, even if that were true, for most people it's not much different from saying of a car that the only thing it lacks is wheels. 

(I have come to prefer MF, love using old manual lenses and, like others with such preferences, think that the Sony A7 series are, for now, the best/easiest way to using them.  But it's hard to imagine that we're anything but tiny minority - albeit not too tiny to prevent companies from making adapters or, unfortunately, to keep down the prices of old lenses to the levels they were a few years ago.) 

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2015, 05:38:05 PM »
Neuro or anyone else who knows more than I, Why could Canon not just create an AA filter build that could be turned ON or OFF at will?  If Canon could install a sensor design with a non-functional low-pass to save manufacturing variance costs.... why couldn't we have just ONE high res 5Ds with an on/off switch??

This is akin to asking for an ND filter that can be switched on/off. AA is an optical filter, not something done electronically.

Perhaps they could do something like what Pentax has done with the K3, where you can switch the filter on/off:


EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 09, 2015, 03:23:41 PM »

  • Please cure my horizontal deficiency syndrome when leveling the camera

EVF's can be great for that - it's nice to have horizon guides/spirit levels etc. in the viewfinder (Sony's variant is particularly good, but maddeningly absent from their a6000).  Let's hope Canon obliges some day.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Preparing for the switch
« on: January 09, 2015, 02:44:29 PM »

Like your choices but perhaps consider another option:

85 1.2

This might minimize your overlap between the 70-200 focal length and the 100-400 and give you an awesome fast prime in there.

Yes; or the 100L, which lets you do macro or anything else, has good IS and costs much less.

EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 02:37:55 PM »
Much the same here, too, except that I disliked using mine so much (the image quality is good, but...) that I sold it shortly after buying it (I should have just returned it but waited too long) and bought an SL1 instead; seldom use that either....   I wish Canon would make a small, competent, mirrorless camera (a large one would be fine too, but for other purposes), but until they do when I want something smaller and lighter, as I increasingly frequently do, I'll stick with my Olympus OMD & Sonys - not as small, but so much nicer to use and, in the case of the Sony a7 line, better image quality too (for obvious reasons).

Lenses / Re: Anyone own the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II?
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:45:54 AM »
If you use your 70-200 exclusively at 200, and don't need IS, yes, replace the zoom with the prime.  Roger Cicala's brief comments seem about right:


And if you care much about creamy blurred backgrounds, I suspect you'll find this at least as good as the 135L.


Sony is really scaring the bejeezus out of you folks, aren't they!!!

One sometimes gets that impression.  Either way, it's a bit odd to express alarm at the price of an audio device on a forum where people are forever singing the praises of photo devices that cost much more (and, one might argue, achieve less).

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 53