September 20, 2014, 02:07:59 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 46
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:57:04 AM »
Like others, I tried a Nikon D800e and was driven nuts by the ergonomics/menu system.  Of course, one can get used to that, but I might be inclined to suggest a rather different solution if you don't need AF: get a Sony A7r instead.  Aside from costing much less than the D810, it can be used with all your Canon lenses as well as the Nikon 14-24 (does anyone suggest that the Nikon 24-70 is as good as, let alone better than, the Canon 24-70II?).   Some who have used both the Sony A7r and the D800e report that the Sony has even better image quality, though of course there's no way of knowing yet how it compares with the D810.  Either way, I think those who warn about how difficult it is to obtain very high image quality with these 36mp sensors overstate their case - you can get great results hand-held, and while the very best lenses may be necessary for ultimate performance, you can get impressive results with other lenses too (I recently took a series of photos with an old Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens on my A7r - very pleasing results).

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:33:44 AM »
I have both.  I haven't ever done any side-by-side comparisons, but my impression is that the 6D is probably slightly better overall, but probably not noticeably so unless you're specifically looking for/at noise, and that the 6D is noticeably better (esp. less banding) if you try to lighten shadows.  So I wouldn't recommend that you add a 5DIII for high ISO purposes.  It's possible, of course, that the 5DIII will provide better AF performance, thereby resulting in better image quality for *that* reason, but - perhaps because I don't photograph the sorts of things where this would matter - I've not noticed that, at least with still objects, aside from the obvious advantage of having more focus points to choose from.

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:57:29 PM »
If it were mirrorless w EVF & IBIS, both at least as good as Olympus OMDs', and had image quality that's significantly better than an SL1's, I might be interested (not excited, though, barring some technological revolution that makes it as good as FF for image quality).  Chances of any such combination showing up strike as being as close to zero as makes no difference, however, so for APS-C purposes I'll stick with my SL1 & Sony a6000 for a while longer.  I'm afraid my reaction to dslr announcements is "oh, not again"....

(If I only shot APS-C, regularly photographed herons-catching-fish, and didn't have FF my response might be a bit different, I suppose.)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:15:59 PM »

- The Metabones Adapter, (not the speed booster) AF pretty much did not work, at all. I might have a bad copy. I hear it is slower, but is still supposed to work, but I had no such success with it.

AF on that adapter only works with a rather small number of lenses.  A list is posted on their website (though I've found that one or two work that aren't on that list including 28mm IS and, weirdly, the new 10-18mm EF-S); maybe the lenses you used aren't included? 

(But even if the AF doesn't work, you should still get EXIF data and in-camera aperture control, which for me is the main use of that adapter because Sony's mirrorless bodies - like most these days - make MF relatively easy.) 

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 12:08:25 PM »

It's a cost factor, it's a weight factor, it's a mobility factor... These together display the impressive usefulness of APS-C... Hence, why the mirrorless crowd is cheering on their cameras, and saying things like "I'm so glad I ditched my full frame cameras". I've read that in several blogs. Full frame is too heavy. Larger cameras have their place, but it's a dwindling niche, if the camera companies will release full pro quality crop cameras. They have been holding out, because they want to push everyone to upgrade to full frame when they are done with their rebels, it seems.

So, better for everything... except image quality.  For smallish, lightish and cheap, APS-C can certainly do a great job if you're not after the ultimate in dslr image quality (during the past year I bought a SL1 for c. $450, the Canon 10-18 for $300 and the Sigma 18-250mm macro for $260; together they don't weigh much and, for the price, the image quality is very impressive - in many circumstances it could be all anyone needs).

But you're not going to gain much, if anything, if you choose the "pro" route, unless manufacturers change their notions of what "pro" lenses can be for APS-C, or unless you consider APS-C lenses to be pro quality already (for many purposes they probably are).  Professional quality long zooms and telephoto lenses are all designed for FF, and attaching them to a smaller body doesn't make much difference in weight.  At present, if you really want smaller, lighter lenses, M43 is the best solution, though even at their best they may not qualify as "pro" quality (though there are pros that use M43).

On the other hand, FF needn't be big and heavy or even that expensive: depending on what you shoot, Sony A7/A7r/A7s and a few primes (the native ones are light), may be enough.  Plus, the A7 costs barely more, if at all, than its top-tier mirrorless m43 and APS-C mirrorless rivals and, I expect, less than the 7DII will cost.

So, who knows?

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 26, 2014, 11:02:07 PM »
I think we ALL know deep down that it is NOT going to be either FF or APS-H.

Right.  Plus, no matter what features it has, at least 50% of posts reacting to its release will complain that it doesn't have some feature that can be found on an entry-level Nikon but which hardly anyone cares about and makes no discernible difference to 99% of photos taken with it....

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 06:08:58 PM »

Summary: Canon owns you as a consumer for photographic equipment.

But don't worry, this is the same boat that a lot of Canon owners are on... and Canon like that boat having as many people as possible on board.

Well, of course they do - it would be rather odd if they didn't.  But just which boat anyone's on rather depends on what you want/need.  For instance, switching brands isn't the expense that many assume (you'll lose on bodies, but not much, if at all, on lenses), while that pest Sony has come up with camera bodies that work as excellent digital backs for any number of lenses, including Canon's.  Many won't be interested in any of this for various reasons (switching brands may mean having to forgo a highly-prized lens, an A7r probably wouldn't be anyone's choice for herons-catching-fish, many unsurprisingly are perfectly happy with how their Canon bodies perform anyway, and so on), but there's more than one boat, even for owners of Canon lenses. 

This new Nikon doesn't look very interesting to me. Had it been mirrorless with IBIS and built in such a way that Canon lenses could be attached, maybe.  But for now my Sony & Canon bodies will do just fine....

EOS Bodies / Re: Comes the next Canon's with a New X-Trans Sensor?
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:32:13 PM »
But DxO have never tested an x-trans sensor.  I'm nervous...what if they give them a worse rating than the current Canon ones?  To play it safe, they should use the Nikon D4s sensor.  At least we know it has good DR (at least until the D810 is tested).

I hope you're being sarcastic....and not actually worried about DXO and how they may or may not rate the new sensor.  You're 'nervous'....really???

It does matter to this extent - because DxO doesn't "do"X-trans sensors, its software can't be used to edit X-trans raw files; and as far as I can tell, getting good results from other software isn't easy.  Of course, this is irrelevant if you're happy with the out-of-camera jpegs, but I'm not....

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 11:19:52 AM »
I think people want absolutely IS, but don't know why..

Cameras have good higher and higher ISO..
Very good lens have a lot of light...

-> you can have enough light for fast speeds (> 1/100 or 150)... So why do we bother for IS....
I was useful when camera couldn't go (good) over ISO400..  but know, IS is more and more useless.

I see utility only for long lenses.

While it's true that high ISO performance is good on newer cameras, it's still the case that image quality is better with lower ISOs (esp. if you want or need to crop, and esp. with smaller sensors); so IS/IBIS can be useful even with short, fast primes.  Unless there's clear evidence that putting IS in a very fast lens reduces its image quality, I really don't understand why people object to the idea.   

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:20:05 PM »
The high ISO comparison between 5DIII, A7r & A7s at dpreview may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet:

Interesting, thanks for the link.

IMHO, which is rarely considered humble, I don't get it. All this noise and chatter over one stop better high iso, very high usable iso.


Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 24, 2014, 03:49:57 PM »
By the way, there are *some* fast primes with IS - e.g. Sony makes some 1.8 APS-C e-mount primes that have it (35mm & 50mm; maybe others).

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 24, 2014, 03:03:36 PM »


So, as others are asking, what is the point of complaining not only about sharpness, but photographers who demand it in premium gear?

I'd simply like more lenses like the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.2, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art...and less lenses with various problems, including soft focus.  No lens is perfect, no kidding, but for my money, the best I can find, thank you--to a point.  No Otus for me.

How many people in this thread, op include, have complained about sharpness or those who need/want it?  As for "the best I can find", well, for some people that includes the 50L; to assume it doesn't or shouldn't begs the question.

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 24, 2014, 02:57:47 PM »
I wish Canon would put IBIS in at least some of their dslr bodies (and mirrorless, when/if they ever show up; likewise Sony in its mirrorless cameras), thereby making this a non-issue.  I realize there's some controversy whether it's as effective as lens IS, but it works well in Pentax dslrs (Sony too, I understand, though I've only very briefly used one) and Olympus OMDs, and Canon can still keep it in the lenses that have/need it....

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 24, 2014, 11:42:52 AM »
Sharpness simply gives us many more options.  Who is sillier--somebody who pays $1k plus for a lens and doesn't care if it's a little blurry or the person who expects sharpness?

Would you buy a car and accept that it pulls to the right?  An oven that doesn't give quite the right temp?  A gun that just misses most of the time?


You're rather missing the point, misreading the original post as arguing that sharpness doesn't matter at all; overlooking the fact that most lenses people are likely to buy today are sharp up to a point (how many $1000 lenses would be deemed "a little blurry?"), so that differences tend to be marginal and may not even be noticeable under normal viewing conditions in most uses; and assuming that we all want the same things from the lenses we buy.  The appeal of ultra-sharpness is obvious (I certainly get a kick out of the amazing resolution/detail/sharpness I get on my A7r via various lenses even at 100% viewing), but so is the appeal of certain other qualities in lenses that aren't quite as sharp.  (A better analogy than a car that pulls to the right vs one that doesn't might be a car whose maximum speed is 90 mph vs one whose is 120 mph, where one chooses the former because it is more comfortable, quieter, a nicer shape and has better air conditioning.) 

Which is better for you - which is the the "silly" $1000 purchase - depends on your taste/needs/wants.  (For my part, I would be annoyed if I paid a lot for a lens that had relatively unattractive bokeh and/or intrusive purple fringing.)  There's even a range of Russian lenses (copies of old Zeiss models) valued for a distinctive look, especially wide open, which is the result of characteristics that would likely be deemed flaws by most (one, a Helios something-or-other, managed to find its way into, where it was resoundingly thrashed).  Luckily they tend to cost much less than $1000....

The best solution is a Sony A7.

Sure, if you want 35mm equiv. angle of view, but any mirrorless camera (incl Micro 43 & Fuji X, in addition to Sony) with magnification and focus peaking - preferably one with an EVF and the right external controls - works well with old manual lenses; it's far easier to focus accurately and get exposure right. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 46