December 20, 2014, 02:44:50 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 ... 48
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:47:17 PM »

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

Well, I have both (Canon 5DIII, 6D & SL1, and Sony a7r & a6000) and can certainly see differences between FF and APSC (and between the 5DIII and 6D, for that matter), both within and between camps.  I've not done anything resembling scientific testing, but I get the impression that the differences are similar (though at least for low ISO noise the Sony camp wins because their APS-C and FF sensors both have less noise at low ISOs and better DR). 

I've never used a 7D, though that doesn't really affect the point I was trying to make with my comment above, which is merely that whether something is noticeable, whether a difference is negligible, depends on who's looking, how and why, so that some of this evident disagreement may be in some sense spurious.  You could sit two people, A and B, side-by-side in front of the same photograph and A could say to B "they look the same to me", B could respond "but what about (say) this patch of noise here?" and A could in turn respond "Oh, OK, I see that now that you point it out, but it's not the sort of thing I notice because for me it's an unimportant element in how a photo looks".  (I've actually done something like this myself.)  But if A were instead to respond to B "no, I don't see it at all," that could mean that A or B needs new glasses....

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Are your non-center focus problems via AF or MF?  Have you had similar problems with other non-native lenses?  (Unfortunately I don't own a 85L.)  If this is mainly an AF thing, it's perhaps just as well I do MF instead!  As for shutter vibrations, while I don't seem to have been as affected as you, it would certainly nice if Sony could fix this (it doesn't seem to be an issue with the other two A7 bodies).

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:32:53 PM »

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as the Canon lenses I've tried on my a7r and a6000 seem to produce results at least as good as (better, to the extent the extra resolution & dr matter) they do on my Canon bodies (I say "seem to" because I've not done anything resembling a scientific comparison, merely taken shots of similar things in similar conditions).  And I'm very pleased with the results I'm getting with most of the old legacy lenses (various brands) I've been using, though with them I have nothing to compare the results to except the photos I've taken using them on my OM-D, where similar adapters are involved. 

But you're certainly right about AF - if you need to photograph moving things or use the camera in other situations when you don't have a few seconds to spare, AF with the metabones adapter is, as they readily admit up-front, useless.  I don't think anyone claims otherwise.  But if you're willing to wait, the AF is, in my experience, accurate and it's nice not to have to worry about AFMA.  I tend to think MF is faster, though, and it's partly the opportunity to use old MF lenses easily that makes me a fan of mirrorless cameras, regardless of who makes them (I rather like the process of manually focusing, and good MF lenses are far nicer to use that way than any AF lens I've used).  (And when you're photographing static subjects, I'm not even sure that AF, even with native lenses, is much faster, if at all, unless you already have a focus point over the subject - in the time you've moved the focus point to where you want it, you could likely have manually focused too, especially if what you're focusing on is small and located among other things that may distract the camera's AF).

In any event, no, these cameras certainly aren't for everyone....

Lenses / Re: advice for new lens´╝čplease
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:00:36 PM »
I have 35L 50L,135L,200L trying to get 1-2 new lens to travel

1.wish list/ (16-35f2.8 or f4) (24-70 f2.8II) (70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4)

2.would you sell 35L or 200L when u get 16-35 or 70-200?

3.which 3 lens would u take to travel? and street photography

Since you do mostly "street" photography and still-life, it's not clear to me why you need more than what you have, except you may want something wider for building interiors and narrow streets.  Zooms are useful for obvious reasons, but at the long end, unless you really like lugging heavy things around, I would forget about a 70-200 2.8 and get the f4 IS or 70-300L instead; besides, in a city chances are you would find the range of a 24-105 much more useful except for occasions when you want shallower focus, and you already have primes that provide this.  Depending on where you travel to and how much time you have, I suspect you may find it more enjoyable overall to just take no more than one or two lenses each time you leave your hotel, but that's just me (yes, you may miss something, but everything we do has an opportunity cost...). 

Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:56:35 PM »

It's a stupid thread and a stupid question.  Everybody else is trying to be nice and skirt round that fact.


For an untrained amateur with deep pockets and a gnawing desire to have the best toys, most expensive toys in the playground, they will make your life harder.

This is a premise that we need to accept.... modern dslr technology can make the most rancidly untalented photographer turn out reasonable shots. 


Perhaps it would have been better to ask it elsewhere instead, but why is the question "stupid"?  And what do "untrained amateurs with deep pockets", "rancidly untalented" or otherwise, have to do with the answer?  Or do you know something about the OP that the rest of us don't?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:03:25 PM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.


Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....   

Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 05, 2014, 11:31:14 AM »
If you're in bright outdoors light and don't need the shallower focus allowed by 2.8, the 70-300L would make sense; the differences in image quality among the 70-200 f4 IS & 2.8 II and 70-300L are otherwise trivial in such conditions.  If you want shallower focus and/or to minimalize noise - always a consideration with APSC - as you need to boost ISOs either to freeze action or deal with lower light (or both), you may prefer the 2.8 if you don't mind the weight (I own a f4 IS, but have hardly ever used it since buying a 70-300L; I find the 2.8 II far too heavy to lug around and thus have only rented it rather than buying it).

As for vacations, it rather depends on your stamina etc.  If you'll be carrying around a camera + lenses all day, you may find that after a few hours any of these is a bit much; presumably that's why you tried the superzoom you were disappointed by.  As you likely know, there are now relatively lightweight options that produce very good results and weigh a lot less, including recent superzooms that don't have tiny sensors, such as the Sony RX10, as well as various micro 43 options (a bag containing a m43 body + several lenses seems weightless next to a similar amount of dslr gear).  I don't know what superzoom you had, but chances are it was hampered by a tiny sensor and perhaps inferior lens, which isn't the case with these.  Or you could consider a superzoom lens for your 70D, such as the cheap but surprisingly good (well, it surprised me...) Sigma 18-250 OS macro.  Only you know whether the minor (perhaps trivial) loss in image quality from these options is compensated for by the resulting increase in enjoying other aspects of your vacation....

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:28:01 PM »
Thank you for all the replies so far!

My main use for the macro will be food close ups to start with, but I will also use it for a variety of other purposes (e.g. I travel a lot and often find myself wishing for a macro lens while doing it). As I mentioned I was hoping to use the lens as a portrait lens as well (f/2.0 would sometimes be useful here), but on the other hand I wouldn't want to compromise its primary use.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that by "food close-ups" you're not really implying the sort of "true" macro photography that others have been addressing - do you want, say, to have a solitary beautifully lit caviar egg fill the image?  If you merely want to "get close" but let the image be recognizably of food, all you may need is a lens with a short minimal focus distance or a lens with sufficient magnification.  Macro lenses are great for that too, of course (that's primarily why I like them so much), but for such purposes it will matter less whether it's 1:1 or 1:2 or even whether it's 50mm or 100mm or 180mm (by all accounts the Sigma 180mm IS lens is fantastic, but if the food you want to photograph is in a restaurant chances are you won't want to us *that* lens...).

The 100L is one of my favorite all-purpose lenses, for all the reasons already given by others.  The IS won't always be helpful, but sometimes it will and I would rather have it than not; and while AF isn't as accurate as MF when operating with shallow depth of focus, especially if you care about - and you will - which precise details are in focus, it's nice to have it otherwise, especially when you're using it on a dslr, hand-held, where MF is rather hard to do effectively.  But if you don't need IS and don't need 100mm you could by the 70mm Sigma, which does 1:1 magnification, has superb image quality, costs half as much as the 100L and makes an excellent all-purpose walk-around lens.  Or you could try the 100mm non-L Canon.  Or, frankly, just about any macro lens - as far as I can tell, they all provide impressive image quality, with differences among them being relatively trivial in actual use.

(If you had a decent mirrorless body it would be easy to recommend some cheap macro lenses to start (or even end) with.  E.g. for less than $150 you can buy a Nikon 55mm f2.8 MF lens + adapter and get superlative image quality; it also has the advantage of being small and light (a mere 289g) - but I wouldn't want to try to use mine on a dslr....) 

Lenses / Re: 50mm Coma Sigma Art vs Regular Sigma F1.4
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:02:01 AM »

Most all the 50mm offerings are so bad at it.  The Art I'd hoped was even better than it was.  Even if at the same time it is far better than the others, minus the Zeiss and the more expensive Nikon.  In a way it's a 1 stop boost in less coma.  Though yeah it is going to be sharper anyway.  But if I was shooting something with street lights near the corners or with stars, I'd probably feel the need to head to F2.8.  And if I'm at F2.8 I just about may as well be using the old Sigma.  It's softer but guessing I'd maybe sell it for $200, making the jump $750 and I'm not sure it is that much softer when we're talking far corners here anyway.  Not sure why I had it in my head the F2.8 Art coma result is what F1.4 was going to be closer to.  Lenstip made it seem close to that.  Or well lenstip coma at F1.4 looks like my star test between F2 and F2.8 I guess. 

Anyway, just an example for those looking at getting it for that reason, which is probably many.   

Very useful - thanks!  (It's the superior coma performance of the Sigma 35mm art compared to other 35mm lenses I've used, more than anything else, that keeps tempting me.)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 04:43:46 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.

You're right, of course, that as a general proposition it's useless - for one thing, even assuming the differences can be measured, what's "small" for me mightn't be for you, and vice versa, and the only way to know is to use the different formats in question and see if you notice any differences that matter to you given the uses to which you put them (or find useful comparisons online).  I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: July 31, 2014, 04:36:17 PM »
On the off-chance no-one's mentioned this yet, Roger Cicala's test results are now available here:

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:23:37 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:21:09 PM »
2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,

Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.

ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.

I guess you may be right if "optimal processing" is applied, and I dare say I don't do it.  At any rate, if I look at images on a monitor at 100% (which is what I had in mind by "scrutinize"), I see more noise even at ISO 100 on APS-C than FF (regardless of whether it's Canon or Sony), and of course with m43 there's the "problem" that ISO starts at 200.  Would I see it if I weren't looking for it?  Probably not.  Would I see it at less than 100%?  Probably not.  Does it matter?  No (well, not for me, anyway, unless I want to boost shadows a lot, and even then it's usually not noticeable).  Would I bother applying NR?  No.  Anyway, I doubt we're disagreeing about much, if anything.

Anyway, I've now seen the video and am not impressed either.  All he says is that the difference in sensor size between FF and APSC is trivial compared to the difference in sensor size between FF and large format (etc.), and that the differences between FF and APSC have become insignificant.  That could be said in less than 30 seconds.  It may or may not be true (it all depends on what you think is significant), but he does nothing at all to prove his point besides waving a stick at a series of photos of sensors over and over again.  I rather doubt this is a Fuji ad - wouldn't their publicity department come up with something better?

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:05:52 PM »

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:32:44 AM »
When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors.  We're lagging behind.  But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality.  Modern APS-C sensors are excellent.  Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.

A few observations:

1. Whether one is "as good as" another rather depends on what your criteria are - what you photograph, how you view images, how fussy you are about what one should probably refer to as small differences (though that's hardly objective either - differences that matter to me may not even be noticed by you and vice versa), etc.  I own several different cameras (too many; I should do some pruning...) - FF (Canon 5DIII & 6D, Sony A7r), APS-C (Canon SL1  & Sony a6000) and M43 (Olympus OMD-EM5), with lenses all over the map, from rather elderly manual Russian lenses to high-end current ones.  I'm often tempted to think that even viewing on a 30" monitor, if I don't pixel peep, and don't go out of my way to look for differences, there are many images I've taken with various combinations of equipment which, if I (or anyone else) looked at the images in succession, I would have a hard time matching up accurately with the images, and perhaps a harder time forming a preference.   

2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43, and not just when comparing Sony/Nikon ff to Canon APS-C.  It may be that the a6000 makes better images than the SL1, but it's also true that the a7r makes better images than the a6000, just as the 5DIII and 6D make better images than the SL1.

3. I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.  Before Christmas I bought an XE1 and returned it a couple of weeks later, assuming that the unsharp results, especially in photos where the subject wasn't close, were the result of a defect in the camera or lens, but I don't think they were - I've looked at countless images online taken by fans of these cameras (not to mention the comparisons you can make at dpreview) and seen much the same lack of sharpness.  There may be less noise than on images taken with other APS-C bodies, but there's less detail.  Frankly, I prefer the images I get from my SL1, extra noise and all.  Again, the differences aren't so noticeable if you don't scrutinize closely, and if you care more about noise than detail it won't matter, but if you do....  (Even some Fuji fans acknowledge this - e.g. whatsisname at soundimageplus says they're his favorite cameras to use, but he much prefers the images from his a6000, not to mention a7& a7r.)

4. I've not seen the video yet....

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 48