September 02, 2014, 03:37:27 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 45
76
Lenses / Re: Thinking of replacing a couple of lenses
« on: June 14, 2014, 07:56:05 PM »
The new 10-18 is supposedly sharper than the 10-22 and, while a bit slower, has a huge advantage in IS (unless you prefer to use tripods, in which case it doesn't matter, I guess); the IS is very good - I've taken sharp photos with mine at 1/6 & 1/8 secs hand-held without any problem.  I have no first-hand experience with the 10-22 or the Tokina your girlfriend has, though, so I can't say from personal experience how they compare.  Why don't you compare the two and see if you can detect a significant difference?  (Do the two of you need both of them anyway?)  It's hard to see why Canon would come out with a new 10-22....

As for the 28mm IS, do you find it better than your 24-105 @ 28?  If not, do you need such a thing at all?  If a faster lens matters, get the 35mm f2 or Sigma 35mm 1.4.

If you really want superior optical performance, switching to FF would make a bigger difference than worrying about these lenses (esp. if you shoot in low light), but since you don't want to do that....

77
Canon General / Re: Why does this happen?
« on: June 13, 2014, 10:49:29 PM »

My real issue here is that the OP mainly does portraits.  He already has the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens so I suggested the 24-70 f/2.8L II is pretty much sharper than any prime in that range.  Then the "only primes" post.  I didn't think my suggestion of spending $2299ish was out of line considering the total price of the primes he listed. 

Why do some people feel as though to do well in photography, you must be a purist?  It's like if you don't shoot in M mode, manual focus, and use an L prime, you're not doing it right.

Well, one might argue that sharpness isn't the most important feature of a portrait lens; that while the primes-only guy may just be some fool showing off, it may have less to do with purism than the fact that fast primes have a different look from sharp 2.8 zooms (though it's not clear why someone who mainly does portraits would be much interested in a 24mm or 35mm, L or otherwise - especially when he asked about 85...); and point out that Ls aren't required - there are even some cheap, fast, old(ish) manual 85mm lenses that make rather nice portrait lenses, even if unacceptably soft wide open to the sharpness police.

But one won't, because that cartoon is so damn good....

78
Lenses / Re: Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm
« on: June 13, 2014, 03:45:09 PM »
As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.

You think the EF-S 10-22 is terrible? Not that the OP is looking for EF-S lenses, but I asked since you include them in your list.
I think it is actually pretty good, and I have used it for more than 2 years.

And the new EFS 10-18 should surely be on the list - reviews say it's better than the 10-22 and it's half the price (I'm happy with mine, anyway, for all that I prefer FF).

79
Reviews / Re: Is Canon 5d mk 1 still a good camera?
« on: June 13, 2014, 11:33:28 AM »
There is no reason to purchase the 5D3 unless you are shooting Sports/Wildlife or if you wanted to shoot video. The 6D is an excellent stills camera and you will find it a nice step up from the 5D in every way (with the one exception that you might miss the joystick).

Certainly not true.

The 6D is great if your a landscape shooter or place your focus point in the middle of the frame, but if your using fast glass like F1.2-2.8 you might struggle to get focus with focus recompose methods to have any focus point other than in the middle of the frame. I wouldn't say the 5DMKIII is the go to camera for sports or wildlife, it can be used but the buffer and FPS aren't really suited thats where the 1DX comes in.

The 5DMKIII is the perfect wedding/journo/commercial photographers tool.

Maybe I'm just lucky, or am focusing on easy targets (I hardly ever photograph things that are moving, for example), but I find it just as easy to focus even in very low light with fast lenses wide open using outer focus points on my 6D as I do on my 5DIII (though of course the 5DIII has the advantage of having far more focus points to choose from).  If you're saying the 5DIII is better than the 6D I won't dispute that, however (not that I have much first-hand experience either way).

80
Reviews / Re: Is Canon 5d mk 1 still a good camera?
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:43:13 PM »
There is no reason to purchase the 5D3 unless you are shooting Sports/Wildlife or if you wanted to shoot video. The 6D is an excellent stills camera and you will find it a nice step up from the 5D in every way (with the one exception that you might miss the joystick).

What's more, in at least one area of image quality - revealed noise when lightening shadows - the 6D beats the 5DIII.

81
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18mm - a few early photos on SL1 & Sony a6000
« on: June 12, 2014, 04:38:28 PM »
Thanks for the kind words, Dylan & Pie.  The quality/price/weight combination of this lens is pretty impressive.

82
Lenses / EF-S 10-18mm - a few early photos on SL1 & Sony a6000
« on: June 11, 2014, 10:15:46 PM »
I received mine a couple of days ago and briefly tried it on two successive days walking home from work via City Hall in Philadelphia, the first day with it attached to the Sony a6000, the second to the Canon SL1.  Here are a few photos from each day, mostly within parts of the building.  All off-the-cuff, hand-held tourist-dodging stuff, mostly at 10mm, nothing fancy:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125326482@N07/sets/72157644720350428/

In some there's a bit of flare and ghosting (in a couple of the outdoor shots on the Canon the lens was aimed at the sun), some of which may be related to the cheap filter that Adorama threw in for free (I'll try it later with no filter and then with a better quality one).  All are raw files processed via lightroom 5; a few had shadows lightened (the outdoor light was hideous each day), but otherwise the tweaks were minor. 

I'm amazed by how little distortion the lens creates - most of the time I saw nothing that needed correcting, though just for the heck of it I applied the lens profile for the 11-22mm EOS-M (it worked better than the profile for its predecessor; there's no profile for the new lens yet, of course).  It's miles better in terms of distortion at 10mm than the 24-105L is at 24mm, for instance, and better than any other similar wide-angle lens I've tried (if my memory is right, that is).

I included a few Sony a6000 photos to show the far-corner vignetting I mentioned elsewhere.   (Aside from that vignetting - which only shows up at 10mm, varies with the light and often disappears completely with minor distortion tweaking - I'm inclined to think that the photos it makes on the Sony are on the whole slightly better when viewed closely, but it would take controlled testing to reach a firm conclusion either way; I'll leave that to someone else....)

Anyway, make of them what you will....

83
The comparison isn't meaningless - rather, it demonstrates the point: it's why, given the current state of technology, FF sensors are better than APS-C, which in turn are better than 1" sensors, which in turn are better than....  You just don't like the comparison because it doesn't support your argument (to the extent it's clear what that is).  That doesn't make it meaningless.  You might as well say it's "meaningless" to compare a tripod to a monopod because it has more legs.

You misunderstood my post: it's entirely meaningful to compare sensor tech vs. sensor tech -- I got no problem with that.  The problem is when you call it a comparison between FF and APS-C: that's just lazy use of language.

If Sella wanted to compare tech he should have said so, but he used the term "full frame;" by definition, that is a sensor with dimensions equal to a frame of 35mm film.  That is the defining characteristic of "full-frame."

Perhaps you think I'm mincing words, but no: both discussions are valid, but they are entirely different discussions.

If you and Sella want to talk sensor tech then we'll talk sensor tech.

If you want to talk FF vs. APS-C then we'll include full illumination of both.

Sloppiness does not help Sella's dwindling credibility.

Ummm  ...  I thought I understood your post; the point of mine was to agree with you and disagree with Sella!  Perhaps I should take a nap.... 

84

The comparison is absolutely meaningless unless you compare the full area of the FF against the full area of the crop-frame.

But even that is a meaningless comparison, because a "full-frame" sensor is physically larger in area than a "crop-frame" sensor and thus always illuminated by more light. For this type of comparison to have any real meaning, the two sensors must be normalized ... somehow.

The comparison isn't meaningless - rather, it demonstrates the point: it's why, given the current state of technology, FF sensors are better than APS-C, which in turn are better than 1" sensors, which in turn are better than....  You just don't like the comparison because it doesn't support your argument (to the extent it's clear what that is).  That doesn't make it meaningless.  You might as well say it's "meaningless" to compare a tripod to a monopod because it has more legs.

85

Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.


I'm not really sure what your point here is, but "those systems" *don't* sell well, despite their obvious appeal in terms of size and weight etc., and while "quality is important" the best that can be said for M43 is that it's more-or-less as good as APS-C.  Neither is as good as FF, even if it's true that in many contexts the difference doesn't matter or isn't noticeable (I'm reminded of an excellent butter commercial in the UK in the late 1970s:  some people claim that margarine tastes like butter - but no-one claims that butter tastes like margarine).

As for "not exactly cheap" - well, indeed not.  The best M43 camera for stills is probably the OM-D E-M1, but it costs more than just about any APS-C dslr and almost as much as the FF Sony A7 (which is, what's more, smaller).  The same is true of the top-level Fuji-X bodies.  And when you throw in lenses, all bets are off - there are some very good m43 primes that are fairly inexpensive, but even then there's no equivalent of such "plastic fantastics" as the Canikon 50 1.8s or the Nikon 35mm 1.8.  Canon's impressive new APS-C 10-18mm costs $300 without any sort of discount; the forthcoming Olympus 7-14mm will evidently cost c. $1800.  And on and on.  So regardless of whether you think the resulting image quality is much the same, given the pricing disparity it's hardly surprising that sales of M43 and Fuji X (which doesn't seem to have any bargains either) aren't impressive.  (I say that as someone who currently owns FF & APS-C Canon, FF & APS-C Sony and Olympus OM-D M43).

86
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 09, 2014, 06:43:12 PM »
On the off-chance anyone reading this cares, my 10-18mm arrived today.  Just for the heck of it, to test it out I attached it to my Sony a6000 rather than my SL1 and was pleasantly surprised to see that, even though it's a new lens, the Metabones EF-Nex adapter provides full support for it - AF works even though it doesn't with many older EF lenses (it seems a bit faster with EF-S lenses than with EF), as do aperture control, IS and (I expect) exif data.  Given the difference in crop factor, this makes the lens a tad wider/shorter.  I look forward to trying it later on my SL1.

I don't want to get into the "who needs IS on a wide lens" debate, and I've so far not had a chance to look at any of the photos I've taken except by zooming in on the camera's monitor, but so far the IS seems impressive - I took a string of photos in a rather dark space with the lens wide open, set the ISO at 400, and obtained images that, without exception, look sharp at 1/8s. 

If the camera's monitor isn't too misleading, this lens may be the ridiculous bargain of the year. 

(It will be interesting to see whether it can be used on an A7/r similar to the Sony equivalent.)

Update - at 10mm on an a6000 you don't get 15mm equiv. unless you don't mind the fact that the extreme corners are too dark to remedy (well, maybe with a lot of fiddling that may not be worth the effort).  And unlike the Sony equivalent, it doesn't work at all as any sort of ff camera on an A7r; so much for that, then.  But otherwise, it works just fine on an a6000 - no extreme corner problems after 10mm, and the image quality is impressive.  I look forward to trying it on my SL1....

87
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 09, 2014, 03:52:22 PM »
On the off-chance anyone reading this cares, my 10-18mm arrived today.  Just for the heck of it, to test it out I attached it to my Sony a6000 rather than my SL1 and was pleasantly surprised to see that, even though it's a new lens, the Metabones EF-Nex adapter provides full support for it - AF works even though it doesn't with many older EF lenses (it seems a bit faster with EF-S lenses than with EF), as do aperture control, IS and (I expect) exif data.  Given the difference in crop factor, this makes the lens a tad wider/shorter.  I look forward to trying it later on my SL1.

I don't want to get into the "who needs IS on a wide lens" debate, and I've so far not had a chance to look at any of the photos I've taken except by zooming in on the camera's monitor, but so far the IS seems impressive - I took a string of photos in a rather dark space with the lens wide open, set the ISO at 400, and obtained images that, without exception, look sharp at 1/8s. 

If the camera's monitor isn't too misleading, this lens may be the ridiculous bargain of the year. 

(It will be interesting to see whether it can be used on an A7/r similar to the Sony equivalent.)

88
Lenses / Re: Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?
« on: June 09, 2014, 11:32:43 AM »

I can get the Tamron for $600 and the Canon for $950 in Canada. Bottom line. If you force me to choose either an 85/1.8 or a 90/2.8 macro, I'll take the macro. (Maybe I just needed to type this out loud to decide.)


I would too - I like to be able to get closer than the MFD sometimes, even if not macro-close (the ability to get closer will cancel out the isolation advantage of a faster aperture to the extent you're closer).  I owned the previous Tamron for a while back when I used Pentax, and it was very good except for strong purple fringing; the Canon 100L is far better in that regard, though for all I know the new Tamron is too.  Purple fringing can be a problem (assuming it bothers you in the first place) with the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 (85L too for that matter). 

When you say that AF speed doesn't matter much, are you taking into consideration hunting?  Like every other macro lens I've used (it seems to be an inherent characteristic), the 100L can hunt quite a bit, especially if your distance from the subject keeps changing, and especially in low light - the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 won't have that issue.

Anyway, if I were picking just one lens in this range it would be the 100L.  (The new Tamron might be a good substitute - it seems to get impressive reviews.)

89

I bought the a7r when released, I'm happy with the Camera for what I purchased it for, but Lenses ?? Sony just did an abysmal job for the future of the a7r in this area, they had 3 ?? Lenses available (excluding crop lenses not made for the a7r specifically), 3 lenses, maybe they had 4, that's it, and the best of those were the ones made by Zeiss, the 35 & later the 55.


If Sony's mirrorless cameras, like their Alpha-mounts, had IBIS, there would be a fairly easy temporary (or even permanent) solution courtesy of their best Alpha-E adapter, which provides AF for both their AF mechanisms and which evidently works at least as well as the AF on their Alpha-mount cameras.  Apparently there are lots of excellent Alpha and Minolta lenses out there, but because they were designed for bodies with IBIS none of them have IS, which reduces their appeal somewhat (esp. the longer ones).  What's more, the adapter removes one of the big advantages of mirrorless cameras - on-sensor focusing, with focus points all over the image area. 

So, no matter what, unless you're happy with the small number of FE lenses, the appeal of these cameras is limited to those who are willing to fool around with adapters, manual focusing, etc.  I am (I rather like the manual process anyway, and it's far easier on mirrorless bodies), but I rather doubt many are - surely not enough to make this line a commercial success.

90
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: June 09, 2014, 10:33:44 AM »
Picked up a K-mount adapter to try out a coworkers old tamron lenses, they were too fogged up and one was missing all damping on the zoom so i let him keep them.

Are there any old K lenses that I should keep an eye out for? I noticed what looks like a 50mm F2 pancake, and some 50mm F1.2 lenses.

There are quite a lot (get an M42 adapter as well for earlier Pentax manual lenses, such as the Super Takumars).  You should take a look the extensive user reviews at pentaxforums:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

You'll also find useful reviews of other M42 mount lenses, including some interesting Russian ones.

(It's much easier to use these on a mirrorless camera, though....)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 45