October 21, 2014, 12:07:15 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 ... 46
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 photozone.de, 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. 

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 23, 2014, 04:38:18 PM »
The high ISO comparison between 5DIII, A7r & A7s at dpreview may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet:


EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 04:03:01 PM »


In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.

Exactly!  I don't understand why some seem not to "get" the advantages you list (though of course I get why, for some purposes at least, they're not yet the best choice for everyone).  They may never catch on, of course, but I would like it if Canon offered one that was pleasant to use.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 03:56:46 PM »

I rather buy DSLR b/c

- i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
- I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain.
- Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either.     some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options

You may prefer the images you get from a 7D to those you got from your OM-D, but that comparison has no wider implications and the differences between the two have nothing to do with the fact that one is a dslr while the other is mirrorless.  (One reason you may find the 7D's images "more natural" is because the OM-D E-M5 adds far more sharpening (esp. in default JPEG settings) than many other cameras.  Images from the E-M1 don't, however.)  The images generated by the various Micro 43 cameras don't all look the same, Sony APS-C mirrorless images don't look the same as Fuji-X images, which in turn don't look the same as EOS-M images, and none of those look the same as Sony FF mirrorless.


A lot of the undefined qualities are that way.  Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.

Exactly.  I find reviews far more useful when they provide photos taken in various conditions with the lens under review and its older rivals, if any.  You can sometimes find such comparisons, but not often enough.  Simply providing a bunch of photos taken in isolation with a particular lens doesn't tell you much - they tend to all look much the same (which may tell us something more important, of course).

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L
« on: June 21, 2014, 10:42:13 PM »
I've thought about the 10-18, but I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses

But there isn't an L zoom lens that's really wide-angle on APS-C (or are 16 or 17mm wide enough?), so you would have to get something like the Sigma 12-24mm.  The 10-18 costs only $300 - it's surely not a wasted investment even if you end up going FF (you can always sell it anyway).

So, I've noticed so many fashion photographers are bashing the autofocus on Canon Gear, specifically 6D and 5DIII.


I'm getting tired of being Canon's advocate. Single AF point, recompose. Shoot. It's not hard. :o

Do the photographers you're referring to only say this about Canon cameras and not about Nikon etc.?

As for whether point + shoot + recompose isn't hard, as Neuro points out that depends in part on how shallow the depth of focus is (of course, it also matters how exacting your standards of focus accuracy are...).  It makes life much easier if you can put a focus point on the subject and not have to move the camera at all (it's one of the huge advantages of mirrorless cameras over dslrs that you can put the focus point almost anywhere in the frame).

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: SMC Pentax 50mm 1.4
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:14:15 PM »
Lovely photos - and nice timing: I just bought its screwmount SMC Takumar predecessor (I very much like the look and feel of the older focus rings) and am eagerly awaiting its arrival early next week; your photos are making me a bit less patient....   There are some great bargains to be had via manual lenses (though I prefer to use mine on mirrorless Sony - magnification + focus peaking + EVF makes it far easier for me to use them).

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:04:49 PM »

knowledgable users buy what they need more than uneducated users who buy what marketing tells them they should want. That's what Neuro keeps getting wrong.

If by "uneducated" you mean novices who haven't spent hours researching camera reviews, hanging out in camera forums, etc., and if we can assume from their market share that such people buy Canon more than other brands, does that mean, then, that Canon's ads and other marketing devices are more effective than anyone else's?  Is there any evidence to support this?  The only camera ads I've noticed on TV are Ashton Kutcher's for Nikon; I don't recall ever seeing a Canon ad anywhere (though perhaps that's just because I watch & read the wrong things).  I suspect that marketing isn't as effective as you (and marketing departments) think - my first dslr was a Nikon, not because I had swooned at the sight of Mr. Kutcher or read tons of reviews (though I had probably looked at more than most novices do), but largely because my father had one and I thought he might be a useful resource.  Novice friends and colleagues of mine who have no interest at all in spending hours researching this stuff have often followed my advice because they've seen some of my photos and think I'm trustworthy, in part because what I say about various cameras makes sense to them (I don't talk to them about dynamic range....); and I'm sure that's true of others.  Some may be act on name recognition (they have Canon copiers at work or at home) or because they see masses of Canon cameras at sporting events, or because they took a camera course one weekend where the instructor used a Canon.  Others pay attention to salesmen (it's instructive to spend some time in camera stores listening to interactions between staff and novices). 

As for who needs what, beyond the basics ("I want to take photos of my toddler roaming around the house so I can email them to his grandmother") you probably don't know until you do a lot of photography and take it seriously enough to think about what your equipment is stopping you from doing and why it makes your photos look the way they do.  To the extent that Neuro is suggesting that Canon is successful despite not doing so well in various DXO et al. tests because those relative deficiencies don't matter to most people, that's probably true in some sense, but also a bit misleading:  I doubt Rebel buyers chose Canon because they know noisy shadows at low ISOs and lower resolution aren't significant to them and don't fall within their "needs" - rather, they haven't the slightest idea what any of those things mean, either at all or in practice (in Rumsfeld-ese, this is known-unknowns or unknown-unknowns territory).  Try talking to a novice about APS-C vs FF, crop factors, etc., let alone the advantages of shooting RAW and fiddling around with software....   It's not because they're stupid or uneducated or dupes of marketing; it's just that they have other priorities. 

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded.  That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd.  If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?

He didn't say it has some immeasurable quality that nobody else can beat, only that it has distinctive qualities that can't readily be measured.  That's neither irrational nor false (his statement as you reworded it may or may not be true, but it's not irrational).  You may not care for those distinctive qualities or even notice them; and it may well be that they're related to various aspects of the lens that *can* be measured (if you like, one could say that it's desirable because of, not despite, its flaws). But simply to dismiss it, as you seem to want to do, because it fails in various ways that can be measured begs the question.

(And, in case this is necessary to add, none of that is to say anything at all negative about the Sigma or, for that matter, to say anything positive about the Canon.)

Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus.  I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera.  Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy.  FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera.  If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.
I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models.   Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject.  That's probably why no one does it.

Some do, at least up to a point, such as lenstip:


But it seems pretty clear that they don't cover the range of contexts you refer to in your second paragraph.  I've no idea whether anyone else comes closer.


very bizarre that they test it on aps-c first (or perhaps even only???)
I will wait until they do it on FF.

Not "only" - they say there will be a FF review shortly and, in the conclusion portion of the review, give a more than subtle hint at their overall opinion of it on FF.  But yes, it does seem odd to start with APS-C first.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18mm - a few early photos on SL1 & Sony a6000
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:02:02 AM »
According the the digital pictures image quality post, this lens is...good only if you dont want to pay for the 10-22, and lose a fair amount of zoom capacity.

Sharpness is pretty much the same as the old bird. corners are smushy. Ive used the 10-22 on a 7d, t2i, and an eos m...there's only so much sharpness you can expect of of that lens. So if this is the same, its pretty pointless.

I've no clue how they compare first-hand as I've never tried a 10-22, but photozone states that "[t]he MTF results are nothing short of astounding."  But even assuming they're optically "the same", the 10-18 is half the price and has very effective IS, so I don't think "pointless" is quite the right word unless you already have the 10-22 and don't care about IS, or don't do APS-C - which isn't everyone.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 46