April 24, 2014, 02:23:46 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 35

that thread is on a fred miranda review using canon lenses on an a7r for landscapes.

thanks I saw that article.  that is why I am considering the Sony A7R.  Which is the better way to go?  Waiting for Canon may be a long time and if a body comes out it will be expensive.

It seems you can't readily attach Canon lenses to Nikon bodies, for the reasons given here:


So if you're deciding between a Sony or Nikon body, the answer seems pretty clear - get the Sony, which also gives you the usual advantages of mirrorless bodies & EVFs. 

Of course, as others have pointed out, whether you'll find the A7r gives you better results depends on how you use/view the results and what your criteria are - the extra resolution and dynamic range may or may not make a difference to you; and bear in mind that while you will almost certainly get better center resolution if you attach a Canon lens, that may not be true of corners:


My hunch, after playing with an A7r for a couple of weeks (and an A7 before that), is that Canon lenses (the ones I tried, anyway) yield slightly better results on A7 bodies than they do on a 6D or 5DIII (though of course they're easier to use on the latter), that the difference isn't just a matter of extra resolution (if you like viewing images 1:1 on a good, big monitor, the results certainly have an extra "wow"factor, even if you don't use a tripod), but that the 6D is probably better at high ISOs, at least in terms of noise. 

But I've not done anything approaching scientific tests, which is why I say "hunch" (I imagine there are useful A-B comparisons of the same thing shot with the same lens on different bodies on-line or, if not, that there soon will be).  If you're in a position to rent, why don't you rent an A7R & metabones Canon-E adapter and find out first-hand if you notice an improvement that's significant to you?  (And don't just try it on landscapes, unless that's all you photograph.)

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 14, 2014, 05:39:02 PM »

Shown off to who, if you don't mind my asking?  It's such an exotic piece of tech that only other photogs would know what it is. 

With that same money, you can you get a second FF body along with this new Sigma 50...  Just saying.

Or, if you make that second FF body a Sony A7/A7r, you could get the Zeiss/Sony 55mm 1.8, which probably makes photos that are indistinguishable from the Otus 99% of the time, and has AF (and, at present, is $200 off - i.e. $799 - if you buy it with an A7/A7r).  Come to that, the Zeiss/Sony on a 7R could well create better images than the Sigma, no matter how good it is, or even the Otus would on any current Canon sensor (leaving aside such questions as whether you need to track fast action).  Interesting times....

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 13, 2014, 07:31:52 PM »

[...] I know that only photographers see the differences in most of these crazy lens choices 99% of the time. Clients just don't, clients see moments, posing, lighting, composition, post processing etc . This constant hand wringing about a few lppmm, or distortion, aberrations etc is just crazy.

I'm sure that's right, if what matters is the perceptions of clients.  Those of us (un)lucky enough not to be professional photographers are our own clients, as it were, and, just like any other interest/hobby, if you get "into" it enough you start to care about all sorts of details that others just don't notice (and, when they're pointed out, don't care).  Some distinction that may seem trivial to me might matter to you, and vice versa; and while it's probably true that all manner of differences among lenses and bodies are simply invisible unless you go pixel-peeping - in which case it really is crazy to obsess with this sort of thing if you don't pixel-peep, print small, etc. - some of us do.

And for those sorts of reasons it's hard to answer questions such as "I own body x and lenses y & z; should I upgrade to body A or lens C", especially if what motivates the question is some hoped for change in image quality.  In a different life I used to sell cds of classical music, and new customers would always be taken aback when they asked for a recommendation for a recording of some piece of music because, instead of just saying "this one's the best" I would ask them questions about their tastes in interpretation and tried to tell them that they mightn't notice what I notice (and vice versa), care about what I care about, etc.

Sometimes, just for the heck of it, I'll show my other half a couple of photos for comparison purpose (noise, botched lighting, etc.), and as often as not he'll prefer the "wrong" one and not notice what is, to me, an obvious flaw.  It's an enviable state, in some ways - often, when looking at others' photos, I'll find myself looking at all the trivial stuff that we're supposed not to care about (and I'm quite sure that I never noticed chromatic aberrations, noise, etc. on HD TV shows until I got into photography a few years ago).  But once you get into the habit of scrutinizing details it's hard to stop....

Lenses / Re: DxO Review of the Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon
« on: February 12, 2014, 01:51:51 PM »

I am not sure I understand your criticism of DXO. Am I right that their scores only refer to image quality? It seems to me that you are asking more of them than they offer.

I think I know what you mean, but image quality in the abstract doesn't matter: if it doesn't focus fast and/or accurately (I've no idea whether it does or not) in the sort of conditions for which such a lens is likely to be used, then the image quality, much of the time, won't be any good at all.

Reinz ... Not to sound like an ass but ... what are you trying to prove here?

I'm interested in the A7 + a kit/prime lens and have the special luxury of getting approx 20% discount on almost all Sony products so I'm wondering whether it is worth the plunge. Somehow I feel that a 55mmm prime + a A7 will be a great tool while on my travel.

I am however, NOT AT ALL interested in using one with an adapter. For me, the only point in the Sony is the smaller form factor that I can use while I'm traveling. For anything that requires a Canon lens, I'll happily use my DSLR.

I get not wanting to attach a Canon zoom, but it's perhaps worth pointing out that you retain a small form factor if you attach one of the smaller Canon primes (I've used the 40mm pancake and 85mm 1.8).  Of course, focusing may not be fast enough....

@Rienz: I'm curious about the JPEG quality. You say these are strait out of camera JPEGs? When you move into the green backgrounds, the posterization and artifacting is really bad. Really quite bad, especially at the lower ISO settings. Any chance you could take a RAW and save it at maximum quality JPEG?

You can read more about that problem here:


I don't use JPEGs, so for me that's not an issue.  What does bug me - because I like taking urban photos at night - is a sensor flare/reflection problem, some of which is discussed in this thread:


I don't think I ever noticed that particular problem, presumably because I never shot slower than f4 at night (but perhaps I should scrutinize my images more closely; I won't be taking more photos with it because I returned it), but I did notice large halos around just about any significant point of light - headlights, streetlamps, etc. - regardless of JPEG or RAW and regardless of whether I was using a native lens or, say, a Canon.  I have never seen such halos via the A7r I've been playing with for a couple of weeks.  (If I decide to keep either of them, it will be the A7r, whose main problem for me is the shutter vibration, which is easy enough to avoid - shoot slower than 1/100 or faster more than 1/125).

By the way, in case anyone reading this who cares and doesn't know: in the US at least you can take $200 each off the price of up to three of Sony's native lenses for the next couple of weeks or so if you buy them with an A7/r, and they're almost giving away a Sony flash that normally costs c. $500.  The two primes are certainly worth it....

Canon General / Re: So much redundancy...
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:19:30 AM »
The 85mm sold... so there's a little less redundancy in my life.

Good; now you can buy an 85mm L....

The fact that you have lenses of similar focal length and/or that overlap doesn't necessarily mean that any of them are redundant.  You'll figure out soon enough if you don't need/want both the 100L and 135L (I could imagine having the former and deciding I didn't need the latter, but not vice versa, but they're different, I like them both and thus keep both - but that's just me), or any of the others.  The only one I would consider dropping is the one you're most reluctant to part with, the 70-200....

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 05:21:56 PM »
If it's true then they got too greedy too early.

On the other hand, I don't know the price difference between the Aussie and the U.S. markets. For example, the U.S. prices are about 30-35% lower than where I live. The 50L is about 2300 dollars where I live.

Perhaps they're encouraged by the $999 charged for the new Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8!

Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 04:42:02 PM »
Honestly, I think your comments are unfair and directed at the wrong "idiot" in this situation. These people obviously used their cameras on "auto" mode. So, the question is, why is the camera not clever enough to actually figure out what's going on, huh? Badly designed "auto" mode from the manufacturers, in my opinion.

True, but that doesn't explain the tourists I see who wander around, say, Independence Mall with bulky speedlights attached, which they use while taking photos of the exterior of Independence Hall on a sunny day; not sure what's going on there.

My bad moments usually pretty boring - I'll adjust a setting I don't usually adjust, go for a few days without using the camera, forget I ever made the change, and not realize it until it's too late.


ASK yourself a question before buying A7R mirrorless. If compactness, IQ and balance are not important, than why not just shoot with Canon/Nikon DSLR.

I simply don't give comment and suggestion on something that I haven't touched. The Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 is a SOLID piece of glass. The IQ is good or slightly better than my 24-70 II from f2.8 to f8.

The Zeiss FE series is design to bring the best of Sony A7 series. Not to mention, AF speed of Canon lenses on A7 series is REALLY slow. Have you ever shoot EOS-M with original firmware?

If you want to play the game, play it right. If you want the best IQ from A7r, stay with native lenses

I probably agree with that, at least up to a point.  But I'm tempted to add - those who want the very best IQ from their best Canon lenses, and are willing and able to put up with the slower focusing, should consider an A7/A7r.  You may find, for instance, that your 24-70II takes even better photos on your A7/A7r than it does on your 5DIII (perhaps you've seen Roger Cicala's resolution comparisons of certain lenses on the A7r vs their native bodies).  (I don't have a 24-70 of any sort, but I'm about to unpack a Sony 55mm 1.8....)

And, of course, some Canon lenses have the advantage of IS.  So far, the only native A7 lens with IS is the kit zoom, which is OK but doesn't come close to showing off either of the A7s' potential.  Besides, staying with native lenses is all very well, but for now that limits you (if IQ really matters) to 35mm and 55mm, and the next zoom, regardless of how good it proves to be, only takes you to 70mm.


with the metabones adapter i was pleasantly surprised.. yes it slower than sony lenses.. but autofocus works (i've heard it doesnt work with the 50mm f1.4 or the 24-105f4) but it does work very well. it takes between 1 sec and 2 sec to get proper focus.. but from my usage its tact sharp. (i've only tried with the 16-35mm f2.8L lens)
yes it does work better on a tripod, but handheld shots are doable.

my only real complaint is the battery life.. you get about 300 shots per battery.. with the metabones adapter and canon lenses battery seems to drain a little faster.

as for image quality.. its stunning.. from my informal tests DR is better than the 5dmkIII, images are sharper than the 5dmkIII with the same lens. (i did some basic comparisons with the 16-35mmL lens) RAW files hover around 28-30megs .. which is reasonable.

will i be selling my canon gear any time soon? nope.. but its a great addition.
the 5dmk3 is an amazing all around swiss army knife of a camera. the a7r .. is more specialized.. it makes you go slower.. plan your shots more.. and really think about what youre doing. i've been very impressed.

I agree with all that.  I would add that I get AF with my 24-105L via the adapter, but that it sometimes seems a bit slower on the A7r than on the A7, at least in low light (I'm currently playing with both bodies to see which, if either, I'll keep).  Yesterday I used my 70-200 f4 IS on the A7r (haven't tried it on the A7) and noticed an odd quirk - AF was quite fast at almost every focal length in a wide range of apertures, but it pretty much gave up at 200mm.  Has anyone experienced anything similar?   Aside from that, I found the ergonomic experience a pleasant surprise (I have yet to enlist the help of a tripod on an A7),  though I doubt I would want to try a longer, heavier lens on an A7.

I'm interested in playing with vintage lenses, many of which don't adapt well to the 5D3.  The old Canon lenses are difficult to adapt to without a specialized EdMika adapter.  Others go too far back and the mirror hits it when it flips up.  The nice thing about the A7r is that with no mirror, you can connect pretty much any lens ever made to it.  For those kinds of lenses, I wouldn't be doing sports or any other types of action shots anyway, the A7r seems like a perfect combination.  That aspect really has my attention.
That's a good point ... I think there would be many senior photographers (who have used film cameras with lots of good lenses of that time for a long time) that would really be interested in shooting with the a7/a7R (assuming those photographers still have their old favorite lenses).

Yes, it is a good point - manual focus works every bit as well on the A7s as it does on, say, the Olympus OM-Ds.  But I would note that the longer the lens, the harder it is to focus manually - as the lens gets longer, the harder it is to keep the image steady and, thus, tell whether you're in focus.  Which is why - leaving aside crop factor etc. - I prefer using manual lenses longer than c. 100mm on my Olympus - the IBIS really helps when focusing.  Which is another reason why I wish Sony had included IBIS in the A7s - they may have had to be less small, perhaps, but better bigger, with stabilization, than smaller without (as far as I'm concerned, anyway).

Forgot to mention, the EF 50 f/1.4 does not AF on Sony a7+metabones adapter ... but when I mounted the Kenko Extension tubes on Sony a7+metabones adapter+50 f/1.4, the lens actually auto focused ... I am not sure what happened there but the Kenko extension tube is doing something to this combo and enabling it to auto focus ... thought some of you might be interested to know and those of you who have that combo, might want to give it a try and share your feedback. Cheers.

Very interested to know - I've not used extension tubes before, but I'm rather tempted now.  The only native A7 lens I have is the kit lens, which I don't use because it doesn't do justice to the A7s sensors (the Canon 24-105L is plainly better); I've been using Canon EFs and a few legacy primes from various companies (I've become so accustomed to the slow focus of Canon lenses on A7s that it's rather a shock to revert to using them on FF Canon bodies (or using Olympus my OM-D, for that matter)).

One might ask - why bother at all if they focus faster on Canon bodies?  For me, it's not about the weight difference, it's because I'm pretty sure the lenses make images that look better, even though an adapter is involved, than they do on a Canon FF body.  Whether this is because of the sensor, metering, software, the fact that focusing is done directly via the sensor rather than a convoluted system of mirrors, or some combination of these factors, I'm not sure, but (at least when pixel peeping) the images seem a bit sharper, have a bit more "pop", and, of course, the files have better dynamic range (not just in terms of lifting shadows but in making shadows that don't go as dark as fast in the first place - or is that a metering thing?). 

I liked the results so much with the A7 that I'm currently trying an A7r; the detail obtainable via even a cheap prime such as the 85mm 1.8 is pretty amazing on that sensor - it's nice to see that such a relatively elderly lens can do so well (the Sony kit lens doesn't come close), but now I want to try the Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - hard to imagine it would be much better.  I haven't encountered the lens-slap-vibration problem yet (though I've not had a chance to scrutinize the photos I've taken on it with the 24-105; and today I'm trying the 70-200 f4 IS, so we'll see...), but for now I'm inclined to keep it instead of the A7.

By the way, have any A7 users reading this encountered the sensor reflection problem (which doesn't seem to affect that A7r)? See here:


I've not noticed that (probably because I use wider apertures at night), but I have noticed rather large halos around some bright lights that I'm pretty sure I don't get from Canon sensors.


Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:18:39 AM »

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up.

This is all subjective, of course (despite your attempt to prove that it's a "fact" in a later post), but what immediately struck me in the three comparative images you provided was how horrible the bokeh was on the white things (whatever they are) on the Tamron image, inappropriately contrasty and harsh.  I'm not wild about any of the three images, but I dislike the 24-105's the least; based on the evidence you provide, I wouldn't use any of them if I wanted attractive background blur at 50mm.  (Luckily, I don't find 24-70mm lenses very appealing, regardless of price, so I don't have to decide....)

Yet another vote for the 6D, whose low light performance is so good you may find yourself doing more photos of interiors than you do right now.  I don't agree that you might as well get a second-hand 5DII - while a 5DII certainly has better image quality than any crop sensor camera, the 6D is better in terms of dynamic range (much less shadow noise and banding if you push shadows; the same is true compared to the 5DIII) and high ISO performance, and it focuses better in low light (than just about anything). 

Nor do I see why you would miss your 17-55 - it may be the best such crop zoom, but in my experience it's not as good as the 24-105 on FF, even though the latter is "only" f4.  The EF lenses you have will likely perform better on a FF body too, at least in the middle of the image (crop sensors hide flaws at the edges, of course).  The comparisons you can make at The Digital Picture are pretty reliable.  Here, for instance, is a comparison of the 100L on crop and FF:


The suggestion that you go with m43 instead would be fine if you want to add a new system and don't mind the disadvantages of the smaller sensor (hardly any compared to a crop dslr); I love my Olympus OM-D - many of the lenses are marvelous, and the small size/weight combination is nice, but you may find it more of a sideways move than a progression in terms of image quality.

And if you are interested in looking outside Canon but still want to be able to use your EF lenses, and have lots of patience for focusing, the cute little Sony A7 (A7r too, of course) makes superlative images with Canon lenses - I haven't owned mine long enough to make extensive comparisons, but I'm tempted to conclude that they make even better images on that FF camera than they do on FF Canon bodies (I own both 6D & 5DIII and used to own a 5DII and a crop Canon). 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 35