Messages

1

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Im looking into getting a new camera

« on: November 18, 2012, 06:36:47 PM »

My budget is about 1000 which I know isn't much but I wanna make sure I get the most bang for my buck. Any suggestions?

Get a used t2i/t3i with a 18-135mm and a 50mm f/1.8, and you would still have money for a little tripod, a bag, and a couple of filters.

2

Lenses / Re: 18-135 IS lens creep because of hood too tight?

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:47:12 PM »

Thank you for the information: I don't know if I should be happy that my lens creeps naturally.

The hood requires much more torsion if mounted the "wrong" way, I don't know why, but that's the way it is. Anyway, if I get the chance will as a Canon dealer to give me his opinion about. I plan to get the STM version (to take videos with autofocus and for better close ups) as soon as a new crop Canon with a decent sensor comes out. For now I have the 550D, which surprisingly is better in IQ than the 650D: congratulations to Canon for the devolution.

3

Lenses / 18-135 IS lens creep because of hood too tight?

« on: November 08, 2012, 08:01:41 AM »

Hello,

I bought recently a Canon 18-135mm IS lens with the matching Canon EW 73B hood. To save space in my bag initially I was used to screw in the hood in reverse, so that the petals would lie along the lens. Unfortunately that required an unusual amount of force, so after a few times I gave up, and now I screw it (in the right way) on the the lens only when I have to use it. I noticed later that my lens suffers a lot from creep, and that the inner shaft (pardon me if the technical term is different) is a little loose, meaning that it can move slightly also off axis. It seems obvious to me that lens creep is a consequence of the loose inner shaft.

So, here it comes the question: do you think that I damaged my lens by applying too much torsion with the hood screwing in the wrong way?
Does the loose inner shaft compromise image quality?
If the answer is yes to either of the above, is there something I can do about it, possibly not too expensive?

Any help is highly appreciated!

4

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: October 11, 2012, 09:25:23 AM »

The 1DX got good grades from DxO: does that mean it's a crappy camera since those grades have nothing to do with reality? 

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New 60D or Second-hand 7D?

« on: October 08, 2012, 02:53:32 PM »

Do yourself a favor, go for a second hand 7D: hopefully un upgrade to the 60D will come out at the beginning of the next year. The image quality besides is the same, but the 7D works much better. 

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark

« on: October 08, 2012, 09:28:37 AM »

I already knew that the 650D sensor was the same of the 7D and all the (many) younger siblings, so I'm not surprised at all, disappointed I already was. Since I want to stay with crop sensor cameras (lighter and cheaper equipment, and I don't need professional grade photos), and I needed another camera, I got myself a "new" 550D for 290 GBP, which has the same sensor performance of the 650D (and consequently of all the Canon crop lineup).

As long as Canon doesn't make some decent crop camera they won't get another dime from me: I'll just keep buying used/refurbished Canon cameras, until Nikon's get better enough than Canon's to compensate for their inferior lenses: at that point I'll just jump on the Nikon band wagon. 

7

Lenses / DPReview and DxOMark to partner for lens testing

« on: October 02, 2012, 01:07:18 PM »

So, it seems (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/DPReview-and-DxOMark-to-partner-for-lens-testing) that at last DPReview is trying to be a little bit more objective and quantitative. Their reviews are the best out there (to the best of my very limited knowledge), but sometimes here and there they sounded rather subjective and arbitrary: I assume they want to take a different approach from now on.

The DxOMark overall scores, as a weighted average of scores on different performances, don't make much sense, but I guess that the collaboration is going to be an occasion to review that approach as well. I, as usual, will just pay attention to the plain measurements.

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?

« on: September 27, 2012, 01:51:26 PM »

I think I can answer this. First of all, the quality of images ... possibly a neceesity for entre into the pool from which the actual job winners are chosen.

+2

Very nicely put: didn't think about it, and agree with it.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 09:16:55 AM »

I said so, because I think it's true (at least compared to Nikon/Sony)!

Of course after such a scientifically rigorous test as yours I might change my mind... not! ;-)

10

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 03:33:38 AM »

More DR with a Canon body? Unbelievable: have our prayers being heard?
After looking at the Canon R&D sector sleeping for a (few) year(s) I start daydreaming myself. :-)

11

EOS Bodies / Re: What does the "D" in all camera bodies mean?

« on: September 25, 2012, 12:09:43 PM »

I've been thinking about this for a little while now, but I still don't know the answer.
What does the "D" actually mean in camera model names such as 5D, 7D, 6D, 550D, D7000, D800, D90 and so on?

/Michael

Now seriously, my prof was used to say "there is no stupid question only stupid answers" but I think it was implied that one shouldn't push the limits of the statement. ;-)

12

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 22, 2012, 04:53:36 AM »

As for dpreview, actually look at what they had to say about Canon & the 6D:

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark. It's still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be."

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/6

I think dpreview does a good job of trying to remain unbiased.

I see: well, I have to admit that I haven't read a dpreview review in a long while, since I read one on the 600D that I found very biased. One excerpt says:
"The Highlight Tone Priority option (Custom Function II.6) is a method for capturing more information in the brightest parts of the scene. It does this by applying ... Turn this on and the 600D captures an extra stop in the highlights, resulting in an overall range that at least matches that of Sony and Nikon models."
Notice that Nikon models have similar options, and the 5100D has about 3 stops more DR. But maybe things have changed at dpreview.

Notice also that I own a 550D, since I wanted to keep my awesome 10-22mm Canon but didn't want to spend extra bucks to have the same sensor for the 650D (or for a 60D, a 7D, an eos M, and the list goes on and on and on). I hope that within a few months there will be a new crop sensor from Canon with decent DR and low noise at high ISO: such a 70D would be perfect for me.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 07:05:00 PM »

Define capable, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.   

No academic journal would publish a DxO report without both Data (in an Appendix) and Methods (with a clearly defined algorithm stating the parameters for weighting each category). In the world of peer review, Black-Box methodology would simply have REJECTED stamped on it and returned.

For a living I don't take pics, but I do publish papers in theoretical physics. Now, compared to the complete lack of rigor in photography testing (at least from my very limited experience of forum, blogs, and other online sources reader), the DxO tests seem outstanding, especially when compared to those of the various Ken Rockwell and company (including DPreview, which now roots for Canon like a cheerleader in the interpretation of their results). Are the DxO tests rigorous enough to be published in a serious scientific journal? Very likely, no. But for what they are meant to do (publicize a software), they are outstanding.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 05:18:17 PM »

I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.

Just because this is brought up rather often, allow me to point out:

• At ISO 100: D800 has >2.5EV greater DR than 5DIII.
• At ISO 12,800, D800 has 0.09EV worse DR than 5DIII, probably below the margin of error in measurement.
  
• At ISO 25,600, D800 has 0.26EV worse DR than 5DIII, probably still within the margin of error in measurement.
  

Full measurements here: http://bit.ly/OEUgZY

So now matter how you look at it, D800 is rarely going to perform worse in DR than the 5DIII, if at all, but can perform much much better than the 5DIII.

+1

I get tired of reading a pile of fuming BS to cover up the 5DIII shortcomings compared to the D800.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 04:06:42 AM »

It's amazing how much distance in DxO scores there is between Nikon sensors and the corresponding Canon ones: I agree that the overall score gives just a rough estimate of the overall quality of the sensor, but what worries me are the differences in high ISO noise and DR, which are instead very precise and reliable measurements.