August 21, 2014, 08:34:08 AM

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 - docsmith

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 01:39:10 PM »
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

As has been pointed out, astrophotography, and events, in particular, think of a wedding inside a church.  Wide angles are often used to get the entire "scene," even indoors.  But, understandably so, many often only associate these lenses with UWA, but f/2.8 at 24-35 mm can be very beneficial.  These are not exclusively landscape lenses. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 05:07:04 PM »
They are different beasts.  The 600 mm is for when you want all the reach you can get.  Ultimately, you'll be "zooming" by cropping the image in post.  The 200-400 would be for when you need an optical zoom.  Safari has already been mentioned.  But there is a reason they were all over the place in Sochi.  Ice skaters close to your position then the ice skaters move away from you.  You need the optical zoom.  The 600 mm wouldn't work well for that.

I voted 600 mm.  I'd love to own both someday.  But if the two were on a table in front of me and I was only allowed to pick one, I'd pick up the 600 mm.  For what I shoot, I need all the reach I can get.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8 L II summary of defects
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:37:09 PM »
I had one lens with a bubble and then different lenses with clicking when I tried to buy this lens last fall.  Since I could only vote once, I voted for the bubble....

In past years, it was common for some of the better glasses to have bubbles. Some glasses with highly desirable optical properties couldn't be heated to a high enough temperate to become fully fluid so that bubbles would naturally escape. At one time bubbles were even viewed by some as a mark of quality. Now glass technology has advanced, and sometimes platinum crucibles are used, so bubbles are no more. One or a few small bubbles will have negligible effect on your images.
I think you've been had by a troll.
So I guess your tally is 0.

I almost kept the lens with the bubble.  It was great in every other way.  The rationale for returning it was pretty simple, 1) shouldn't have a bubble, and 2) I know me, and if I were to ever sell the lens, I'd let any potential buyer know that there was a bubble in the front element, which could kill the resale value.  So, I do not regret my action.  It had nothing to do with trolls.

But I did receive 4 other copies of the lens with the clicking sound, so no, even if you discount the bubble lens, my tally is not 0.  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:55:07 AM »
What happened? Market saturation.

+1....most people that wanted a camera beyond a P&S bought one in 2009-2012.

But the second point is also well taken....2013 was weak on new releases

Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:52:51 AM »
Great interview(s).

Another interesting quote "with 20-30 MP stills cameras being the norm...."  ...the 5DIII is only 22 MP, the 70D is 20 MP.  Is this a hint that an upcoming release is in the upper range of the "20-30 MP?"  Or is this more of an acknowledgement of what other camera manufacturers have produced?   ;)

Fun to speculate.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8 L II summary of defects
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:08:18 PM »
I had one lens with a bubble and then different lenses with clicking when I tried to buy this lens last fall.  Since I could only vote once, I voted for the bubble....
Sorry for that, I was trying to find a way to avoid inconsistency (say select both a problem and no problem) but I guess some inconsistency is inevitable. For example someone may had a faulty lens which returned to get another. They could select the specific problem but then the 100% correct would be to select both.

Hey, no problem.  I am actually glad that you did the poll.  It is interesting.  Lensrentals states that all lenses have a "3% out of box" problem rate.  So it will be interesting to see how close the 24-70II gets to the ~97% mark of people not having issues. 

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8 L II summary of defects
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:24:38 AM »
I had one lens with a bubble and then different lenses with clicking when I tried to buy this lens last fall.  Since I could only vote once, I voted for the bubble....

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:11:43 PM »
I just wanted to add my thoughts about this lens after about six months of using it all over the world. As far as the optics go, it pretty much crushes my old Canon 35 1.4. Autofocus accuracy is pretty good, and the general construction of the lens is almost "L" quality. That said, I have found one major problem with it. While in Bangkok covering the protests last week, the autofocus driver died numerous times. It was clearly connected to the humidity (which never got THAT bad, about 80% while I was there). I have been in contact with Sigma, and will update when I receive a resolution. Obviously, the Sigma isn't weather sealed, but if the lens can't handle a mildly hot and humid afternoon, I'm not sure if I can give it my trust anymore.

All of that said, unless you are working in weather extremes, buy it, it's a hell of a lens.

Seems there ought to be a DIY way of adding an o-ring at the camera mount.

If the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L is weather sealed, I see no evidence of it.  I suppose it must be, though.

I'm curious if any of you have done astrophotography with this Sigma lens.  If so, is there much coma toward the borders, and if so, how far does it need to be closed down before that goes away?  I'm sure somebody has talked about this before, or perhaps over at lensrentals when they imatested it...but I forget.

The Canon EF 35 f/1.4 isn't officially "weather sealed."  That is a feature many are looking for in Mark II is released.  Regarding the Sigma, lenstip looked at coma:

But I'd be interested if any one has used the Sigma for astrophotography.  I am on the fence about the Sigma.  Other than the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 UMC, it would be my first non-Canon lens.  Hearing about two different AF issues isn't helping move me off the fence.

Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 25, 2014, 08:30:47 AM »
From what I can see the "big" improvement is in the 1080p @ 60 fps video. 

People that can afford to buy the D4S will know that it is how clean the image is at that ISO setting that matters. 

...and...of course, we'll have to see what the "new" sensor can do....

I'll be interested in what others see, but I read through this and am mostly "meh"....I mean if someone gave it to me, I'd be happy, but I don't see this one upping the 1DX.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:21:00 AM »
Sabaki....a year ago I was in much the same position and upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII.  This is one of those decisions that I am somewhat conflicted about, but I doubt I will ever go back.

So, if you are happy with a crop sensor or if you can convince yourself to be happy.  Do not upgrade.  Just be happy.  Get something like a used 7D or 70D.  There are people taking excellent photos (even pros) working with crop sensor cameras.  They really are very very good.

That said, there are several areas of improvement going to FF.  The question gets to be do you want/need those areas of improvement.  Are your crop sensor camera good enough for you.  Because, there is always more money to be spent for what are often marginal improvements in photography....both with lenses, sensors, or formats. 

The improvements I've noticed include color rendition, bokeh, contrast, low-iso noise, high iso noise and the general latitude you have to process the photo in post (shooting RAW) are all at least a little bit, better.  In short, almost everything is at least a little bit better.  The real game changer that opened up for me is low light photography without a flash.  I am now routinely taking photos at ISO 2000-3200 before I really tried to limit myself to ISO 400-800 on the 7D.  So I am doing a lot more low light indoor photography.  As others have noted, I even sometimes get "keepers" all the way up to ISO 12,800 (but ISO 6,400-8,000 is really the typical max). 

But this is always about deciding what is "good enough" for you....

Good luck....

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:20:42 AM »
Yep...Gursky's image has been brought up a couple of times.  I found this video interesting.  The link to the original from a thread a couple of years ago doesn't work, but I found it in three parts on youtube:

Andreas Gursky (1 de 3) Small | Large

Andreas Gursky (2 de 3) Small | Large

Andreas Gursky (3 de 3) Small | Large

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: February 21, 2014, 08:43:54 AM »
I wrote earlier that focus seemed to have drifted with this lens. I have now done a new AFMA and I had to adjust from the original -2 to +4. Anyone else had the same experience?

Eldar...did this fix your issue...or did it reoccur?  Is anyone else having focusing issues with the Sigma 35 A?

Lenses / Re: Advice on Primes
« on: February 19, 2014, 03:09:07 PM »
The 5DIII, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II is a great travel kit.  Add in a 2x TC III and you really have a lot covered right there.

I would only be adding primes for very specific purposes, as has already been pointed out.  One prime not mentioned is the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art.  I don't yet own it, but it is on my list.  Its purpose for your kit would be low light photography, think DoF, and relatively tight landscapes. 

Otherwise, your kit is very solid.  You may want to consider a good tripod, CPL filters and graduated filters.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Sony junk....
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:16:10 PM »
Yes, "Junk" is just a colloquial term which does make for good press, however it is also used in unofficial investment nomenclature. Junk refers to non-investment grade ratings. Because Sony is now Ba1, they are no longer a "prime" investment. There are three classes of prime investments and prime credit: Triple As, the As, and the triple Bs (or, in the case of Moodys odd nomenclature, Baa{n}.) Sony is now a Ba1/BB+ rating, which takes it out of the prime investment category, and classifies it as NON-investment. In other words...STEER THE HELL CLEAR, VERY HIGH RISK! The rewards can be very great, but the chances are also very great that instead of being rewarded, you'll lose whatever you invest in non-prime (i.e. junk) rated investments.

Junk is a very appropriate term. That's why it's been used to describe this class of non-investment worthy funds for decades. was a one step decrease in the rating that when from investment to "speculative."  It certainly isn't a good thing....but I bet most investors see it not as black and white...AAA or Junk....but as something that was already risky to something that has even more risk....

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Sony junk....
« on: January 30, 2014, 03:38:12 PM »
The power of labels is funny.  Moody's didn't rate Sony as "junk."  They down graded their rating of Sony BONDS by one step, out of 23 steps.  The step just happened to drop Sony's rating from the lowest "investment" grade to the highest "speculative" grade.  There are still 10 steps below Sony's current "Ba1" grade. 

The primary functions of these ratings are to given investors looking to buy bonds a sense of the risk that the investor may be taking on that the company (Sony) won't be able to pay back that bond and to help set the rate of return/yield/interest that will attract investors.  This is as much about comparisons as absolutes so that investors know that Sony bonds are about the same risk as bonds from company XX or more risky than company YY. 

And speculate about Moody's all you want...but, given Sony's debt and recent financial losses, would you buy Sony debt for a very low interest rate?  Or is the chance that they may default/go into bankruptcy enough that you may want more of a return on your investment to justify the risk.  That is all this is. 

"Junk" is just a label that makes for good press.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18