March 04, 2015, 01:52:42 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 - docsmith

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24
Simply put....there is now decent competition in the supertele zoom marketplace.  It is good for us consumers.  Two years ago, the 100-400 II would have likely been a no brainer for me.  Now, it is not.  I have the 70-200 II plus 2x TC.  This is now in my bag for almost every trip and for most events as it is a truly great lens from 70-200 and is decent with the 2x tc.  It will be tough for a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 to displace it from my bag for general purposes because of that.  So that leaves more specialized purposes, likely when I am specifically going to shoot birds or something else at distance.  At that point, is 400 mm enough when you have three zooms that go to 600 mm?  As this is becoming more of a niche lens for me, weight is less of a concern.

In the end, I really hope the rumor is true.  I'll pick the lens that gives me the best image from 300 mm to 600 mm (and beyond) that I can afford.  While I suspect that it will likely be the 100-400II, I am no longer convinced.  I wait for the MTF charts.  Hopefully I see those before I have to return my pre-ordered 150-600S.

Eventually, I hope to get a big white...but right now I need to be looking at $3k or less.

Well, of course it is coming in November....I ordered the Sigma 150-600S.  It will be announced just after my 30 day return window expires.

Not discounting others experiences with the 50A, just saying that my 50A AFs just fine with a 5DIII using the center point or the side points.  After reading this thread, I went and tested it again, and still no more variation than any other lens. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:39:38 AM »
But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance :)

Even though I think Tayassu did a good job at summarizing the arguments, I'll take a stab at it too.  The differences are, truly negligible.  But negligible is a relevant statement.  And it will be relevant to the photographer and circumstances.

Generally speaking, FF should be better in most ways where sensor/pixel size matters.  The numbers are in, at equivalent ISO, current generation FF sensors have better noise, more DR, more tonal range, more color sensitivity, etc, etc.  The other numbers are also in on the fact that at the same focal length, current generation crop sensor cameras can use more pixels to define a subject because of a narrower FOV (ie pixels on target). 

But, in most circumstances, a photographer cares about framing/perspective and would not shoot both a FF and cropped sensor camera at the same focal length.  Which is why, in most circumstances, the benefit of a FF are more relevant.

But, ultimately, any difference is nibbling at the edges.  In the center of the photography world (good light, reasonable distance to subject, etc), both can take great pictures.  But, as you move from the center of the photography world to the edges, the differences may become relevant.  To what extent depends upon the circumstances and photographer.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:18:29 PM »
There are several ways to look at the "reach" benefit.  The way I look at it is the number of pixel defining any particular subject.  I've always heard that the human eye can differentiate 75-150 pixels per inch at normal viewing distances and that magazines require/prefer a minimum of 300 ppi.  So, say you want a minimum of 75 ppi to define every inch of your frame, with the FF sensor and that 500 mm lens of yours, you have a range of 85 ft with the 5DIII but 130 ft with the 7D. 

This fits my general experience.  In this example, less than 85 ft, FF would be better, in this middle range (85-130 ft) the 7D would be better and then greater than 130 ft, neither is providing the desired resolving power but are likely "comparable."  Of course, those are absolute numbers and in the real world it is more minor shades of gray.  But in my tests (which were not robust, more of me shooting trees at different distances with the same lens and different bodies), I was able to convince myself that there was a "middle range" where crop was better than FF (EDIT--I should stress, this was at a pixel peeping level and is likely the definition of  Granted, that was mostly regarding having adequate resolving power.  The DR/Noise/Color sensitivity/etc do not stop being beneficial, but you do need adequate resolution.

As for the files.  You have both cameras.  Take a few pictures and play with them.  Try adjusting highlights/shadows/color saturation/sharpness/etc.  I still use a crop sensor body (EOS-M) and can tell the difference in PP.  For example, in a similar shot, I tend to limit myself to lifting shadows +25 on crop, but +50-60 on the 5DIII.  Above that, in some shots, is where I start to not like the effect.

If you are always shooting wildlife far enough away that you are reach limited on crop, I don't blame you for preferring crop.  That is only <20 percent of what I shoot.  I am usually not reach limited.  Which is why I likely find the "L" glass better suited to FF.  24-x on crop isn't very wide.  A 16-35 lens is a 26-56 FF equivalent.  Which isn't much of a zoom range.  The EFS 10-22 (which I had), 17-55 and 15-85 (what I used on my 7D) are optically great, but not up to the standards of the 24-70 II  and do not have the build quality of the "L" lenses. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:04:58 AM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently? 

Granted, they're both cropped heavily but tell me what I'm doing wrong with my new 5Diii, please, 'cause I'm not seeing that much difference.

Well, in addition to comparing two heavily cropped images, the 5DIII shot at 1/800 f/7.1, ISO 800 (+1) and the 7D at 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 400 (+0.7).  The images you are comparing should be the situation where the 7D beats the 5DIII because you used the same lens, are "reach limited," and you gave the 7D an extra stop of ISO (1.3 with the push).  And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference."  The different DoF could have also be a factor.

This is almost exactly what I found, even at the same ISO setting.  In real world cases where the 7D should be beating the 5DIII, they were very comparable.  I did actually create a few conditions where I thought the 7D was slightly better.  But, when I took all the different types of conditions that I shoot, the 5DIII really pulled away for me.  The obvious example is high ISO conditions.  Compare shots from ISO 800 on up and tell me which you prefer?  Even in your example, I like the colors from the 5DIII image a bit better.  Granted that can be adjusted in post.  Speaking of post, have you seen how much better the 5DIII files respond to PP compared to the 7D files?  It isn't even so much that you can push the files further (although you can), it is that I like the response of the file better.   

Honestly, I do not want to prefer the 5DIII.  It is more expensive and, except for photography, I tend to prefer "value" items.  So, I'd prefer to still be using the 7D.  But, I shot ~35,000 shots through the 7D.  It is a great camera.  But I do prefer the 5DIII.

If I were to line up the reasons it would go something like this (comparing the 5DIII to 7D):
  • Comparing similar images in the shooting conditions I typically shoot, preferred the 5DIII or found them to be even in the vast majority
  • 5DIII files can both be pushed further in post and respond better to adjustments made
  • While both can use Canon's lens lineup, the majority of L lenses are better suited to a FF sensor (possible exception of the super telephotos)
  • AF is better, especially in low light
  • I prefer the bokeh from the 5DIII under similar conditions
  • I prefer the colors of the 5DIII
  • I prefer the noise of the 5DIII, it is a finer grain that is easier to treat in post
  • and, of course, I have found the 5DIII has better high ISO performance

Of course, some of that is because the 5DIII was released 3 years after the 7D and had newer technology, etc.  I have been watching the 7DII closely and while I am still waiting for reviews of RAW files form production copies of the camera, it seems that it has narrowed the gap in several of the above areas.  Considering I am now invested in FF, all that likely means to me is that I am looking forward to similar improvements in the 5DIV.

But, as you have both cameras, if you could only have one, which would you take?  For me, it is FF and the 5DIII.  Lee Jay picked two 7DIIs. 

None of this is meant as a put down of cropped sensor cameras.  They are incredibly capable.  I continue to see great pictures taken with them and, depending on what you shoot, may be all anyone needs.  But, I find the FF sensor to be incrementally better.  I am sure MF is incrementally better above that, and crop is incrementally better than 1" sensors and so on.  It really gets down to which incremental (or improvement do you want before your needs/wants are satisfied.  While I posted to this thread a couple of times, this is not a topic I get worked up about.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:32:32 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently?

I do.  I use both formats, choosing the one best for the situation.  For speed and focal-length-limited situations, I use crop.  For low light and best image quality when I am not focal length limited, I use full-frame.

My post was supposed to be a bit lighthearted, but that actually is not an answer to the question. If you where forced to pick one format, FF or crop with the current bodies available, which format would you pick?  For me it would be the 5DIII and FF and no contest.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 08:49:17 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently?  If so, I will send you my 7D for a 1DX and even pay for shipping.

I still own a 7D.  It took some of my favorite pictures.  It is a great camera that can and has taken wonderful photos.  Anyone shooting with it should be proud.  But it has sat on my shelf losing value since I bought my 5DIII two years ago.  I've done all sorts of tests.  I just like the images from the 5DIII better.  My wife can tell the difference, and our families have noticed the differences.  It is more pronounced at high ISO, but it is also there at low ISO.  Does that mean I could never be confused and that a crop camera could at some point produce a photo where I couldn't tell the difference.  Of course, it is a great camera.  But I'll take the 5DIII.  thank you. 

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 IS mk 2 with 2x extender
« on: October 16, 2014, 08:03:23 PM »
I shoot the 70-200 II with the 2x tc III with my 5DIII.  It is a good combination.  On par with the 100-400L optically.  I think the 100-400L may AF a bit faster, but it isn't by much.  I will likely be selling the 100-400L soon as it is only getting used when I want a more compact set up.

I also use a black rapid strap, but instead of attaching to the foot, I attached the black rapid to a OP/Tech utility loop which is attached to one of the camera body strap mounts.  Holds everything well. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 150-600mm Preorder?
« on: October 16, 2014, 12:00:24 PM »
Yes, I have one on pre-order with B&H.  No news on when it will be filled yet though.

Toward the end of October-

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 03:32:33 PM »
Speculation is fun.   ;D

Just one other variable I haven't seen mentioned yet is the potential for a new multi-layered sensor.  Just one other feature Canon could distinguish between the different bodies.  Something like:

  • 1DXII: Multi layered
  • 1DXIIs/3D/5DIVs: Multi layered-high MP
  • 5DIV: Multi layered
  • 6D: Better AF, but FF CMOS sensor

Also, earlier I saw reference to that fact that computing power has caught up with to allow higher MP files.  Perhaps, but my 5DIII files would routinely max out my quad core in LR.  I just upgraded to an 8 core processor which now handles everything with ease.  I have no interest in trying to max it out again.  A modest bump in MP would be appreciated, say 24-28 MP...but more would actually deter me from upgrading.  I would much prefer better high ISO performance.

Reviews / Re: Are Gitzo's really overrated?!
« on: October 06, 2014, 06:51:20 AM »
I did a lot of research a few years back and ended up with the Gitzo 1542T and Markins Q3T.  It has been exactly what I wanted.  A great travel and hiking tripod set up.  It has held up exceptionally well.

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 05, 2014, 08:33:21 PM »
EOS M3.   :o

Come on yourself posted that it was US only....


 :o :o

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 80D????
« on: October 01, 2014, 10:05:35 PM »
I would guess 2016. They'll give the 7DII it's time in the sun.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II pricing and feedback
« on: September 29, 2014, 07:40:02 PM »
I'd be very shocked to see it below $1799 from a reputable dealer, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't even see that. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24