October 21, 2014, 10:09:31 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20
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)
Andreas Gursky (2 de 3)
Andreas Gursky (3 de 3)

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.

Agreed....it 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.

Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results Released
« on: January 30, 2014, 11:17:30 AM »
..., the EOS 5D Mark III and 70D advanced-amateur-model digital SLR cameras ...

Did they just call the 5D3 an advanced-amateur-model?  :o

Indeed they did.  The 1-series are the 'pro' bodies.  OTOH, Canon Europe lists the 5DIII in the pro section.

Marketing professionals write these blurbs and make these classifications to help them sell camera bodies.  Professional photographers take photos with the tools they have.  The two really have very little to do with one another.  It is actually funny, but pros often use what is most cost effective and not necessarily the "technical" best product.  Several pros I know haven't upgraded much of their gear since, well, when was the D300s released? 

Just to admit at how effective the marketing classifications are, I did desire the 1DX ever so slightly more when I read that and I did feel my 5DIII ever so slightly diminished.  But of course, I am over it now.... ;)

Canon General / Re: Canon's Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Results Released
« on: January 29, 2014, 09:17:07 PM »
I have to say...what an odd reaction to what really is good news.  Canon is a profitable, viable company.  I know the source of the negativity, that they won't be forced to innovate until their bottom line is hurt, but I also like to think that it is good to know that even in a down economy for cameras, Canon is doing well and will be around for awhile longer to service my gear and sell me more.  I doubt we can say the same for all the camera manufacturers out there.

Not knowing what a "Global Shutter" is - what would the implications of this be if (hypothetically), it was launched on the (to be named) 7D update?  Is there any benefit to the stills photography world or is it purely a video thing?

It's a purely video thing. The global shutter is the opposite of the rolling shutter. In live view, the physical shutter doesn't move, so the sensor scans the scene 24 or 30 times a second to create frames.

With a rolling shutter, the sensor scans from top to bottom, creating a distortion effect if you pan the camera, because the sensor doesn't actually capture every part of the image at the exact same time.

A global shutter captures the entire image at once, then waits 1/24 of a second before doing it again, so the distortion, or the "rolling shutter effect" is not present. Global shutters are harder and more expensive to incorporate, as the camera has to process large amounts of data at once, in a small period of time.

For still photography using a physical shutter, it makes no difference.

Thanks for the explanation.  However, I wonder if the physical infrastructure needed to perform a global shutter wouldn't have implications for still photography.  A rolling shutter seems to be the necessary result of having slower processers/read rates (I could be wrong).  To pull off a global shutter I would expect you would need faster or more A/D processors and faster read rates.  I wonder if such hardware could benefit still photography in terms of fps and possibly (elephant in the room) noise.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Honey, I'vs never seen it this hard before..."
« on: January 25, 2014, 11:37:43 AM »
I wouldn't get the Nikon.  I am not one of the anti-Nikon lot, but you already have a 70D and plan to keep it.  As you are an amateur, I don't see the reason to have two camera systems in one house.  It would be great to be able to swap out lenses between the 70D and a FF Canon camera while you are on vacation, or something like that.

Have you thought about investing in glass and putting the new glass on the 70D?  I'd be tempted by that as a first step.  The 70D is a solid camera.  But, having seen FF, you may not want to go back.  But only you can answer the question: 6D or 5DIII?  You've had a 5DIII, you know what it can do.  If that is what you want, spend the money and be happy.  I have a 5DIII and it is amazing.  But I know a lot of people with the 6D and they are very happy.  A lot of people shot with the 5DII mostly with the center point. 

So, based on what you wrote, I'd first look at glass for the 70D.  If that isn't going to work for you, I'd likely buy the 5DIII as you know you like it.  Spend the ~$3k and be happy rather than spend $1,800 and be unhappy. 

Lenses / Re: Quest for the perfect copy?
« on: December 31, 2013, 07:03:01 AM »
My advice to docsmith would be . . . forget the 24-70, now or any time in the future! You won't be satisfied, no matter how good the next one you try might be. Perfection just doesn't exist at this price. Try Leica of Hassy . . . By the way, mine is fine!


....ahhh...no...that isn't the answer....

I guess it is hard to imagine if it never happened to you.  But let's stay with the obvious.  In response to the OP wondering if there are really some bad copies of this lens out there, five of the eight lenses I tested had either the clicking while zooming issue or a bubble in the front element that CANON themselves advised be returned. 

Lenses / Re: Making a perfectly sharp lens corner to corner idea
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:41:45 PM »
Look at canon's "CN-E" lenses. Larger front elements. The reason that this isn't done for all lenses is, of course, cost. The larger the front element the more it costs. But this is done, to a lesser extent on lenses available to us. Look at the size of the front element of "L" primes versus their non-L counter point. Grant lot of that is aperture related.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20