July 29, 2014, 05:28:38 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 220
1786
It is a pretty amazing lens, one that can give a 24 1.4 II a super close run for the money at 24mm stopped down a little (not one of the three 24-105 I tried were remotely close to giving my 24 1.4 II a run for it's money, not even at f/8-f/11) and, wide open at f/2.8, center frame, easily beat 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 center frame and even beat a 70-300L at 70mm f/4 center frame (at the far edges, maybe outer 1/8th or less of the frame, the 70-200/300 do do better at 70mm though it seems).

1787
It sounds like it will be a very good lens.  Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one.  By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.


What issues?

Softness, particularly at the edges and 70mm. 
Two pretty respected reviewers have seen this.  There have been some that claim to have seen the issue in poosts on this forum, but I tend to look to experienced testers with a good track record of spotting issues.
  It is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, and there may be some samples with issues, which is why I'm waiting for more reviews to come in.  I've had 5 of the old version and they were not impressive.  I have high hopes for this one.
 
Let us know what you see.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=2


I've gotten to look at a few copies. One was utterly stunning 70mm, f/2.8, center frame, others VERY good there but not the match for that one, one was quite noticeably softer (at 70mm, f/2.8, center frame) than that one and noticeably softer than the other two. Even the worst at 70mm f/2.8 was still better than a good Tamron 28-75 at 75 2.8 though and maybe similar to a 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (with the copies I've seen the 70-200 f/4 IS is weakest at 70mm, f/4 though, but still solid). The worse ones at 70mm f/2.8 are softer at 70mm f/4 than the better ones are wide open at f/2.8. The best ones peak in sharpenss, center frame, 70mm, early, the lesser ones there peak later having f/6.3 definitely better than f/4, while the other copies having f/4 sharper than f/6.3 (and f/6.3 a bare trace sharper than f/6.3 on the worse copies).

All copies seemed to place edge DOF at different depths compared to the focal point compared to any other copy, which is a bit odd. If you focused on any given point, edges wide to mid were maybe not so different, some a bit better but whatever, but if you focused on some central object then you might have much more different results in the corners depending upon the scene.

1788
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:29:02 PM »
I do agree that it's best to look at their plots and RAW numbers and not there overall scores since they may not weigh various factors the way you would plus there isn't really any a way to look at so many different aspects at once and come up with one universal score to give meaning to it all at once.

I also agree that their lens testing appears to leave MUCH to be desired. Lens testing is done by different people there and it's much trickier to carry out well. I ignore their lens tests but their sensor data generally seems to be pretty solid.

OK maybe DxO tests have not crashed the market for Canon yet, but as you say they, and general more over the top crippling of silly little things, sure have made their user base restless as you can tell but peeking at any forum on the web. Switching systems is a big deal for many (it's a pain, costs some money, some don't like the Nikon UI as much, Nikon doesn't have 70-200 f/4 IS and such they are mostly all huge fast stuff or consumer stuff) and it can take a while for things to build up to make many switch, maybe they did not get there quite yet, but they could be heading there. Also the bulk of sales are probably in the Rebel market. Also the 5D2 was aided a lot by the video guys nabbing them like mad and Nikon hasn't had Exmor in FF smaller, more reasonably priced bodies until recently, etc.

And whoever markets things better often matters even more. Apple IIe and IBM PC were utter trash as was Windows for a long time (and even now to an extent) and yet that stuff sold and the far more advanced stuff, sadly, did not thanks to horrible management and a computer press often too easily bought and paid for.

1789
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:19:21 PM »
DxOMarks are useless and only made to entertain hobby photographers.

Yay! I love to run around bragging about how ignorant I am! Yay!

1790
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:18:24 PM »

@tnargs, if anything, that just makes the main point of post #1 even stronger.  If DxO truly means that you can only use their scores to compare sensors of similar resolution, that make their results even more meaningless in the real world.  Furthermore, that begs the question - why normalize at all, if you can only compare sensors of simlar resolutions, normalization is moot. 


Exactly.

When I open up Road & Track and compare braking, 1/4 mile, and 0-60, 0-100 for a Ferrari versus a Hyundai, those tests stand up.

When I want to compare CPUs, I can use PassMark to see a plethora of different criteria and I can compare a Intel Celeron M 600Mhz to an Intel Core i7 3960X and QUANTITATIVELY see performance.

Granted in the CPU realm, Motherboard throughput will play a roll, but the speed of the calculations, etc is measurable, definable and COMPARABLE across generations.  So if I can compare the power of a 8 core CPU to a CPU from 8 years ago and measure the difference, how can I not DEFINITIVELY MEASURE a 36 MP sensor to a 10 MP sensor?

If you can't, then the TEST is MEANINGLESS.

The more I read the more I see just how flawed the DxOMarks scores are.  Anyone can produce DATA.  But data is not information. 

What DxOMarks lacks is RELEVANCE

You must be blind then if you can't see the real world difference the extra DR can make in real world properly exposed shots taken with D800 vs 5D3. It's plenty relevant for some shots.


1791
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:48:25 PM »
I see a lot of defensive and insecure posts here.
I see a lot of Nikon fanboy troll posts, too. 

Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others.
Ok, I give up. You're right - DxO are technological geniuses, their Scores are the epitome of scientific analysis, the D800 does have 14.4 EV of real, measurable DR, and because of that DR, you were able to recover amazing shadow detail from a backlit shot - detail that revealed a winged pig flying over snowbanks in hell.

Whatever.

There are a lot of silly Nikon fanboy posts. However, the vast majority of the criticism of DxO comes from people who not only do NOT understand this stuff better than DxO, most of the critics on closer examination have no idea what they are talking about. You would think that showing a little humility would be good form when criticizing someone who knows this stuff in some depth (as vague hand waving doesn't cut it when you implement software -- you need to have a very solid grounding in the theory behind it)

Most of the critics, however, despite (or perhaps because of) knowing very little have no such inhibitions. Indeed, it seems that the less knowledgeable the critic, the less nuanced and the more forceful the criticism.

It could well be the case that there is a better method to benchmark sensors than those used by DxO -- however, no-one (including the know-nothing loudmouth camera "fans" on the internet) is able to present and follow through on better methods.

The criticism of the 14.4 stops for the 14 bit ADC is not only just plain wrong (their method is just fine -- the point is that you gain dynamic range by downsampling), it's also a bit of a red herring when you're comparing cameras of comparable resolution.  Those who object to downsampling (usually because they don't understand it) are welcome to the screen numbers instead never mind that this number is only relevant if you customarily view images as 100% crops. The screen numbers also show the Canon sensor struggling at low ISOs).

+1

(now that some seem to be starting to think you are correct, they are left with a comeback of "whatever" haha)

1792
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:46:14 PM »
I see a lot of defensive and insecure posts here.

I see a lot of Nikon fanboy troll posts, too. 

Name one poster in this thread. Count me out for starters since I currently have a 7D and a 5D3 and zero Nikons.



1793
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Firmware?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:39:56 PM »
I don't believe that there is any particular reason for such HUGE firmware upgrade.
After all, firmware upgrades are supposed to address some bugs or any particular issues with the device and I haven't heard about any of such bugs or issues with the camera.

They sure could fix up video features they left out, although now with ML I guess we have some of them already and will soon have more. I don't think ML will be able to deliver crop mode video though and we will have to see whether it can fix AutoISO for stills or not.

1794
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:33:05 PM »
It wasn't a question! It was an answer!

Wait, I thought the answer was 42.  Now you're telling me it's 46.1?!?!?   ;)

Indeed, you got it! That guy who wrote that book about hiking had no clue.

1795
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:31:18 PM »
Quote
Quote
On a serious note- I know we all like a nice rumor and to imagine what we can get in the future- but are the 5DIII/1Dx/1DsIII so bad that the Canon shooters who need high megapixels are out of work until the 46MP comes out?



I really like this statement, it reveals a lot about what photographers need, want and dream about.
I love my 5dmkiii, it may not be perfect in any one way, but it's perfect for its versatility in all the different ways I use it. It rarely leaves me wanting anything else. I am currently in a situation where I need to invest in a proper system for high-res art reproduction; in other words, Medium Format.
 
After doing some tests with Hasselblad H4D 50(not multi-shot) and Nikon D800, I was completely convinced DSLRs could soon match or exceed medium format, especially if lenses improve and 16bit color is a part (as was once rumored about the new 1D-S, or whatever you want to call it.)
I saw that the H4D was obviously better in two aspects: transitions/handling of highlights and color. The Nikon kicked ass in high iso and darks; basically handling noise.
The resolution is different but I wouldn't dare say it's all that important of a difference. The Nikon has actually exceeded MF in some ways, it is a brilliant new camera. But it still misses on a couple things, and it really just comes down to color.


The 1D-S is a very interesting prospect if it can traverse both of those cameras. It would be one more step closer to best of both worlds. Even if it had maximum usable iso of 1600 out of 3200, that means a lot more versatility than MF. With 16bit it would also challenge MF's color, which is the ONLY reason I am considering buying one for art reproduction. If my clients were ok having almost-perfect color, I'd get the Nikon, I would save a lot. But almost-perfect isn't enough,
so if Canon were to have a high MP, 16bit camera for 9000, I would be more than happy to get it (assuming it would actually be as good).
That's why, for me, this rumor is interesting. It could save me 10,000+ in the end, but I guess one can only dream...


I think for most, pros or amateurs, the cameras that are available today are more than capable and better than we ever thought possible, but every time something new or special comes along, we see opportunity and are inspired. So although I don't think anyone is out of work without the camera, a lot of new exciting work will be created once it is available.



Ibet the MF cameras have very strict color array filters and are less color-blind than the DSLRs, especially the more recent Canon ones, which have gained some luminance SNR improvements at cost of less strict color filters.

1796
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:28:47 PM »
Has Canon really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like about the new sensors yet?

Well, I think Canon really has been far even as didn't decide not to use even go want not to do look still more like about the new sensor.

Well if they don't have it do, why are they stop making rumors and not release any worthwile information about what is to has been released yesterday by Nikon?

Maybe as you say, because they really don't have anything now that can match Nikon when it comes to sensors (or, more hopefully, they have something in the wings, but want Nikon to think they are still stuck in the past).

1797
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:27:11 PM »
Has Canon really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like about the new sensors yet?

Well, I think Canon really has been far even as didn't decide not to use even go want not to do look still more like about the new sensor.

No way man!

Honestly, want sensor Canon far did decide want go look more and more still yet sensor look about the new Canon did sensor. Word.

1798
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:24:25 PM »
Has Canon really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like about the new sensors yet?

my head exploded trying to comprehend this question.

It wasn't a question! It was an answer! The meaning of life! Wow!

1799
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon EOS-1S the Name? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2012, 05:11:32 PM »
At this point, I am neither interested in the form factor (with or without built-in grip) or its price; I just want to know if Canon has the sensor technology to achieve superlative dynamic range at low ISO without any banding whatsoever. If it has, that will be a great consolation because it means I can continue to invest confidently in Canon stuff while I wait for the sensor technology to trickle down to their lower end bodies...

We'll see.

+1

($9000 for perhaps same performance as a D800 other than a few more MP does seem a bit of a slow seller, but so long as it means the 5D4 and all will have great sensors I suppose it is good since it would give hope, even if it seems like a lemon, of sorts, itself)

1800
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 28, 2012, 09:15:51 PM »
Hopefully you are correct. One was some Swedish website or group and I don't know whether they knew how or were able to dig deep enough or not. They said they didn't see evidence of building any expensive new sensor lines. But who knows.

I know the group and one person is one of the best regarding sensors tech

Simply, there are no evidence that Canon have invest any money in a new sensor linje, this is open figures and seen in business stories for shareholders.There are also companies that make money on communicating what competitors are doing or not. A new sensor line cost about 1 billion US dollars or more, a heavy investment which will also be distributed to general public


Well that is unfortunate.

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 220