September 16, 2014, 02:05:05 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 244
1786
Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 22, 2013, 07:49:07 PM »
I love this lens however I reach for the 35L more often as I do find that length somewhat more practical. However portraits from the 24 - particularly childrens', can be stunning.

I've recently compared the 24-70ii at 24 with this and whilst the zoom is as sharp, I actually like the 'look' of the prime marginally more - something almost 'film-like' about it. A tired or vague description perhaps but the 24L is really unique.

The 24-70 II zoom actually has less purple fringing though so if you shoot branches against clouds they stay normal with the zoom and go a bit purple and green fringed with the prime so I almost feel the 24-70 II has the purer look at 24mm! (once you start getting above 35mm the zoom does start getting a bit weak in the corners and eventually even far edges even at f/8 when compared to primes or even the 70-200/300s though- although it's f/2.8 performance in the center remains insanely good right up to 70mm! and it's PF free too!) Although the prime still does that a lot better than say the 24-105L zoom.

1787
and even when i sound like a broken record... AFMA is just to correct flaws in canons manufacturing process. it´s not as if the customer gets something he would not expect from the start -> correct focusing with fast glass.

I've also got a broken record :-p ... Canon lenses work with Canon bodies most of the time just fine, imho the main reason for Canon removing / not implementing afma is to screw 3rd party manufacturers who have a harder time to do perfect lens-body adjustments for all the brands they support - that's why Tamron does free lens adjustments & Sigma rolls out the lens usb interface!

Ironically once Sigma has the USB calibration in all of their lenses they will do MFA with Rebels when Canon's own body+lens combo won't and they will push sales to sigma lenses even more perhaps.

1788
Why on earth would the vast majority of Rebel owners want AFMA ?

Are they going to be shooting with 200 Ls at f2 ?


AFMA is extremely tricky to use properly and easy to b*****k up your AF.
 ::)

It's not that tricky to use. Just aiming at a crack in the sidewalk 10' in front of you and adjusting can radically improve things. Or just aim at a player standing out on the field and adjust until the DOF centers around the grass at their feet in the way you wish.

AND if you mess it up, how hard is it to hit reset and put it all back to zero? Is that any harder than doing anything else you can do with the camera?

Is it that rare for a rebel user to try to shoot some sports or wildlife or portraits ir whatever with an 85 1.8, 70-200 2.8, 300 f/4, 50 1.4 (granted this lens is so dodgy it's pretty hard to figure out what MFA to use but that is a problem specific to that lens), 50 1.8, 100 2.8?

AND who says you HAVE to use it? If you find it confusing, don't want it, etc. DON'T USE IT! Just because some people won't be able to understand something means everyone else has to be punished. If you find it confusing then avoid it! That takes zero effort.

I haven't even used a Rebel for like ten years but I'd still like to see them put MFA in them. It's not a feature but something to even out QC. Some Rebels may be spot on, some may be at -10. Some lenses people have may be spot on some may be -15. Why should they have to suffer from that. And having no mention that calibration can be off in the manual probably confuses many a newbie shooter. Maybe they get frustrated and quit using DSLRs even. I get that they are a business and want to push people up. And maybe if it only affected f/1.2 shooting by a couple inches you could call it a pro feature and certainly 5D3 focuses a lot more precisely than a 50D even if both are calibrated, but not having MFA can even mean that f/4 shooting can sometimes be way off which seems beyond simply calling it a pro-precision to feature to me.

And removing it from the 60D after the 50D had it (and not having put it in the 40D) was pretty cheap. And you say ok send it in to canon. Yeah and then maybe miss two crucial weeks of a season or maybe they mess up say the 1D3 AF and are so busy fixing that they can't be bothered to handle calibrations for more than a month and then you are stuck.

Anyway whatever, I've said too much already.

1789
Your phrasing about "a camera that won't act broken" just reflects your personal need for AFMA, even in a $649 camera.  Cameras without AFMA don't "act broken" and it is odd to say so.  These cameras do work to their specs, just not to your specs.

So if some back focus by 8' that is in spec for a Rebel?? How generous of you.


1790
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/2.8L mkii Focus Shift
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:39:59 PM »
Did you find it only for close shooting distance or in general?
I found it happens to a considerable degree when shooting near MFD. I haven't looked into it much when shooting at greater distances. I suspect it is OK there.

1791
Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:36:14 PM »


DXO is the best in terms of scientific approach.

not for lenses though they've had to many messed up results like: 16-35L being sharpest at the corners near wide open, like 70-300 non-L being sharper at 300mm wide open than the 70-300L, like the 70-200 2.8 IS being the sharpest at 200mm f/2.8 and then the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and then the 70-200 28 IS II the worst!?! And so on. I don't think they set up their charts with enough care or something.

for sensors they do the best job though

1792
Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:33:09 PM »
Lens Rentals and Photozone seem to produce some of the most trustable data overall when it comes to lens reviews. TDP has had a lot of weird results IMO (and has the guy EVER tested a single Tamron that wasn't a lemon? does he just go all sloppy with his procedure and not care when he tests them or what? maybe he shoots the chart very close in? I suspect he doesn't refocus for edges which may make results better for some but worse for others). Photozone sometimes says crazy things in the final text review of a lens though IMO even the data plots look good. DxO has had all sorts of utterly absurd lens data on their website (although their sensor data mostly appears to be very reliable and easily the best of any review site in that case).

Dpreview seems to do pretty well with lenses but they have often been behind the times when it comes to looking at sensor performance with poorly thought out DR tests and having resisted normalization for SNR and so on for ages.

1793
Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 22, 2013, 01:26:22 PM »
It seems like 7D users complain about AF with this lens more than anyone else.
My copy focused very well at f/1.4 on my 5D3 and pretty well on my 5D2 and not badly on my 7D. I do see lots of 7D users complaining that it focuses terribly on their body though.

Anyway I sold mine for the 24-70 II though. I mostly used it stopped down and the 24-70 II is the one prime that can match the 24mm 1.4 II when both are stopped down. The 24 1.4 II had been among my most used lenses before though. I used the 760-200 f/4 IS and later 70-300L even more though.


1794
1. Of course it can be added to an advanced features tab, with adequate warnings.  But this all happens for free?  No labor is spent on testing the AFMA on a new camera, designing and programming that new tab, drafting those "adequate warnings", or adding that page to the manual, etc.  The buildings, the training, the benefits, taxes, insurance, etc., that go into supporting the skilled people that will spend their time on that -- all of this costs ... nothing?  This all just happens ... for free ... because someone wills it?

Give Rebel users a little credit. There are million other settings that could mess things up and yet they are trusted with them no?

Why do you think it needs new code for MFA just because it is a different body?



1795
The correctness of your analysis depends on at least these two things:
1.  You know that Canon's exact costs for implementing AFMA in a completely new camera body are $-0-.
2.  You have read the minds of unknown people in "marketing" and you know they were motivated to "cripple" the 5D3.
Really, why buy Canon if you think they are so badly motivated?

It does depend upon the correctness of those two things and luckily for me (or any of the many others posting similar) they are both correct.

I mean care to share a single reason why they don't let you chose better than 1/250th for max setting for min shutter speed for autoiso? There is zero technical reason.

Why do you so want Rebel users to have to struggle with AF that keeps missing the mark BEYOND what the designed system tolerances? Just becuase you use better than a Rebel it doesn't matter for them? Maybe some of those moms and pops you meet on the sidelines are confused altering technique in bad ways to make up for bodies that are back or front focusing by 4'?

And for the record, someone managed to quote someone from Canon saying that they took MFA out of the 60D (it had been in the 50D) because it would then make the 70D look better LOL that's nice. Still believe in the pure motivation of Canon marketing these days?


1796

AFMA makes the 5D3 and 1DX work as you should expect.  It's a great feature.  But the Rebel line of cameras, including this new SL1, work as you should expect without AFMA.  Different users, different expectations.

Wait so now you are saying that the 5D3/1DX have worse AF systems and lack the magic system in the Rebel line tht gets away without needing AFMA??

Quote
I'm puzzled by some posters' extreme negativity about a manufacturer's "strategy" to make a profit, or to offer a diverse product line that meets different customers' needs and budgets.  It is as if all of those factories and highly skilled employees should somehow spend all of their time serving photographers without any profit motive.  Hmmmm.   ???

I'm puzzled that there is not one single thing you won't defend. Canon could literally release a boxed rock for $999 and you'd defend the decision I'd bet.

It's nice to know that you will go so far as to even defend trying to make people go to a higher tier to get a camera that won't act broken.

Nobody is saying it needs the 5D3 AF or 10fps! Just: 1. give it MFA so it works to spec 2. give it SOMETHING the t4i didn't have, maybe WIFI stuff?


1797
as mentioned before by someone, AFMA is a feature to fix canons own shortcomings in the manufacturing process. it should be a standard feature!

Why stop at just AFMA?  Everything should be a standard feature on the $649 13.05 ounce camera.  Everything has the potential to be useful to some photographer somewhere.  And added complexity never stopped anyone from buying a camera.  Yep, we know Canon's business better than they do. ;)

Because AFMA is different. It is NOT a feature it is about making a camera not be broken and about making up for QC tolerances!!!!

Something that is a feature is AutoISO. That is something one can argue over and, in fact, I will. It still doesn't work even on 5D3!! Every other maker has it working for years on rebel-like stuff and Canon marketing, after a decade, is STILL slowly dribbling it out even to top level.

If AFMA is about making a camera not be "broken", then photographers have been using "broken" cameras for about 25 years, since autofocus became popular.  And yet they somehow managed to make pictures. 

1. before digital many people also looked at 3x5" prints which masked lots of errors
2. people have been complaining about poor calibration though and it means sending in stuff for adjustment, sometimes more than once, sometimes being without it for weeks, sometimes it means not having a focusing pair for a nat geo expedition because Canon is too busy fixing 1D3 bodies to care about anything else in the meantime.
3. It costs 0 dollars to put it in the body why the heck are you defending it unless Canon is paying you??


Quote
Auto ISO works wonderfully on the 5D3 -- I use it quite a lot.  I really don't know why you would buy Canon if this is such a problem and "every other maker has it working".

Unless you need EC and then you are stuck. Note that you can't use Av mode with shutter limit because they locked out all of the shutter speeds that would work for action which is exactly what you need autoiso for!
Seriously with like 2 bytes of changes code (or just a few more if they need to table each allowed shutter speed) it would work but marketing had them cripple it on purpose. Why? For what purpose?

1798

So it's somehow wrong to convince buyers to spend more money for more features?  Wrong to offer a diverse product line with products at different price levels?  Then we photographers should follow the same rules: never offer clients a way to spend more to get more.  Never offer any extra product for any extra money.  Offer just one product at one price, one size fits all?  Or, offer various products but all at the same price, no matter what it costs to make and service them? ???  In what galaxy does business work that way?

well you think like the typical brainwashed consumer slave and i can´t blame you for that.
but maybe you should think again before wasting so much time asking rhetorical questions.

i think it´s pretty clear why AFMA should be in any camera.
i don´t want all the 1D X features in all the cheaper bodys.

AFMA fixes a FLAW.... i could also ask for body and lenses that focus correct from the start.

It's pretty clear that AFMA should be in your camera.  It isn't clear that it should be in this camera.  Photographers don't all have the same needs as you.

This cameras will focus correctly from the start for the vast majority of users, even without AFMA.  The review on
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/03/21/first-impressions-canon-rebel-sl1/
indicates that the autofocus is "really good". 

AFMA recognizes that autofocus isn't perfect for more demanding users in certain situations.  It is a brilliant solution to customizing each individual camera to each individual lens.  But Canon knows well that AFMA is also laborious to implement.  The typical buyer of this camera will not know what it is and will not want to do it.  There is such a thing as "feature bloat" where there are just too many unfamiliar settings on the menus, making a camera less attractive to many buyers.

No that shows that that one particular SL1 with that one lens happens to focus really well.
For most pairings it is  constantly sending to Canon for adjustments.

1799
as mentioned before by someone, AFMA is a feature to fix canons own shortcomings in the manufacturing process. it should be a standard feature!

Why stop at just AFMA?  Everything should be a standard feature on the $649 13.05 ounce camera.  Everything has the potential to be useful to some photographer somewhere.  And added complexity never stopped anyone from buying a camera.  Yep, we know Canon's business better than they do. ;)

Because AFMA is different. It is NOT a feature it is about making a camera not be broken and about making up for QC tolerances!!!!

Something that is a feature is AutoISO. That is something one can argue over and, in fact, I will. It still doesn't work even on 5D3!! Every other maker has it working for years on rebel-like stuff and Canon marketing, after a decade, is STILL slowly dribbling it out even to top level.

1800
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i
« on: March 21, 2013, 05:25:26 PM »
A real update to a Rebel would've been:

* Built-In WiFi.

absolutely!

Quote
* 2 more FPS

that's probably the 70D although maybe they could add 1

Quote
* An extra stop in ISO performance.

not easy to do, cams are already so good for SNR
for DR yeah they coudl easily add not just one but even 3 stops at low ISO and some more high ISO DR too

not sure why they bothered, either add that stuff or don't waste time on the t5i.

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 244