July 28, 2014, 03:53:52 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 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 220
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:31:16 PM »
Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons.  (High score is better.):

Pts Model
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

1. their overall scores are weird, how do you combine so many different performance factors into one number that would work for everyone? you can't

2. their PRINT generally seem to be pretty good and quite useful to compare various aspects of one camera to another though

3. their lens tests, unlike their sensor tests, appear to be a mess, i don't trust them at all

4. I doubt the 6D will make a big leap, you do much better at high iso for SNR than the 1DX and I'd doubt, just a couple months later, they introduce a new sensor that has better DR at high iso than the 1DX or than both at low ISO, that would be hideous planning for the 5D3/1DX. Then again, it would be nice in that at least it would prove they can do it. It is odd they have a supposedly new 20MP sensor.

Lenses / Re: 24L II or 24-70 II ??
« on: September 19, 2012, 04:32:12 AM »
Awesome reply. Much appreciated!

the 24-70 II does have more distortion at 24mm than the primes though, quite clearly

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II
« on: September 19, 2012, 04:30:25 AM »

I opened them up and surprised at the distortion... Mustache like, a little disappointing actually. Also see some CA toward the edge of the frame.

Resolution looks good for the most part. Hope when I get mine I am happy with it!

yeah the distortion was a bit of a shock, way more than the 24 1.4 II and even more than the 24-70 I it seems, but no worse than the tamron 28-75 or 24-105 (not that that says much) and it does seem to be a mustache type which is a bit messy (that said the fabled zeiss 21mm has some) a bit unfortunate but maybe it lets then get the amazing sharpness to the corners

Yeah, it has a touch of CA but even the 24 1.4 II has a bit, only the 24 T&S II is really free of that and it's a lot less than the 24-105 has

And the sharpness to the edges looks great, way better than 24-105 and clearly better than 24-70 I and tamron 28-75 too.

... For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200

yeah not at ISO3200 at ISO3200 it has very good DR (only 1DX and D4 and D3s are better and the D3s is so much lower res it doesn't really count) it's at ISO100-200 or 400 where the DR is bad. The high iso DR on the 5D3 is better than any camera other than the 1DX and D4 basically.

Lenses / Re: 24L II or 24-70 II ??
« on: September 18, 2012, 09:31:12 PM »
I'm torn. I love my primes. I love low light and bokeh, but I also like having that one walk-around lens that does a little of everything. With a new 5DIII on the way, I'm losing the 15-85 EF-S lens. I have a 28mm 1.8, which will show its weaknesses on the 5DIII, I'm afraid. I have a 50mm, a 135L, and a 200L. No zoom lens.

I feel like pulling the trigger on the 24L II, but I worry I'll be swapping lenses all the time or never having what I need with me. Will I be okay with a "boring" 2.8 lens? Should I be thinking about the 24-70 II and 70-200 II combo?

I need help. I know there's no "right" solution and that it's all based on tastes, but I'm swayable. So sway me!

I had been doing the 24 1.4 II + 70-200 f/4 IS (and now 70-300L) plus some other primes dance. But the samples I saw from the 24-70 II look really good at 24mm so I think I may sell my 24 1.4 II and get the general purpose convenience of the zoom. The 24-70 I, Tamron 28-75 and especially 24-105 were not good enough at the wide end for me to go that route, my 24 1.4 II was so much better even at f/8-f/11 for landscape stuff and it did have the speed for occasional low DOF shot, but I took such a low percentage of shots near f/1.4 I think I might gain more by having the zoom now that there may be one that delivers the quality.

If i ever got a fast widerish lens again maybe I'd add the 35mm which seems a bit more generally useful at f/1.4, although I have seen some 24 1.4 at 1.4 stunners to be sure and taken a few cool ones myself.

The 24-70 II + 70-200 II (or 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L) combo sounds kinda nice and add in a 35 1.4 and that really sounds nice.  ;D

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II
« on: September 18, 2012, 09:27:33 PM »

Lenses / 24-70 II
« on: September 18, 2012, 08:37:49 PM »
Wow, just saw some RAW samples taken on the wide end, stopped down, testing landscape-type performance. And wow they looked good. Never seen any zoom ever deliver that on FF before, well at least not any wide or standard range zoom (some of the 70-200 and 70-300 type zooms have been pretty amazing for some time).

While canon sensor division sleeps and their body division largely stumbles and milks (other than putting 1DX AF into 5D3 which was genius) their lens division carries on as always, charging ahead, hitting new performance marks, always innovating. Looks like they did deliver the best standard zoom ever (maybe there is so esoteric brand or scientific something but ignoring that stuff)! Wow, really impressive looking, looked sharp to the extreme edges and even extreme corners looked very solid. Yes, stopped down, but try that at 24mm or 28mm on any other zoom on a FF and you get mush to one degree or another.

Canon has really been on a roll recently with one amazing lens after another.
Well done.

I guess I see things differently than the OP.  Put the 6D aside for a moment -- all I can say is they weren't targeting me with that design... lets wait and see how the sensor itself performs which may be telling.  Anyway, I see  Canon putting its best foot forward with the technology that they have.  ok, so they don't own the low-ISO DR  war at this time, and this allows the geeks and gearheads to pull out the charts showing the D800 with a DR advantage below ISO 800 or whatever it is.  so what?  if thats critical to one's work, i.e. if that advantage will distinguish you from others, and you can show it with real photos, and if all of that is more important than 1DX style AF, high-ISO performance and 6fps for example  then halleluiah thats what capitalism and free market competition is for.  The D800 is for sale. 

What I find amusing re: the 5D3 in particular is that because the D800 stole the marketing show with high MP and because some geeky chart shows better low-ISO DR, people thought thats what they needed, and so they ragged on the 5D3 because I guess it doesn't win the dxo score war.  Then when folks took another look they realized how good of a camera the 5D really is for its intended market (at least thats my observation).    For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

I view the D800 as disruptive in the sense that it might cause Canon to take a few Red Bulls and tweak  their R&D strategy in the studio/landscape arena, to be sure.  That can't be done in a few months time. Reading in between the lines, I suspect Canon may be scrambling to produce a product that segments the market further -- a camera that is optimized for studio/landscapes.  Their R&D folks are probably working overtime.  That aside   I guess I could "blame" Canon because  it appears they didn't see the D800 coming -- or by the time they did see it, it was too late.  But  that doesn't mean the CEO should resign, although it could mean they should hire a better technology strategist.  Or that Sony kept a good secret and surprised the pants off of everyone.

I still hear plenty people wishing it had more DR (and MP) and believe it or not, some of them are pros. It's quite good, but ISO100 DR a trace worse than the old 5D2 and worse than the even older 1Ds3 is kinda unfortunate. But if you think that is awesome, then Canon won't ever bother. So yeah I like it a lot, but yeah I sure often wish it had better DR and when shooting wildlife I sure wish more MP and a crop mode and for video I sure wish it had the basics like zebra and focusing aids while live shooting and raw hdmi out and crop modes for wildlife.

The revealing of the 6D has got to be one of the biggest anticlimaxes in Canon's recent DSLR history. Never has a camera wasted so much potential to score well. If Canon were alone and the only manufacturer producing a cheaper DSLR then it would probably be doing better amongst the Internet forums but unfortunately for Canon, there is the Nikon D600, alongside which the 6D appears as a "huh?"

The 5D Mark III also suffered a lot, primarily because of the rise in price without a commensurate rise in IQ. Again, if you took away the Nikon D800, it doesn't appear too bad but again, there is nothing exciting about it.

Now that all of Canon's cards are on the table for this year, you're left wondering what were they thinking? That Nikon and Sony would just stand by and not enter the market? Or did Canon simply underestimate what they've been able to do in CMOS sensor development?

The 1DX is out there by itself. It is a remarkable piece of equipment, tailor made for its target audience. And perhaps that's where Canon's problem is: it doesn't really know who the audience is for the 5D3 and 6D. Why wouldn't it know that? Because so many people bought the 5D Mark II, it became impossible for Canon to understand all the details of who was using it, how and why.

Thus the success of the 5D Mark II may have actually killed Canon in multiple ways. First they've become complacent because they've thought they could just tweak it a little here and a little there, increase the price and everyone would fall over themselves in love. That hasn't happened, in part because of the price and in part because it was just tweaking. In the second, as above, the camera has had such wide appeal that it became impossible for them to fully grasp why it succeeded and thus they didn't know how to repeat that success. This is likely just an accident of history as much as anything else. Thirdly, in not knowing who to listen to or why the 5D Mark II was such a success, they've ended up listening to the wrong folks about what camera Canon would need to succeed.

Thus given what the 5D3 and 6D have revealed to be, I think that the only option for Canon is remove the people who made the final decisions about which features should be in/out and the price for the camera. I think it is more than evident that they targets for both cameras simply wasn't high enough and thus Canon has underperformed.

Whole point of the 6D was to update the 5D Mark II for entry-level FF.  No, that was actually a really smart business decision.  You have to put yourself in others' shoes before making comments like that.  If you have a 5D3 or 1DX is the 6D for you?  Of course not!  Then again, if you have a 5D3 and 1DX, why in the hell are you complaining?  It's your problem if you're not happy with your gear.  Shut up and go shoot.   8) ;D

Also part of the point was to bring in newbies to FF and pricing it the same as the D600 which has better features and most likely a better sensor.... that is the issue.

It's a good idea, just given the competition it seems a bit under spec or over priced. That is the problem.

(with the 5D3 dipping to $2750 now at Adorama that is getting close to 6D price and offers a TON more)

Then again, I suppose there is a chance the GPS/wifi might entice newbies more than talk of image quality and AF and such, I guess Canon will see.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 18, 2012, 02:31:29 PM »
20MP vs 21MP vs 22MP pixel pitch will have ZERO noticeable difference on SNR....
I'm picky and pixel peepy as heck and there is no way I'd be able to tell if the same exact tech was used on a 20MP a 21MP and a 22MP sensor, not remotely.

(And did the D800 not prove a thing? 36MP and very, very good high ISO.)

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 18, 2012, 02:28:21 PM »
high MP fullframe sensors... high compared to what?  ;)
Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.

so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?
if it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

That wouldn't work out, you'd just have a ton more hot pixels and I've never heard of a manufacturer calling poorly made 22MP sensors that have 2 million dead pixels a 20MP sensor. And just think, they list the image dimensions, how do you get that change with random dead pixels here and there throughout?

It does seem weird, since you'd think just re-using 5D3 sensor would be more efficient. But I can't imagine they would do something that would cost them money so you'd think it would somehow have to be some sort of masking off or less masking off of another sensor or maybe they found a way to somehow pump these ones out more cheaply because something about them makes them noticeably less expensive to make than say the 5D3 or 1DX sensor.

Or maybe they did have a low ISO DR breakthrough but what on earth were they thinking to be so slow to get they needed that and not get that tech in the 5D3 and 1DX? Those user bases will raise a storm, if just a few months later a low end FF has a sensor that blows the ones they have away. It would at least give one a lot of faith about the 5D4 though. Something would seem to have been supremely poorly thought out and planned in Canon management.

Hey Dilbert you need to get out of your cubicle more.

The CEO will be judged on the sales of the cameras and lenses, not on their specs.
Judging by Adorama's latest sale on E-Bay there is demand for the 5D3, once the price drops some.
If the CEO has milked the early adopters and maximized the revenue for the company then he will have done his job.

If the profits are down, then its time to change the CEO.

There are also future sales to consider and slowly eroding customer loyalty. Plus, Canon could have easily been so far ahead.

Anyway they can do what they will do get to get money and get away with it, but that doesn't mean the user base can't whine about it, if they go into sit back and milk it for all it's worth and cripple as much as possible and still just manage to sell to target. If they don't like the whines and want a thrilled user base then they need to change.

I just did a shutter count on my 1.5 Year old 7D. Its been through quite a bit in a year and a half.

Its almost half-way through its life.  :(

Maybe it's not, my dad has a Rebel going strong, over 150,000 now, it's luck of the draw.

My 5D2 is 42,000 and my 7D is 25,000.
Not sure about my 5D3 don't need to measure that one yet.

Is this a commercial to help the owner of EOS count run up sales of his $1.49 a whack service :)
For many cameras (Not 7D, or 1D series), EOS Info is free, and has a Mac Version as well.

I haven't gotten that to work on any of my bodies in years.

For those whose paid full price on 5D III, how do you feel about the 5D III price drop at Adorama Ebay store?

I'll go first. I'm one of the millions people placed a pre-order right after the announcement - YES the very 1st patch with "light leak"  ;D ;D issues....I have mixed feeling for Canon when I saw the price drop.

 First, I'm happy for those jumped on this deal for $2749 from an AUTHORIZED DEALER with full 1 year US warranty. I would do the same - TRUST ME.

Second, this is just me - Canon allows or accepts the price drop nearly 25% on a 6 months old body....THAT IS NOT RIGHT. This is a lesson & learn for me.

Am I going to place another pre-order with Canon in the future????  am I going to continuous with Canon products??? Time will tell.

What about you? how do you feel?


A little bit annoying, although at least I paid around $3175 not $3499 which would've been BAD. I did get the whole summer out it, just took about 7000 shots this weekend even. So I certainly made use of it during the time to which the price finally solidly plummeted. I kinda of expected it to drop by now so I sort of knew what I was doing, to an extent, although I figured it would be more like $2999 not $2750 already, which is yet another $250 lower.

I know they are business but you sure do feel like they try to cripple as much as they can just barely get away with and nickel and dime just as much as they can. I guess it sort of works for them, for a while at least, but they sort of already gave back the take the world by storm 5D2 video thing and so on and they sure do have a very restless and not terribly loyal in the slightest user base now, overall, IMO. I hear plenty of Canon users (including working pros) not always recommending newbies to go for Canon these days while say back in 2005 they'd all say get Canon.

But tech does often drop like this, cameras haven't maybe so often before, but look at computer stuff or TVs and such, the early adopter always gets hosed so you either need it now and pay or you wait.

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 220