December 19, 2014, 04:14:40 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 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 271
1906
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:49:42 PM »
Here are the actual quantitative comparisons of the 100-400mm L vs the 400mm f/5.6L from MTFs measured by Photozone, presented by Canon,  and the blur tests from SLRGear. You can see from all three that the zoom is at least as sharp at the centre. I have had both lenses and can vouch for it first hand as well.

Interesting that those match the Canon MTF, but the Lens Rental measurements do not at all (nor TDP).

1907
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon X-Video Picture Style
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:46:52 PM »
Cool.  I'm a bit scared to run ML on my 7D, given it's current problems, I saw the X-video as maybe being a way to get another look without breaking anything (I know, I know, ML is by sheer mathematics of users / failures ratio, safe) also I only have 4TB in my RAID, which will zap with renders etc..

What computer hardware are folk using?

& back to question, is anybody using x-video?  Are there LUTs for it?

Cheers

Yeah a RAID 0 setup is important. I had started out with non-RAID, USB 2.5 :D (USB 3.0 card in a PCI slot running at only partial USB 3.0 speed) and it was slow. Now a 4TB RAID 0 hooked up over USB 3.0 and that helped a TON.

I also bumped up to an i7 3770 with some fast memory to help out even a bit more (had AMD x940 before).

1908
Lenses / Re: LensRentals.com Tests the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:41:16 PM »
This is just one set of measurements under sub-optimal conditions. It is remarkable how the data on the 400mm f/5.6 conflict with Canon's own MTF charts and measurements by Photozone.de and SLRGear.


Yeah I always noted that the 400 f/5.6 MTF from Canon always looked solid but not amazing and yet over the years people have posted some sample shots, 100% crops, that looked pretty remarkably super-tele-like crisp.

1909
Lenses / 200-400 matches 400 2.8 II on resolutions tests
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:37:11 PM »
Wow, on LR they got the 200-400 at 400 f/4 to have essentially the same imatest results, center, average and corner as the 400 2.8 II has at f/2.8!!


1910
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:35:42 PM »
For trying to shoot wildlife with it as a main lens, the extra 100mm does help. Even 400m is very short and 300mm is practically wide angle.

The other 400mm options are $$$$$$$$$$$$ super-tele and 200-400 or a slow prime 400 f/5.6 with no IS.
(well you can use a 1.4x TC on a 300 f/4 non-IS or IS, the non-IS at least has fairly slow AF with the TC on, although some say the 100-400L doesn't have the world's fastest AF)

100-400 could use updated IS, faster AF and I'm sure they could make it crazy sharp these days


1911
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:52:47 PM »

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm.  However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge.  At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center.  at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away! :) 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses.  The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.

Even the 24-70 II 2.8 does a decent amount of focus shift anywhere near MFD. I was shooting some Christmas tree ornaments up close and I'd focus in liveview and it would look perfect and then boom the shot would be OOF! FInally I stopped it down while liveview focusing and then the shots remained in focus.


1912
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:51:20 PM »
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm.  However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge.  At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center.  at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away! :) 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses.  The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Maybe. I don't always find TDP matches what I've seen though. I trust Lens Rentals (where they also test like 50 copies of each lens) and Photozone more, although TDP has gotten better in recent years. One thing that can make results vary is whether a site refocuses for edges or not (and if not it makes the alignment problem very tricky; as for real world sometimes it tells the much truer picture and sometimes not) and how close the test target is.

24mm and near was always a very key zone for me with a general wide/standard zoom though since the long end is already handled superbly by 70-200/300 type lenses and getting something sharp near 24mm on FF was always a holy grail for zooms. That was always the real trick. Many could handle the other parts decently enough. The 24-70 II 2.8 finally does it at the wide end. It sounds like the 24-70 f/4 IS may more or less do it. If you don't care about 24mm, I'd just as soon stick with a cheap, light, fast 50mm and a 70-200/300 myself.

But yeah I guess it depends how much you care about the wide end or not.


1913
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:45:05 PM »

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.


You mean the 28-75 2.8?
That was an amazing lens! Sharper than the 24-105L for like 1/4 the price. AF was VERY slow and no IS of course though.

1914
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:17:29 AM »
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

1915
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:16:02 AM »
But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...

Yeah video is a lot different than stills.

1916
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:07:25 PM »
But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

1917
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:05:57 PM »
I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens.  It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality.  Why?  Just why?   If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8.  Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Because it's not comparable in optical quality. Word is it is definitely better.

1918
When you say that you want to separate conversion and editing, by editing, are you also referring to color management?

Yes. The optimal workflow for most is to do all non-conversion adjustments in an NLE, such as Premiere, After Effects, Final Cut, along with other programs that maintain a "non-destructive" workflow (e.g., Resolve).

Currently, the ACR/LR workflow outputs a Prores 422 file, into which many people are "baking" the white balance and other adjustments. The reason for making the adjustments prior to converting to Prores 422 is that you get to work on the uncompressed file and get a lot better results (especially with tonal adjustments). But the baking-in of these adjustments violates the non-destructive editing flow. In a non-destructive workflow, adjustments can be made at any point in the process, without the penalty of having to re-bake adjustments (in this case, in ACR or LR).

So the new workflows (similar to basically all other video workflows), will convert the RAW file to a format (e.g., Cinema DNG and CineForm) that maintains the ability to make adjustments at any point in the process, and doesn't require going back and forth between programs to adjust simple stuff like white balance and highlight recovery.

That said, ACR/LR do have some amazing features and I'm sure there will be people who will still use an ACR/LR flow (e.g., for extreme highlight recovery, or specific plugins such as SilverEfex). But personally, I want to take the footage straight into the NLE and/or Resolve, without having to worry about whether I "converted" the files properly.

You can use Cineform with that workflow. I've been using Cineform almost all along. When you make the movie from the PS/ACR or LR/ACR TIFFs in AE just output to Cineform444FilmScan2 or something like that.

1919
Lenses / Re: Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:49:54 PM »
.
I've used that 24, but I haven't used the 24-70.

My first thought is I don't think the 24-70 can provide the kind of lush color and contrast you get with the 24. That makes it a real gem for landscapes.

If I were thinking this way, I'd rent the 24-70 and see if you like the look.

On the other hand, if the color/contrast are not important to you, the sharpness of the 24-70 is claimed to near equal anything in its neighborhood.

24-70 II DOES provide the same lush color and contrast as the 24 1.4 II. I compared both and you really can't tell in that regard.

1920
Lenses / Re: Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:46:39 PM »
I have been using 24 mm (first the 24/2.8 and later L II) since I got my first FF camera (5D2) in 2009. I currently use 24/1.4L II (with 5D3) as my everyday prime and sometimes 40/2.8 when I want to be less conspicuous.

My third lens is the 70-200/f4LIS which I only use occasionally for portraits and wildlife (however, very limited range). Considering the fact that the new 24-70 is near-prime sharp, I rarely use apertures under 2 with the 24 (primarily landscapes) and the fact that I would not miss the 70-200 immensely (70-200 f/2.8 II next on the list) - I'm contemplating selling my two L lenses for the 24-70 mark II.

My basic goal is to have a more versatile kit, where I don't have to change the lens as soon as I need something between 24 and 70 mm. But still, with superb image quality.

I'm very interested what you guys think about this idea, would there be a noticeable drop in IQ at 24 mm and at landscape apertures? You who own both, do you find that your 24/1.4L II is obsolete with the 24-70 II?

I got my 24 1.4 II because I was fed up with how zooms handled 24mm on FF for landscapes. I got the 24-70 II. I sold the 24 1.4 II. The 24-70 II is optimized for 24mm most of all and it does really well. It's VERY hard (as in basically impossible even at 100% peeping all over) to tell the sharpness apart between it and the prime (maybe the deepest corners are a touch better for the prime).  Contrast and color of the zoom look the same, at worst. The zoom actually has LESS LoCA purple fringing when you get branches against clouds and such than the prime! Prime does have less distortion and the field curvature is slightly different in nature.

If you really are planning on the 24-70 2.8 IS II for SURE and you are SURE you won't mind it's weight and size for everyday usage, then yeah I'd sell both and get the 24-70 II.

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 271