April 19, 2014, 03:09:53 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 - danski0224

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame or faster lens?
« on: September 18, 2013, 10:17:53 AM »
I had a 7D and didn't use it much once a 5DII showed up. Too much of a readily apparent difference in quality and framing. I grew up on 35mm film, and the difference is readily apparent.

But, the loss of the 1.6x teleconverter (APS-C) kinda sucked for some instances.

Adding even a 1.4x TC can significantly impact focus speed, and it steals light. I tried the TC on a 300mm f/4 and wasn't happy with the change in AF speed. This was on a 5D series, not 1D series.

Then, you are limited to certain AF points based on the lens (lens groups) and apeture. 

If the Sigma reports properly (and it probably does), you should get access to the f/2.8 focus points. That changes with the 1.4x teleconverter.

If it is at all possible to rent it, I'd try that before buying one. Maybe even rent a 5DIII at the same time. I know LensRentals has a partnership with Super Digital City for some of the Sigma lenses they have for rent and you get most of the rental as credit towards a purchase. This is from a USA customer perspective.

If you are willing to shell out the funds for a 5DIII, I'd suggest sourcing a nice used 1DIV instead. Given that "wildlife" is listed first in your interests, and you have no wide angle lenses listed, you will probably be disappointed in the loss of 1.6x. Lots of AF points and FPS in the 1DIV too.

The 5DIII has spot AF with any lens and the 1DIV does not, unless you are using one of the supertelephoto lenses with the buttons.

Yes, there are numerous tests here and elsewhere about cropping FF images to the same FOV of APS-C and APS-C cameras and being able to retain details. The technical stuff is over my head, but it seems to hold water only if the FF image is tack sharp.

If my math is right (ha!), the 300mm on your 7D becomes 187mm on the 5D series and 230mm on the 1DIV. I suppose you could mess with your 100-300 on a static subject and compare, or at least get a feel for the differences. Might be worth a shot. Essentially, a 400mm lens would be needed on the 5D to match the "reach" of the 7D.

Up to you to try it before buying more stuff.

There is no clear cut or easy answer. Canon seems to be segmenting their product line.

ISO 6400 on the 5DIII is useable, no problems, without doing anything extra in my eyes. One day I'll take the time to learn how to use either DPP or Adobe products more effectively.

Good Luck.

Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 12, 2013, 02:35:21 PM »
I have to admit that I have never done any true macro (at least 1:1) photography in my close to sixty years of practicing this hobby.  But I have been thinking I might have some fun with it.  Currently I own no prime lenses (loaned my 50mm 1.8 to grand-daughter, doubtful I will see it again).  I have an EFS 17-55 2.8 (which I love), a 70-200 2.8L II, a 100-400L, and several other lesser quality mid-range zooms (between the wife and I we have three bodies, 30D-hers, 40D and 7D-mine).  Due to a lengthy fall vacation (I'm retired, what am I vacationing from?) where we will visit four National Parks and one National Monument plus a day trip into Canada and a planned mission trip in November to a third world nation, my budget is a little strained. 

Finally to the question.  What do I need?  Would it be wiser to wait until I could afford something like the 100 2.8L Macro ( or other lens suggestion) or should I pop for a set of extension tubes such as the Canon extension tubes (or should I go for something cheaper in the tubes).

Thanks for any advice from those much wiser than I.

The 60mm EF-S Macro is a nice lens, works out to ~96mm equivalent. It is made for your cameras.

A longer lens, like the 100mm L Macro allows a bit more distance, which can come in handy for bugs or bigger flowers. That is ~160mm on your cameras. The IS helps for handheld shots.

The 180mm macro is also a nice lens, but sometimes it is too much. I found that I like ~150mm on a 5D series camera.

As previously mentioned, lighting can be an issue, especially if you stop down the lens for a greater depth of field and it isn't daylight. Proper and even illumination in macro shots is a whole subject by itself. There is a "post your set-up" in the Macro section of FM Forums.

Extension tubes also steal light.

Close-up lenses like the Canon 500D do not steal light and may give you some limited macro use from your 70-200.

Renting a dedicated macro lens or two may help.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:30:38 AM »
People's standards have been steadily dropping.


Today's cameraphone was unimaginable back when the EOS system was introduced in the late 1980's.

Even then, someone could choose from a Polaroid for instant results or a myriad of film options that required a trip to the drugstore or your own little lab.

I see no difference in the essence of the choices between then and now.

For many, a Polaroid was fine. Others used a 126 (if I remember right). Some chose the 35mm SLR.

The camera phone, P&S and DSLR draw nice parallels, but you can do so much more with a camera phone than a Polaroid.

Same cost parallels between the Polaroid end and SLR end. I paid over $1k for my EOS 620 and some additional bits back in 1987, a hefty premium over a Polaroid camera. 4 x 6 prints were a big deal, and now that is no big deal.

Digital has simply removed the expense of purchasing film and developing it. You don't need a high end computer or monitor to store and view images. You don't need a high end printer, and for simple prints, it is cheaper to print at the drugstore. From what I can see, most of the images taken in my family are never printed, just emailed or shown on a computer.

As a consequence, the meaning or quality of many images isn't there because there are little/no additional costs to see the image.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 11, 2013, 08:05:53 AM »
Nail in the coffin? No.

I have a P&S camera, and my phone does take better pictures. Granted, the P&S is an 8mp Olympus Stylus 850SW- not exactly new. When I bought the camera, it took better pictures than my phone- which didn't have a camera on it. Rugged and waterproof is what drew me to that particular model.

I think I paid ~$300 for that camera and I don't think I have used it much at all since 2009.

A new cell phone is ~$500 - $700, depending on what you pick.

A "little bit nicer than basic" P&S still hovers in the $200 - $300 range. I can't see shelling out another couple/few hundred for an extra P&S camera, much less closer to $1,000.00 for a "really nice" one.

The images I took with the Olympus P&S can be taken with my current phone, and the phone does a much better job. It's also much easier/convenient to get the images off of the phone via email or send them off as a MMS message.

For another perspective, I purchased a very nice Panasonic Lumix for my mom for a trip before the iPads were common. Learning how to get those pictures off the camera and into the computer was something that never went well, and it is still a foreign concept. Now that she has an iPad, the moving of images from a card isn't a problem because iTunes does it for her. And, the iPad is "good enough". 

If anything, the cameraphone has diluted the P&S market.

Others like me have no desire to have two comparable devices.

Devices like iPhones and iPads have a convenience level that is very difficult to match.

My phone has a SD card slot, and I save the pictures there. Syncing with the PC has never been 100%.

The P&S may replace an entry level DSLR and kit lens eventually for some, but not for me.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 10, 2013, 01:09:39 PM »
Ok, I took some pictures.

Nothing special and I don't have any fancy studio equipment or a tripod.

I put an X-Rite color checker passport and a $20 bill on a towel wrapped around a box. It was illuminated with a 500w halogen worklight.

The positions of the target, camera and light did not change (until the end).

I used a 100mm L macro at f/8.

ISO's were set at 400, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I let the camera set the shutter speed.

Cameras used were a 5DII, 5DIII and 1DIV.

The camera was set up on a box and the 10 second self timer was used.

Picture style set to neutral, large RAW and Jpeg. There are 32 total images, straight out of the camera.

Not the best lighting, not the most interesting target, but it was consistent.

The 1DIV was set into portrait mode at the same distance as the 5DIII to fill the frame. Then the 1DIV was put into landscape mode and moved back until the viewfinder looked the same as the 5DIII. Lighting position with respect to the target did not change.

One thing I did notice was less moire/artifacts when zoomed into Jackson in the center of the $20 in the 1dIV images. Another is the noise is smoother.

It also looks like the 5DIII needs some focus adjustment.

I am in the process of uploading these images to my dropbox- and it will take a while with my internet connection. If anyone is interested in the images, send me a PM I can send a link.

I see no point in resizing them for upload here.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 09, 2013, 05:31:27 PM »
Bad analogy. There's a lot of nonsense that gets passed around the audiophile crowd, and I rarely ever trust a claim unless it's repeatable under blind testing conditions.

I may agree that there are a lot of bogus claims in the audiophile business, but have you ever auditioned a couple of amplifiers in your own home using your own support equipment?

Same goes for preamps, CD players, CD transports and outboard DA converters.

You should try it, because there really is a difference. I didn't even have to listen hard, close one eye, tilt my head to the left or "imagine" things.

I did have the opportunity to hear a system with $100k in just cables. The rest of it was pretty expensive too. Not mine, though.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 09, 2013, 08:02:47 AM »
If I take a picture of the same subject using a 5D3 and a 1DIV using the same lens, how do I make the other variables the same?

It's  a crop camera, so if I shoot at the same distance or if I create the same field of view in the viewfinder, the light level changes.

Should I use flash?

What ISO setting?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 08, 2013, 02:14:21 PM »
Nevertheless, there is a difference in IQ, particularly at high ISO, but also at 'tweener' ISO settings.

I take it that you see a difference in the raw files out of the camera comparing the 1DX and 5D3 using the same converter?

Pixel peeping not required?

I picked up two so I am covered with 70-200 and 200-70.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 08, 2013, 12:27:23 PM »
I am curious if you can post the raw files from the 2 cameras with the same setting, preferably same lens?

Well, I don't have any images taken at the same time to make a meaningful unbiased comparison.

Nor do I have the capability to upload full scale raw images. I certainly can't host that.

I'll see about taking both bodies and one lens and getting a couple of same settings images.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 08, 2013, 08:49:30 AM »
Anything other then guessing would require a better description or, better yet, sample files. But since the 5D3 has higher IQ then the 1D4 across the board, some good guesses include:

* You're viewing images at the same image viewer magnification (i.e. 50%) without realizing this actually magnifies the 5D3 image much more.

* Different in camera settings.

* Different RAW converter setting defaults or profiles.

And if you're not talking about a test pair produced under exact conditions (same subject, lighting, lens, exposure, etc) then anything and everything is in play including lenses, exposures, focusing, selected apertures and/or shutter speeds (beyond the obvious exposure differences), subject, lighting, etc, etc.

Yes, I understand that a lot of it is subjective.

Even if I set the 1D IV images and 5D III images to "neutral", the 1D IV images have something special/different.

I use Canon DPP to view, straight out of the camera. It is set to "fit to window", so the 1D IV images are the ones being magnified.

I may try to do a somewhat controlled side by side test, but the best I can do is swap lenses between bodies and try to get the same image in the viewfinder and have the same settings on both cameras.

I can compare it to listening to different audio amplifiers. The specs may be the same, but they sound different.

I'm afraid to rent a 1DX because I may like it, even though 90% of the capabilities would be lost to me at first. And, I actually prefer the 1D form factor.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 07, 2013, 05:19:20 PM »
I am noticing a difference between the raw images from those two cameras using the same lens.

The 1D IV images seem to have more pop and depth, for lack of a better description.

Anyone else notice this, or am I seeing things?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony's new little cameras
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:20:58 AM »
Because they would be stuck using a mobile platform so bad, that MS had to buy the only manufacturer who was still interested in using their flop.

Last time I checked, W8P has some pretty darn good reviews.

I wanted the Nokia 920, but then I heard about the 1020. Too bad Nokia nade the bonehead move for AT&T exclusivity... but with the recent sale of the division to MS, I wonder who was behind that agreement.

Just from messing around with a 920 in the store, W8P looks pretty nice.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Boo Amazon!!!
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:27:16 PM »
I would imagine that the customer is supposed to file those sales taxes on the State forms.

Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 05:54:12 AM »
Not knowing what country you are in... but if you are in the USA...

(1)- Even with insurance and shipping from the UPS Store and paying their markup, it shouldn't cost that much to ship and insure, unless you are sending it express.

(2) In my experience, FedEx has been less money to ship and insure high value items compared to UPS. My experience is limited to a declared value of $7.5k USD.

(3) Unless you have a shipping account, you cannot declare high value items with the UPS website, forcing you to pay the 100% mark-up rates at the UPS Store. $5k was the online limit I encountered.

(4) UPS will not honor damage claims on their "insurance" unless they package the items or you explicitly follow their guidelines. Some homeowner insurance policies allow for shipping coverage.

(5) You should sign up for CPS Gold if you can before sending in that lens. Not only is there a discount on the repair, but the return shipping is covered.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 31