December 19, 2014, 07:58:48 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 72
106
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXO, Tony Northrup, and You
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:46:31 AM »
Choice quotes:

"37% is a whole lot more!  We'll get more into that later."

"It's maybe 1/3 of a stop better, which is maybe 26% better."

"We're going to get real nerdy here, so brace yourself geeks."

"Bigger buckets gather more rain."

"It's like saying you like Key Lime pie."

Arbitrarily changes sign conventions in comparisons.  Awesome.

- A



107
EOS Bodies / Canon 7D Mark II - DXO, Tony Northrup, and You
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:21:25 AM »
Our favorite long video gear talker  ::) has chimed in on the DXO ratings for the 7D II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw

Where's my popcorn, dammit...

- A

108
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:24:39 PM »
Ahhh "50 f 1.x"  I read right over the "x"  That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue.  But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L.  I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot

I was actually thinking more in terms of the 50/1.4 getting updated with true ring USM and IS. Compared to the current 50L, the 1.4 is ancient.

Respectfully, this is OT.  There are copious threads on the 50 f/1.4 replacement, included my 'can recite my personal rant verbatim' content here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406009#msg406009

But let's stay on target, good people.  This is a Unicorn thread.   :D

- A

109
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:55:01 PM »
For me when I'm "birding" it means I can get closer ... and for the smaller birds you can ... sometimes you may be there being still and they will fly right up close to you ... it happens a lot .. and with the old 400, a mfd of 3.5m well forget getting a shot, and forget getting those tiny birds or small reptiles etc any where near close enough to get the detail, and yes fill the frame ... so to me it's a game changer.
I think a bigger macro lens is just not really needed, so it's a design thing specifically for macro work ... you can put  extension tubes on a bigger lens, but will loose longer focus, but you won't need to get as close to the subject with a longer lens.

Sure, but it's technically possible, right?  My 100L Macro is also a great short tele prime with the flick of a focus range switch.  Why not try the same thing with a longer focal length?

- A

110
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:37:33 PM »
I'm over the moon on this lens. I have been waiting to hear something on a new 400 for over 6 months now, and the reason I started visiting this site almost daily and more recently numerous times a day.
This lens hits all the marks I have wanted in a 400 lens ... bar one, it's a zoom, slightly lower image quality than a prime and the extra weight of a zoom  ... but I'll concede that point if image quality is at least better than the 100-400 .. which I am sure it would be of course ... dare I say, it's canon glass ....
The impressive feature for me is the MFD .. 0.98 ! wow .. blows any prime 400 out of the water and any of the other "big whites" for that matter .. for small birds/animals ... even flora ..
The price is very reasonable for someone like me who may never be able to afford any of the "big whites"
So this lens is long awaited and will be part of my kit as soon as I see a few test reviews just to confirm it's good to go.
Unless of course they announce a 400F5.6LIIis with a mfd of around 1.4m

Just curious -- so many folks are ga-ga about the 0.31x, which I'm interpreting to mean that people want to fill the frame with their subjects and have to crop less.  How often are folks pushing their MFD with lenses this long?

Has any company ever tried something like a 1:1 macro in longer focal lengths?  Is that technically problematic for some reason?  It seems everyone's macro lenses are 50-60mm (for crop), 100mm or 180mm...  Why not longer?

- A

111
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:32:56 PM »
I'm also keen to hear whether the performance at 400mm will be as good as every other millimeter on the lens.

I often wonder if some people actually skip the 100-399mm focal lengths on the lens and just use the 100-400 as a collapsible 400 prime.   :P

(Thankfully, I am not afflicted with the reach addiction many CR forum dwellers have.  I have little desire to buy this thing, slap a 2x on it and then put it on a crop body.  But I do like Canon putting out better options for us.)

- A

112
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 04:33:17 PM »
So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?

1.4x = I would assume so, but it is not confirmed.

2.0x = I assume it will fit but your AF won't work.  MF only.  If I understand correctly, your effective max aperture with a 2x will be too narrow for the AF system, at least it will be until Canon offers an F/11 AF point on a body (someday).

- A

113
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 07, 2014, 08:35:06 PM »
Once these "alternative" brands get their own lenses for the real critical key ones, like your 70-200's, a few large fast primes (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4), and a few high quality wide, normal, and short tele primes (for which Sony already has a few good ones), I think the market will really open up, with better viable diversity.

I'm on the fence there, Jrista.  If the lenses come, you are dead on. 

Committing to (or at least prioritizing) one mount for 25+ years continues to pay dividends for Canon.  They have developed a lens portfolio that no one can comprehensively match up to.  I'm not saying all the lenses are modern or best in class -- they surely aren't -- but chance are, if you need a specific sort of lens, Canon has one. 

So for someone to try to match even 25% of what Canon offers would represent a staggering investment in present/future development dollars.  And *what* 25% needs to be made available is not a sure thing.  A company could go hog wild and offer a solid roster of 'staple pro wants' (in FF equiv)...

16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
35 f/1.4
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.4
100 macro
135 f/2.0
70-300 or 100-400 f/slow
300 f/2.8
400 f/2.8
600 f/4

...and folks would still find something to bemoan the lack of:  a tilt-shift, a lighter weight F/4 zoom, a fish, cheaper wildlife primes, etc.  As Canon people, we often can feel the sensor grass is greener elsewhere, but everyone pines for access to our glass (save perhaps the Leica crowd, who only need a few primes and a cocksure worldview  :P).

I want your competitive future as increased choice will only bode well for us as consumers.  But I'm not convinced every rival to the Canon/Nikon dominated SLR world is prepared to or is capable of delivering that lens portfolio.  Sony is certainly trying, but Samsung, Fuji and the m43 cabal seem worlds behind in the scale of their ambitions.  So I'll stick the mothership for the foreseeable future.

- A


114
Whoops. Didn't mean to wade into the middle of the crop vs FF debate. What was I thinking? Seems like folks already have their clearly staked out positions on this one. Think I'll stay out of it.

Anyway, just ran off a couple hundred frames and I am really beginning to love the handling of this camera. The in-viewfinder level is awesome. Wish my 5D's had that. Its so easy to lose track of the horizon when you are photographing wildlife and then have to do a major crop to square things up. Given that it's already a "crop" sensor you don't want to needlessly be throwing away any precious pixels for that. 10 FPS is waaaaaay faster than 6. Hard to just get one frame off in high speed mode. It really wants to run!

The 5D3 has an in-viewfinder level.  No one ever talks about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6bIbWPYJo4
(skip to 0:22 in the video for the simulation of the in-viewfinder level)

That said, it lacks fidelity (it's fairly discrete/clumsy) and it effectively takes over the VF when you'd like to be doing other things inside of it.  The 7D2 level seems much better located in the VF from what I've seen and read (though I have not tried it myself).

- A

115
Shooting out-of-camera JPGs for any sort of meaningful comparison (other than comparing JPG engines, for who-knows-what reason) would make for a pretty poor test, and that's now twice you've made that incorrect statement about TDP's testing.

The problem with having a beard is how the egg on my face gets stuck in there.   :-[  Again, I stand corrected.

Me and my speed reading.  I saw 'picture style' and thought he was referring to onboard camera JPG picture style, when he was in fact talking about picture style in DPP. 

The lesson here?  Never doubt Carnathan.

- A

116
EOS Bodies / Canon 7D Mark II AF tracking through the viewinder (VIDEO)
« on: November 07, 2014, 01:06:06 PM »
Worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYyVym6IwMk

Shot with the 18-135 IS STM lens.  Impressive, I'd say, but I don't shoot action like this often.  Others may be less impressed.

- A

117
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 12:50:21 PM »
I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.

I just today sold my 100-400, after having the Tamron 150-600 for several months and comparing the two.  I have no doubt that the new 100-400 will probably focus faster than the Tammy does, and it is likely to be sharper at pixel-peeping magnification.  I, for one, am willing to sacrifice a bit of AF speed and wide-open sharpness I can only see at 100% (when I can see it at all) for having 600mm native focal length, especially when the new 100-400 will certainly cost more than twice as much as I paid for the Tamron.  After having used the 100-400 for years, and the Tamron for months, I value the reach over the other considerations for what I do (many small subjects, far away).

I suspect that when the Sigma 150-600 Sport shows up, it could rival the new 100-400 in most, if not all, criteria.  The question will be whether the extra weight of that lens is compensated for by the additional length and cost savings. 

But, I am sure that the 100-400 II will indeed be a very good lens.  If it butters your bread, I am happy for you.

Agree on what you said.  I imagine that the preference of the 3rd party 150-600s vs. the 1st party 100-400 II will be similar to that of comparing the Canon 24-105 to the various Canon 24-70s:  some folks will prioritize sharpness and others will prioritize reach.  Get what makes you happy.

- A

118

Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...


He's largely JPG for his high ISO samples, so I presumed he did the same here.   I stand corrected. 

- A

119
Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 5D III still has a real edge, which is why the "extra reach" of the crop is not a factor of 1.6 because its image is more blurred.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=792&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Hate to say it, but your assessment here is a little flawed. The 5D III does have the edge, however that is because it is a comparison of identical framing. Whenever framing is identical, more sensor area with similar pixel counts is always going to win. These tests are NOT tests of reach.


The 7D II appears softer (at f/2) than the 5D III only because the 5D III chart images were not taken at the same distance. If you DID change the framing with the 5D III, such that the chart was at the same exact distance from the sensor as it is with the 7D II...then the "softness" of the crop would at least be on par with the 5D III.


Furthermore, the softness is due to optical aberrations. For an adequate comparison of resolving power, you need to be more diffraction limited. If both cameras were tested at say f/4 at the same distance (which means different framing in the 5D III), the reach advantage of the 7D II should become much clearer.

In addition, Bryan Carnathan is fond of JPG straight off the camera in these comparisons, thus rendering them a less-than-perfect comparison.  As we all know, JPG processing, picture styles, etc. vary from camera to camera.  So I generally don't use his site's great comparison tool to rate camera bodies -- I use it for lenses, particularly sharpness vs. aperture.

- A

120
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 10:55:22 AM »
A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!

Concur.  That's a nice upgrade (if true).  Most lenses in these FL run around 0.2x.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 72