March 02, 2015, 06:34:26 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 73
136
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

137

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

138
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

139
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

140
...

Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3.  The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features.    The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade.  The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.

- A

I either own, or in the case of the 5d2, have owned all 4 models you've listed.  I completely agree with your assessment.  Since I've limited experience with the 7d2, I'll wait to finalize my opinion, but so far the slight improvement to high ISO performance, and the very significant improvement to AF make the purchase worthwhile.

I don't shoot video, so my decision to buy a 5D3 over the 5D2 (this was before the 6D was announced) was largely based on the opportunity of using a 1DX-like AF system.  Many, many reviewers said that AF performance alone was worth the extra money, and after two blissfully happy years of use, I concur.

- A

141
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 11:40:19 PM »
Next picture ... extended:
http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18

Nice get!!!  Where did you find that?

(relinking your post here)

This completely backs up the Digicame shot.

So we're looking at a CR3 for the lens *existing* and the picture being generally accurate, now we just need a date and a price.

Also:  look at his left hand:  Any chance that the entire filter ring might turn if the hood is turned?  This would be possible if the hood was non-petal-shaped (and Canon designs a rotating ring).  What a killer feature that would be -- I always have to choose between the CPL or the hood on my 70-200 and I hate that decision.

- A

142
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 09:09:17 PM »
there have been some other "first image of lens" pictures that have been blurry like this one. is that some marketing thing from canon? seems to be a pattern. i am sure somebody already said " i hope the lens is sharper than the picture of it"

Digicame always gets these fuzzy leak pictures before an announcement.  I'm surprised CR hasn't flagged this with a proper CR2 rating already.  This, plus a spate of recent rumors, have many folks actually buying this rumor.

- A

143
that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.

no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.


only three example:

https://fstoppers.com/critiques/dxomark-results-show-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-test-similar-5-year-old-nikon-bodies-43470#comment-form

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/dxomark-disappointed-7d-mark-ii-sensor-lags-behind-mft-cameras-base-iso/

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a-mount-is-dead-sure-look-at-that/


you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.

if canon does not counter that, the reputation with forum-dwelling gear enthusiasts is gone. if it´s not already too late.

Note edit above. 

I don't disagree with your point, but people are flogging a component of the camera and not the pictures the entire camera can capture.  (Is anyone flogging Nikon for not having DPAF or a stellar AF system?  Or the shots they miss for their limited burst rate and buffer size in this price point?)

Very very very very very few photographers deeply care about sensor scores, so 'losing' in a sensor battle to Sony is of little consequence to them.  I have yet to see a single substantive piece of proof that shows that photographers are switching away from Canon in any numbers that matter. 

Yet I do see stories like these:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

http://kurtklimisch.blogspot.com/2014/01/examination-for-reuters-fullfocus-2013.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/70_of_imaging_professionals_use_canon_gear_at_2014_world_cup/

...that imply that imaging professionals are awfully fond of their Canon gear.  There's only one explanation for this:  no one told them about the dynamic range they were throwing away by not switching to Nikon immediately.   :P

- A

144
Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor.

+1 ... you might pixel-peep relative comparisons old 18mp vs 70d vs 7d2 all day long, but at 100% crop I don't see the basic premise changed: 800 is the max with good iq, 1600 is so-so, and ff retains a ~2 stop advantage. But that's of course to my eyes and just a quick impression.

However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?

Yeeeeah.....  No one ever does it the perfect way for us.

See his methods -- I believe he is taking all of these shots as JPGs off the camera with no noise reduction applied and a consistent picture style.*  In some instances (and it's flagged), he'll show shots with NR applied either onboard or with a RAW file run through DPP.  Again, read the page for particulars.

*That's where the softness is likely coming from.  Canon tunes up the picture styles from body to body.

Personally, I'd just like to see appropriately exposed RAW files compared with no NR, but wouldn't we all like it a different way?   :P

- A

145
Probably the one review I'm most looking forward to.

Strange how users of the 7Dii and now Brian, seem to get very different results than DxO does

Just on the high ISO / noise front, I've been keeping a rough tally:

DXO:                  7D2 is 1/3 stop better than the 7D (their words, obv. the range of ISO you are talking about  matters)

DPReview:          7D2 is about a full stop better than the 7D (to my eyes)

TDP/Carnathan:   7D2 is under a full stop better than the 7D, but I can't nail down how much (to my eyes)

Again, you aren't buying this camera for the sensor.  There's a ton of improved tech on-board that justifies its purchase, but the sensor isn't on that list. 

Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3.  The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features.    The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade.  The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.

- A

146
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:34:40 PM »
Back to the real world.  I trust the observations of a user over a tester.

Bryan Carnathan has the credibility of being an actual photographer, and his reviews are more focused on his user experience with the gear and less on MTF charts.  He's a bit pro-Canon and tends to see the best in their products (lots of enthusiasm for new offerings), but his insights from use and personal anecdotes of how his gear gets it done or lets him down is valuable.  He's also very good at sniffing out odd problems with gear (e.g. the Sigma 50 Art AF semi-inconsistency) and sharing his work behind those findings.  So I don't look to his site for hard data so much as a global user read on a product, and he's very good at it.

I'm a big fan of all the good stuff at his site, and he's very approachable to answering my questions. 

- A

147
EOS Bodies / Canon 7D Mark II Noise comparisons from TDP are now available
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:13:03 PM »
FYI, for those who prefer pictures to DXO scores.   ::)  I strongly prefer Mr. Carnathan's comparisons over the cryptic DXO methodology as it lets me opt in to the data on my own terms (using personal experience with a specific camera to compare it to).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx

Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor.  There's a ton of value elsewhere in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.

- A

148
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 01:12:11 PM »
Anyone find it odd that Canon chose the day of low ISO loving DXO releasing a (predictably) scathing review of the 7D2 sensor to leak the Unicorn to us?

I know these lenses take years to get ready for us, but from a PR perspective, Canon could not have picked a better day to throw us a bone.

#dayoftheunicorn

- A

149
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:38:28 AM »

Had to do it.  See attached.   Picture credits for the non-unicorns go to TDP:

Note that TDP's shots have a slightly isometric perspective to them that make an apples to apples comparison difficult.  Note that I scaled the lower-res Digicame shot of the Unicorn off of the lens cap, which is not terrible accurate at the resolution we're working with.

So if the shot is real and I didn't pooch the scaling too badly, this will clearly be a larger front element.  Veeeery crudely, the Unicorn looks to be about 15% bigger than the 70-200 F/4L IS, which puts that front element in the 78-80 neighborhood.  Obviously, minor differences in the thickness of the outer ring could mean that this is a 77 or an 82, so there's no way to nail that down at this point.

- A

150
Depends on what you shoot:

  • If you are shooting more quickly/with less setup time, need a more comprehensive AF system, shoot a fair amount of burst, etc., the 5D3 will have a much higher keeper rate than the 6D.  Choose the lesser lens and better body in that case.  I think this would clearly apply to folks who shoot events, reportage, children, street, (and if you'd shoot it with a 5D3) sports, etc.

  • If you largely shoot stills in a composed, deliberate context and have time to frame everything up, a comprehensive AF matters less and you'll get slightly better results with the better lens.  Choose the lesser body and better lens in that case.  I think this would apply to portraiture and landscape work in particular.  The only other thing that comes to mind would be concert photography, where the 6D's -3EV center point might be of use in pitch black concert halls.

Personally, I'd choose the 5D3 as it's the workhorse I know, and I'd give a hard look at that wonderful 24-70 F/4L IS lens, which I am a huge fan of. 

But it all depends on what you shoot, and what your personal sweet spot of price / IQ / functionality / weight is.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 73