July 22, 2014, 10:27:56 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 51
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 06:55:38 PM »
Yup.  I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty.  I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

HA!  I knew you people were out there.   :D


Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums.  It's just that the 5D is better.  I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality.  That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

But I think you realize the madness of Canon were they to offer it.  Even if they could pull off a 'crop 5D3' with the same IQ, to do so would damage their FF body sales and the sale of their superteles.  People could simply do more (on the long end) with less gear.  Canon probably does not want that.   :P

Further, I'm not sure a crop sensor can actually beat a relatively contemporary FF sensor like the 5D3 or 6D. 

So the question becomes, how close does the 7D2 IQ have to be to that of the 6D or 5D3 to have you opt for that instead of FF?

- A

47
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:14:03 PM »

I hate to do this, but I might start sounding like a microFourThirds fanboy at this point. The arguments for choosing crop over full frame are similar to those thrown by MFT to APS-C. For a given "reach", the crop sensor is just better optimised. On full frame you'd need silly big (and expensive) lenses. Even if people could afford them, they wouldn't want to carry it! Why not ever smaller? I have to say the Nikon 1 with native 70-300 lens sounds like an interesting reach combination, but I'm not sold on its overall performance.


Forget fanboyism -- this is a debate that has raged for ages.  How much do you want to spend / lug around versus how nice you want your shots to come out is an ancient debate in these forums.

And you're not alone in wanting to have a specific sweet spot of sensor size / gear size / cost to IQ.  Heck, APS-H guys are like the folks who used to sleep in bed with their Amiga computers after they were discontinued.  Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds. :D

I just think the argument has sublimed above basic forum back and forth and become one of those religiously held beliefs we won't ever sway on, like to use / not use UV filters, the value of IS on wide angle lenses, etc.

- A

48
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:06:55 PM »
Great thread, gang!  Thanks a lot.

If you haven't already seen Mackguyver's personal review with copious comparisons for download, please go here and read all about it.  It's a very nice piece of work on this part:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21691.0

- A

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:03:45 PM »
...the birding camera that lets you just bring the 400 prime instead of a 1Dx and a 600 prime, 10 FPS with 2 stops better low light performance, etc.

Sounds great for consumers. I'm not so sure it would sound great to the bean counters at Canon HQ.

2 stops better lowlight performance?  That loud buzzing sound you hear is your alarm clock, time for the dream to end….  ;)

Neuro, I'm not saying we're going to get all those nice things in the 7D2, but some combination of them might occur to keep the price up.

And I'm not ever saying a crop with lens X is going to deliver the same IQ as a contemporary FF sensor and a 1.6X lens attached.  But if it were close, I'd see people sizing up the 'half the total cost  / half the total weight' argument and possibly staying in the crop universe.

Again, I represent such a niche piece of Canon's business that I wonder why I even stick up for them -- heck, I'm not even one of them!  I'm not a wildlife / birder guy at all, but I have friends who shoot sports and wildlife who make camera acquisitions in much more modest chunks, like $1-3k additions at a time.  Climbing Mount Full-Frame / Supertele is a mountain they will never climb, so a 7D2 (or Pentax?) is their big opportunity to improve their world in a reasonably sized one-off spend.

I just think value propositions are more than just IQ and cost, and crop has an interesting duckbill platypus of a value proposition at the whacko long end of focal lengths.  Some folks live and die by it.

- A

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:57:37 PM »
I think if the new 7DII was anything like approaching the price of the 5DIII it would lose it's whole raison d'etre. When sitting in a range with FF cameras - especially fast ones like the 5DIII - crop has to be cheaper, otherwise it loses it's ace card. I suppose it could be marketed a little more expensive than the 6D without upsetting the range, as the two will be completely different cameras. Personally I still think it will (eventually) sit just under the 6D price.

I'm not saying that price will be there that long.  I could see (if loaded feature-wise) the 7D2 starting at $2299 for early adopters and then dropping sub-$2k quickly thereafter. 

Regarding the notion '6D will never cost less than a 7D2', consider:

  • Serious 7D shooters are not necessarily amateurs on tight budgets.  I still contend that serious crop-shooters (lovingly clinging to their original 7D bodies) have invested far far far far far more dollars in glass and other gear than 6D shooters, so outpricing the 6D (even considerably) is not unreasonable.
     
  • The 6D is a nice rig but it's an entry-level FF rig that lacks a lot of bells and whistles.  The 7D2 likely will not.  It's a pro crop body.  If that sentence seems a contradiction to some folks, they may not understand the notion that crop is a strength and not a weakness to some shooters.  These folks pay great money for reach.

  • The 6D continues to steadily drop in price.  It could be down around $1600-1700 by the time the 7D2 is announced.

I'm not throwing the gauntlet down and saying the 7D2 must cost a fortune, but if it's the camera some folks want -- the birding camera that lets you just bring the 400 prime instead of a 1Dx and a 600 prime, 10 FPS with 2 stops better low light performance, etc. -- you could imagine it commanding a high price.

But they may just offer a 7D2 that's an original 7D with better AF and one stop better in low light.  That camera will be cheaper than a 6D for sure.

- A

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:52:32 PM »
16 to 24 MP, but FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST (10 fps) and with 1 stop improvement in low light ability (I judge that the 6D has a 2 stop advantage over the 60D of the same sensor vintage). Small pro-grade weather-sealed body, under 900 grams. Giant buffer, 30 RAW at 10 fps. 1DX/5D3 focusing system, fewer points, perhaps, but similar algorithms. AF at f/8. Costs the same or less than the 6D.

I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.

As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind).  To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ.  To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further.  To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.

I don't want to be a pessimist, but I kind of want this thing to be so good it's worth over $2k.  I'll say it:  if it's a $1,599 camera, it probably won't be so compelling performance wise for me.

- A 

52
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:34:17 PM »
And Bryan Carnathan has obtained and tested a second 16-35 F/4L IS lens.  It's not super-obvious how to find this on his site, so I've made a link for comparing the two:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A

53
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS - Mackguyver's Review
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:30:17 PM »

Thanks for posting -- the hard work is appreciated!

- A

54
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:27:40 PM »

And we're finally getting some Flickr traffic in the group that was setup for this new lens:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2644636@N20/

Some folks are posting full-res shots for download, FYI.

- A

55
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:11:04 PM »
My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.
My copy is wonderful as well and I couldn't be happier with my new lens.

It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied.   It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.
Yes, it's not a massive improvement in numbers, but when shooting real subjects, the improved contrast, color, and absence of CA goes a long way to make better photos, even if the resolving power at f/11 and f/16 isn't significantly higher.

I rented the new 16-35 F/4L IS and was pleased with it.  I just didn't have the flight hours logged with the other two Canon UWA zooms to know if it was better / worth its money.  I know I don't need the F/2.8, so it's really just a question of the 16-35 F/4L IS or the 17-40 f/4L.  The clear read from everyone is that the new lens is certainly worth it.   

I hereby drop my resolution numbers question.   :D

I had also forgotten from my 28mm F/2.8 IS usage that nighttime/low-light handheld use -- even with IS -- rarely lets me stop down to F/8, F/11, etc. without hitting 5 digit ISO levels.  So the increased sharpness at F/4 - F/8 will absolutely get used in my hands.

Looks like it's time to move something from the B&H wishlist to the shopping cart...

- A

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:11:04 AM »
It would be very difficult to interest me.  Any new features or sensor technology will also appear in a FF body, and it will be much better IQ wise.
 
Maybe is it were priced under $1000?

I think the value proposition certainly changes for current FF users.

What would get me excited was if I could get the same IQ & noise performance as I do with my 5D3, only at the 1.6x length that crop brings.  But this entire forum would rise up and throttle me because (a) that's not going to happen for technical reasons and (b) if Canon somehow could do that, they never would as it would eat into FF and supertele sales.

So I'll say this, I'd like a second body, and it could be a crop body if it was 90% as good as my 5D3 for IQ & noise.  I would get excited about that.  I'd use my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II on it and net great shots at distance without the drawbacks of a T/C or having to buy bigger/heavier/pricier lenses.

- A

57
EOS Bodies / Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:50:24 AM »

I'd thought we'd start the week looking forward to something.  What features / performance levels would get you excited about the 7D2? 

I want a positive statement from you about what would legitimately fire you up to own a 7D2.   No snarky "APS-C is not for me so I'll say 'A 50 MP FF sensor', ha ha" stuff.  Seriously, what would get you excited when the 7D2 announcement comes?

- A

Disclaimer:  I'm not trying poke fun at Ivan's original thread so much as build some excitement around a release.  Mondays need positive thoughts because they are, in fact, Mondays.

58
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:11:05 AM »

So I'm not being critic.  I think I am going to buy this lens.  But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts?  Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A


Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L  is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

Thanks.

Yeah, I'm a jerk for asking that first question.   :D   It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied.   It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

But for the other reasons mentioned -- IS, good control of CA, 77mm filters, etc. -- I'm probably still going to buy it anyway.  My 2nd question is still a resounding 'Yes' to me right now.   ;D

- A

59
Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:56:36 AM »
I was torn between the 70-200/4L IS and slightly slower 70-300L. Renting first made my decision easy.

Try the 24-70/4L IS both with and without IS switched on. If the slower shutter speeds allowed by the IS for static shots in poor light give you a benefit, then the lighter cheaper lens is probably better for you. IS is a bigger benefit than one one stop of of speed if the subject isn't fast moving.

+1.  Renting and testing head to head is always a good idea if you are going to sink four figures into glass.

- A

60
Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:44:40 AM »
Don't be confused.  Just compare what you'll be getting -- top to bottom -- and make a decision based on your priorities:

24-70 F/2.8L II
  • It is believed to be the sharpest 24-70 out there by many reviewers.  That may or may not be so depending on the apertures you shoot.  I believe it to be the sharpest for general use, but if you are shooting landscapes at F/11, chances are you won't notice much of a difference between the F/2.8 and F/4 lenses.
  • This lens is weather sealed.
  • F/2.8 max aperture will give you faster shutters for sports, moving subjects, etc.
  • F/2.8 max aperture will give you the opportunity to shoot with smaller DOF, smoother background blur, etc. (if so inclined)
  • This lens takes 82mm filters, which you may not currently own.  Consider that when you add up the total cost.
  • This lens is much more expensive than the F/4 IS lens.
  • I am totally speculating here, but the F/2.8L II is probably a better bet for resale value over the F/4L IS as it is the 'pro' staple lens for standard focal lengths -- this will be a go to for many photogs, and as such, there will always be some demand for it.

24-70 F/4L IS

  • This lens is quite sharp but generally not regarded as sharp as the F/2.8L II; however, some reviewers disagree slightly:
  • This lens has Image Stabilization, it's #1 advantage over the F/2.8L II. If you shoot handheld stills in low light without a flash or if you shoot video, this will be a large upside for you.  If not, it may not be that valuable.
  • This lens is also weather sealed.
  • F/4 max aperture will force you to crank up the ISO to match the shutter speed of the F/2.8 lens for moving subjects, sports, etc.
  • F/4 max aperture can not deliver the same great subject isolation, bokeh, etc. as the F/2.8L II.
  • This lens takes 77mm filters. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume if you are dropping $3-4k on glass, you have the relatively standard 77mm filters in your possession already.
  • The F/4L IS lens is about 33% lighter than the F/2.8L II.  That matters if you carry all day, but I'm sure most pros would prefer the IQ and carry that weight.
  • This lens is considerably cheaper than the F/2.8L II.
  • The F/4L IS lens is about an 1" shorter if memory serves.  That's a really small advantage in comparison to the points made above, but that might matter to you.
  • It has the macro mode, which is fun to use but limited compared to proper 1:1 macro lenses with more useful working distances.  This particular feature is more for those who choose this lens as a walkaround lens on their FF rigs and do not want to carry a 100mm macro or extension tubes with them.  It's a nice feature but not a killer one.

So if IQ is everything to you / you need strong bokeh in a zoom / you shoot sports --> the F/2.8L II is the clear choice.  I think most everyone on this forum would say that if money were no object, that's the standard zoom you get.

If, however, you'd like 90-95% as good a lens and one of the green advantages above is a big deal to you, the F/4L IS may be the right choice for you.  Just spitballing here, the biggest reasons to choose the F/4L IS would be...
  • You shoot video as well as stills and want an all-in-one stills/video lens.  IS is great for video.
  • If you often shoot handheld + low light + no flash on non-moving subjects.  Street, vacation, walkabout shooters desperately need IS.  It's admittedly not a routine need, but in those circumstances, F/2.8L II shooters would need to crank their ISO 2-3 stops up to net the same shot as the F/4L IS.
  • Weight does matter for you.  If you hike, camp, etc. and have to lug everything around, less weight is beautiful.

- A

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 51