August 22, 2014, 02:23:21 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 56
61
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:18:57 PM »
if I'm honest with myself I'd be hard pressed to think of an image that I've shot with my 5DIII that I couldn't have shot a year ago with the 7D.
I have issues with your comparison.7D iso over 6400 anyone? I don't get that noise until I hit 25k on the 5D3. to each their own but my 5D3 and 7D images are night and day.

I think that's unfocused's point -- the 5D3 may be better, but maybe not for what he shoots or how he shoots it.  What if he doesn't need ISO 6400, for instance? 

Arias' only argument in that video that I'll back him up on: the limiting factor is usually our ability, camera know-how, composition skills, etc. and not our hardware. 

That said, I do need ISO 6400 and I love my 5D3 for it.   ;)

- A

62
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 02:33:24 PM »
That's the reason why I like the 40mm STM. It's just f2.8 which is sad for separating objects, but those f2.8 are just awesome and useable. A good lense is a lense you're willing to carry with you.

Agree in principle, but the 40mm pancake's much-slower-than-USM focusing speed is a dealbreaker for me.  That lens sits in the cabinet while I shoot with the venerable Canon 50 f/1.4.  Even with the 50 F/1.4's occasionally hunting AF, I miss fewer shots with that one than I do with the pancake.

Now, for a walkaround lens shooting non-moving subjects, the 40mm pancake is a peach of a lens.  Sharp right out of the gate at max aperture, and you can't beat the size and weight.

- A

63
Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for camping
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:55:20 PM »
TDP's Bryan Carnathan just weighed in on his large hiking pack choice:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MindShift-Gear-Rotation-180-Professional.aspx

- A

64
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:33:00 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

65
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:28:21 PM »
I'm hoping the 50 IS will be a small compact f/1.4 gaussian design that slots between the existing f/1.4 and Sigma's 50A, and I'm hoping that the 50L II will be a retrofocus design that competes against the 50A and the Otus. 

+1

Agree on both fronts.  Save the 'standard zoom sized' primes for the pros shooting portraiture and weddings and such -- I want that non-L 50 IS to stay small like the Canon 50 F/1.4, even if that means it will be a step behind w.r.t. resolution. 

And we know Canon can do it!  The non-L 35mm F/2 IS is 66% of the length and 50% of the weight of the Sigma 35 Art, yet it is nearly as sharp.  Sure, you lose a stop of max aperture, but for 3 stops of IS, I'll take it. 

That same value proposition in a 50 IS:  IS + shorter + lighter + nearly as fast + nearly as sharp would be gold for me.

- A

66
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:19:48 PM »
I see the 24 70 4 IS and the 16 35 4 IS as better options for the 24 105 & 17 40 users without killing 2 wildly popular high selling basic L lenses in the 24 105 & 17 40.

They have not had opportunity to tackle faster 2.8 & wider lenses without jamming the market with all of them at once.

Makes sense for them to wait until Sigma is done with their releases. Canon with the 35 & 50 mark II has a real opportunity to totally deflate Sigmas recent ascention which is based partly on nothing else new out there (OTIS is a higher realm of quality)

Let me clarify; Sigmas lenses are great, but real world comparisons don't show them to be cadillacs to kias that a few loud and wildly optimistic individuals are claiming

There is much more to Sigma's recent success in the quality of their products than in their go-to-market timing.  Sigma is doing well because it is putting out some fine lenses for terrific prices.  And on the data side of things, specifically in resolution, Sigma is handily beating Canon, not just keeping up.  The 35 and 50 Art are the sharpest AF lenses in their respective focal lengths, and by a comfortable margin.

I haven't shot either of the Sigma Art primes, but many trusted reviewers hold both of those lenses in very high regard.  But a lens is more than how sharp it is.  So I could see 'real world' reviews possibly not seeing as large a gap between Canon and Sigma in these focal lengths.

Canon must be working on some next generation L-series standard primes (24/35/50/85) that are intended for very large MP sensors.  I think we are all waiting for those.

- A


67
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:50:25 AM »
85 wont come until after Sigma's offering....

I expect the 35 II & the 50 II to wipe Sigmas eye on their comparable offerings. If it doesn't, will be very dissapointed.

It depends on what you want.  I'm not convinced Canon can just burp out a 35L II or new 50L that handily beats Sigma on the resolution side of things -- Sigma has been formidable on that front. 

But on draw, weather sealing, color, etc. Canon historically does well here.  We'll see.  Competition in the lens world is always a good thing.

- A


68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:47:58 AM »
Great review, thanks for posting.

Unfortunately, I see this as a stellar lens I'll never use.  Large aperture glass simply has to have AF in my hands or the value of that huge opening is lost on anything I shoot that is moving (even slowly).  I'd end up stopping it down just to avoid missing with manual focusing. 

As such, I'd only opt for an MF lens if it were on a tripod for landscape work.  And as much as 135mm certainly has a place in landscape work, it's not a focal length I reach for enough to justify $2k out of pocket.

So I flag stellar lenses like these in the 'win the lottery / when-I-retire bucket': magical, but not a priority for what I shoot.  Keep in mind that I am an enthusiast who has only grown up on having AF on everything I've shot -- pros or folks with significant rangefinder / MF lens experience may be able to net a high percentage of keepers with it.

- A

69
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:29:43 AM »

Neg-li-gi-ble.

70
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:38:03 PM »
All I wish lenswise is that Canon would produce a 14-24mm (or better, a 12-24mm or, even better a 10-24mm) and announce if they will (or will not) produce a new 100-400mm.

I think that Canon´s new 50mm could be a behemoth 50mm f/1.4L just to compete with Zeiss or Sigma, but I would like to see a new 50mm f/1.2L or 50mm f/1.0L just for bragging rights.

[]´s
Leandro

I ran (what I thought to be) an interesting poll on the nature of the 14-24 interest in this forum.   I asked if people had a choice of the sharpness of Nikon's 14-24 or the focal length of Nikon's 14-24 -- and you could only have one -- what would you choose? 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20915.15;viewresults
(See the question for how I phrased it, the specifics do matter.)

75% of respondents said they just wanted a sharper ultrawide than their current 16-35/17-40 options.

25% stuck to their guns that they'd accept the current (lack of) sharpness from their 16-35 lenses applied to the wider 14mm FL.

Keep in mind this was run before the very nice 16-35 F/4L IS was released.  But I find it fascinating that (with this limited sample size), the majority of people clamoring for a 14-24 just want a sharper ultrawide.  But, based on your comments, I have to assume you'd want the focal length over the sharpness (if you had to choose).

- A

71
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:29:06 PM »

Another APS-C vs. FF rant, this time by Zack Arias:

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/28/crop-or-crap-zack-arias-takes-a-real-world-look-at-the-crop-vs-full-frame-debate/

I'm not remotely foolish enough to stir a debate so much as pass on something that will give the pre-digital-era photographers a smile.

- A


72
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:09:23 PM »
Why not produce a 50L which is the 50 many photographers wanted as a robust, high quality L lens which is a razor sharp f1.4, and keep the current 50L as a specialist 'art' or portrait lens.

It's annoying that those of us who like the 'standard' 50/1.4 have to put up with such a flimsy, cheap plastic lens, with appalling manual focus, no full USM, WS etc.

Where would this leave the rumoured 50/2 or 50/1.8 IS ? Well maybe that lens is going to replace the current 50/1.8 as the cheapest prime that is very popular as a first lens to compliment the kit zoom.

The topic of whether the new non-L 50 IS will be the base-level or the mid-level has been heavily speculated already in these forums. 

Personally, I think it will be mid-grade and replace the 50 F/1.4 (old-)USM.  I just can't see the nifty fifty being retired -- it holds a unique price point and serves a common need as a photographer's first prime.

But there are those that would correctly argue that all of the non-L IS USM refreshes to date (24/28/35) have replaced the cheapest non-USM lenses so far.

Whatever line it replaces, that new lens will sell like hotcakes.  It will be sharper than the 50L (heck the 20 year old 50 F/1.4 is already sharper today at some apertures), lighter, have IS, have true internal focusing (without the front element sliding inside the housing), and have proper modern USM.  The only thing it won't have is weather-sealing and the widest possible aperture.  But even at F/2, I'm probably buying that lens.

- A   


73
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:46:27 PM »
Every time a CR1, CR2, etc. drops regarding new lenses, I want to make a rival to CR's webpage that is The Onion-flavored. 

Stories would include:

Canon, a business that profits from releasing new products, is reportedly working on more new products [CR1]

35L II is a certainty:  Canon uses the terms '35', 'L', and 'II' in the same interview [CR2]

Mysterious 14-24L informant turns out to be a sadistic Nikon employee with no credible Canon intel whatsoever [CR3]

Sigma writes a love letter to photographers, asking, 'When will you love us back to the point where we can overcharge you as much as Canon does?' [CR0]

B+W admits UV Filters were invented solely because that dipsh#& Klaus forgot to polarize a batch of CPLs in 1949 [CR1]

Citing years of neglect, EOS-M formally sues Canon for parental negligence:  "All we wanted were a few lenses, but they just gave us this s@#$ty EF adapter..." [CR2]

Exclusive Scoop:  5D Mark IV to cost more than 5D Mark III [CR9]

- A

74
This will happen more often, similar to the 5D2 at time of the 5D3 launch.  The 7D is going to be obsoleted, and we all know it, so it's just a question of how low everyone needs to go with all these specials before realities (like grips, batteries, etc.) are trumped by emotions ("but it was soooo cheap!").

Also:  EOS-M.  It's the same price-drops-and-drops-and-drops-until-you-bite scenario, albeit for very different reasons than the 7D and 5D2.  I've recently seen EOS-M kits with the EF-M 18-55 for something comical, like $249.  They are, in effect, giving those away.

- A

75
Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:10:14 PM »
Not to go OT too much, but I'm curious to hear the ratio of lenses to bags owned by this forum.  Photogs tend to be mighty picky about camera bags.

Not including the nice pouches/cases that come with L lenses, I have 7 camera bags and 7 lenses.  In fairness, only three of the bags are purpose-built for cameras and the others are generic-use satchels and bag that I have foamed-up with inserts.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 56