July 29, 2014, 04:07:48 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 - dslrdummy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:10:30 PM »

As you point out, the only people who have to wait are brand loyalists.  Obviously some people have to be, but those who don't might as well do what some of us have done and supplement our Canon bodies with an A7r.  I love mine, both with its superb native primes and my Canon EF lenses (plus a few old manual focus lenses) - so much so that I'm not sure which is my second camera....

I'm not necessarily a brand loyalist but the economic reality is that I have invested in Canon and to change to a completely incompatible brand now isn't feasible for me. I have looked closely at the A7r for that reason but there seem to be three big question marks - light leak, AF performance and IQ when using an EF adaptor. You clearly love your A7r but what is your experience with these issues if you don't mind me asking?

I don't mind at all. 

1. It's not a "completely incompatible" system; they overlap.  Whether they overlap enough for your purposes I can't say, of course.  I would also say that for many people a complete switch to Sony wouldn't be sensible or desirable, and that I have no intention of doing so.  For me it's a marvelous adjunct which, in some situations, would be my go-to camera - at least until Canon comes up with a close substitute (high resolution, mirrorless, no loss of EF performance, etc. - preferably with IBIS...).   

2. The light leak applies under very limited circumstances, apparently (very long exposures in near-total darkness but with a bright light hitting part of the lens mount), and doesn't only apply to Sony cameras.  Check out Roger Cicala's blog post on the subject at lensrentals.  I never shoot in such conditions, so it's simply not an issue for me (or, I suspect, for 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time).  The shutter-shock problem is far more real (see below).

3.  AF performance with EF lenses is unquestionably inferior in terms of speed - it's not *that* slow, but if you're used to the near-instantaneous focusing you get with the best Canon lens/body combinations it will seem slow (rather comical too - it ambles towards the subject, pauses, goes a bit beyond and then comes back); and it's slow compared to native FE lenses, of course.  But it's probably not inferior in terms of accuracy; in some respects it's superior: one benefit of a mirrorless body is that with on-sensor focusing there's no need to worry about back/front focusing.  If you plan to use it to photograph things that don't move, it's not an issue.  But don't even consider it if you want to photograph sports, children running around, herons-catching-fish, etc. and rely on AF to do so.

4.  As for IQ, I've used these EF lenses: 24-105L, 28mm 2.8 IS, 40mm, 85mm 1.8, 100 L (no AF with this, but the other electronic connections work) and 70-200 f4 IS.  I haven't performed anything resembling a scientific comparison of these lenses on the A7R vs 5DIII or 6D, but I feel confident in saying that not only is the image quality not inferior on the Sony body it's probably superior (I was shocked by the superb image quality I was able to get from the 85mm 1.8 when I first attached it). 

At the time I decided to buy an A7R I had used one exclusively with Canon lenses - it was because the results were so good that I wanted one, and it was not until I had owned it for a while that I bought the two native FE primes; they're superb too, especially the remarkable 55mm 1.8. 

Having said all that, there may well be Canon lenses that don't work as well on the two Sony A7s - I have no first hand knowledge one way or another - but based on what I've read the main problems are with wide angle Leica lenses due to a design that simply doesn't apply to Canon lenses.  I would also add that if you want to use old Canon MF lenses, it's far easier to manually focus on a mirrorless camera (thanks to magnification and focus peaking) than it is on any dslr, especially if you use wide apertures; and Sony's focus peaking and magnification work at least as well as anyone else's.

5.  One flaw you didn't mention is the much-discussed shutter-shock.  This is real, and, in my experience, shows up if your shutter speed is 1/100-1/125, regardless of the lens (apparently it's worse if you use a tripod, but I don't and thus can't comment).  It doesn't seem to be a problem at other speeds, including slower speeds (though you may encounter the usual too-slow-shutter problems if you're not using a lens with IS; IS has no effect on shutter-shock, of course); I've taken plenty of sharp photos at 1/60 (a speed these cameras seem inordinately fond of if you let them decide the shutter speed).  If you avoid 1/100-1/125 you'll be fine.

I hope some of this helps.  Far more competent/savvy/knowledgeable people than I have written about all of this, though, so don't rely  too much on what I've written!
That's very helpful, many thanks for taking the time.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 07:35:34 PM »

[....]

A perfect second camera will be the A7r ...which means the waiting's theoretically over..once I have it, no matter how good the rumored megapixel offering will be, I wont buy another camera for at least three years. The best thing about mirror less is that we are not tied to one brand anymore. I can walk into a shop today and get a camera that will fit my TS24...36mp and that lens sounds very tempting to me!

Why are we waiting so long for Canons megapixel offering?


As you point out, the only people who have to wait are brand loyalists.  Obviously some people have to be, but those who don't might as well do what some of us have done and supplement our Canon bodies with an A7r.  I love mine, both with its superb native primes and my Canon EF lenses (plus a few old manual focus lenses) - so much so that I'm not sure which is my second camera....
I'm not necessarily a brand loyalist but the economic reality is that I have invested in Canon and to change to a completely incompatible brand now isn't feasible for me. I have looked closely at the A7r for that reason but there seem to be three big question marks - light leak, AF performance and IQ when using an EF adaptor. You clearly love your A7r but what is your experience with these issues if you don't mind me asking?

33
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 07, 2014, 12:37:20 AM »
$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!?  Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery.  I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


Hilarious! You do realize that this lens is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses right? That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

This isn't a lens isn't even remotely a question of value. You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for less the the price of the nearest competitors from any brand.

Not sure where you get this all from. About the only description of performance we have so far is from Sigma. No exactly an unbiased view. If it's very good I'll probably buy it, but proof's in the pudding.


Actually Sigma hasn't said too much about the performance of the lens directly, the reason we know this lens is so good is because Sigma provided MTF charts of the lens's performance, block diagrams of their optical formula, and sample copies of the lens at shows.

This lens is a winner at any price point that has been rumored.

Now all that Sigma needs to do is keep up the momentum.

I'll grant you the charts are a good indicator, but diagrams of optical formula and sample copies at shows? Think I'll wait and see if it is a winner at that price point as you say.

34
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 11:02:58 PM »
$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!?  Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery.  I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


Hilarious! You do realize that this lens is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses right? That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

This isn't a lens isn't even remotely a question of value. You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for less the the price of the nearest competitors from any brand.

Not sure where you get this all from. About the only description of performance we have so far is from Sigma. Not exactly an unbiased view. If it's very good I'll probably buy it, but proof of the pudding's in the eating.

35
Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: January 07, 2014, 06:53:20 PM »
For me it's all about wants not need. So doubtless it will continue. :-[

36
Australia / Re: Need some advice from Aussie CR Members
« on: January 07, 2014, 07:23:11 AM »
Back from an AWESOME vacation in Australia, what a beautiful country! ... got to see "heaps" of places  :) (I noticed that the Australians I interacted with, used the word "heaps" a lot).
"Wanker" is another word that seems to be quite popular in Australia :)
I'll be posting some photos and some memorable experiences shortly, meanwhile I wanted to share a little about my shopping experience in Melbourne.
I visited Digital Direct, Ted's & Michael's and bought:
GoPro Black 3+ and DJI Quad copter from Digital Direct (Elizabeth Street)
Two Extra Batteries for Quad Copter and BoPro Hero Black 3+ from Michael's (Elizabeth Street)
Sony BCQM1 Charger (for my Sony a7), LowePro Toploader Zoom 10 Rezo & GoPro Tripod Adaptor from Ted's (Chadstone)
What I learned shopping at these places was that EVERY SINGLE one of those stores tried to rip me off by charging anywhere between 20% to 100% more than the prices I eventually bought for. Michael's tried to charge me AU$ 1500 for GoPro Black 3+ & Quadcopter, Ted's tried to charge me AU$ 1589 ... so I took the Aussie CR member's advice and told the sales rep at Digital Direct that I was getting it for AU$1200 (DD's original quote was AU$1400) ... the sales rep consults with his manager and comes back willing to sell (DJI Quadcopter and Go Pro Black 3+) for AU$ 1200 and also throws in 2 additional (Watson) batteries for the GoPro 3+ and a Rode Smartlav Lapel Mic for free. Since I am a tourist, I also got the GST amount of AU$ 110 refunded from the Melbourne airport under TRS (Tourist Refund Scheme). So I got all of the above for AU$ 1090 (which I think is a very good deal) ... me VERY HAPPY 8)
But when I tried to buy 2 additional phantom flight batteries for the DJI Phantom Quadcopter, Digital Direct tried to charge me AU$ 50 for each of the batteries ... so I went to Michael's and got those 2 batteries for AU$25 each (half of what DD was trying to charge me).
A few days later I went to Ted's Camera Store at Chadstone Mall, as I couldn't find a battery charger for my Sony a7 anywhere else. Ted's quote was AU$100 ... so I went to Myer who gave me a quote of AU$80 ... so I go back to Ted's and told them about Myer's quote ... Ted's immediately drops their price to AU$ 70 ... so I bought the charger and a LowePro Top Loader Zoom 10 Rezo (which fits perfectly for Sonay a7 with 28-70 with room for 2 additional batteries in the front comportment) ... but when I asked for a GoPro vehicle mount suction cup, Ted's wanted to charge AU$80 ... so I went to Myer and got the same thing for AU$ 40

I could not believe the difference in prices from store to store ... it felt as if I was haggling at an Indian fish market. But thanks to the excellent tips and advice from the Aussie CR members here, I'm very happy to have got some good deals ... best of all I'm also getting the GST refunded.
From my limited experience I found Digital Direct to have the best customer service as they were very patient and friendly ... they allowed me to try over a dozen different lenses.
Sales reps at Michael's were very friendly but their prices were quite a bit higher than Digital Direct. Ted's was the least friendly, they did not seem to be interested in a customer (me) asking them questions about the gear ... I would have preferred not to buy from Ted's but they were the only ones who had the Sony charger and it was difficult to that charger anywhere else in Melbourne.
Great to hear you enjoyed the visit. Sorry about Melbourne's weather. Looking forward to seeing some of your pics. Cheers.

37
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 05, 2014, 12:56:53 AM »
While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned.  At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close.  Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.

Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II.  It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable.  I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender.  If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.
According to DXO Mark the 300/2.8 II is sharper by some margin @300 than the 200-400 @ the same focal length (22 vs 19) and of course a stop faster. I think if you're looking at spending the significant extra money on the versatility of the 200-400 a more useful comparison on sharpness would be the zoom at 400mm and the 300 with the 1.4X ext. Only those who have tried the two can usefully compare. DXO also rates the 500 II as sharp at 500mm as the 200-400 at 400 f/4. Presumably the 200-400 at 560 wouldn't be quite as sharp.

38
Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 12, 2013, 06:20:03 PM »
In my opinion, it is simply preposterous that Canon still makes a 400mm lens without IS. When I want a 400, I put the 1.4xTC on my 300mm f/2.8 II. It's expensive but not too heavy, and four stops of IS make all the difference in use. Or, I take the 100-400mm when weight and size are concerns or I need a zoom. What's the pint of carrying a lightweight lens if you have also to carry a tripod to get the best out of it?

I agree with all of this and find myself doing the exact same thing... I love my 300 II and my 100-400.  Never liked the 400 5.6 when compared to these other two lenses.
I find that I need a shutter speed of at least 1/1000, preferably higher, to get sharp images with the 400f/5.6 hand-held and it is not much better with a monopod.

39
Australia / Re: Need some advice from Aussie CR Members
« on: December 02, 2013, 05:48:44 PM »
One more question: 
I have the CamRanger which is capable of Intervelometer capability, but I want a cheap back-up timer remote, just in case the battery in CamRanger runs out of juice ... Does anyone know a good camera store in Melbourne where they sell cheap remote timers for 5D MK III?
There is a congregation of camera stores in Elizabeth Street in the Melbourne CBD, between Bourke and Lonsdale Streets. Compare prices and then make them do you a deal, they are reasonably competitive. Always helps if you are purchasing more than one item. Ted's is probably the cheapest overall. Enjoy your trip.

40
Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: November 26, 2013, 12:28:06 AM »
Thanks for the info.

41
Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: November 25, 2013, 09:59:00 PM »
Svalbard 2013

1Dx 200-400f/4
Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/250th ISO320

Shot from the Zodiac, we followed this Guy for miles, in & out of the water, amazing Energy levels these Animals have, they litterly swim hundreds of Kilometres. Longest recorded is over 400 Miles during a 9 Day swim, amazing stuff.

The possibility that in 50 years they will no longer be around in the Wild is just so Sad.
Beautiful shot and subject, as are all your shots. Amazing that you could get this shot from a zodiac at that focal length @ 1/250. It conveys the movement in his paw while otherwise maintaining sharpness. A tribute to your skills and to the quality of the lens. Out of interest, what IS setting do you most commonly use and how do you find the IS compared to your version II primes?
I would love this lens for its versatility but it is a reach too far at AUD$13,000. Am seriously looking at the 500ii at $10,500 on the basis that I can get 700mm with the 1.4x extender for wildlife and still use it @ 500mm for outdoor sports, light permitting.
Love looking at the pics and dreaming, please keep them coming.

42
Lenses / Re: Primes for wildlife ...
« on: November 10, 2013, 06:30:11 PM »
Agree with neuro that the 200-400 would be an excellent safari lense. I don't have it but having just come back from Zambia and Botswana, I can tell you that changing extenders on a game drive is not to be recommended from a dust point of view. I had a 70-200 and 400 f/5.6 and often didn't have the right focal length which meant going with what I had or risking swapping in the extender. The convenience of the built-in extender cannot be over stated in my view.

43
There are several reports, including from Neuro, that the 100-400 is at least on a par with the 70-200 + 2xTC, though he is reviewing that.

Actually, I'm confident that (for my copies, at least) the 100-400L @ 400mm is very slightly better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII in lab-type testing, and the two are not really distinguishable in real-world shots.
Interested to know if you have done the comparison with the 400 f/5.6 neuro. I recently took the 400 f/5.6 and 70-200 f/2.8 II on safari and the 400 was noticeably sharper than my copy of the 70-200 with 2xIII, unless I had the latter at f/8 or smaller. 

44
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: October 22, 2013, 08:09:38 AM »
Too close for comfort

45
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: October 22, 2013, 08:02:49 AM »
Evil eye

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8