October 01, 2014, 06:45:14 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 - Edwin Herdman

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 37
46
Lenses / Re: Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:54:57 AM »
Also, birds generally aren't low-light situations, so f/5.6 at that range would seem to me not to pose any problems.
That's not what I see when I shoot birds.  Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches.  Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset.  Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.

To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS.  I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better.  It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.

47
If I didn't feel I needed the higher resolution (and "lens reach" through the crop factor) of a 7D I would be very pleased with this.  As it is, it doesn't seem like a good solution for a cheap bird photographer.  If I had 800mm and 200mm f/2 lenses, I would consider it, though, because what it will do for wide angle and standard shots is not inconsiderable.  I'd expect the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and a 5D III to be a better (though not lighter) combination overall than my 7D and 135mm f/2L, for example, at the 200mm end.  But the cost is high enough that I'd rather just stick with the 7D format for now.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Introducing the Canon 5D Mark III: jpeg samples
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:37:49 AM »
I'm not sure what's up with those aurora shots.  Both just look wrong to me for some reason, even the ISO800 one, I can't explain it.
In the ISO 800 shot, I see the stars are leaving a very slight trail, so that they appear a bit teardrop-shaped (motion diagonally, between a 10-11 o'clock position to a 4-5 o'clock one, roughly).  This is likely due to some camera movement (at a wide lens setting, and only 8 seconds, there is not enough time for the rotation of the earth to become visible, I would think...maybe I could play with the Stellarium planetarium software a bit to figure out for sure).

There also appears to be some "chunkiness" or blurring in some subjects, and the blue sky near the waterline appears to have chroma noise blotches.

The tiger picture surprises me a bit for two reasons - one, it doesn't seem as "sharp" as I would have expected from that lens.  The shadow areas (the dark greens, at least) appear very good though, much better than I would expect to get at 3200 from my 7D for sure.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III vs Nikon D800!!!
« on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:16 PM »
The 5D Mark III's burst rate is 150% that of the D800 (6 fps vs. 4).

Have to see high ISO performance first.  I'm hopeful that for lens "reach" Canon will look to the 7D replacement.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Full Spec List?
« on: March 01, 2012, 12:18:56 PM »
Only 150K shutter activations on this model?

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 Canon 5D MkII comparison
« on: February 18, 2012, 10:36:27 PM »
The author has an interesting conspiracy theory, stating that Sony and Nikon have cooperated on both the XQD format (ugh, let's pick the three hardest letters to type at the same time) and on digital sensors.

52
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm f2 mk2?
« on: February 18, 2012, 10:31:27 PM »
Great composition!

I keep saying that I got mine for $850, and it was a fairly new (2006 or 2008) copy; complete and in great shape.  No regrets whatsoever.

If Canon were to release a new model, I'd probably not bother picking it up unless it was demonstrated to have some useful improvement, like an even shorter minimum focus distance, markedly better microcontrast at f/2 (as noted, this is already one of the best lenses, so that would be really something) and IS.  As it stands, you get a lot of value from the lens, and it is about as wide aperture as a lens can be while still being useful for low-light applications on the current crop of DSLRs.

Out of Canon's entire lineup of older designs, this is one that stands out as being worthy of a purchase without any thought to possible future improvements.

53
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:48:59 AM »

Again, no. the whole idea of the EF-S lens is that the rear element is *really really* close to the sensor. Just how you intend to tweak a mirror so that it becomes smaller but still covers the same area is beyond me.

EXACTLY like Nikon have done.....

You do realise Nikon's DX doesn't work the same way as Canon's EF-S?

:) i meant in technology point of view....

...and is not very hard ( in terms of technology) to adapt the APS-H mirror to be compatible with EF-s lenses.
You aren't guaranteed the EF-S lenses will cover a full image circle.  That pretty much kills the discussion, I think.

Personally, 1.3X might not be a totally terrible compromise, though it would alter the field of view I get out of my lenses.  So long as any change meets the criteria I laid out above I'm down with it...but only if it meets ALL of them.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:47:22 AM »
No 7D?  I have to say - to hell with this rumor.  Leave the crop sensor users something capable (and affordable).  I'm definitely not going to be cheerleading for any 5D / 7D line compression, unless they manage to keep pixel density the same (i.e. the same "reach" for my lenses) in distance limited applications like birding, while keeping or even boosting per-pixel ISO performance, and also keeping the price reasonable and keeping the other pro-like features of the 7D.  Tall order, really.  I suppose all it would take is a bigger sensor, but I wonder if they really could slap in the pentaprism and AF sensor for the 1D or 5D X units.  Doubt it, and I don't want to get something worse in that respect than the 7D has.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:38:54 AM »
Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach.  - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.
Canon (at least their workshop guys) HAVE argued this, but as Birdfollower says, it doesn't make sense.  Luckily the latest rumors seem to indicate Canon is having a hard rethink about this one.
All the same specs are coming in. 22mp, 61pt af, 6.9fps. It could definitely take the spot of the 7D, if the previous rumor is true.
For some users, but you know the price will be higher and so there is really no correspondence here.  The 7D still has a place.  I just hope (looking at an earlier rumor) that Canon understands the need for a professional crop body.  I feel vaguely betrayed that CR Guy isn't on board with this one, pushing for things that crop sensor users would like at a reasonable price.  A full frame camera won't do it, on price concerns alone.
God help Canon if they announce a crop 7D MkII in Feb. No amount of focus points or FPS will save them from the wrath of the 5Dx hordes... (myself included) :)
What do you care about our crop bodies?  And what if Canon releases a 5D X camera at the same time?  That shouldn't mean anything to you, if you're set on a full frame body.


With the release of the D800, Nikon still haven't produced anything to match the 5D2.

Huh?  :o
Strictly speaking, isn't this true?  If the D800 launches at a medium to high four figures, the 5D II still is fine in its segment.

Also, somebody earlier said that the "initial reports" said the D800's detail was stunning.  I'm seeing it varying from picture to picture - maybe the guy who did the French library interiors for Nikon was having trouble, though; the other samples look great.

56
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L vs. 135 L in terms of focal length
« on: February 10, 2012, 04:52:58 AM »
a friend of mine has the 135 i have been planning to see if i can borrow it to do a comparison vs the sigma 85mm f1.4 as the sigma 85 at f2 is exceptionally sharp
I'd be interested to see this, thanks!

My money's on the Canon winning the usefulness side of things, even ignoring image quality.  The TC is not the same as having a zoom lens; it's "two focal lengths in one" but still clunky here.

57
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D on it's way out?
« on: February 10, 2012, 04:50:26 AM »
The usual argument against 7D going away from APS-C is that it immediately cuts existing users off from their EF-S lenses (APS-H isn't a compromise here) and it generally mucks with their selected range of focal length lenses.

I suppose a cheaper full frame camera might be great for many people - but don't see any evidence that Canon is seriously looking at that right now.

I think it remains very important for Canon to have an APS-C series with a good, quick body with weathersealing.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 10, 2012, 04:48:12 AM »
Suffice to say, the only IQ "problem" the 7D has is that careless sharpening can cause problems: keep away from capture sharpening, and apply such sharpening as you need selectively, and the 7D's IQ is as clean as a whistle at the image level (this last being the final piece of the puzzle - I can pretty much guarantee that people who complain about 7D noise are looking at the files at 100%).
Don't forget using a slight (2/3 stop) overexposure to get as much data into the highlight headroom as possible.  Of course, that's not a 7D-specific problem, but the 7D's files being clean in other channels cause it to be more noticeable than might be the case on some other cameras.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: February 10, 2012, 04:43:20 AM »
What I don't get is, with the 1D X brand being marketed as "highest quality ISO, fast shooting speeds, lower pixel count, best video" the split mentioned here (of course it's a CR1) has the 1D X like camera getting a 5D III moniker, while the slower-shooting, high MP camera gets the X name...it seems inconsistent to me.

Something tells me this might just be an attempt to put names to two prototypes out there in the field, and nothing to do with the names we'll end up seeing in shipping units.

60
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma SD1 relaunching at $2299 (DP Review)
« on: February 08, 2012, 07:03:05 PM »
It seemed like just yesterday that the Sigma DP1, the "45MP camera" (15M photosites * 3) without a Bayer pattern or an AA filter, was released at somewhere around $7000.  Now Sigma has relaunched it at a much more competitive price, according to DP Review.  Are you interested now?

In other news, that new f/0.95 Cosina mount lens for Micro 4/3 looks pretty tempting, and Olympus has released their OM reboot, but with an EVF.  Exciting times all around.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 37