October 01, 2014, 12:15:04 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 95
211
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 11:39:03 AM »
These threads crack me up. I am sure Nikon will bring out something a lot of people will love. While it is true that the Df didn't become mainstream (and I personally dislike the look and the concept), many people bought and loved it.
It is good for both camps that the companies are competing. Why bash something that hasn't even come out yet? I do feel that the Nikon lineup has a gap where a versatile FF dSLR equivalent to the 5DIII can sit, the same way Canon users can use a high megapixel, high DR one.

212
The Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro has a great IPS screen (bright, glossy, outrageous resolution) and the new Surface Pro 3 is also spectacular IPS (also bright, glossy, high resolution).

Appreciate the suggestion but the yoga pro 2 has inaccurate yellow issues and the surface is great but I woukd struggle with LR on a 12" screen. I wanted a true 15" workstation class machine. Just curious if anyone has been down my road.

Have you considered the Wacom Cintiq Companion?

213
Jrista...thanks for taking the time to do this comparison, it's informative and helpful!

Could you post the two photos without upsampling the 5d3 image.  I'd like to see the 5d3 image cropped to match the 7d without the upsampling process.

Thanks again,
North

+1.
I would also like to see the original images compared, with the 5D image only cropped to the size of the 7D image, positioned appropriately.
Thanks.

214
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 09, 2014, 07:34:27 AM »
First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

First of all, read my post first - I did not say your opinion was from confirmation bias. My suggested theory is that you don't know how to size/compare properly. (And having three cameras in the mix would not preclude confirmation bias.)

Quote
Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Noise issues which don't show up in scientific tests? I guess Canon sent the special noise free 7D's to the reviewers.

Quote
Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

As a testing methodology yes, that is very low bar. Your software, scaling algorithm, monitor, monitor settings, all affect the final result. For example: at the right scaling in Apple Preview on a MacBook (non-Retina) you can make a FF 5D3 or D600 look noisy at base ISO because the scaling mechanism screws up.

Quote
Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them.

Pretty much every review on Earth noted that the 7D was cleaner then the 50D, and at 3200 the 5D has visibly more chroma noise (though I think it's visibly even and tests a bit better on luminance). Go review the Dave Box tests at Imaging Resource.




You mentioned that I shall attribute the noisier image to 7D. How does that relate to my inability to size images? Of course, it will be affected by my alleged inability to compare images, but then that is just your guess, isn't it? Do note that the 50D was mentioned anecdotally, I did say that I have NOT done ANY comparisons. So yes, there could be bias, and my statement implicitly expressed that possibility. Although it is cognitive bias, not confirmation bias.

A low bar for performance is not the same as low bar for technique.
I am not a professional pixel-peeper or someone with lots of free time in hand. I don't objectively test cameras or formats so all the parameters you mentioned are moot. My finding was, at the same monitor settings and when displayed full screen, the 7D images looked noisy. Yes, I know it isn't the same ratio of enlargement. Who cares? All that matters to me is whether or not an image looks good at the size I will use it. If the one from 5Dc looks better, I will keep that camera. And I did.

So what are you trying to prove through your offensive statements, unsupported information and uneducated "guesses"? If I read some 10 reviews saying 7D is supposed to be better, the images that looked noisy before will now appear clean?

Put less stock in theories and calculations, and rely on your eyes. If you feel 7D is better, good for you. Don't come trying to tell me what I should feel.


215
Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 09, 2014, 05:09:19 AM »
I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?

216
Images are more accurate on my calibrated Dell 24" Ultrasharp compared to both my glossy Macbook Pro non-retina or the Macbook Pro retina I have used. I am talking about fluorescent microscopy images as well as usual photos. They look better on the Macbooks, but are not necessarily accurate.
I'd use an external monitor that is designed for the task, not a laptop monitor.
BTW, I used to run Windows on my MBP for a while before switching to OS X. IMO, it is like trying to run with my hands tied behind my back using Windows on bootcamp; the computer runs hotter, works slower, doesn't switch between chip and card but always runs on the card. I wouldn't use a Mac to run windows except for rare occasions.

217
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 07:36:49 PM »
They say that if you want to make money from photography, you need to teach photography, not do photography.  Scott Kelby has done rather well with this model.

Yup.
Fact of the matter is someone can learn in minutes what took days with a film camera.
With the barrier to entry so low, "photographer" now describes a type of consumer more than it does a service provider.

I was a victim of this low barrier to entry when we hired a photographer for my wedding who basically took mediocre snapshots all night long.
We weren't trying to save any money (and the guy wasn't cheap either). He had shot a friend's wedding with a partner and had been recommended by the friend. We weren't aware that the partnership had dissolved and the other guy was really all the goods.
He took terrible images, missed half of our families (there isn't a picture of my parents with us), had to be threatened with legal action to recover the images, and never delivered the albums.
If he had needed to go through the effort of learning photography techniques like in the old days, he would have probably learned a bit about shooting weddings and about professionalism on the way.

Now it's up to the consumers to wise up and realize good things don't come cheap and anyone with a camera is not a photographer.


218
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 07:26:36 PM »
i both have the 85 1.8 and the 100L
and the 70-200 2.8 IS II

i gotta say, each lens is for a different purpose.

the 85 1.8 has very nice bokeh, but suffers from CA, the good news is that its cheap and lightweight
the bad news except the CA is the minimum distance.. you can't "crop" a face with it as you would with the 100L
many many times i find this issue irritating and thats my main difference with the 85 1.8 which is a great lens.

The 100L is made for macro, which means that you won't have that softness as you would with the 85 1.8
way too contrasted but excellent image quallity, and nice build. Plus the IS and of course you can shoot tight portraits with it without cropping in post afterwards.

The 70-200 2.8 does a bit of everything. The good news is that this lens is sharp and focuses blazing fast. It doesn't think. It acts.
The bad news except the cost is the weight.. not versatile. I use this one for weddings mostly where i need a tiny window to shoot through at 135-200mm @ 2.8 but not to take photos of children at home. hell no. It is scary and uncomfortable.

I'd probably use the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4 which i also have and love for that

Bottomline:
if i have space and time to play with i'd use the 85 1.8
if not, 70-200 2.8
I think i'm gonna sell the 100L, i'm too lazy to shoot macro anyway. Besides macro lenses are useless without proper lighting.

I think the OP is looking for some comparative images at the same subject distance, wide open to show background blur. Maybe without any post.
I am curious, too (for merely academic reasons). Can you share some images, if you have the time?
Thanks.

219
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:40:32 PM »
No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L.

Seeing that you had a very specific request in the OP, and didn't receive a response (i.e., comparative images of the 100L and the 85/1.8 ), I'd say why not try the 85/1.8 anyway? The FL will definitely make a difference, and you can certainly use it wide open, as many posters have said. So I am sure it will be worth the investment. And it's cheap enough to not lose money over a resale.
I'd say go for it, and share the comparative images afterwards :)

220
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:40:05 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

You're absolutely right, so just saying "cost vs benefit for you doesn't favor the 85/1.2" should be enough. You brought it some highly dubious comparisons as 'unanimous reviews'.
In fact, if you're spending that kind of money a 70-200L will serve you far better, and in a studio environment, the non-IS f/2.8 might give you the versatility and wider FoV you are looking for, at a much lower price. Have you considered that?

221
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:13:13 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

222
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:42:35 PM »
The fact is rising tide lifts all boats.
I am not concerned one bit about videography for myself, yet the fact that Canon seems to fall behind in prosumer or low end pro videography behind Panasonic and Sony is unfortunately going to affect revenues. If Canon decides not to bring what is now standard or expected to sub-10K cameras it will definitely affect their bottom line. 5DII used to be the definitive line in HDSLR filming, now GH4 and A7s are much better it seems. Even Black Magic was said to be better than the 5DIII.
Similarly, Nikon has brought lots of great new features in the D810. I am not concerned that my 5DIII doesn't have it, but I would like Canon to bring out a camera that does have all those features so they don't lose customers. A high-res high-DR sensor would certainly help.
I would like Canon to flourish because it will affect me indirectly and allow me to use the great equipment they bring out. I am concerned that Canon's business strategy (which often overrides market surveys for big companies) might be too conservative.

223
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:25:32 PM »
I feel Nikon has positioned D800/E/10 and the D4/s in two distinct categories, with both sharing many of the great pro features and also having distinct areas of strength. On the other hand, 5DIII shared only a few of the 1D X's pro features, and apart from the higher megapixel count there isn't much that's essentially better in a 5DIII.
Is that an unfair assessment?

224
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D+7Dii Vs 5D mkiii
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:32:45 PM »
My 5yrs old does indoor swimming. My shutter speed is usually around 1/800 to 1000. I just don't see how 70d or 7D II can handle that, even 5D III. Next best thing is 1dx shooting at f2.8.

Photo below was taken with 1dx @ at 1/2000 f5.6, ISO25000. Right before the sun goes down.

I am curious:
1. Why can't the 5DIII take pictures of an indoor swimmer?
2. Is there any reason you're shooting at 1/800? I have seen images of professional swimmers at 1/250 with good freezing of motion and slight motion of limbs. I suppose even slower speeds can be used for kids.
2. Could you have taken the egret image at f/2.8, giving you two stops more light? At this distance, the DoF with a 400/2.8 would have been sufficient. Or were you limited by maximum aperture (using 2x TC, perhaps)?
Thanks!

225
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:56:09 PM »
Based on the photographer's story, it does seem that he had a big role in creation of the image. He set it up with the relevant settings and the whole thing happened completely under his 'direction'. If you set up a camera so that it is likely to be tripped by curious macaques, isn't it similar to setting up a camera to be tripped by motion, or by automation (timers, etc.). It is pretty silly to say you have to have your finger on the shutter to own the image.

On the other hand, considering the downsides to being sued and losing, I doubt if Wikipedia would have done this unless they were absolutely sure they can't be touched. I will call them jerks, because here is a photographer who has contributed to these images being captured (and I believe him, what are the chances that a macaque comes upon a camera with wide angle and predictive AF set up just accidentally?), and shared his images for everyone to see- why would you want to yank him around? Why would you deprive him of revenue?

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 95