December 19, 2014, 12:50:33 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 88
151
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Need a bit of advice on flash triggers
« on: August 11, 2014, 03:14:51 AM »
If you can't afford the ST-E3 right now then go for the YN-622. Having a trigger is better than none, right? If it works - great, if not - refund.

I have almost all Yongnuo flash and triggers. No issues so far. I had pixel kings but there were a few misfires. Even then I'd say more than acceptable. Unless you're career depends on getting the shot a few failures aren't a big deal. The key is to have a back up plan. For me that back up is optical slave mode on the YN-560iii.

152
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:54:46 AM »
Hi Mackguyver.
First since when has a Porsche been nothing fancy?   :o
Second don't buy a jeep, rentals go anywhere!

Cheers Graham.

The worst so far was when I brought home my current car which was a somewhat extravagant purchase.  I ended up saying it was her birthday present knowing full well that she'd never drive it.  She was all excited but as I thought - a few days of dealing with two seats, limited trunk space, and really harsh suspension took care of her desire to drive the car.  It's been my 'daily driver' ever since ;D

Don't keep us in suspense ... what did you buy?
A Porsche, but nothing fancy compared to other members of this forum.  I told my wife I was going to buy something sensible this time around like a Honda Accord or something...but I love cars 8)

I'd have to put my gut in the passenger seat effectively making the car a 1 seater..
LOL and not the most suitable car for outdoor photography with it's 4 inch ground clearance :o.  I keep saying I'm going to buy an old beat up Jeep or something as a third car so I can get to the places I'd really like to shoot that don't have paved roads.
Graham, there's nothing humble about a Porsche of course, but my model is not in the same league as some our other members who own Ferraris and 911 Turbos

Ya'll can't compare with my one seater mama chari bicycle now. Comes complete with a broken basket, squeaky brakes that barely work and a removable seat (read; broken seat). With a range of 5 km (or as long as my arse can handle) puts your Porsche to shame.

Disclaimer - perhaps some beers were consumed before writing this post!

153
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:38:33 AM »

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

Well, I have both (Canon 5DIII, 6D & SL1, and Sony a7r & a6000) and can certainly see differences between FF and APSC (and between the 5DIII and 6D, for that matter), both within and between camps.  I've not done anything resembling scientific testing, but I get the impression that the differences are similar (though at least for low ISO noise the Sony camp wins because their APS-C and FF sensors both have less noise at low ISOs and better DR). 

I've never used a 7D, though that doesn't really affect the point I was trying to make with my comment above, which is merely that whether something is noticeable, whether a difference is negligible, depends on who's looking, how and why, so that some of this evident disagreement may be in some sense spurious.  You could sit two people, A and B, side-by-side in front of the same photograph and A could say to B "they look the same to me", B could respond "but what about (say) this patch of noise here?" and A could in turn respond "Oh, OK, I see that now that you point it out, but it's not the sort of thing I notice because for me it's an unimportant element in how a photo looks".  (I've actually done something like this myself.)  But if A were instead to respond to B "no, I don't see it at all," that could mean that A or B needs new glasses....

Yes OK that makes sense. I see what you're getting at. Two people can see the same thing differently.

154
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 07, 2014, 11:05:13 AM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned.

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.

Yup, sounds about right.

155
Canon General / Re: Which Lens to Take
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:46:27 AM »
Don't know what you shoot. Landscapes? Panos? Do you prefer wider focal lengths or longer?

If you want a one lens solution the 24-105 is a great choice. You can do pretty much most general stuff with that lens. I'd leave the nifty at home. What will you be shooting that needs a shallow dof in the Himalayas? Again, I don't know what you take pics of so I could be wrong there but I think the 24-105 covers most of it.

I'd say a small tripod and a set of filters would be of more use than a 2nd lens. You might want to try some star trails or long exposures or something. I know I would.

Rusty made some good points btw, he knows what he's talkin about. Weight is going to be an issue. If I was hiking or trekking I'd opt for my EOS M and be done with it. Light, capable and unobtrusive plus if it breaks or gets lost it's only a few hundred vs over three grand for the 5D3 plus L lenses.

156
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:57:58 AM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.


Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

 

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)?  dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

157
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud 2014 - Jumped yet?
« on: August 05, 2014, 11:29:24 PM »
No but have been thinking about it. Currently getting by quite nicely on Lr 4 & CS5 but if upgrade my body in future I'll prob go onto the 9.99 p/m package for the latest camera profiles etc. already having issues with the EOS M but I have a workaround. Would be nice to have the latest software though and I spend a heck of a lot more than $10 a month on various crap that I don't need so could easily afford it. But then again, do I need to??

158
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:51:42 PM »
You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.


Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

 

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time. 

159
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:32:35 AM »
Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.
What about the ones that connect your camera to your TV?  I don't think I've every unwrapped those...

This!! By far the most useless thing is the AV cable. I got curious once and tried it as a means to get a bigger preview. First of all I discovered the cable that comes with the 7D doesn't fit the 5D2, so I dug out that old relic and hooked it up to my LCD TV and what a major disappointment it was. It's not full screen and the image looked crappy with huge borders and the image file no overlay (that doesn't go away). Yuk! Never again. Maybe it was made for viewing movies not stills.

160
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 01, 2014, 08:26:05 AM »
I have a Rogue Flashbender which I think I only used twice in 2 years. I wanted an on camera flash bounce panel since the 430 exii lacks that feature. But then I got into off camera flash and that was basically the end of the Flashbender. Just recently put it up for sale but I might as well just give it away.

Oh! And a 67mm ND8 for my 70-200. For some reason I was convinced I'd need it to bring my shutter speed down to the sync speed for flash but I just don't do outdoor portraits at all. (But I want to!)

I remember I bought an ND16 for my 85 1.8 and then sold both. The ND was brand new, never used. Why do I keep buying ND filters?? That was basically money spent on just having that filter in my living room for a short period of time!

161
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:44:40 AM »
When Zack implies that shooting APS-C is a good as Nikon full frame, that doesn't automatically apply to Canon APS-C sensors.  We're lagging behind.  But when you look at other modern sensors (such as Fuji) that are being put into camera systems in which quality lenses are being specifically designed for APS-C sensors (such as Fuji), you'd be surprised at the high image quality.  Modern APS-C sensors are excellent.  Rather than being defensive and negative, we should become proactive and demand Canon pick up their game.

I was about to make that point about the lenses. Nearly 15 years into the digital age, neither Canon nor Nikon has bupkiss for APS lens lineups. Unless you absolutely love 18-xxx megazooms. Still no fast portrait lens. Still no fast normals. Still no fast short telephoto zooms (70-200 equivalent). Fuji and m4/3 have fleshed-out lens lineups already. And Pentax has some amazing APS format lenses. Small and sharp. Professional lenses.

What does Canon have? A bunch of idiot parrots saying "Use an L lens." Well yes, if you're using FF. But for APS format cameras, they have absolutely nothing, despite having an awesome camera in the 7D. A pro grade camera with no pro grade lenses. Lovely.

I'm probably going to move to the Fuji or a M4/3 at some point. Not that I don't love my Mk III and high end lenses. But at some point, you get tired of lugging around heavy gear. I have a great assistant, for now. Once these smaller formats catch up -- and they will -- the FF format will look like a dinosaur. N and C have had a huge head start, but they've been resting on their laurels. Shame on them.

You're assuming FF tech will remain static in that time.

----

The video could have been done better but he gets the point across, in an annoying kind if way! For me FF is a lot better when trying to pull details out of RAW files, there's a lot more flexibility. Files tend to take more punishment when correcting exposure errors.

There's nothing wrong with modern APS-C sensors though and even my humble EOS M produces more than adequate quality in good light. I get that the difference is minor in some cases but I wouldn't say neg-lig-ible! Damn that was annoying!!

162
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 31, 2014, 02:25:09 AM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

No, I actually understand your needs, would be happy to have this program in machines, but why in the world should this be in Manual mode? Manual is called manual, because it actually IS manual. I´d add your needs to some other program. Messing it all with EC + auto ISO is really wicked to want in manual mode.

And why not remove the metering indicator and focus confirmation in M mode while we're at it, eh? Hey why not have it disable ALL electronics while in M mode after all it should be pure manual, right??  :P

This is very low. You're making it extreme. I just want it to work as manual program. The metering is there to show what camera thinks of the scene. Not what you have to do. With manual mode and even other modes I rely more on histogram than on exposure meter. Automatic is not manual any more. It deserves to fall under program mode.

No, the metering is there whether you like it or not in all modes, you can't switch it off unlike ..... AUTO ISO so you're argument there doesn't make sense. You can choose to use AUTO ISO or not it's just another tool like the meter or histogram - the camera is advising you of a recommended exposure by showing you an ISO value. (And what this thread was about is that we would then like to over-ride that value and therefore take back control!)

Just like in a car you can choose to use cruise control or not but it's you (hopefully and not one of them google self drive cars) that are calling the shots.

163
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: July 31, 2014, 02:12:49 AM »
to be fair, you could adapt a 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4... and still have a great compact portrait kit.

Canon just aren't going to make a budget f1.2...

Samyang have came into the market with ef-m dedicated 12 f2.0... I personally would prefer an EF or EF-s version, as at this price point I wouldn't want the lens to die with my M.  And if I could also use it on my 7 or 600... win win win win win.

Yes, exactly that. You can easily use a FD 50 f/1.4 with an adaptor (which I have done btw and it works great) and still retain a certain amount of compactness. Yes it would be nice to see an EF-M 50mm prime but it's never going to be f/1.2, maybe f/1.8 if we're lucky. Why? Think about what and who this camera was intended for. We already know that the majority of rebel owners only use the kit lens so we could probably extend that to the M and say that most would use the kit lens or lenses that come with the camera. Established photographers who need that little extra shallow DOF look are more than likely already shooting with EF primes on a FF camera, in which case the M only functions as a secondary or back up body. That's how I view the M - not as a complete solution but more as an addition to an existing Canon kit.

Besides a 50mm f/1.2 made exclusively for the M would likely be too expensive for most people that the M is marketed for. How many would they sell? Not likely that many compared to say a 50mm f/2 IS STM that was priced at a few hundred bucks.

164
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:44:26 AM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

No, I actually understand your needs, would be happy to have this program in machines, but why in the world should this be in Manual mode? Manual is called manual, because it actually IS manual. I´d add your needs to some other program. Messing it all with EC + auto ISO is really wicked to want in manual mode.

And why not remove the metering indicator and focus confirmation in M mode while we're at it, eh? Hey why not have it disable ALL electronics while in M mode after all it should be pure manual, right??  :P

165
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:04:30 AM »
I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).

Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.

????

So someone has to pay twice as much to get f/2.8 lens and lug more weight just for landscape shots?

What is wrong with f/4??

Yeah, what's your beef with f/4?? A lot if the time I want more than just an eye in focus.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 88