October 20, 2014, 06:00:15 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 85
Canon General / Re: In need of a "walk around" camera
« on: March 07, 2014, 12:11:13 AM »
My vote is a 7D with a 24-105. You get the durability you need and a comfortable range + a familiar feel and high FPS when needed. The IQ is there provided your not shooting 50% of the time in a dark bar. Put a rapid strap on it and go sans case.

This is an interesting thread in terms of what we think of as a "travel" camera. To me having a 7D and 24-105 I would say that it's not that travel friendly. It's big and heavy plus 24mm isn't wide enough for me. So I'd have to take my 17-40 too. I think there wouldn't be much of a difference in "discreetness" between a 1Dx and 7D. Yes it's smaller but overall they're both bulky. In a dodgy area theives will easily make you out with your 7D. Maybe another DSLR is not the answer. Sounds like OP wants something pocketable.

Either go small or go with what you have. No point in buying something halfway.

Canon General / Re: In need of a "walk around" camera
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:45:59 PM »
To OP - if IQ is priority then you might be only left with a few expensive options such as the Sony A7 / A7r  + 24-70 f/4 lens or a Sony RX1.

Moving down a category into APS-C will give you a lot more options such as the excellent Fuji X series cameras or even the Sony a6000 which is coming soon.

If you are prepared to put up with the slow AF of the EOS M it too can provide a cheaper alternative to the above plus you can use some existing glass via adaptor (though for portability you'll want the native M lenses).

Moving one class lower into RX100 territory could be a solution. Looks like a compact camera. Very discreet. Packs a punch.

Then I guess there's mft such as Olympus Pen.

If it was me and I had that budget it would be between an RX1 or X100s. Very simple fixed lens solution with great IQ.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:49:01 AM »
Despite my "ho hum" review of the 40mm it's kind of grown on me, it's a very capable lens and if you don't have a zoom in that focal range it's a no-brainer as a buy.

I do have the 24-105 f/4 but I don't think I have a single "Wow" picture taken with it. It wasn't till I slapped the 50mm 1.8 on on the 6D and got some "Wow" pictures that I realized how special primes can be. My problem with my 50mm is focus accuracy. It is so unreliable. Bought FoCal Pro and every time I run it with the 1.8, it tells me my predicted adjustment is off the chart. If I force it to continue, I get an adjustment of +16...but I digress.

I am happy to play with and get to know my new 85mm for now but at some point, I really feel the need to replace the my 50mm.

Now you see why they call it the "thrifty fifty"!! At that price there's gotta be some compromise and unfortunately AF accuracy is one of them. Bloody good glass though! It was great on my 550D.

Having recently picked up a used Sigma 50 1.4 I would say it is a great lens for the money but again the AF is a bit of a let down. Nothing even close to a good USM lens. Focus shifts too. But the IQ is very nice. I'm using it for now for non critical stuff and general messing around in the spring.

I would wait a bit before doing any 50 shopping.   

Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: March 03, 2014, 09:55:30 AM »
... so I choose the trusty Canon 100-400 L IS and I also got the EOS 70D to get that little extra reach (also the sales guy made a really good deal) ... so now I feel a bit relieved from the GAS ... but that's only till the Sony a6000 releases.   
Isn't it great? Having sold my 5D2 I bought a second 5D3 and now I feel as if I had a good dinner after being hungry ... ( = GAS relieved  :) ). I found out that for me the solution is to sell old gear (if and when I find a buyer of course) and get a new item. My list of old items has decreased though  ::)
I am embarresed to say this but do I agree with you on the "good dinner after being hungry" comment  :-[ ... Congratulations on the 5D MK III ... when it comes to selling my old gear I am very fortunate to have several colleagues in my office who are eager to buy my used gear ... recently sold the Sigma 150-500 OS, EOS-M, 22mm , 18-55 IS STM, EF-M adapter and a few other accessories, which funded the 100-400 L IS + 70D today. 8)

Selling old or unused gear is almost as satisfying as buying new and shiny gear! I'm currently trying (not very hard I must admit) to sell my 7D. It's the only bit of kit I don't really need. I love it though. Kind of want to keep it just for the heck of it. I think I need to rekindle my love for it by actually taking pictures with it.

The new Sigma Art had been giving me GAS but it's taken so long to release (not really) that I'm getting over the urge. I seem to "look" for things to buy and now want a Samsung 840 EVO SSD to speed up my laptop. GAS cross contamination into PC equipment now!

EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 09:42:17 PM »
I don't think it's fair to compare an EOS M to the Sony A7 /A7r. The Sony looks and handles like a DSLR. In the hand it feels solid and well constructed. An expensive piece of engineering.

The M looks and handles like a compact camera. That's what Canon set out to do. It looks simple and small. The opposite of the A7.

Then there's the price difference. Two completely different markets.

It's all down to personal preferences and your workflow. I have mostly 32Gb cards (2 are Sandisk Extreme Pro and one Transcend - which doesn't work with my CF reader). They allow me to shoot over 1000 RAW images in a day. For weddings, and other events I don't want to be fumbling about with cards. However I also have one 16Gb Sandisk Extreme Pro CF card that I bought first when starting out with CF cards (damn they were expensive!). It gets used now as a back up or ready to shoot card while the others are full and uploading to the PC. The 16Gb is a good size too, gives me just over 500 shots. I could make do with a bunch of 16s but I prefer to keep things simple.

There is always the risk of a card failure but also a risk of just straight up losing / misplacing a card. At my friends wedding the second shooter lost an SD card. All pics lost. Frequently swapping out cards could potentially lead to losing one. I prefer to just have one in camera all times. I upload and back up as soon as possible. Safest place for a card is in your camera - unless you format it by accident! That was my greatest fear when shooting my first wedding!

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 Coming to North America & Europe?
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:45:54 PM »

Will be posting a youtube review online soon, including showing differences between M, M2 and Sony A7. =)

Very interested to see the focus speeds between the M and M2.  I love everything about the M except for the slow focus.  My 60D gets almost no play time now.

I had a play about with the M and M2 side by side at a camera store. The M2 AF speed is much faster than the M, it locks instantly. The M has about a half second delay where you hear the AF motor buzz and hunt but on the M2 the beep is heard right after you press the button. Much more snappier and decisive. I also had a play about with an a7r and of course the AF on that was super fast but for most general subject matter the M2 would suffice.

I'm seriously thinking of upgrading to the M2. Maybe once the price comes down a bit more.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 Coming to North America & Europe?
« on: February 28, 2014, 10:22:22 AM »
Read the interview and also the link to the technical AF question, answered by Chuck Westfall. This blew my mind a bit. Thought I'd share it.

"On the other hand, because AF precision is proportional to maximum aperture with Dual Pixel CMOS AF, it scales itself automatically and dynamically according to the supported EF or EF-S lens in use. For example, Dual Pixel CMOS AF achieves a longer baseline for AF precision with an f/4 lens compared to an f/5.6 lens, and so on all the way down the line to f/1.0. At the other end of the scale, Dual Pixel CMOS AF supports autofocusing with maximum apertures as small as f/11, a full two stops smaller than is possible with the 70D's TTL-SIR-AF system. And because the AF data is measured directly from the imaging sensor, there is no need for AF Microadjustment."

I kinda want to try a 70D out for the day.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 08:02:00 AM »
I don't begrudge people the whole field of view argument with crop v. full because a 50mm is indeed like an 85mm... and I'm not sure why, but with full frame, depth of field is greater, though with comparable framing, the full frame's depth of field is thinner...

I've heard the argument about the f/2.8 is comparable to f/4.5 (or whatever), but I didn't bother to ask what they meant.

So if I'm shooting with a 135L f/2 in moderate light and at iso 800 I'm shooting at 1/2000 of a second... that should still be the same achieved shutter speed regardless of crop or full.

And if you keep the same distance between, the depth of field should be comparable.  So why is f/1.4 now f/2.2?

Ok, but I choose quality over quantity. I don't need to "cover the range" and it is only one L lens less for FF, really. What you'd get from your list on APSC is:
Tokina 18-26/4.5
Canon 38-112/4.5
Sigma 56/2.2
Canon 80/2.2
A 160/4.5 IS
A 216/3.5
A 112-320/6.3 IS

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

What I also like about FF is that f/4 is now a quite shallow dof at 50mm and above. The slow zooms that I had on my 7D become a lot more useful.

Separate argument about the upgrade path - I agree that FF needs good lenses and if someone asked me to upgrade lens or body first I'd say lens. However, if someone already owns decent primes I think they'll benefit more from going t2i - 5D3 rather than change the already good prime to L prime.

I wish I had just bought a 5D2 + 24-105L from day one tbh. All beginner advice be dammed. I just ended up at the same place 3 yrs later anyway and slightly poorer having sold off cameras at a loss. My advice to myself would have been buy the best camera you can afford that will last you at least 5 yrs then build up your lens collection.

What I don't get is the contradiction between those who claim IQ is their no1 priority and have the best L lenses, because they were told lenses are more important than camera and are using only a crop sensor body with those L lenses. Obviously not counting sports shooters and other people who have reason to (in which case IQ is not their priority anymore it's making money!). I'm talking the rebel t1i with 200mm f/2.


Sorry, I may have been wrong. Never mind. I'll edit the post. Today I learned .....

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:39:40 AM »

If the light is constant and you compare an image from a crop sensor and FF. both shot in M mode, at the same aperture and SS you'll notice the FF image to be brighter. I think it's like 2/3 of a stop. Could be more. However, in Av mode both cameras should spit out the same as the camera adjusts the SS accordingly. I did this experiment with my 5D2 and 7D. The FF gathers more light. So in low light it does make a difference. In bright sunlight that wouldn't be an issue as your SS can be whatever.

Only if your camera is faulty, exposure has nothing to do with sensor size. Absolutely nothing.

I see. Could it be due to the larger pixels then?

Edit - I am talking like a crazy person, please ignore my stupidity.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 07:03:04 PM »

Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??


The philosophy down here is buy better glass before upgrading the body.

Roger Machin, head of Canon South Africa gave me that advise.

Finding the right camera is just as important as having a great lens to go with it. Cheap camera great lens is just the better of the two other situations. I agree better glass is important but after a while it just becomes silly when you are prepared to lay down 2k for a top of the line L lens and ignore what it's attached to.

It's like you bought the Armani suit but are still rockin the old New Balance trainers to go with it!

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 08:44:12 AM »
Hi everybody  :)

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.

You will love full frame cameras, but you won't like how much the lenses cost.

There are some value ef lenses... but if you get a nice body, it is just a waste to put on mediocre lenses. 

Even then... if you just go with primes like the 40mm, 35 f2 is, 100 f2... you can get by.

Sure, but you'll want to add at least one pricey one.

lol. I do have some pricy (for me) lenses.

Canon 100mm macro L, Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkii.
Then also have the EF-S 10-22 & 50 f/1.8.

Nice glass shame about the body! Did you just forget to upgrade your camera when you were acquiring your L lens collection??


Take the argument to the extreme and consider something like and iphone 5s. It has a tiny sensor so everything is always in focus. But it still has an f2 lens in terms of light transition. So sometimes I can get a better macro shot in low light on my 5s than I could on my 5d mk iii. Because to get an equivalent depth of field I'd have to stop down to f18 which would push up the ISO to extreme.

I think you have to factor in the difference in sensor size and light gathering capabilities of both. I don't know the exact factor but I would say that the FF sensor would gather a lot more light than the iPhone sensor at the exact same exposure settings. Well that part is obvious but then you see, when you stop the FF / lens aperture down a few stops to match the amount of light you have essentially "bought" yourself a few stops of ISO too. Then another feature of the FF is that even at ultra high ISO it will be relatively noise free and have more detail.

I've never tried macro with an iPhone using only ambient light. I'd imagine you'd need a lot of light. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison with a 5D3.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 24, 2014, 08:41:41 AM »
What you see on the LCD is the JPEG preview anyway, regardless of what file type you shoot. Therefore you could argue that you are always shooting JPEG in a sense. We should always try and get it right in camera and one way to do that is to use the info from the histogram and LCD. Though it's bloody hard on a 3" screen and usually things look fine until you look at it on the big screen!

As Neuro said there is no real benefit to the photographer by limiting the file type. You might as well shoot RAW, get it right in camera and then just convert to JPEG if required. You always have the option of not processing the image.

That said I think the challenge is interesting in a way. I think I'd spend more time composing my shots and getting the light just perfect rather than getting it close enough. Could be useful someday if a client wants images on demand during a shoot. I prob rely too heavily on fixing it later. The thought of handing over unprocessed shots makes me very uncomfortable!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Announcement in March? [CR1]
« on: February 23, 2014, 01:46:25 AM »
I think one of the problems with Canon's DSLR lineup is that they have too many models on the market. It is not really economical to support future development of all of them.

I've been saying that for a long time.  Ignoring the mirrorless segment for the moment, the right number of DSLR models is 4:

  • Consumer crop-body DSLR (based on the 70D)
  • Pro crop-body DSLR (7DMk2)
  • Consumer full-frame DSLR (6D)
  • Pro full-frame DSLR (1D-???)

I could possibly accept 5, but only if it's because they continue to sell one older model of consumer crop-body cameras to hit a price point.  Any more models than that, and your products are cannibalizing each other's market share way too badly.

What this means is that they need to merge the 1D and 5D lines and price them where the 5D line is currently.  They also need to kill the Rebel line and rebrand the 70D as the Rebel T6i.  There really is no good reason to have two consumer crop body lines that are barely differentiated, much less two professional full-frame body lines that each have some features and not others.

Also, the high-end model should always be a strict superset of the low-end model.  Having features in the 6D and 70D that the 7D, 5D, and 1D don't have is absurd.

Hmmmm .... I disagree with what you said about 2 FF bodies. The current system is pretty good in my opinion. One low cost, one mid level and one high end. By merging the 1D and 5D I presume the body would be 1D shape? That would annoy a lot of journalists and wedding togs for sure. The 5D range is the bread and butter for a lot of folk. The 6D is targeted for a different kind of photographer. It seems more travel and casual stuff. Maybe first time FF buyers etc. also a one camera does it all top end model would be very pricey. The jump between 6D and 1D is really high.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 85