October 23, 2014, 06:18:58 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 85
76
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:47:35 PM »
As you progress your PP technique gets better so that you can one day go back and fix up older photos that you thought were lost or unusable. I recently discovered this when a friend asked me if I had any pics of UNESCO sites for a project she was doing. I looked back at some older pics I had but didn't really want to show them as they looked a bit under-exposed and generally the style wasn't suitable so I re-processed the ones I needed. It took me seconds to achieve good results and recover detail that I thought was lost. The finsl pics look way better than the prev iteration and have gone into my portfolio. So glad I shot RAW from day one!

77
Lenses / Re: Samyang 50mm F1.4... Anyone interested?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:36:02 AM »
Well, if its priced in the $2-300 range, sure. They might have a slight advantage in that not many people love the canon 50mm f/1.4, but it goes pretty cheaply.

The other problem they have to compete with is, for mirrorless, they are an endless supply of legacy 50mm f/1.4 lenses for <$100 or so. I know I bought the FD 50mm for my GH2, so it forces their lens even further into a niche.

A 50mm f/1.2 would have been a big deal if they sold it in the same price range as Sigma sells their Art 35mm

I also have an FD 50 1.4 so prob wont be needing this Samyang. I love my SY 14mm f/2.8, the IQ even wide open is astonishing. If this new 50 is sharp wide open it might make me think about it in M mount but other than that I like my 50s with AF. It's a great people focal length for events indoors and people don't stay still for long! "Hey just hold that smile for about a minute while I focus via live view!" Yeah, not gonna happen.

Cheap studio lens perhaps? Food photography? Flowers etc? Yeah those guys might have something to say about this lens.

78
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:14:35 AM »
this is the EF-S and EF-M samyang / rokinon 8mm comparison
without even adding in the adapter there is a massive size difference already

Would you be so kind as to upload a wee pic of the EOS M with the EF-M version of the 8mm fisheye attached to it please?

Just want to see it for reference. 

79
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:26:33 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers.

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."

The a6000 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera while the 70D is a DSLR. You're comparing between two different types of camera.

11fps is easier when there's no mirror to move out the way.

179 AF points but how many are phase detect? Heck even the EOS M has 31 AF points but you wouldn't say it's better than the 70D now would you?

And that viewfinder is electronic vs an optical one on the 70D.

Cheaper? Of course it's cheaper it's a whole different class of camera. My point and shoot is cheaper than my 5D2, does that make it better? (Yeah, only in one category!  :P )

80
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 03:53:57 AM »
Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?

4K is the future-proof format. That's why it's important even now, when 4K TVs are still not the norm.
+1

Ever shoot a picture and crop it? Same thing.... only with movies...

It also allows post processing image stabilization.

I know very little about video, sorry. That was why I was asking. OK I see the advantages now.

81
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:46:32 PM »
I think I get the no WiFi thing from Canon's point of view -

"If you want WiFi in a FF body - buy the 6D
If you want WiFi in a crop body - buy the 70D"

Leave the top end bodies for specialized use (7D2, 5D3, 1DX). Works fine for the 1 series and 5 series, why not 7?

Just a thought. I would love to see WiFi in everything, or bluetooth or NFC or something!

82
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:27:58 PM »
Nowadays, that a crop DSLR kit is way more than sufficient for those initial steps, and an FF DSLR kit is expected to come with a quality lens in it. I have some doubts whether a non-L lens would do.

Non-L doesn't have to mean crap.  Look at the EF-S 10–22, which (in relative terms on crop vs. full-frame) outperforms the 10–22 L II at corner sharpness (though not quite as sharp in the center).  In my mind, the distinction between L and non-L is more materials (metal versus plastic), build tolerances, and aperture.  So the non-L version might be f/4–f/5.6 instead of a constant f/4, it might have more plastic in its construction, and the barrel might wiggle a little more.

I had the EF-S 10-22mm lens and at that time it was my third lens after the 18-55 kit and nifty fifty and yeah when I got it I was like "this thing is solid!". It worked well and I loved it (kinda miss it a little). Then I replaced it with the 17-40L and for a brief time I had both lenses. First thing I noticed about the 17-40L was that it was built like a tank. What i previously thought about "solid build quality" regarding the 10-22 went out the window! Damn that thing is tight!

Regardless of optical performance (I think the 17-40L is quite good but others disagree) I no longer worry about my lenses when traveling and moving around. The lenses are built to take punishment and keep on working in adverse conditions. That part is worth the L designation in itself.

It's amusing when you see people baby their plastic kit lenses with (cheap) filters plus a lens cap on top of that filter like some catastrophe is about to befall them at any moment. 

83
Yeah, I would be interested in an 85 1.4 L or non L. I had the 1.8 which was disappointing and I can't afford (or need) the 1.2 yet. There seems to be this huge gap in between which Sigma have been exploiting but there are some like me who want a Canon version of that lens. Something under $1000 that focuses fast, is reliable and is reasonably sharp wide open with minimal CA and LoCA.

They could even discontinue the old 1.8 and replace it with a newer non L USM f/1.4 version but I wonder if they'd add IS to it. Looking at previous updates the trend seems to to be towards slower with IS so a f/2 IS would be more likely (I wouldn't have much interest in such a lens as I want to create a shallow dof effect and not something in between). An f/2.8 IS would be completely worthless IMO as this is covered by the 70-200LII.

Just thinking about it now - perhaps a decent f/1.4 version would take away some of the sales of the f/1.2 version. The L version would still give a unique look though and for a pro that would be worth the extra cash. Hmmm it's an interesting conundrum I look forward to seeing what Canon and Sigma will be doing in the near future at this focal length!

84
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:16:34 PM »
If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing.  If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO.  If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.

The 65 AF could be nice.  Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions.  Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.

My calculations could be way off here but I think that going from a 20MP sensor to 30MP would mean doubling the file size. The file size would be about 50Mb (I could be wrong) in which case it would require a much larger buffer. It would be tough to achieve 10 fps with that large a file and CF cards aren't fast enough to clear that huge backlog quickly enough. This camera is built for speed so choking it up with huge files is counter-intuitive IMO.

85
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:48:53 AM »
Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney? Who here has a 4K monitor or software that can edit 4K video? I have yet to actually watch something in 4K. So why is it all of a sudden we need this in a camera that is primarily designed to shoot sports and wildlife pictures?

We all know that ML will squeeze 4K out of it anyway, so chill out with the 4K already.

86
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 23, 2014, 01:40:18 AM »
Quote
I have the 6D. I have been debating on whether to get the Canon 24-105, the Sigma 24-105, the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, or just putz about with the manual focus, manual aperture legacy prime lenses for a while longer.


I purchased a reconditioned Canon 24-105 f/4 for use with my 7D.  I was never impressed by the images I got despite careful AF micro adjustment.  In short, the images were typically soft and limited me to only very light cropping, even when I went to the extreme of using a tripod and mirror-lockup. I was seriously considering selling the lens and replacing it with one or two primes since 7D plus primes produced nice results for me.  Then I got a 6D body and everything changed!  No AF micro adjustment required for the 24-105 on the 6D and the images were GREAT!  I am now very happy with the 24-105 and use it frequently...but only with the 6D.  Just my own experience...can't explain why the same lens produces such different results on two bodies...but I'm sure lots of forum experts have an opinion.   :D

Because one was an 18 megapixel crop sensor with quite a strong AA filter and a propensity for noise and the other was a full frame 20 megapixel (much newer too) sensor camera that delivers exceptional IQ even at high ISOs.

Apple and oranges.

87
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:27:54 PM »
Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D? There is nothing groundbreaking here, which is prob the reason a lot of people are feeling a bit peeved. It's the lowest end of what we expected. The bare minimum. Still, it'll more than likely be an awesome camera for sports and wildlife.

But will it still be awesome in 5 years time??  ???


88
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:00:53 AM »
So what needs fixing?

* distortion at the wide end  - use the 16-35 f/4L
* softness at the long end - use the 70-300L
* lack of IQ in the middle - 24-70 f/4

So instead of fixing the 24-105 and making it better, Canon effectively encourage you to sell it and buy three other lenses instead, resulting in a net of two new lens sales to replace one lens.

And given that Sigma failed to deliver a substantially better lens with a bigger construction, what motivation is there for Canon to fix the current model?

*distortion at the wide end: think of it as a 28-105 and you won't go far wrong
*softness at the long end: improve your technique
*lack of IQ in the middle: give up photography and take up embroidery.

Too right the things solid in the middle. Even 24mm works out quite good. I recently compared it to my 17-40L and it was sharper at all overlapping focal lengths. Not too shabby.

89
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:02:15 AM »
I've had mine just under a year and it's easily my most used lens. I didn't have a high expectation at first but comparing it to my other lenses it does well. It's great for walkabouts, travel and events. Little bit soft on the tele end and f/4 which is understandable. I don't think this lens needs a refresh. Sigma's offering kind of proves that in a way (Sigma's is bigger and heavier and didn't really create the demand some expected). To improve upon it would mean a higher cost that frankly could go towards a prime lens instead. As a kit lens it ticks all the right boxes. I see it as something to build upon and you should have some other lenses to compliment it on FF anyway. If you need sharper or faster there's the excellent 24-70LII.

I don't think the 24-70 f/L4 IS was meant to replace it. Seems both can exist side by side. The 24-70/4 will appeal to different photogs who likely shoot more landscape and nature stuff. As a travel lens I much prefer the 24-105.

90
Canon General / Re: CPN Interviews the Men Behind the EOS-1 Series SLRs
« on: August 21, 2014, 10:03:21 PM »
He actually says that the AL-1 size is his favorite.

"CPN: Is there an optimum size for a camera when it is designed bearing in mind the differing size of peoples’ hands?

YS: “There is no ‘better too big than too small’ proverb in the camera world. This is my own personal opinion, but I believe that the best results come from people with comparatively small hands designing for people with larger hands. I believe that the optimum size among Canon cameras is the AL-1.”


I can live with that size, but the grip looks awful.



The guy is is old school and he prob likes that camera the best. For me the optimal size and grip is the 7D / 5D3. Both are very comfortable in the hand. Lighter would be welcome though as many here agree.

There was also a hint about moving towards optimized functionality. Does that mean a separation of video and stills I wonder?

Here the quote - "However, just as with the advent of new categories such as the Cinema EOS [system] that comes from DSLRs, there is currently a trend toward advancing to optimal equipment.”

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 85