March 02, 2015, 11:53:04 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 23
Canon General / Re: Digital Rev!
« on: February 18, 2013, 12:26:48 PM »
Haven't bought from these guys before but had only heard good things - until this...

""The logistic team, keen to meet the performance indicators set by the company, have in three occasions when the products were out of stock managed to return the products to the inventory," Ms Poon said.
"DigitalRev Online Store is now in touch with three affected customers to recall their products for refund or replacement."
Though it had discovered a few isolated violations of internal policy, Digital Rev said it takes the matter "extremely seriously."

The logistics team essentially stole 3 cameras from the production team because they were out of stock and wanted to fulfill orders faster. All 3 cameras are being recalled without the other two owners asking for anything.

Lenses / Re: Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?
« on: February 16, 2013, 06:37:06 PM »
Canon has super lenses at the telephoto end, could they do crazy things with UWA too?

This lens would have a 152mm diameter and cost over $7,000 at launch assuming the same optical design as Nikon's was used and Canon's standard mark-up on the cost of ultra large lens elements was used.

In short, there is no way this would ever make it to market.

Canon could sell 10 times as many f/2.8 UWA lenses as they could f/1.8 ones.

In fact to make up the smaller market for the lens Canon would have to charge close to $17,000 for this lens, if not more.

EOS Bodies / Re: $1200 7D vs. $1800 5D II?
« on: February 14, 2013, 08:27:47 PM »
Almost a year ago, I had $18,000 of gear stolen while in LA, and was not covered by insurance.  It totally killed a project I came here to work on.  I had a 7D, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 11-16mm Tokina 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, 1.4x and 2x TCII's, 580 EXII, pocket wizards, remotes, filters, zacuto z-finder, etc.  I shot mostly wildlife back in the day, and more recently some models, etc.  My focus though, has been motion pictures.  For the first time in over 20 years, I've been without a camera.  It's been very hard.  Financially, it hasn't been possible to buy everything again, and I haven't been able to come to terms with buying something cheaper to tide me over.  I also want something weather sealed, since I do a lot of work in humid, misty and/or coastal environments and had a bad experience with two failed 40D's in Central America.

I rent or use other people's stuff for films right now, but need to get something.  I'm dying.  Particularly not having something decent for stills.  I still have a lot of my support gear, tripods, follow focus, matte box, slider...  But I need a new body and lenses.  My first instinct is to go with what I new and get another 7D.  But since the 5D II and 7D are so close in price now, and since I'm hoping to try and pay for some gear by doing head shots, I am thinking I'm better off with the 5D II.  I know I'll lose some focusing for BIF and such, and I've done some excellent portrait and modeling shots with the 7D, the shots from the 5D II just seem cleaner right out of the camera with the same lenses.

I'm interested to what others think?  That $600 could really help towards a decent lens.  Any suggestions for a primary head shot lens for either body would be greatly appreciated also.  I suppose if I can get some head shot work under my belt, I could always upgrade later.  Dang.  Depressing starting over.

Wow, that really really sucks.

How was it stolen if you don't mind me asking?

Regarding the 7D vs 5D2 I'd get a set of lightly used gear and go with the 5D2 because it will save you around $400. Specifically get a 5D II on fredmiranda for $1200, it will come very lightly used at that price in my experience. The 7D is slated for a price drop so it's a really bad investment. They go for $999 though but full frame pro lenses can sometimes be cheaper than crop lenses as you need f/4.0 for the same light and bokeh as an f/2.8 crop lens,  a 5D2 & 24-105mm should work for pretty much any task, add a 70-200mm f/4.0 IS and you've got a killer cheap combo.

You can buy all of that for:


Add a 85mm 1.8 if you need even more bokeh.

You'd need a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 7D and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS to match that combo and you'd end up paying $3100-$3300 used for that setup. You'd get worse IQ, worse zoom range, and worse performance all around. I've had both the 7D and 5D2 and if you're using the 5D2 center point it takes more work but I've never had any trouble with keeper rates.

Lenses / Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?
« on: February 12, 2013, 02:51:05 PM »
I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 10, 2013, 06:38:06 PM »
Is moire that bad of a problem or is it more of a Pro's "OCD" type of thing.
I'm close to investing in a 6D for video, well aware of the Moire issues, but people tell me to save for the Mk III.
My question is, is the moire difference enough to justify the extra $$$?
I planned on getting an L glass with the money I saved getting a 6D.
Also, is the moire worse than a 5D MkII's?

The moire is not a pro OCD issue buy will utterly destroy some shots and make it look like the camera is broken. Footage will be completely unusable. Don't do it. Get the 5D3 or 5D2, the moire on the 6D is much worse than the 5D2.

I understand my needs may be different than yours. I'm curious as to what YOU would do. Not necessarilly what I should do, but what you would do. Background:

I consider myself an advanced amateur. I originally had a 60D, but sold it at the beginning of last semester to focus more on school (and knowing that the body would inevitably experience a price drop soon. Glad I sold it when I did!). I thought I could live without for a year, but I couldn't take it anymore and I bought the 7D a couple of weeks ago for $1030. Now I can get the 60D for $560. That makes the 7D an extra $470, or 84% more. I don't do sports photography or BIF. The closes thing to fast moving is my kids playing, so I don't really need the 7D AF. Before I sold the 60D, I was doing some smaller paid video gigs. I would like to take that to the next level. I would like to do TV commercials for local companies and product advertising videos as well as what I was previously doing. I live in a small(er) town, and the ONLY competition is the local cable company who makes horrendous commercials. One concern of mine, Is it unprofessional to take a 60D to a shoot? Like I said, I only did smaller paid gigs, and nobody really knew anything about my gear. I was still a bit self conscious bringing my 60D, even on the smaller gigs. I did keep all my other video equipment when I sold the body since all the other items don't lose value so fast.

Why I would keep the 7D:
  • 1080 HDMI output durring recording. This is pretty important to me, but alone doesn't quite justify the extra $470. Almost though because the screen going black on the 60D upon pressing record is incredibly annoying.
  • Magnesium alloy body. For obvious reasons over the 60D's polycarbonate. This, however, isn't as big of a deal, as the 60D's body is still good.
  • The 7D will have a better resale value. Again, though, this isn't as important as I can't really see myself selling it in the near future. Upon purchase of my next body, the 7D/60D will become my back-up.
  • The AFMA and better AF of the 7D will be invaluable IF I end up actually needing that in the future. IF.
  • It looks good in my hands

Why I would exchange the 7D for the 60D?

So, what would you do personally if you were trying to decide between the 60D and the 7D? And, I suppose, what would you do in my situation?

I would get a 5D Mark II in your position. Lightly used they run less than $1200 and will have stellar resale value. Expect the 7D to crash in resale value to less than $700 soon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 03:22:16 PM »
As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.

Dynamic range is the result of the highlight saturation ceiling and the noise floor. You can't use software to improve it because you can't create data that doesn't exist in the first place.

Canon cameras have a significant noise floor in the shadows, due to the way the sensor data is read that adds noise to it. Sony/Nikon's method of reading the sensor is inherently less noisy so they have more dynamic range.

Canon improved the 5D3 dynamic range by about a stop from the previous generation, and you don't really need more DR unless you're doing architecture or landscape, in which case you can use multi shot.

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: February 09, 2013, 01:20:34 AM »
Just noticed this in your review. You're perpetuating the myth that the 6D has less high ISO noise than the 5D3. This is simply not true. It's an optical illusion. The 6D has less color noise but more grain. Meaning that they actually will have identical levels of noise, as shown by tests, they just require different noise reduction settings. The 5D Mark III is just uglier unprocessed leading people to falsley conclude that it has less noise.

If it's "an optical illusion" that the 6D has less noise, that means that photos taken with the 6D look as though they have less noise.  Since noise is only a problem because of what it looks like, then....

Not really, you can change the appearance of noise using noise reduction, what really matters is the underlying signal to noise ratio, which is all but identical between the two cameras.

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:32:53 PM »
Just noticed this in your review. You're perpetuating the myth that the 6D has less high ISO noise than the 5D3. This is simply not true. It's an optical illusion. The 6D has less color noise but more grain. Meaning that they actually will have identical levels of noise, as shown by tests, they just require different noise reduction settings. The 5D Mark III is just uglier unprocessed leading people to falsley conclude that it has less noise.

Also the 6D at iso 102400 is actually iso 70000 while the 5D Mark III is iso 77000,  and there are other discrepancies between the ISO ratings, so you need to correct both for wildly different noise charachter and wildly different ISO scales. When you do that, you'll find what every other qualified reviewer has said, the 6D has identical level of noise to the 5D Mark III. Anyone who claims otherwise is jumping to conclusions.

After multiple purchases from DigitalRev, I can honestly say you won't have worries with them.  They're a very great company.

Yep digital rev is awesome, and their reviews are really nice to watch.

You won't be dinged with an import fee if you have it sent to the US, and you will actually have a major advantage because you will have a warranty from digital rev, where as Canon USA would not transfer your warranty to bangladesh.

Digital Rev all the way.

Hello all,

I am looking to upgrade my old 5d to a new MKII or 6d.

I was set on getting the 6d but then I began to browse through hundreds of photos on flickr and the like to get an idea of the general 'look' of the respective camera's output. 

I noticed that although the 6d looks more natural on landscapes and it far outperforms on low-light, the images of people seem a bit soft and gray in comparison to MKII images.

mind you I chose my 5d first series because I thought that portaits looked a little more authoritative, for lack of a better word.

today I checked-out a 6d and a MKII in a shop and got a feel for the cameras but it really is impossible to know how they are going to behave unless you are shooting a model etc.

so my question is aimed to those who have used MKII's extensively and have used 6d's as well in real-world portrait photography.

I have complete faith in the 6d's capacities in landscape, low-light etc.  but my primary interests have more to do with how skin tones come-out as well as how much weight the profile of the person has in relation to the background etc. 

anyone see an artistic advantage with the 5dII's IQ?

I personally liked the 5D Mk III's colors over the 6D. You are right that the 6D has more neutral colors, yes you can edit colors to be anything you want, but if you look at comparisons the 5D Mark III actually has a better color depth in back to back tests, so you end up losing some color information that you can never get back with the 6D, at the cost of having more neutral tones.

So in the end the 5D Mark III has some more noticeably tainted colors, (in a good way if you ask me), but the color information is also noticeably higher quality.

I would also strongly disagree with those who say that the 6D is better than the 5D III in low light. This is an optical illusion. The 6D has less color noise but more grain. Meaning that they actually will have identical levels of noise, as shown by tests, they just require different noise reduction settings. The 5D Mark III is just uglier unprocessed.

Also the 6D at iso 102400 is actually iso 70000 while the 5D Mark III is iso 77000,  and there are other discrepancies between the ISO ratings. In the end again both have identical levels of noise over the whole of the frame.

The 6D does have a better center AF point, enabling it to work in ultra low light, but it's autofocus is very poor and outdated, and essentially a 5D Mark II autofocus system with some added spice. The 5D 3's autofocus is much better.

The 6D has much better dynamic range though, and I would love it if the 5D III had that dynamic range, and the ultra sensitive AF points for certain rare situations where I find myself needing those, bu the 5D III offers more features that are more broadly beneficial than the 6D.

Hope that helps

Here's a good comparison too:

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:15:35 PM »
A google search led me back here to another post mentioning the 24-70 and a 95mm filter size. OP was the same that mentioned it in the other thread. Not sure where the info is from. Radiating, where did you hear about the 95mm filter size?

Canon experimented with 2 different possible image stabilized f/2.8 zooms. There are patents for them available on both and, and

The first of these two lenses is a 28-70mm f/2.8 IS, with a filter size of 86mm. The second was a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS with a filter size of 95mm, (although it could have used 90mm filters, if anyone made those).

The 24-70mm II uses I beleive (don't quote me on the precise number) a 68mm front element with an 82mm filter size. The 24-70mm f/2.8 IS used a 77.29mm front element!

Other sources, such as Canonrumors themselves do add that it's not strictly the sheer size of the lens that was an issue (or it's resulting filter size) but that as a result of it's size it also weighed a ton and the lens elements were expensive due to their size. Though this thread is focusing more on the filter size issue being serious enough to be partly responsible for killing a lens, and if that's justified. I'm sure there are tons of other threads that cover whether the size and weight of a lens are an issue people care about.

Lenses / Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:44:56 PM »
It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 01, 2013, 03:02:07 PM »
Quote from: ChilledXpress
I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots.  The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet.  I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that.  Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L?  I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.
I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.

I did extensive and even obsessive testing and sought out multiple sources to confirm my findings for that conclusion. Just because your baseless oppinions conflict with my well researched ones, doesn't make what I say BS. In fact it makes you extremely foolish.

The fact that the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro has harsh bokeh past macro distances was confirmed by no less than two Canon reps when I was testing this lens as a portrait lens. Canon's stance is that this lens has harsh bokeh as a result of it's tuning for macro purposes. The bokeh is tuned to be the most pleasing as macro distances and becomes harsh past those distances as a tradeoff.

In fact the 100mm macro is tuned in every conceivable dimension from it's most basic design to be very specifically used primarily for macro work, and as a result has tradeoffs.

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture. Notice how the OOF highlights look like laser beams, and the background is generally the opposite of buttery, but instead very crunchy and contrasty? That crunch is a result of the tuning the lens underwent to maximize macro detail, I'm told, which gives it extremely strange spherical abberations at normal focal lengths that are generally considered unacceptable. I'm not saying that this lens cannot be used to take good portraits, I've seen plenty of good ones taken with it, and I've even taken great portraits with it, I'm just saying that it should not be your first pick. (And might I remind you that that oppinion is echoed by Canon)

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:58:56 PM »
I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

Every single person who has made a claim that this lens delivers poor results, except for lens rentals, has shot with it AND shot test charts. I think if you get excited about something you can get a sort of placebo effect where you think something is better than it is. My initial impression was that this lens was way better than my old lame outdated 24-105mm, but then I sat down, and shot test charts and was shocked to find out that it was worse, way worse at the focal lengths I use most and then I started to notice all the flaws in my photos from it and I realized I just bought into the hype. I know of at least 3 other reviewers who returned this lens and have similar stories of assuming it's better because it's newer or buying into the hype only to later relealize that the lens wasn't really so great.

Test charts aren't some mythical thing that's far removed from reality, it's just taking a regular photo of a subject that is designed to make it easier to judge the flaws of a lens. You can do both a visual and computer analysis, but the visual analysis doesn't lie. If the lens makes bad photos of a brick wall, or black and white flat pattern, it's going to make bad photos of a building, or the grey and purple sweater your subject is wearing.

Granted in your situation slightly newer IS will be better as you have a second lens I'm assuming you're carrying for the focal range past 70mm, but likley you will experience identical image quality overall, unless you favor the extremes of the zoom range over the middle.

Look I wanted to like this lens, I really did. I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and wanted an f/4.0 Hybrid IS version of it, but this lens just doesn't deliver. It's just a different flavor of 24-105mm that has a huge markup.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 23