July 22, 2014, 07:46:20 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 23
151
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.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

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?

152
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.

153
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.

154
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 03:22:16 PM »
Folks,
Greetings,
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.
Raj
:)

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.

155
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.

156
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.

157
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.

158
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:

http://www.etherpilot.com/photo/test/misc/6d_5d3_d600.jpg

159
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 Canonwatch.com and egami.com, and canonrumors.com

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.

160
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.

161
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...
Quote


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)

162
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.

163
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:18:20 PM »
I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the zoom range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the zoom range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the zoom range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.


I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

164
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:03:12 PM »
The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Question: So according to this f2.8 is more important for available light and movement shots, but if that was case with the 5d2, I'm confused why still seems to be still valid with the 6d even though it's about 1 stop better ... either f2.8 was borderline in the past, or f2.8 - 1stop = f4 would be sufficient now - or am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: Please forgive slight traces of irony, this ia a real question because I don't entirely understand the issue, it's great people get whatever gear they like for any purpose they want.

The minimum for capturing action on what I've found to be typical indoor light is:

1Ds Mark III/5D Mark II + f/2.8

OR

5D3/6D/1DX + F/4.0

The thing is that f/2.8 on a 5D Mark 3 gives you more flexibility, you aren't at the limit, so you're more comfortable.

The zoom range let's you frame shots better, and bokeh at f/2.8 is right at the boarderline between overpowering and pleasant.


So in the end f/2.8 on a newer full frame body is the optimum setup for getting a wide range of shots. Now shooting a f/2.8 lens at f/4.0 will often deliver sharper images than going with an f/4.0 lens to begin with so there is a disadvantage  to going f/4.0 to begin with, and you have less flexibility (as you don't have the option of f/2.8).

Going to an a prime that's faster than f/2.8 limits you because there is no zoom, you want SOME zoom if however small it is just so you can get framing right.
F/2.8 tends to be a good "all around" range. You have zoom, bokeh, and a comfortable amount of motion stopping without flash.


Personally I have a collection of the following lenses:

24-70mm f/2.8 II
24-105mm f/4.0 IS (for landscapes, still life and other times where IS helps more than f/2.8 because there is no motion to stop and for when I don't want the onion bokeh or focus shift of the 2.8 II)
70-200mm f/2.8 II

Sigma 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 85mm 1.4


24mm TS-E + 1.4x TC & 2x TC  (35mm TS-E & 50mm TS-E)


Ideally I'm looking to pick up a Canon 200mm 2.0 too

165
Seriously, nobody needs that many low quality PS cameras that make no changes to image quality at all. Their pro cameras get 2 body releases per year, and their amateur DSLR gets a yearly refresh.

Can anyone explain this? Is it just a to trick consumers into thinking a  largleystagnant technology is improving with more bloated features that do nothing?

Feel free to discuss.

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