July 25, 2014, 01:34:29 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 23
211
I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results.  I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
How did you come up with 5?

All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site.  From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
I can't figure out your statement about one of 5 though.
To answer your question, having to return both lenses to get good copies is unacceptable.  However, most photographers do not have the test capabilities that Bryan has, and will be thrilled with them.
I'm holding off waiting.
As far as Nikon goes, I've had one, and was not impressed at all, so there are poor, good, better, and best samples and Nikon is well known for its sample variation as well.

"We now have a properly tuned Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens sample available in the ISO 12233 charts (sample 1)."

I asked him about this, and he stated that he has a 5th copy which replaced the originaly copy #1.

So: Sample #1, #2, #3, #4 & #1 Replacement

212
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Protective Filter Question
« on: October 16, 2012, 11:46:29 PM »
I just purchased the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 lenses and I'm looking to get some protective filters for them. I've been reading quite a bit regarding lens filters as, at least for my budget, I have invested quite a bit of money in my new lenses.  The recommendations always come back to pretty much B+W and Hoya.  I have found very little in regards to the protective filters made by canon (or OEM'd - canon product support said they made them, but not sure if they consider OEMing "making" them), or rather, any filter made by Canon.   Are there any online reviews I can see, or has someone done a comparison between canon and other brands?   I like to research before I buy and I figure that a canon product would work best on a a canon product, but it concerns me that most people are purchasing other brands.  What can I say, I over analyze but I'd rather buy right and buy once and not have shoppers remorse.   Any guidance or information on Canon filters is appreciated.

B+W makes the best filters, lenstip tested almost all the filters on the market and proved this beyond a doubt. B+W uses some of the most advanced coatings in the world, better than Canon's own technology.

Canon's filters are outsourced garbage designed to cash in. Just get a B+W.

213
Canon is charging twice as much as both the last version and much more than Nikon charges for the 24-70mm II, and by all the data Canon has provided it is a lens that deserves the price tag because it is in a class of it's own in quality, at least in theory.

Unfortunately there have been many early tests that have been extremely dissapointing for the lens MTF wise.

- If you average all the tests that Bryan of The-Digital-Picture.com did, the lens at equal aperture does not even perform better than the 24-105mm IS, which is less than 1/3rd the price.

- If you look at the photozone.de test results, the lens they tested (which is obviously not an ideal copy) performs worse than Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8, which is much cheaper. In fact it performs within as close as makes no difference (3%) as the Tamron 24-70mm VC on photozone, which is a lens that is half as expensive and has image stabilization.


With that said, after trying 5 copies of the 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II Bryan from the-digital-picture.com did find a lens that meets it's claims and smashes resolution figures and expecations. A lens worth the price tag. He is very very happy with it now.

What are everyone else's thoughts on the fact that you need to buy 5 copies to get one that meets the hype  Canon gave it and the quality a lens of this price would have one expect?

214
I'm facing the upgrade dillema - should I get a second hand 1Ds MkIII or a new 5D MkIII...

For almost eight years now, I'm shooting with a 1Ds MkII
and I'm thinking that maybe it is time to replace it. :)

It is still doing a good job and my clients are happy, but...



I almost exclusively work in the studio, or outdoors in the range of 100-400 ASA.

I'm only interested in the image quality.


Can someone describe in detail, the differences in image quality between 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkIII?

The 5D Mark III will have MUCH better detail than the 1Ds Mark III hands down. It has more megapixels, less low iso noise and a much more advanced anti-aliasing filter which will add about 10% more resolution to any lens you put on the 5D Mark III compared to the 1Ds Mark III. I've done very extensive in depth comparisons on all aspects of the 5D Mark III comparing it to the 1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark IV, 5D Mark II, D800 and a few other cameras and have spoken directly to a few Canon technicians to gain knowledge on the cameras.

There is a clear winner here.

With that said you may wish to consider the rumors of the upcoming 1Ds X, Canon's 46 megapixel studio camera and wait to see if Canon releases it. If you have the computing power to deal with something like that, it will sureley be even better for yours needs and be a much bigger upgrade that will last you around 4+ years before anyone catches up instead of say 2 years.

215
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:09:42 PM »
This lens is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made at 24mm and is supposed to be much sharper at 24mm than it is at 70mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=3&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

If the lens is not delivering mind blowing sharpness at 24mm you have a deffective copy. This lens much like the Mark I version appears to have extremely uneven copy varaiation. Early tests are showing 50%-66% of lenses delivering results I would personally be unsatisfied with.

Simply put you should return it and get another copy. +5 MA isn't so good either.

216
Lenses / Re: Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:24:51 AM »
Was just checking the Samyang site and see they've got an 800mm mirror lens and a 650-1300mm zoom.  A second hand shop near my work has a Meade 1000mm f/11 mirror lens for sale.  And I see a lot of similar lenses for sale on eBay.  A quick google search suggests the image quality from these lenses isn't great.  Unfortunately...it seems you get what you pay for.   

But my question is this: -

If you had a 300mm f/4, would your cropped image appear sharper than a cheap 1000mm+ lens?  What about a 300mm with a teleconverter or two?  Is there any point to buying a cheaper, longer lens?


Well here's a comparison between the 300mm F/4.0 with a 2x teleconverter and a Canon 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter. The image quality is similar:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=3

So let's assume that the image quality from the 100-400mm with a 2x teleconverter will be similar to a 300mm with a 2x teleconverter and a 1.4x teleconvterter. Giving us a 840mm f/9.0 lens.


Here's a comparison between the 100mm-400mm with a 2x teleconverter (our stand in for a 300 F4 with 2x & 1.4x) and the Tamron 180mm lens.


Tamron 180mm lens, a lens which people consider "good" compared to our stand in:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=393&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=11&APIComp=3

As you can see our estimate of a 300mm F4 with a 2x & 1.4x teleconverter is better than what is considered a "good" lens.

Now lets compare our stand in to what is conservatively considered bad:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=11&APIComp=3

Sigma 150-500mm with a 1.4x TC. The stand in does MUCH better.


I think you will see much better results with a 300mm F4 with dual teleconverters than you will see with a mirror lens that has a reputation for sub par image quality.

Hope that helps.

217
It sounds like it will be a very good lens.  Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one.  By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.


What issues?



Just thought I'd clear things up.
Softness, particularly at the edges and 70mm. 
Two pretty respected reviewers have seen this.  There have been some that claim to have seen the issue in poosts on this forum, but I tend to look to experienced testers with a good track record of spotting issues.
  It is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, and there may be some samples with issues, which is why I'm waiting for more reviews to come in.  I've had 5 of the old version and they were not impressive.  I have high hopes for this one.
 
Let us know what you see.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=2


Yeah that sounds the case but I feel it's much better than the 24-105 and if I go professional I could always get another copy later if that's the case. Either way after selling the old lens it cost me an additional $1,400 and I figured I could use it for the holidays so not sure how much waiting I could endure. I hope I made a wise investment. Let me know if you get one. How could I check if my copy was soft?



Just an FYI I compared 4 different copies of the 24-70mm II to the 24-105mm (which is a consistent lens). When averaging the areas where each lens was better or worse overall there was NO difference between the quality of the 24-105mm and the 24-70mm II.

Here's the write up for the comparison:

vs 24-105mm (@ f/4.0)

24mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Much Better

Mid Frame Copy 2: Much Better

Edge Copy 1: Much Better

Edge Copy 2: Much Better

28mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Much Better

Mid Frame Copy 2: Better

Edge Copy 1: Better

Edge Copy 2: Equal

35mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal sagittal resolution, better meridonial resolution

Mid Frame Copy 2: Much Worse

Edge Copy 1: Equal

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

50mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 2: Worse

Edge Copy 1: Much Worse

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

70mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal sagittal resolution, better meridonial resolution

Mid Frame Copy 2: Better sagittal resolution, equal meridonial resolution

Edge Copy 1: Better sagittal resolution, equal meridonial resolution

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

Conclusion:

(formula is +1 per copy that: shows better -1 for worse -1.5 for better +1.5 for much better (+0.5 per partial improvement)

Total score. 0 ZERO between these two copies and the 24-105mm it's equal.


Source of the info:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Note on their testing methodology:

The camera/lens is multiple-laser-aligned to the target which is mounted on 60" , 1/2" thick sheet of glass.

Tests are conducted using externally-magnified Live View manual focusing and center-point-only autofocus (initial focus is gained using autofocus and then adjusted manually). The best of the many re-focused shots (typically at least 10 sets - often 15-20) are used for the results for EACH camera/lens/focal-length/aperture combination.

His variances are measured in a few ten thousanths of a degree.

Live view focusing laser aligned cameras and lenses on a target so flat that it needs a 40 lb sheet of glass to keep it level is a pretty serious way of testing that will show few errors, especially when doing 20 repeated trials and refocusing each time. He gets the depth of field within at the least 99% of the sharpest possible setting by my calculations (99.3% to be exact) for an f/1.4 lens. His testing method is so accurate, that the actual thickness of the chart he uses is at the least 14 times greater than the deviation he has from ideal focus for a f/1.4 lens. The tests are done to the accuracy of small fractions of a sheet of paper.

It's also worth mentioning when comparing the 24-105mm to the 24-70mm II that the 24-70mm II is better than it if you get a good copy, but worse if you get a bad copy, so it depends, and this is just speaking with a 4 copy sample which may or may not represent the norm or future improvements in manufacturing tolerances form Canon.

218
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 07, 2012, 05:11:40 PM »
Color resolution and black and white resolution are different. It will still look sharper Even if you're not getting any more red redolution. The maximum resolution of the best full frame prime lenses is just under 30 mp (28.3 mp). Add a low pass filter into the mix and you can justify at least 31 mp as being usable. With 36mp bring usable in around 3 years.

46mp is just useless thoug for the next decade probably. But hey it's better than 20 mp even if its overkill.

219
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 27, 2012, 12:32:34 PM »
With current lens technology the maximum limit for resolving power of a lens is 28.3 megapixels on full frame with a prime lens only between f/4.0 to f/8.0.

A 1Dx costs 5  times what a 7D. A medium format camera costs 7 times what a full frame costs.

APS-C is limited to around 19 megapixels with current lenses.
Full frame is limited to 28.3 megapixels with any current Nikon Canon or 3rd party lenses (including super telephotos, tilt shift, ANY lens)
Medium format is limited to around 60 megapixels with current lenses.

So in reality the cost to benefit difference between medium format and full frame is actually better than the cost to benefit difference between the 7D and a 1Dx.


220
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 06:49:42 PM »
Considering today's 35 f/1.4 is already superlative...what, aside from the price tag, will be different with the new one?

b&


The 35mm 1.4 was spectacular when it was released, now it's just average. It's so average in fact that a third party 35mm 1.4 Canon EF lens you can buy for $350 brand new is much better than Canon's own $1350 35mm 1.4, which is ridiculous:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Just from that comparison I see the following that could be noticably improved:

-Corner sharpness
-Mid frame sharpness
-Severe Color Fringing

Here are some other factors which could be improved:

- Flare resistance (better coatings)
- mid frame and corner sharpness for meridonial detail stopped down
- Color fringing stopped down, it's plainly visible even at f/8.0
- Purple Fringing (I notice this in my copy)

Don't get me wrong even with all these problems the 35mm 1.4L is probably my favorite prime of all time ever, the combination of pleasing quality, focal length and aperture are amazing.

However if it were as good as say this, well... we can only dream.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


221
If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:



That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter and so produces sharper images.

Furthermore many of the people saying that the 5D3 isn't that much better in ISO are not comparing the cameras correctly in likely two ways. Camera manufactuers generally make up their cameras ISO ratings out of thin air. There are a few acceptable ways of rating ISO but most manufacturers chose the least regulated ones which so the manufacturer can essentially make up their ISO numbers as they see fit and when the 5D2 was released the ISO ratings were very optimistic to say the least with ISO 12800 being actually around what is commonly accepted as ISO 7000. With the 5D3 Canon has been less optimistic so ISO 12800 is actually a "true" ISO of 10000. The point is that people are comparing cameras using their RATED ISO which are on different scales not ISO measured on the same scale. It's like comparing a car going 0-60 kph vs a car that's going 0-60 mph, which doesn't make sense. The other issue is that after speaking to several Canon Techs and Reps, it seems that Canon specially designed the 5D3 to produce very low noise JPG's for photographers that have to shoot in JPG. Part of the innovation that they introduced was software but they also engineered the hardware to help in the process to make the noise coming from the sensor have far less speckle noise and have a very gausian distribution. This makes computer programs able to distinguish from the noise easier so when you apply noise reduction there is a slight advantage to the 5D3 of around a quarter of a stop more than the RAW data would suggest.


In any case here's a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D2 rendered at the same resolution with the same ACR settings applied at a true ISO of 10084 for both cameras, this is a combination of a series of exposures using a method developed in consultation with the Cambridge Signal Processing Lab. I do consulting for a few camera review websites to develop testing methods and put this together for a project, with permission from all collaborators.

In any case feel free to spot the difference between the 5D2 and 5D3. :)



The 5D3 sensor is actually very advanced and has 0.55 stop advantage over the D800 in noise at higher ISO. Due to the fundamental technology that Canon uses in it's sensors, they cannot improve the low ISO performance very much.

222
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 16, 2012, 12:34:27 PM »
How does this make sense? Why would I want a $2000 plastic 5DII equivalent when I can have the real thing for the same money? And I don't believe there is any noticeable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor. So what gives?



If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:



That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter that is more efficient in terms of preventing lost detail for a given level of moire reduction and so produces sharper images.

Furthermore many of the people saying that the 5D3 isn't that much better in ISO are not comparing the cameras correctly in likely two ways. Camera manufactuers generally make up their cameras ISO ratings out of thin air. There are a few acceptable ways of rating ISO but most manufacturers chose fringe methods which aren't widely respected so the can make up their ISO numbers as they see fit and when the 5D2 was released the ISO ratings were very optimistic to say the least with ISO 12800 being actually around what is commonly accepted as ISO 7000. With the 5D3 Canon has been less optimistic so ISO 12800 is actually a "true" ISO of 10000. The point is that people are comparing cameras using their RATED ISO which are on different scales not ISO measured on the same scale. It's like comparing a car going 0-60 kph vs a car that's going 0-60 mph, which doesn't make sense. The other issue is that after speaking to several Canon Techs and Reps, it seems that Canon specially designed the 5D3 to produce very low noise JPG's for photographers that have to shoot in JPG. Part of the innovation that they introduced was software but they also engineered the hardware to help in the process to make the noise coming from the sensor have far less speckle noise and have a very gausian distribution. This makes computer programs able to distinguish from the noise easier so when you apply noise reduction there is a slight advantage to the 5D3 of around a quarter of a stop more than the RAW data would suggest.


In any case here's a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D2 rendered at the same resolution with the same ACR settings applied at a true ISO of 10084 for both cameras, this is a combination of a series of exposures using a method developed in consultation with the Cambridge Signal Processing Lab. I do consulting for a few camera review websites to develop testing methods and put this together for a project, with permission from all collaborators.

In any case feel free to spot the difference between the 5D2 and 5D3. :)




223
Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:53:32 AM »
Seriously people like you make me furious beyond all reason. If you look at the MTF graph at the tele end this lens has performance that is nearly identical if not better than the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, with the wide end only trailing slightly.

The 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has around 60% more resolution than the 24-70mm Mark I. SIXTY PERCENT. The Mark II on the telephoto end should be as sharp in the extreme corners as the mark I was at the god damned center.

Can somebody plz point me in the direction of the MTF charts? I saw them a while back, but can't find them again.

Can't wait for this lens!!!

They're on Canon's website, here's a comparison I did of the MTF though between the 24-70mm II at the tele end and the 100mm macro. "better" means that the 24-70mm II is better, and worse means it's worse:

parallel to central axis: (overall: slightly worse center, slightly better corners)

 10 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-15: equal 15-21: 10% better
  Stopped Down: 0-15: equal 15-21: 2% worse

 30 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-12: 10% worse 12-20: 10% better
  Stopped Down: 0-12: equal 15-21: 14% worse


perpendicular to central axis: (overall: slightly better center, slightly worse corners, )

 10 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-5: equal 5-20: 7% worse
  Stopped Down: 0-15: equal 15-21: 2% better

 30 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: equal
  Stopped Down: 0-5: 5% better 5-15: equal 15-21: 5% worse


Overall it seems dead even to the 100mm macro, in some areas it's better in some worse but it evens out.


224
Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:10:41 AM »
I am so bummed.  I just read that the lens is 82 mm.  None of my landscape filters will fit.  why did they do that :'(

Your response is the definition of a nitpick. If you look at the MTF graph at the tele end this lens has performance that is nearly identical if not better than the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, both wide open and stopped down, with the wide end only trailing slightly.

The 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has around 60% more resolution than the 24-70mm Mark I. The Mark II on the telephoto end should be as sharp in the extreme corners as the mark I is at the center.

And you're complaining about a filter size... The lens is an amazing acheivement. If it bothers you so much stick with the mark I version. A fast zoom lens with the image quality of the 24-70mm F/2.8 Mark II is the stuff of myths and legends.

225
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 26, 2012, 03:06:56 PM »
This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.
Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm.  I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

That coresponds perfectly to the difference in the known abbilities of the IS system.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 23