October 23, 2014, 04:09:10 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 - messus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Version 2.0.3 Released
« on: January 10, 2014, 07:35:33 AM »
Still no clean HDMI. That's it!! I am selling this overpriced camera! Nikon D4s next! ARROGANT Canon!

And please consider this Canon:  Not all who own the 1DX are sports idiots or ornithologists, some just want the best possible low light performance for their creative work!

I work and shoot in the dark (video and stills). And the 1DX has one stop ISO advantage over the 5D Mark III, and has way less color banding when lifting shadows than the 5D Mark III. But after Canon gave the 5D Mark III clean HDMI the advantage is less than before on video.It is certainly possible to give the 1DX clean HDMI, since the 1DC hast it. But Canon finds it more convenient to force me into selling my house to buy the 1DC, than to give the 1DX the same features as the Nikon D4 !!!

Why did you put "idiots" behind sports?

Sorry about my bad choice of words, and sorry for my bad english, my main language is not english.
Certainly did not mean to offend anyone, in my frustration I was just mentioning the two main categories for which some believe the 1DX is intended for. My choice of words may have been "childish", in my frustration. But I have to say, some of the answers given me are just as "childish", maybe I deserved that. But  I have to say I am amazed how brand loyal some can be, rather than being loyal to the technology that are possible, some are more loyal to their choice of brand!

I know there are a lot of hardcore still-photographers out there that could not care less if your camera could do video or not. Still, it is a fact, that todays DSLRS are not only being bought and used for still photography. Video on DSLR has brough new amazing creative oportunites. And we are all looking to get the most "bang for our bucks".

Remember when the 1DX was introduced? The first commercial story was aobut these ice climbers who filmed with their 1DX. Like it or not, the 1DX is supposed to be able to do video as well. Professional video.

And believe it or not, I also do some photography of birds, whales, and events where the 1DX is excellent. However, the fact is that the main competing product to the 1DX is the Nikon D4. The Nikon D4 has virtually the same photographic capabilites as the 1DX, and it also has clean uncompressed video, the 1DX does not, and the 1DX is even priced higher! And the reason is not because the 1DX can't have clean HDMI, it is because Canon does not want it to have it, because they want you to protect their video department from cannibalization, and they want you to splash out USD$14,000 on the 1DC. (Remember when Canon said that it was impossible for the 5D Mark III to get clean HDMI video?) This arrogant behaviour of Canon is what makes me angry and frustrated. Obviously, since I have invested heavly  in Canon over the years, in both bodies and glass.

Yeah I know the 5D Mark III is more aimed at the HDSLR user. But my initial point was, and still is, the 1DX has a far superior sensor to the 5D Mark III (I know since I have them both). And working in the dark makes the 1DX far superior with less noise, particularly less color noise, and less color banding in the shadows when lifiting shadows. When the 5D Mark III was upgraded with clean uncompressed video you got much more control over the quality of post processing and compression is in your own hands. You should not have to pay an extra USD$7000 just to get the clean HDMI video (1DC), when the Nikon D4 which is priced lower than the 1DX has clean HDMI.

I think it is disrespectfull of Canon to offer clean uncompress HDMI to the 5D Mark III after preassure from their customers (the 5D Mark III did not initially have clean HDMI video), but not to the much more expensive 1DX, even when a large group of CPS 1DX users are asking for the same.

In the end, Canon's goal of protecting their video department, and their greedy arrogant behaviour, could prove to be their downfall. Nikon will continue to improve their HDSLRS, and that's why I am eagerly awaiting the D4s. Some say it will get 4K video. A loose rumor, but who knows, it is already possible to shoot short bursts of 4K RAW video on the Nikon 1 mirrorless compact.

Please people, stop being so unconditional brand loyal. Start demanding bang for your bucks from Canon!!

Have you forgotten the red-dot-blinking-follow-focus-AF-issue with the 1DX? Still annoys me why that focus point can not be illuminated constantly rather than blink!







2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Version 2.0.3 Released
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:08:51 AM »
Still no clean HDMI. That's it!! I am selling this overpriced camera! Nikon D4s next! ARROGANT Canon!

And please consider this Canon:  Not all who own the 1DX are sports idiots or ornithologists, some just want the best possible low light performance for their creative work!

I work and shoot in the dark (video and stills). And the 1DX has one stop ISO advantage over the 5D Mark III, and has way less color banding when lifting shadows than the 5D Mark III. But after Canon gave the 5D Mark III clean HDMI the advantage is less than before on video.It is certainly possible to give the 1DX clean HDMI, since the 1DC hast it. But Canon finds it more convenient to force me into selling my house to buy the 1DC, than to give the 1DX the same features as the Nikon D4 !!!

3
Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2013, 04:12:37 AM »
Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.


Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I  have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently  I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).




4
Lenses / Re: Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 12, 2013, 02:32:44 AM »
Lot's of wish-lishes here.

But if Canon are to be serious they need to remedy where they (we) are hurting most, and it is not primarily in the long end.

Although in my opinion, every EF lens from 50mm and down should have been upgraded a long time ago, it is in no doubt that
Canon has for a long time been neglecting the wide angle department, and the current line up has been beaten by competition for a long time..

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

My top 3 wishes are:

1. I would like to hope that Canon are capable of producing an optical competitive UWA zoom lens to match/beat the Nikon 14-24 2.8 / Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8. Both these mentioned lenses are both better and cheaper than the Canon 14mm 2.8 II.
2. I would love to see an upgrade of the 16-35 2.8 with acceptable corner IQ.
3. I think Canon really need to replace the really bad 24 1.4 II !! The price/IQ here is out of proportions!



5
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 05:44:17 AM »

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but as a Canon user I must admit that yes the Nikon 14-24 is THE best ultra wide zoom, EVER!

It is not perfect, and yes it is prone to flares. But in most situations I can live with the flare, or the flare is not present.

I would take the flares, and the lack of shitty filters, on any given day, as long as the lens is optically superior you will find ways to work with all the other "flaws" !

If Canon is smart, they will allow for gelatin filters at the backend, like the 17-40. But hey, filters are so nostalgic, do multiple exposures and blend in post!!

Yes the 16-35 II is versatile, but it it does not do justice to my 7 grand 1DX or my 3 grand 5D3 !

Even the heavy moustache distortion, and the vignetting on the Samyang 14 is correctable in post!
The mushy corners and the insane CA and coma distortion in the EF 16-35 II (and the EF 14  2.8 L II), is impossible to correct in post!

But I would take both a 14-24 2.8 L and  a new versatile improved 16-35 2.8 III !

Just BRING EM on this time! And don't let us wait in vain (and pain)!!

6
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:31:20 AM »
Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept.  A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70.  I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70.  I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill.  I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium.   Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.  Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element.  Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies.  It's that amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work.  I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF).  I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare.  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.   :P

- A

Totally agree!

Canon need to produce an optically competitive UWA to battle the Nikon 14-24!
I sold the 16-35 2.8 L II due to corner softness, CA, coma.. It is basically useless for low lit landscape work.
I have the 24 II 1.4, which should also be replaced soon! Corners are ridiculously bad!! The coma is the worst I have ever seen in a lens! You don't buy a 24 1.4 lens to stop it down, you buy to be able to use it wide open! Due to the bad corner performance of this lens it is also almost useless wide open.

The 24.70 II is very good! But we need a UWA lens which can compete with the Nikon 14-24!

BTW! The EF 14 L 2.8 II is also BAD in the corners, suffering from coma and CA, and needs to be replaced. As well as the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2./1.4/1.8. But it is ridiculous that those of us that actually spent 7 grand on a 1DX, and 3 grand on a 5D3, do not have a really sharp and good Canon UWA lens to use on those bodies! It is actually disrespectful to Canon FF customers!! So more important with new UWA 2.8 and 24 1.4, than 35 and 50mm.

I am using the Nikon 14-24 with adapter, and the Samyang 14. Waiting for the Canon 14-24, I will happily pay 2K for it, but I suspect it will cost 3K.

I hope the EF 14-24 2.8 L is at least equally good as the Nikon 14-24, if not, it may hurt Canon really really bad!! I think Canon is aware of this, and this may be the reason why it takes so long before this lens is announced! This lens NEEDS to be PERFECT !!

If Canon is incapable of matching the Nikon 14-24, it may be wise to just skip this lens. The negativity that will arise among Canon FF customers, if the Canon EF 14-24 is not equally good (hopefully better) as the Nikon 14-24, will be out of proportions!

7
Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 09:51:56 AM »
The 16-35 2.8 L is way past replacment date! (as well as the 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II)

Reading this review makes me loose faith in the person writing it!

When you buy a 2.8 lens, you buy it to be usefull wide open in low-lit scenes.
Wide open, the 16-35 2.8 II is suffering from severe CA and Coma, in particular in the corners, not to mention the vignetting and corner softness.

It is disrespectful of Canon to launch the 1D-X, the 5D-3 without a new optically competitive wide angle lens to go with it. Canon seem to have forgotten their wide angle department, focusing only on tele-lenses and cinema-lenses.

I have had the 16-35 II, sold it and replaced it with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14. The Canon 16-35 is nowhere close optically to these lenses. The only advantage the 16-35 holds is the autofocus. But still, when taking the price into consideration makes you wanna laugh!

Canon, look at the Nikon 14-24, and get your fingers out of your **** !!



8
Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 30, 2013, 01:53:38 AM »
Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.

The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.

The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion.

I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!

A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens.

The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24.

The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Fluorite
« on: February 26, 2013, 03:19:30 AM »
So why fool around with a me too lens?

As Sigma already makes a 12-24 zoom (I owned a ver1) it seems to me that Canon could do Nikon one better and make  a 12-24 f4.
My Sigma was sharp in the center at f8 and smaller and sharp-ish at the extreme edges only at f13. I have heard reports that the ver2 is much better.

If Canon did this they would trump Nikon in the UWA zoom range and if we have any justice it would be as sharp as the new 24-70II.

Sigma 12-24 is S**T in the corners! No point in getting the extra 2mm focal length when it is so difficult to construct a 12mm lens, and when corner performance is as bad as it is on the Sigma, completely useless!. Also before Canon tryes to make a 12mm lens they need to prove they can compete with the rest on 14mm!!  And forget about f/4, we need f/2.8 just like the Nikon and the Samyang. Canon need to release a 14-24 2.8 lens, no point in making a new 14mm alone, when Nikons 14-24 is sharper and optically superior @14mm to Canons prime 14mm lens. Also you can not use filters on Canons 14mm, so it basically has no advantage what-so-ever over the Nikon 14-24! I have both the Samyang 14mm and the Nikon 14-24, which I am using on my 1DX/5d3/5D2, and I have been using the Canon 14mm 2.8 v2 a lot, so I know Canon need to get a grip!

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Flourite
« on: February 25, 2013, 07:09:30 AM »
Please GOD let this be true!!! And please give it to us now!!!!

11
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 1D X - Clean HDMI out
« on: February 08, 2013, 08:37:23 AM »
Not that I use clean hdmi, but I completely agree with your logics and I was very surprised that the 5d3 had this added in firmware and nothing about it for the 1d x.

Yeah thats what I mean, it is not logic if it stays that way.

Clean HDMI for the 1DX NOW !!!

12
EOS Bodies - For Video / 1D X - Clean HDMI out
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:34:15 AM »
Now that we know that the 5D Mark III will be getting clean uncompressed HDMI by April 2013, I think it's time Canon also confirms this feature also will be made available for us who chose to spend even more money on buying the 1D X.

I work with both stills and video, and I bought the 1DX for it's extra low light performance and DR over the 5D3.

Given what we now know, that the much cheaper 5D3 will get clean HDMI out, it will be absolutely unacceptable if the 1DX does not get the same upgrade!! We know it is possible since the 1DC already have this option on 1080p footage.

So I really hope Canon would please give us who spend all our money on them, what we want!!

It would be remarkable if the 1DC and the 5D3 should have clean HDMI out, and the 1DX would not!!
This would mean Canon would try to force me to sell my house to get the ISO and DR performance on video of the 1DX through the 1DC. Which of course will not happen!

A faster and cheaper solution may be to just buy the Nikon D4!

Your thoughts?

Ola

13
The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically. 

14
Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 05, 2012, 01:34:43 PM »
EF 14-24 2.8 L USM
EF 24 1.4 III L USM (without the horrible corner performance and coma and CA like v2)

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:00:20 AM »
It's hard to even see it is blinking red when shooting in daylight :( - Even if set to bright... How annoying

Given the fact that Canon allready said this update would not please all, I think it is apparent a solid red follow-focus point in AI-Servo, is something we will never get on the 1DX, or the 5D3.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4