46
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 12, 2013, 04:15:01 PM »
not image wise, I think you have read to much Canon or Nikon marketing mumbo jumbo
May 25, 2013, 06:45:05 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.
47
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: May 12, 2013, 12:05:34 PM »
I take the discussion else where, but the last pictures and several others photos , what have they to do with HDR?
We can take this example, which I also have corrected , contrast etc, original look hazy
Motive you should manage with one exposure and some work in raw and PS
We can take this example, which I also have corrected , contrast etc, original look hazy
Motive you should manage with one exposure and some work in raw and PS
48
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 12, 2013, 11:57:53 AM »
Real MTF tests show different results. Please explain in what way the super tele from Nikon are inferior to Canon except that the Nikon tele weighs a little bit more.
49
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 12, 2013, 07:11:04 AM »
There is a superstition that Canon, Nikon, etc. have patented solutions that make it one of the brand by far better, fluorite is one such example. All big companies has their own solution as Nikon, Pentax, Leits,Zeiss etc
I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji etc etc
I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji etc etc
50
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 12, 2013, 06:41:41 AM »Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).
Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.
This is a total myth, and why keep on spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete) that make it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.
And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen 300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars and let Hasselblads MTF Lab measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.
Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Bayonet diameter doesn*t help for wide angles if the rectangular tube between bayonet and shutter shades parts of the lens' back element.
Do you have a link of that swedish foto magazin test? Would be very interesting how they measured the data!
off course the larger diameter and the larger mirror chambers area helps when they calculate an optimal wide-angle and the border rays
That Nikon 14-24 are so good is because it is a near tele-centric construction, all real tele-centric construction as other construction have benefits of a larger chamber /bayonet as they can make the rear lens construction larger in a tele centric construction as one example
Regarding the test you refer to: all tele lenses and converters are optimized at a certain distance, take picture of a test chart with all the errors its means is not a good idea. The super telephoto lenses was measured by Hasselblads real MTF lab for the the magazine Foto. http://tidningenfoto.se/fem-supertelen-och-panasonic-gh3-i-testarkivet/
51
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 11, 2013, 09:38:19 AM »
And fluorite is also one reason that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.
That's interesting where did you get that detail?
I have got it from my last trip out in the space, and it toke about 1liter single malt
no- there have been a documentaries about cameras who have been in the space , Hasselblad and Nikon and also we have been able to follow Fugelstam the Swedish astronaut, where he show the Nikon equipment, about fluorite glass you can google how fragile it is , there are lot information.There are also one link from 2004 who now is down or gone about the subject Cracking due to shock and rapid changes in temperature:
http://alice.as.arizona.edu/~rogerc/chapters/Chapter%204a.html
and last, I have a great contact net since 30 years back, I have as a member of the press been at Photokina in Köln every second year since my first time (I think it was) 1978 so I have heard and seen many things during the years, like the first OLED monitor by Kodak when Kodak still was big or Hasselblad with 3 ccd Foveon sensor, buried as quickly as it appeared, or Contax, Pentax 24x36mm digital cameras who didn't get a long life etc
52
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 11, 2013, 09:12:26 AM »Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).
Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.
This is a total myth, and why keep on spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete) that make it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.
And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen 300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars and let Hasselblads MTF Lab measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.
53
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:43:57 PM »Lets move on. So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently. I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of 2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be -- beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2. is anyone anticipating more than this?
Canon has repeatedly said that the 7D2 will be "a significant upgrade" and "a game-changer". The safest bet is new sensor technology and improvements to AF, burst rate, video, and remote control. At the minimum it should be the unveiling of sensor performance that the rumoured high-megapixel camera will have.... and it is possible that they will skip over the .18 micron technology to something else... who knows?
And that's the crux of it.... "Who knows?" In the meantime we wildly speculate. We have no hard evidence to back up our speculations, but it's fun to dream.
I'll probably get one when it is released.... but I am patient enough to wait, plus my 60D works just fine.... I bet it has at least another 15000 shutter releases on it before the 7D2 comes out
game-changer
new sensor tech
So suddenly Canon changes to something new regarding sensors , where stands the 1dx, 5dmk3 , 6D after that?
and 1DX and now 6D newly presented in to the market.
Sounds like little bit unrealistic don't you think?.
54
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:59:56 PM »So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.
There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better.
Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand. What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense.
Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...(kidding)
why use fluorite ? when Nikon have their "new SuperED glass" and the optical properties of this new glass closely resemble those of fluorite, Super ED glass is more resilient to rapid temperature changes (thermal shock) and not as susceptible to cracking as the crystal structure of fluorite. Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite, making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than chromatic aberration.
And fluorite is also one reason that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.
55
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:24:12 PM »
There are so many myths spreading about better glass etc
Take a look and se who are making the glass, from where does the glass come from.
And about glass, I took today out one of Canons true classic lenses 200/1,8 for some air and sun, a lens with the highest MTF score of all lenses 10 years back and also measured by Hasselblads lab in Gothenburg and for fun I did a comparison with 70-200/2,8ISmk2.
It is still excellent good
Take a look and se who are making the glass, from where does the glass come from.
And about glass, I took today out one of Canons true classic lenses 200/1,8 for some air and sun, a lens with the highest MTF score of all lenses 10 years back and also measured by Hasselblads lab in Gothenburg and for fun I did a comparison with 70-200/2,8ISmk2.
It is still excellent good
56
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:11:26 PM »Two words: Better glass.
Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.
Better glass?
in what way?
57
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:09:51 PM »Hey ,
How come that it seems that canon lenses (seems to) play a lot better with Tc's?
for example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1
600mm's
or: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=654&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
300mm's
or:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=651&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
70-200's
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
It looks to consistent to be a flaw from the digital picture, also the nikon lenses without teleconverter look plenty sharp., also photographylife lens comparisons seems to confirm that the nikons are affected more by teleconverters ( in reviews i compare the crops form 300+1.4 to a 400 and the difference seems a lot more pronounced than in canon crops)
Just interested to an explanation, because it seems that the bare lenses perform really good.
there are so many errors in this kind of tests, where is the absolute focus plane, which camera are used etc etc
58
Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:07:07 PM »Interesting, i was not aware that the difference was that 'big'
Does that mean nikon has to update all their tele's and converters within 5 years if the MP's keep increasing ?
I can imagine 40-50+ mp sensors will expose flaws even more ( especially with tc's?)
and it is not,
300/2,8 400/2,8, 500/4.0 600/4 from Nikon and Canon where all measured by Hasselblads real MTF test in Gothenburg for the Photo Magazine "Foto" in Sweden this spring and they where all excellent with the same MTF
So you can use what ever you want from this 2 company, they are equal good
59
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon wins big at TIPA
« on: May 10, 2013, 10:06:55 AM »
TIPA is a mystery
I have a good friend who has been a member of the TIPA jury for many years, their have their meetings and vote for equipments they have not tried or seen .
I have a good friend who has been a member of the TIPA jury for many years, their have their meetings and vote for equipments they have not tried or seen .
60
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:59:47 PM »
possible, but you can make/develope two copies from the same raw file/exposure , one after highlights and one after the shadows and blend them, handhold and no worry about the subject moving or not.