July 30, 2014, 08:44:27 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 - fman

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 03:45:33 AM »
I wouldn't call it a "bad" sensor. Roger Clark has some interesting comparisons of IQ between the 7D and a number of other cameras, including the 5D II, 1D IV, etc. The 7D in those comparisons is actually good, captures more detail, just as much if not more light, all despite the added noise. On a size-normal basis, the 7D tends to outperform even the 1D IV until higher ISO settings.

It is not a "great" sensor, but technically and statistically speaking neither is it a "bad" sensor...it is just a middle-ground sensor that neither "wows" like the D800 nor truly sucks like a cheap P&S with a 16mp microsensor with pixels barely large enough to accommodate the wavelengths of light its supposed to be capturing. I don't think any of that actually changes your point, however... ;P

The current 18 MP Canon sensor is not particularly bad (but not good either), especially when compared with other Canon sensors.

It's rather that Canon's sensor tech lags years behind Sony that can be found e.g. in Nikon D5100/7000 or Olympus OM-D E-M5 (which is despite the smaller sensor size is as good or better than the 18MP Canons).

So when compared with Sony sensors it becomes visible that all that years passed brought no IQ improvement to Canon sensors (high ISO noise, dynamic range) and it would be particularly bad that 70D re-used the same old tech meaning 2 more years with no IQ improvement whatsoever for APS-C Canons.

Oh and I'm not wishing for more megapixels...that would be the worst thing to happen IQ wise.

I would not mind Canon using Sony sensors for APS-C bodies if they cannot keep up in sensor tech.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 04:38:58 PM »
Why not take flash on vacation? -  There is plenty of room in the car

Oh I forgot to ask, do you always travel by car overseas?  ;D
I really envy you then.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 04:35:21 PM »
To start with, view finder of M4/3 is way below DSLR. AF and shutter lag of M4/3 is also slower than the DSLR.  Thes two alone will make me stay away from M4/3. If you pack the DSLR bag conservatively(one body with with 17-40mm, 28-135mm and 50mm f 1.8 and a few odds and ends) the bag can stay on the shoulder all day long.


The viewfinder of the GH2 (sure it's electronic, which means it's also bright) is comparable in size with the VF of the 1Ds and bigger than any of the APS-Cs.
Just scroll down a bit.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page3.asp

From my personal experience AF is also very fast except in very dark scenarios (where also DLSR had trouble without AF assist light from flash centre AF point with f/2.8 or faster lens).
Also in case of micro 4/3 you're not limited with AF to middle point, which is the only possibility in case of 5DmkII due to it's crappy AF point arrangement and archaic AF system.

Sure there is some shutter lag. Never even bothered to look up the specs.

With the listed lens you cover less, and you have also only one fast prime.

Video compared:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

I like  micro 4/3 as currently there is the biggest choice of both lens and bodies. Both very capable.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:43:22 AM »
I would be very surprised if 4/3 got near the 5D2 at iso3200 never mind the 5DIII or 1DX.


5DmkIII or 1Dx no, but it easily beats 5DmkII in JPG and comes very-very close in RAW at ISO3200:
JPG (pick the camera): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/20
RAW: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/21
A result unimaginable just a year ago...

In video Pana G (G5, GH2) cameras beat any DSLR from Canon including 5DmkIII.

So I don't really see the reason not to travel light.
A pro work is different.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:21:09 AM »
PS How good are radio flash on the 4/3? Or iso 3200 for the churches?


You'd be surprised how good e.g. E-M5 at ISO3200. It easily beats recent APS-C cameras and yesterday's FF (so no-one compares it to G12).
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OM-D_E-M5/high_ISO_noise.shtml

Radio flash on vacation or for family photos? Don't make me lough. I rarely use it even with my 580EXII with DSLR (not really radio, but light control).
Most important use of my 580EXII is to bring up the shadows.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 08:15:14 AM »
I'm always surprised at people who have never tried micro 4/3 and yet they are convinced that they need a FF DSLR with ultra fast lens to make good family/vacation photos (or a portrait cannot be good enough if the background is not melted to nothing).
Lack of confidence? Addiction?
I've been in places where even a small camera with a small lens was high risk to attract too much attention (hint: e.g. one of the new 7 Wonders of the World).

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:04:48 AM »
I will have the 1DS3 and 1DS2 plus 40mm, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300, 17-40 and tse24, probably the 600, plus of course a couple of 580s and stands. On holiday one has the time and opportunity to get good pictures so a 4/3 would be a waste of time and effort.

The large whites are about high IQ as much as low light (I use flash anyway) and bg blurring.

Although I have couple of Canon lens (2 of them are whites, but would prefer them in black)+DSLR body, my choice for vacation: Pana 7-14, 14-140 or 14-45 (14-150 would be for Oly) and 20 1.7 + Oly 45 1.8.
So altogether 4 lens (2 zooms, 2 primes).

I don't think that equipment would be holding back me in anything (ok. there is no TS in the set, but TS would be the last thing I'd take with me with for vacation; there is also no macro but I don't shoot macro so much to justify the Pana 45 2.8 ).

I know people who swapped 7D and couple of L lens for such a set.  I won't swap DSLR (as it has also its place) but I really don't get excited hearing such rumors like in this post.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2012, 04:40:35 AM »

Are you really suggesting that a GH2 is better than my 1DS3 with 200 f/2?   ... then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

From flexibility/portability perspective a GH2 + a bunch of micro 4/3 lens (which still cost less, weighs less and takes less space in your bag) are way better than an 1Ds3 with 200 f/2.
So yes in 99.9999% of the cases yes micro 4/3 with a bunch of lens is better (for stills E-M5, for video GH2 or G5). For the remaining 0.0001% 1Ds3+ 200 f/2 wins big time (when you need extreme low light performance, background blurring etc.).

All I wanted to say that entry level DSLRs (no matter if crop or FF) with kit lens is a very heavy and space taking way for non pro usage. In most of the cases it's also a costly way. Far too many people have the misconception that for vacations, daily snapshots they need a DSLR and couple of expensive lens. In fact most would be better served with something smaller, lighter and most of the time less expensive.
Real pro usage is different. However that's probably not the target for an entry level crop or FF DSLR with crippled ergonomics and functionality.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2012, 03:17:03 PM »
I've used the very best point and shoots and bridge cameras, and for my tastes they simply cannot compare to even the lowest level DSLRs (e.g. Rebel T3).

Have you also choose to ignore that I was talking about interchangeable lens micro 4/3 (like Olympus E-M5 or Panasonic GH2) and not point and shoots and bridge cameras?

Just because if you cannot make a difference between micro 4/3 and point & shoot/bridge then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

Don't even bother to make a bit of search with terms like "GH2 beats 5D". I did not need to search as I have personal experience both with Canon DSLR and e.g. GH2.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2012, 11:28:37 AM »
7,748 and counting... (based on 5/1/1991 release of Kodak DCS 100).

You may have missed the entry level part.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2012, 11:02:49 AM »
A Pop-Up Flash for FF so that TS-E lens will be a pain to use and anyway it does not allow shutter speed to go below 1/200? I hope not.
No mentioning of dual slots? Even rumored new micro 4/3 (like GH3) bodies will have that...
Canon DSLR video is beaten by even current GH2 (in terms of quality, from usability perspective DSLR does not even come close).
No mentioning of tilt-swivel LCD? I know FF is so professional that no-one needs it...
Sure it can attract a lot of people just because it's FF and can be a money machine for Canon but really is this the DSLR that I'm supposed to be excited in 2012?
I go on and check that micro 4/3 lens chart again now. That's more interesting. The days of these entry level DSLRs can be counted.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2012, 05:12:31 AM »
Would be interested if:
- Sensor performance (especially low ISO DR) is improved and it comes at least close to D5100 http://a2bart.com/tech/5d2vs5d3.htm
- Has dual slot (one SDHC that can handle UHS-I)
- Has articulated screen
- Price remains reasonable (comparable to recent Nikon prices)
Built in radio controller for flash would be nice.

Otherwise I'm unsubscribed.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 20, 2012, 09:47:34 AM »
I'm ready to accept DxOMark camera measurement results (their scoring is a mess, let's forget about it).

But anyone caring to explain their 70-200 IS II resolution measurement?

DP photos shown a significant improvement (at least to my eyes), not loss of resolution:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

How comes such a huge gap between measurement results and test photos?

There must be something wrong in their testing methods or I don't understand what resolution means...
I'm really not biased, just trying to understand.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Why Do You Need 250 60D's?
« on: July 29, 2011, 02:42:33 AM »
Actually, it looks like a video shoot done with Canon Marketing input.

Is 60D selling so badly in the light of Nikon D7000/D5100?

30
Lenses / Re: Canon Lens Price Increases
« on: July 18, 2011, 03:55:38 AM »
Those who make business using these lens need to recalculate now if it still worth the price. There is no point of going emotional here. Who were planning to by these lens for fun can be easily scared away, especially considering the possible price drop after the Olympic games.

Price is mostly indicating some kind of supply-demand balance.
As demand of these lenses is unlikely to see an unpredictable huge increase, this is an admission from Canon that they expect (at least an initial) supply shortage of these lens.

This is bad news when thinking about long rumored lenses. If Canon is expecting a supply shortage in flagship products, will they risk announcing/introducing something that they may not be able to supply just as it's happening now? Non-flagship products are quicker to see a competition...

Pages: 1 [2] 3