August 02, 2014, 05:33:49 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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 114
1
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:17:24 PM »
I really hope I'm proved right and the 7DII doesnt have a pop up flash. I just hate that nasty little bit of cheap plastic on a quality camera.

I really hope you are wrong!!
It's mostly those who want to show their camera off and appear to be such cool 'real pros' who knock stuff like that.

I wish you'd been there when the pop up flash got snapped off my D200, but then you'd probably have been in nappies at that time judging by the above quote.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:08:11 PM »
I really hope I'm proved right and the 7DII doesnt have a pop up flash. I just hate that nasty little bit of cheap plastic on a quality camera.

3
Pentax advertise their camera covered in rain water - the great adventurer's camera - or something like that. You get stupid videos of some army guy covering a K7 and K5 in sand, then washing it off with a hose pipe. Or a YouTube video of someone holding a K7 + 50-135 under a shower.

I had a K7 for a short time ( the worst sensor in any camera - ever ) but I did use it in the rain and it was OK. However you do hear reports of weather sealed Pentax dslrs failing after getting wet. Seems like the sealing is not guaranteed hence no IP rating, so you take your chances with your particular camera.

Canon specifically do not advertise their dslrs covered in water. ( maybe there once was a 1D advert like that). I am very wary of getting them wet. The weather sealing on the 5DII served me well when I dropped the camera in sand and the grains into the buttons and dials, but over time as they dried they just fell out; the seals had stopped them penetrating the body.

Water though is another thing altogether, it's ability to find its way past sealing - not just in cameras- is uncanny. I would avoid getting any camera wet. It is, after all, an electrically powered computer.

(This advice doesn't apply to a Pentax K7 - it has such a low value who cares ?)

4
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:19:54 AM »
I highly doubt the 50 f/1.8 is going anywhere. It is a top seller, yielding dependable profit margins.

I believe that the current 50/1.8 is the most chosen lens to purchase after the 'kit' zoom lens. Those people have grown up with IS. Therefore I think it is quite likely that Canon might feel that to maintain this momentum 'my first prime lens' should have IS.

Regarding your 50L, it was so gorgeous you sold it ?

5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:12:01 AM »
I do know that in the UK at least a lot of well respected photographers jumped on the 50L in 2007 expecting it to be an L version of the 50/1.4 and were horrified ! I know that Canon took a stream of complaints from those guys ! 

Since then the lens has been better understood for what it is, but it still disappoints many.

It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a new 50L 1.4 that is reasonably priced. Personally I wouldn't want the size of the Otus / Sigma in a short prime.

The rumoured 50/1.8 IS may then become a bottom of the range lens to replace the current 50/1.8.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 31, 2014, 02:18:40 AM »
I thought it was pretty well known now that the indicated ISO speeds on digital cameras are not consistent even from model to model from the same manufacturer. So for example ISO 100 on a 6D is actually 80, on a 5DII it is 73, and on a 5D 92.

This can be confirmed with an accurate hand held light meter. Set the meter to 100 and you get an under exposure of one third to two thirds depending on the camera you are using.

We can thank DxO for this information.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:20:30 AM »


Quote
Anything in a studio is shot at 100 ISO, and that counts for a lot of paid work in this, or any other world.
Irrelevant, and a niche example: most photography is not done at 100 ISO in a studio, is it?

Since when did you not have full control over DR in a studio ? It's amusing to see zigzag's argument for "kills it" difference beginning to unravel.

Likewise posting an example of lighting failure and recovering a picture from it continues the gravitational pull on his arguments.

I still see nothing that couldn't be done on a 2005 5D never mind the latest generation Canon FF.

I take the likes of zigzags posts to be personally insulting; the inference is that those of us who are Canon low ISO shooters should know better, and are missing out big time, yet I know that the difference is much more marginal than these guys - and the DxO scores - make out.

Looking at Raw files at 50-100% on a high quality, calibrated screen is one thing. The final picture is another. I remember when the 5DII came out and I compared files with the 5D back to back, and thought: "hell - Ill never use the 5D again". But when it comes to the picture as a print on canvas, art paper or whatever, or viewed on a normal monitor, there is very little difference. Same with the D800. If your pleasure is in viewing files at 100% on a good monitor I suggest you get one.

As Neuro asked, and got a waffle response; do zigzag's clients see the difference ?

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 04:42:08 AM »
Quote from: zigzagzoe link=topic=21931.msg419257#msg419257 date
but for what MF could offer me, thee's little point in going that way.

but for what D800 could offer me, there's little point in going that way.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 06:12:59 PM »
And, I suppose the five or six people who actually can earn a living shooting large scale landscapes might want to move to Nikon

You're right about five or six people compared with wedding photographers, maybe less, but one of those is a British guy called Colin Prior. He is one of the world's best known landscape photographers and has shot primarily on LF film with same MF film for more inaccessible places. However in mid 2013 he began using digital - FF - and Canon at that, 1Dx and 5DIII. He is on record as saying the files from the 5DIII are the cleanest he's ever come across. So here you have a real landscape photographer using a 5DIII.

As I said earlier, there just isn't the dramatic difference at low ISOs that these people like to believe.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 05:01:59 PM »
Hmm, I smell a troll ;-)

I think you smell someone who blew £19,000 changing and is determined to believe it was worth it.

I'm a low ISO shooter. I tried the D800 some time ago and I'm about to get my hands on a D810. I can't speak for the D810 but with the D800 there is simply not the 'night and day' difference that these people refer to.

11
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:06:04 AM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!
Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight.  If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II.  For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it.  For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway.   I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1).  Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS.  It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.

Yes, even now the price of the 24-70 4L IS has dropped a bit from its real price, it's still pretty hard to swallow.  The Tamron 24-70 VC has a lot to recommend it, and when you factor in price as well it's easy to see many people choosing it over the 24-70 4L IS.  And then when you also factor in weak IQ in the middle of the zoom range seemingly effecting many copies ... well, the 24-70 4L IS feels frustrating to say the least.  I agree with LTRLI that Canon made a good call in producing a lens with good IQ at the extremes of the range, but even so I expect quite a lot more than I was seeing from my copy in the middle of the zoom range (and I'm pretty sure I'm less picky than many on CR!).

I'm looking forward to testing my copy when it comes back from Canon.  Fingers crossed it turns out to be one of the good copies!

Let us know the outcome of this. Roger at Lens Rentals mentioned that the new 24-70 IS has more adjustable elements than any other lens he'd seen ( or something like that ) so it obviously requires a skilled set up. Our copy at Building Panoramics is OK at 50 mm.

What concerns me about the Tamron is it's durability when used by someone like myself. Some of the elements are just glued into place with three spots of glue. I don't like the idea of that.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 08:07:43 AM »
Nice pics - but I bet that I'm not alone in thinking: "Hmmm... And he couldn't do that with a Canon camera?" And I mean in one shot, without multiple exposure HDR, or multiple Raw conversions.

Sorry to spoil your party but multiple exposure HDR or multiple raw conversions does not deliver the same result as a single shot with wide DR.

No it doesn't. When done competently it delivers much better results.

zigzagzoe's landscape pictures are flat as a result of under exposing and then lifting the majority of the data. In my opinion the lift has been over done anyway as they do have a cartoon 'HDR' look to them, but that is just personal taste, and he may want them like that. Indeed if this is your 'look' you are better of with Exmor as it requires unrealistic lifting of shadow areas.

However in my opinion the landscape pictures are technically wholly inferior to the social photography that he has on his website which is highly competent.

I agree with Keith_Reeder; Canon is quite capable of shooting that scene in one frame. In fact even the 2005 5D could do it, never mind the likes of the 5DIII and 6D.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading to a 7D
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:02:00 PM »
I have the 40D up for sale, maybe I should sell the 600D instead ???

I would.

14
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:54:57 PM »
Why not produce a 50L which is the 50 many photographers wanted as a robust, high quality L lens which is a razor sharp f1.4, and keep the current 50L as a specialist 'art' or portrait lens.

It's annoying that those of us who like the 'standard' 50/1.4 have to put up with such a flimsy, cheap plastic lens, with appalling manual focus, no full USM, WS etc.

Where would this leave the rumoured 50/2 or 50/1.8 IS ? Well maybe that lens is going to replace the current 50/1.8 as the cheapest prime that is very popular as a first lens to compliment the kit zoom.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:40:10 PM »
Irrespective of the difference in resolution and WB the Nikon D810 clearly records the model smiling and the Canon records frowning. I'd be much more concerned about this than WB. If you're shooting in raw WB can be corrected in post.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 114