Messages

106

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 21, 2013, 05:13:04 PM »

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

But you're overlooking that fact that the EOS system delivers.

Me or Dilbert? I agree, the EOS works great, and I have no plans on switching

dilbert. I also find his comments on Canon ahead in offering 'bells & whistles' strange, because Canon really offer less of this - IMHO - of course.

107

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 21, 2013, 04:13:40 PM »

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

But you're overlooking that fact that the EOS system delivers.

108

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: April 21, 2013, 01:26:19 PM »

Absolutely loving all the photos being posted showcasing this lens, only thing is guy’s I think your all pushing the price of it up especially you Dustin and I’m still saving, now stop it and post some duffers   

+1

I really like what I am seeing here

109

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: April 21, 2013, 05:50:22 AM »

proper exposure what is that?

 

Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them. 

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.

Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons.
Seriously.  There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis.

I think you'll find 'the posters' true credentials in dispute here on CR.

I see he has acquired himself a 1Dx - lets see some pictures posted in the 'anything shot on a 1Dx' thread.

( And I'm puzzled by someone who repeatedly demonstrates pushing the 8 bit CR.2 file instead of converting it to a 16 bit TIFF first ).

110

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: April 20, 2013, 04:16:35 PM »

Agree with the above.


HDR is simply a method to obtain more detail in shadow and highlight areas than a standard single exposure would allow.


For some reason, along the way, it's been hijacked to create hideous cartoon-like pictures that bear no resemblance to a photo.

+1

111

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The last roll of Kodachrome – what would you shoot with the last 36 frames?

« on: April 20, 2013, 04:09:19 PM »

One of these days I'm going to take it as an artistic challenge to make interesting art out of the typical measurebator subjects.

Is that a typo

Ha ha - I think I get your joke. The other subjects would be much more interesting 

112

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The last roll of Kodachrome – what would you shoot with the last 36 frames?

« on: April 20, 2013, 03:55:17 PM »

I know it's not really answering the question, but I don't think I'd use it. Non of the (commercial) pictures that I produce now could have been shot and viewed on film.

Digital has freed photography from the shackles of film.  . Unfortunately it has also devalued it enormously. 

113

Portrait / Re: Pretty bad...

« on: April 20, 2013, 01:25:18 PM »

Where was that thread about 'anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer' ? 

114

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: April 20, 2013, 10:53:51 AM »

An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT! 

I've concluded that the only way to deal with this whole 5d mk2 vs D800 'debate' is to answer with a little 'nonsense' rhyme 

115

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: April 20, 2013, 03:06:43 AM »

An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

116

Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 50mm 1.4 AF and AFMA

« on: April 19, 2013, 02:44:37 PM »

There seem to be hundreds of EF 50 f1.4 out there that are actually broken inside - mine included. They still work - in a fashion. There is some plastic part involved in the focus which is ludicrously fragile.

If you have picked yours up used this could be the problem. If it's new, I doubt it.

117

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 19, 2013, 07:12:46 AM »

Reading these last few posts reminds me of how surprised I am that my 135/2 isn't larger, especially compared with my 200/2.8

135 / 2.0 = 67.5
200 / 2.8 = 71.4

Only 4mm different...

Yes now you mention it I can see that based on the same maths the 200/2 and the 300/2.8 are similar diameter.

But if the formula is as simple as focal length / f stop, why does my 135/2 vignette much more at f2 than my 200/2.8 does at 2.8 ?

The simple formula is just that.. simple and a guideline. A lot more goes on in the world that is precision optics that can produce(or not) the vignetting you're experiencing.

My questiion is essentially, what goes on ?

So to reply 'a lot more goes on' is hardly an answer.

I suspect it has to do with the physics of passing light through a group of lenses: the closer the design comes to perfect 100% transmission of the light value the more disproportionate the fall off at the extreme of the image circle.  So to avoid more vignetting the faster lenses would have to produce a larger image circle, which would increase size, weight and cost in a similar vein to the OP's original question on zooms.

So given that the 135/2 and 200/2.8 are of a similar design and price, I should have expected the faster lens to have more vignetting when wide open.

118

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 19, 2013, 02:13:54 AM »

Reading these last few posts reminds me of how surprised I am that my 135/2 isn't larger, especially compared with my 200/2.8

135 / 2.0 = 67.5
200 / 2.8 = 71.4

Only 4mm different...

Yes now you mention it I can see that based on the same maths the 200/2 and the 300/2.8 are similar diameter.

But if the formula is as simple as focal length / f stop, why does my 135/2 vignette much more at f2 than my 200/2.8 does at 2.8 ?

119

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: April 18, 2013, 04:22:40 PM »

Reading these last few posts reminds me of how surprised I am that my 135/2 isn't larger, especially compared with my 200/2.8

120

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:55:29 AM »

What I have found is that  the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution  and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4  where Canon 35mm  is very soft.

Speaking about corner resolution wide open - not that it really matters - can you find any confirmation of what we see here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is a bad case of astigmatism: the Sigma has very poor vertical resolution and very good horizontal one. The Canon is much more uniform but it has lower contrast (which I can confirm - there is some diagonal, comma-like smearing).

I'm not seeing TDP result reflected in the pictures posted by ankowatt - again. I say again because I started a thread about inconsistencies between test results from TDP and photozone, citing the 70-300L as an example, but no one was interested.

ankorwatt's examples show the Sigma to be far better in the extreme corners than the Canon 35L, more so than you would guess from the TDP results. However my guess is that photozone will make the difference very clear. As I stated in an earlier post I wouldn't change my 35L because of soft extreme corners at f1.4 anyway