October 26, 2014, 05:40:45 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 132
211
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:50:39 AM »
One other point; this picture of Fred Miranda's that keeps cropping up.

Go and take a look at the original full picture. Then consider why on earth you would ever want to raise those shadow areas so much.

If you want proof that the DR of both cameras is more or less the same; here it is.

This is why dslr photographers who want best possible IQ at low ISO have not moved to Nikon; this is only done for the sake of seeing what happens. Nothing more.

212
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:39:46 AM »
Quote from: jrista link=topic=22326.msg428086#msg428086 date=

Quote
Canon sensors have not changed since before the 7D.

Anyone who has shot a 7D and 70D, or 7D and M, or 5D2 and 5D3 or 1DX, can tell you otherwise. Improvements are small, but that's no different from the evolution of Exmor (i.e. D7000 to latest Nikon bodies).

I can certainly confirm this, or at least regarding the FF cameras. The 6D has as larger increase in latitude over the 5DII as the 5DII had over the original 5D. Each generation has also produce a moderate increase in DR; I can't say how much exactly because I can't measure it, but I can state with confidence that the latitude within that dynamic range is much better.

But it's not only latitude. The later cameras give much better tonal transition and better graduation to total white and black. In fact in the former they are now as good as film IMO, and getting close in the latter. These are the important aspects for 'landscape' photography. Add to this that with a 6D you can shoot straight into, and include the sun, losing nothing but the sun disc, and when you put all this together you get a camera capable of producing the best quality 'landscape' shots around, which is why some real professional landscape photographers use the latest Canon FF when needing to use small equipment.


213
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2014, 08:05:03 AM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.

Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?

They are cheap to make being a simple, almost unmodified planar design, and were originally popular as a budget prime lens. The Nikkor 50 f2 was a pancake design but set deep into a 50 f1.4 barrel so it didn't look like one, and was sold as a budget option. Pentax introduced the 40mm f2.8 pancake in 1976 to go with its new miniature MX & ME, again a budget option but also very small to complement the small size of the two new cameras. One of the drawbacks of the design is that they are relatively slow, but they are very good across the frame.

So the advantages are small, cheap but high quality. The disadvantage is that they are relatively slow.

How does a 24mm pancake stack up against a very fine 24 f2.8 IS in the line up ? The pancake will have to be cheaper and won't have IS. It may also be slower than 2.8.

This lens would go very well with the SL1, ( 24mm makes more sense than 40 on crop) and indeed my FF cameras because personally speaking I disagree with those that say a 70-200 round your neck all day is no problem. The 40mm pancake on say a 6D radically alters both the weight and balance of the camera, making it very little different to carrying a compact of some sort; you just don't know it's there. It is also very discrete. I find the 40 a great lens for 'walk about', landscape, Panoramics etc. I don't find it that useful for 'events' such as a wedding.

If Canon introduced a high quality, small cheap 24/28 pancake with metal mount I'll buy one.

214
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D True High ISO King?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:34:42 AM »
How does the EG-S screen for the 6D exactly work? Could you also use it to manually focus on a subject located at about one third from the left or right side in the viewfinder? Or does it only work for subjects in the center of the viewfinder?

It works across the whole screen, but once you move away from the broad centre, the lens you are using will dictate how effective it is as many fast prime's resolution drops away towards the edges of the frame when fully open, and as all cameras now have 'open aperture metering' you are viewing through the lens at its least efficient, resolution wise.

I find the major benefit of the 's' screens is seeing the actual dof. I use them but I still use AF too.

215
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:37:57 AM »
@pablo,

I don't really see when you're coming from with this issue of AF video on the dslrs. Surely the vast, vast majority of these cameras are sold to the casual video user, and they want AF, preferably AF that actually works. Many have found that for 'home movies' the dslr is wholly inferior to a handycam; the DPAF goes some way to helping with this. In fact I would say it has been welcomed by the buying public. The development of the video function as part of a dslr is of no relevance to the likes of BBC or ITN surely ?

216
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810 users are seeing spots
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:18:35 PM »
I also got my 5DII when it was first released and have never had an issue. Neither have I ever updated the firmware - 'cos I never do  ;)

The 5DII must be remembered as one of the best sorted cameras right from its inception; not a good example to use !

HEHE.. that makes me chuckle. :P


Bet I was chuckling a lot louder when I read your complaints of noise in skies shot on the 5DII.

I stand my my earlier remark; the mkII was ( and still is) a well sorted camera.

217
Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:10:54 PM »
Imagine doing a fast lens change with the 85 f1.2  :o

Could easily end up as  :'(

218
I use BBF so never have to switch lens to MF. Even for hyper focus I aim at an appropriate target and use BBF, so this includes landscape. I use the 's' screen and have played about with using manual focus against AF in critical conditions, and more often than not the AF gets it better than I can, but that's probably just me. Also if you're going to try to manual focus as an improvement in accuracy you're going to have to use L lenses in order to have the appropriate control over the focus ring.

219
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:30:42 AM »
So what needs fixing?

* distortion at the wide end  - use the 16-35 f/4L
* softness at the long end - use the 70-300L
* lack of IQ in the middle - 24-70 f/4

So instead of fixing the 24-105 and making it better, Canon effectively encourage you to sell it and buy three other lenses instead, resulting in a net of two new lens sales to replace one lens.

And given that Sigma failed to deliver a substantially better lens with a bigger construction, what motivation is there for Canon to fix the current model?

*distortion at the wide end: think of it as a 28-105 and you won't go far wrong
*softness at the long end: improve your technique
*lack of IQ in the middle: give up photography and take up embroidery.

220
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:23:12 PM »
So how does that explain the fact that Sigma released a 50/1.4 under $1000 that is better than any Canon 50mm prime out there? ... The bottom line is that Canon makes crappy 50mm primes.  There is no escaping that.

Because Canon's first priority is professionals who depend their livelihood on the unmatched portrait performance of the 50mm f/1.2L.

As time goes on I'm having more respect for the 50 f1.4. It's a lens that is capable of producing images that boast a very expensive signature, even at f1.6 if you get the subject, distance and lighting right. Certainly not 'crappy', unless of course, you happen to be a 'crappy' photographer, then maybe an Otus is 'crappy' too.

221
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810 users are seeing spots
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:51:38 PM »
Does anyone here remember how long it took Canon to address issues with the 5D Mark II? It definitely wasn't this quick!

Does anyone remember issues with the 5DII ? Talk about clutching at straws.

I received on of the first 5D MK II's about November 27, and a week or so later, on December 8, reports of a issue from black spots appearing on bright highlights when people shot Christmas lights.  NR normally made them go away, so many did not see them.  I had to review my shots to find one that had them.

On December 15, about two weeks after the first Camera deliveries, Canon announced that they were looking at the issue.  Canon modified the firmware to eliminate them.  On January 9, three weeks later, Canon issues a firmware update to fix them.

So, it took ~ a whole month from initial reports to verify the issue, develop a firmware update, test it and release it.

How many D810 users will have their camera fixed in a month?

I also got my 5DII when it was first released and have never had an issue. Neither have I ever updated the firmware - 'cos I never do  ;)

The 5DII must be remembered as one of the best sorted cameras right from its inception; not a good example to use !

222
Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:43:57 PM »
The 24 -105 was introduced with the original 5D and that combination made a budget wedding photographers 'kit'. The 105mm focal length went someway to compensate for the dof of an f4 lens so you can still produce some nice shallow dof portraits. I would suggest that for an event like a wedding the 24-105 is a much better lens to use than the 24-70 F4 IS, whereas if you are looking for a sharp landscape lens to use instead of primes, the latter is definitely better - assuming you get one that has been tuned up correctly.

I don't think we will see a mark II because, as has been pointed out, to improve the IQ over that range the increase in cost is going to be prohibitive. Also the mark I is still such a good lens for weddings ! I don't do many, but on one recently I used the 24-105 much of the time, and I was really pleased with the results.

223
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D True High ISO King?
« on: August 21, 2014, 02:49:12 PM »
I've always said the image quality from this latest generation of Canon FF cameras is superb, whether high or low ISO. Posts from 'professionals' who criticise the IQ in non demanding situations is a good way of raising blood pressure.

224
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D810 Product Advisory
« on: August 21, 2014, 09:24:37 AM »
Quote from: MLfan3 link=topic=22278.msg426773#msg426773 date=
Nikon is seriously doomed.

Wouldn't be good for any of us if they were.

I can't help wondering if Sony might buy Nikon from Mitsubishi.

225
The moisture obviously is very quick to get in, but takes a lot of time to get out.[/i]

That's the worst part of inadequate sealing. There is an answer though; get an original 5D. The moisture is quick to get in but comes out just as easily  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 132