October 21, 2014, 09:13:48 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 132
286
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:50:55 PM »
Seeing how much energy people here spend on DXO, it seems their ratings serves their purpose very well  :P

I think that in many cases it is generated by frustration from those who find DxO's software really excellent, and it's hard to believe the same organisation can produce such drivel in it's performance 'scores'.

287
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:14:07 PM »
....
Perhaps DxO is biased. Perhaps Nikon and Sony have decided to "build to the test." Perhaps the differences being tested are so insignificant that the ratings have only academic and no real-world application. Most likely it's a combination of all three.

It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

Do you agree with DxOMark lens scoring, which currently ranks the EF 35/2 IS and the EF 100/2 above all other lenses made by Canon?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  Either way, how is DxO's scoring of these two lenses as the highest among all Canon EF lenses relevant to photographers?  Do these two lenses truly deserve higher scores than any L lens or any other Canon EF lens? 

On the 1DsIII, DxOMark scores for these lenses are:
100/2 = 30
35/2 IS = 29
85/1.2L II = 28
24/1.4L II = 28
300/2.8 II = 28
400/2.8 II = 27
35/1.4L = 27
85/1.8 = 26
100/2.8L = 26
200/2.8L II = 24
180/3.5L = 19

If anyone can pull out historical web pages from DxO mark you will find that at one time they had the 85/1.8 as the highest rated Canon lens.

Now I am an 85/1.8 fan, but really ...... :o

 ???

288
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:40:28 AM »
Hi Folks.
I'd like to ask first "Russian Shot Putter?"
I'd also like to add I've been caught up in one of these rows when I was about 15. Mother was worried about dad's health and he promised, as in swore blind he had quit smoking for the third time.
She caught him again and a row ensued, first thing thrown at him with the words "you keep smoking you won't need this" was his alarm clock, the next thing to hand was the 70-210 FD fit lens, as it came towards me on the back swing "and if you can't walk you won't be able to use this" I removed it from her hand and she threw a handful of air.
He quit smoking and died at 88 earlier this year.  :'( :'( :'(
She loved him to the end and cared for him 'till his dying breath quite literally, holding his hand!  :'(
So not every fit of pique is due to infidelity etc, some are from pure love and the thought of loosing him was breaking her heart!
So I don't necessarily see a divorce in the guys future though I wouldn't rule it out!

Cheers Graham.

Valvebounce, you should be a marriage councillor ! Maybe the 5D body had a 40 pancake on it when she smashed it, and the smashed zoom is the result of him wrapping it round her head.

289
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:43:03 AM »
It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

Or even an impact on practical use. If the there was any real, practical value to their 'metrics' photographers serious about low ISO performance would be deserting to Sony and Nikon in their droves, yet they are not because in the vast majority of low ISO circumstances there is just no difference, despite all the crap about read noise levels, FPN etc.

I remember he-who-shall-not-be-named once posted two identical shots from a 5DII and a D800 to show, in his opinion how much better the shadows were from the Nikon, but in his blinkered vision of pulled shadows he had overlooked the noise in the blue sky from the Nikon ! When I pointed this out there was a very hasty edit  ;D

So who cares ? Well unfortunately there are a growing number of web based review sites that quote DxO, perhaps because of the way in which DxO present their data; it's seen as being very scientific. Obviously to date this has had no detrimental impact on Canon's sales, so it would seem that at the moment the majority of purchasers don't take any notice of what they are saying, but I wonder if in time it could start to impact, but I suppose by then Canon may have a sensor that scores better on DxO.

290
EOS-M / Re: Difficulty attaching lenses to my new EOS-M
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:58:26 PM »
I'd say it's normal.  My three EF-M mounts (22/2, 18-55, EF adapter) all require a bit more force to rotate into place than EF lenses on my 1D X.  In addition, with their smaller diameter and lighter weight, it's also a bit more difficult to turn the M lenses, adding to the feel of them not mounting as smoothly (I notice a similar effect comparing the 40/2.8 pancake on my 1D X to a 'typical' lens like the 24-70).

+1. The size and weight, or mass of the lens you are handling. You often hear people who have had their first experience of mounting a large, heavy lens such as the 70-200/2.8 complaining that it is too loose.

291
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:46:57 PM »
I love the composition and the light. Well done Sporgon.

Thanks Click ! I don't know who to credit for the sand castles, it definitely wasn't me !

292
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:06:59 PM »
Here's a genuine 'sunset landscape' - Burgh Island in Devon on the South West Coast of England. The hotel is famous for the frequent visits of Agatha Christie, and was used in two of her books. When the tide comes in it becomes a real island.

6D + 24-70 f4 IS @ 55mm

293
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 26, 2014, 11:24:35 AM »
I've been attracted to the Zeiss lenses on a number of occasions, but, regrettably the truth is I've never been that good at manually focusing, even in the days before AF  :-[

294
Canon General / Re: Canon at Photokina
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:11:50 PM »
Neat detective work Mack. ! How did you manage to find the original picture ?

295
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:06:15 PM »
Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....

Could I suggest the following layout.....

Add C1-5, and I'd be happy. :D
Even better!

Yes! (but make it six, just in case)
Such a thing might even take the steam out of my desire for a Fuji.

Yes but how would you guys remember what your five or six custom settings actually are ? I have trouble remembering which one of three to use.

296
Lenses / Re: Ditching the Primes - Advice/Opinions Needed
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:43:12 AM »
anybody see anything wrong with this approach? any other suggested paths?

thanks.

Careful you don't end up posting in nine months time to complain you're sick of large, heavy gear.

If I only had two lenses ( on FF ) I can't think of two worse ones to have than the two you currently use. They are both excellent lenses in there own right, but not when have have to either use an 85 or a 24 in any and every circumstance.

You need to have a 50 or a 40 in there.

In fact anyone who uses full frame but doesn't have access to 40-50 range is nuts  ;)

297
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D MK I Still Relevant?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:39:23 PM »
Been a lot of these 5D mki threads lately. I used one for best part of seven years. I would say that if you are shooting between 100 and 400 ISO in raw and have plenty of time to transfer the images, then yes, especially given the price they have come down to.

If you decide to get one go for a serial number beginning with 2 or 3. These later cameras had the modified mirror and improved LCD screen.

298
Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:31:47 PM »
I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive ☺️

Bearing in mind you say you are moving to FF, I would point out that when shooting tight head shots the 135 focal length will be more flattering than the 85 as you will be further away. However, other than this I find the 85 to be a much more versatile focal length.

Must agree with the poster who said try your current lenses with the 6D. The excellent 100L @ 2.8 may give you just what you want. In truth not many want less than f2.8 dof with 100 mil when close and shooting a tight crop.

299
Canon non-EF Lenses (TS-E, FD, etc.) / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:59:31 PM »
Cool shots, especially this last one.  I really like the lighting.  Using a 17mm for portraiture is quite challenging to say the least, but you kept the camera nice & level, so they turned out really well.  You must have been quite close to the actress!
He he, I got a few strange looks, when I came crawling across the floor. But the fun was to use the T&S on something as active as this and not just tripod mounted, live view architecture and interior shots. Phenomenal lens!

Interesting lighting. In this impromptu session how were you getting fill light back into the model ? It doesn't look as if there was window light from the other side of the room. Good tones and colour, would have never guessed it was 17mm.

300
Lenses / Re: Going native at 400mm
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:13:25 PM »
I've heard good reports of the 400 DO in practical use - as opposed to the reviews......

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 132