December 18, 2014, 09:32:22 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 139
31
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Sample Images
« on: November 26, 2014, 03:10:14 PM »
The lens looks very good across the frame, but quite honestly I found the smoothness and tonal graduation from the 7DII really impressive !

32
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 02:58:51 PM »
The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera.

Ugh? Why would I want to do a thing like that? I'm an outspoken fan of crop cameras for macro and general low iso shooting and like my snappy 60d over my 6d. But there are some lenses that gain by being put on crop (cutting off blurry corners), and some loose (lack of sharpness wide open), and some have both effects at the same time.

Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4

Fair enough, so let me re-phrase it: The tdp comparison of the 70-300L happens to show - for whatever reason - about what I see from my copy of the lens on my 60d and my 6d. Which brings us to the all-popular "wrong afma, broken lens, bad handling" theme, but I don't think so in this case.

This was about a different point anyway: If the op is fine with the 70-300L on his crop, I don't think there is a need to look at the very best and most expensive lenses for him.

Using Photozone as a reference it looks to me as if the 70-300L cannot quite fully resolve 15 mp on APS-c when wide open at 70 mm, let alone 18, but the OP never said he was using this lens wide open. I disagree with your last sentence because the 'very best' in resolution terms doesn't have to be 'the most expensive'. These high mp asp-c cameras need really good lenses, and Canon now provide ones that are up to the job without being expensive; look at the 40/2.8 and the new EF-s 24/2.8.


33
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 01:28:56 PM »
Those Digital Picture A/B Comparisons always leave me lusting after a 6D. But when I download the RAW examples over at DPReview, I don't see quite as drastic a difference.

I have the 15-85 on my 60D - and stopped down to F8 for landscapes it's hard to find anything better at the wide end of it's range. To get any real improvement from there, I'd think the sensor would be the upgrade path.

I missed the sarcasm tag off my previous post. I think TDP crops between asp and FF are misleading, and probably shouldn't be compared against each other, in the same way as imatest results shouldn't be compared across formats.

34
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:45:00 PM »

That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.

I shot about 100k frames with my 70-300L on my 60d, so I guess some of them were in focus and without shake or motion blur, even if only by pure chance. And at least with my copy there's a distinct difference between f4 on crop vs. ff - that's why I mostly stepped down to f5.6 on the 60d. Here's exactly what I see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera. Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

35
If it is true that production of this lens has been put on indefinite hold then it fits well with the comments that many of us here on CR made when the rumour of its imminent existence was first reported.

If they thought the time was right for them to meet the major dslr manufacturers 'run of the mill zoom lenses' head on with a more expensive but similarly performing product they were wrong.

36
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 07:30:36 AM »
ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.

In that case, your personal "wow" is cheap to come by: The 70-300L is certainly a good lens and very sturdy, but on crop wide open it's noticeably less sharp than on full frame. So any half-decent midrange lenses should satisfy your needs.


That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.

37
seems like a new kind of spam

?

I linked this fellows work on 500 px a few months ago when we were having vitriolic arguments about Exmor's ability to produce quality pictures whilst Canon can't. (Sarcasm alert !)

(They are actually composites, but great images, so who cares).

38
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 26, 2014, 07:01:13 AM »

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

 ;D  No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

Dearest friend, have you personally ever tried EVF?

Yes, of course, the XT-1 which I understand is probably the best out there at the moment. I thought in my previous post I had made it clear that I have considered the Fuji system.

What can I say ? Call be 'old fashioned' but I like to be able to optically see through the lens in real time, at least on a decent system. I don't think I am alone in this.  I can see that EVFs like the one on the Fuji have great appeal to many; indeed most people are going to find it better than a dim, small pentamirror with slow 'kit' lens on a Rebel, but even then people keep buying cheap dslrs, probably because as it is a mature, simple system it is also cheap to produce and buy.

I perceived a lag, maybe that is just my imagination. The very large size doesn't do it for me, but the ability to reduce the viewfinder size is neat. Then there is the power useage; I want a battery to last as long as possible. In fact I have recently ditched by iphone and got a simple Nokia with a keypad because I am sick of having to charge the iphone every day. Just been to Poland for four days; never had to charge the phone or the camera !

I think we are going to see a FF dslr from Canon which will have interchangeable finders, like in the old days of top end slrs, except now one will be a normal pentaprism, and will be used in the conventional way, and another will be an EVF. You then lock the mirror up and away you go, using the Dual Pixel AF system direct off the sensor for focus. Use it for stills or video, it's up to you. By having the head as a sliding fit from the rear it could incorporate physical plug connections, which would probably needed to do this.

Then those that say Canon isn't innovative will have to find some other area to whinge about.

Thanks so much for replying. I personally find the advantages of EVF overpowering the disadvantages in such a carry around camera. But want my optical on the 1dx.

I tend to agree with you. If manufacturers can bring EVF of the XT-1 down to the prices of a simple, pentamirror system few are going to buy the latter, whereas a high quality, large pentaprism OVF still offers a great deal on larger, more general purpose cameras. However OVF manufacturers could retaliate by giving the lower end cameras a decent pentaprism system and good magnification like the 7DII. I could see someone like Pentax and Canon doing this.

Personally I do not like two systems; I want one 'do it all' system that is light enough for casual travel and good enough for professional work.

This is possibly to do with the fact that skinflint Sporgon likes to spend his hard earned cash on fast horses and fast women, not necessarily in that order, and not photographic gear  ;)

39
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 26, 2014, 04:38:05 AM »
The trouble with focal lengths of 10 mm etc is that they are only passing a tiny amount of light for a given exposure. One of the reasons you have a 'wow' factor on your 70-300L lens is that apart from it being a very good optic you have huge magnification and light compared with a much shorter focal length.

So if you want the same 'wow' factor from a much shorter optic on APS, my advice is don't go too short, put funds into a better computer / software system if necessary and stitch. The 24 mm on APS is an ideal focal length when shooting the picture in portrait orientated sections. The 24 mm in portrait is giving you the vertical field of view of a 16 mm lens in landscape orientation, but you are using twice the volume of light to make each section of your image than you would if using a 16 mm focal length.

40
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:50:09 PM »
The new EFs 24 mm f2.8 pancake. If you want to go wider for landscape, stitch.

41
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 09:00:40 AM »

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

 ;D  No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

Dearest friend, have you personally ever tried EVF?

Yes, of course, the XT-1 which I understand is probably the best out there at the moment. I thought in my previous post I had made it clear that I have considered the Fuji system.

What can I say ? Call be 'old fashioned' but I like to be able to optically see through the lens in real time, at least on a decent system. I don't think I am alone in this.  I can see that EVFs like the one on the Fuji have great appeal to many; indeed most people are going to find it better than a dim, small pentamirror with slow 'kit' lens on a Rebel, but even then people keep buying cheap dslrs, probably because as it is a mature, simple system it is also cheap to produce and buy.

I perceived a lag, maybe that is just my imagination. The very large size doesn't do it for me, but the ability to reduce the viewfinder size is neat. Then there is the power useage; I want a battery to last as long as possible. In fact I have recently ditched by iphone and got a simple Nokia with a keypad because I am sick of having to charge the iphone every day. Just been to Poland for four days; never had to charge the phone or the camera !

I think we are going to see a FF dslr from Canon which will have interchangeable finders, like in the old days of top end slrs, except now one will be a normal pentaprism, and will be used in the conventional way, and another will be an EVF. You then lock the mirror up and away you go, using the Dual Pixel AF system direct off the sensor for focus. Use it for stills or video, it's up to you. By having the head as a sliding fit from the rear it could incorporate physical plug connections, which would probably needed to do this.

Then those that say Canon isn't innovative will have to find some other area to whinge about.

42
Good advice given on this page above. A wedding is a one off event ( or at least it is supposed to be ). I too have only had an slr fail once in thirty five years of photography; the mirror fell out of a 5D. As the camera had no live view it rendered it useless until I had glued it back in- whereupon it fell off again shortly afterwards, and I had to get it modified properly, free, by Canon. So to be paid for services in producing wedding pictures without a back up body is a 'no-no', even if, as has been stated earlier, that back up is a rebel.

The only reason not to get exactly the same camera body as a 'back up' is budget constraints. Two exactly the same is by far the most efficient option form a work point of view.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:06:27 AM »
Can anyone tell me what differences there are with a 50mp medium format size sensor compared to a 50mp 35mm size sensor.

This is not exactly what you asked for but it's close enough (50 mp MF vs 36 mp FF):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

When you start looking at image quality and resolution the inescapable facts are that the smaller the format the smaller the focal length lenses uses, so the lower the subject magnification and the lower the amount of light passing through the lens. For example take a 100 mm lens at f2.8. It allows five times the volume of light to pass through it at the same aperture as a 24 mm lens. Exposure remains the same because exposure is a function of light intensity ( I think the correct term is really density) and not total volume.

Shoot your landscape picture on an DMF camera at say f8 on a 50 mm lens and you have double the volume of light passing through the lens than you have with an APS-c camera using a 17 mm lens. So not only has your picture been captured on a larger sensor, with more magnification, it has also been recorded with twice the amount of light. The optical resolution of the lens isn't as critical either as you have more magnification. 

This is the problem with more pixels on a given sensor size. Pixels are only one part of what you need to realize full potential resolution. I guess this is why Canon haven't been in a great hurry to bring out a 'very high mp' FF sensor. Incidentally I believe this is the reason we don't see the full 'reach benefit' of crop sensors. When you are reach limited and use a crop sensor as opposed to cropping in on a FF sensor ( resulting in less 'pixels on target'), the only thing you are benefiting from is more pixels. The magnification, volume of light, lens optics etc. all remain the same. So you don't realize anything like the amount you think you should.

Now's probably not the right time to say I'm thinking of getting another 5D mark 1.

44
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 02:06:15 PM »
;D  No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

OK, this actually raises one of the issues I have with Canon ... what you term "lens speed on these crop systems". FUJIFILM made the 56mm f/1.2 lens, yet Canon offers nothing similar for their "crop-frame" cameras. It seems that their (Canon) philosophy is that if you want "fast lenses" then you must buy into their "full-frame" products.

Now this being the case, and given the collapse of the consumer market, why does Canon still persist with "crop-frame" cameras. None of their (Canon) current "crop-frame" stuff can compete with FUJIFILM, Panasonic, etc. in terms of "fast" lenses, without resorting to "full-frame" lenses. (And I'll concede that for now none of the current "other" manufacturers' "crop-frame" products can really compete with Canon's "full-frame" gear in terms of "fast" lenses. But we're comparing oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples here.)

Fuji offer this lens because they don't have a FF stable. Lets assume you were starting from scratch and want to shoot shallow dof portraits. You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a 6D + 85/1.8. Both will achieve pretty much the same thing in good light. Using UK prices the cost of the Fuji kit is £1771, the cost of the 6D kit is £1569, so the FF system works out cheaper. If a manufacturer has a number of FF cameras in their line up it is not economical for the customer to pay out for expensive, very fast prime crop sensor lenses.

So Fuji's production of these lenses would suggest they aren't going to bring a FF camera to market any time soon.

Now Pentax, that's another thing. What most people don't realize is that those APS-c primes that Pentax  make -  many have a full frame image circle.  ;)

45
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:48:42 PM »

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

 ;D  No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 139