March 02, 2015, 11:36:16 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 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 150
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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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


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.

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 150