July 30, 2014, 02:27:14 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 114
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: June 28, 2014, 07:38:23 AM »
Another from Iceland. This is Gullfoss, the largest fall in Europe (I´m told). Quite spectacular.

5DIII, 1/640s, f5.6, ISO100, pola filter

Wow, must go there sometime. Great images, especially like the one if the house.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic Range Question
« on: June 28, 2014, 03:22:58 AM »
Your result is from bad post processing and has nothing to do with DR. It looks like you have held highlights despite direct sunlight and slight overexposure and shooting in jpeg.

The slight increase in latitude of the exmor type sensor allows for a little more extreme shadow recovery with less noise. When it comes to the highlight end there is little practical difference.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 05:22:25 PM »

Factor that into your portability equation.  If I shot mirrorless, I'd burn through an average of five or six batteries per day while on vacation, versus one on my 6D.  That pretty much balances out the weight difference by itself.

That's a good point. I've just returned from a trip (trying) to get a shot of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland. I'd been down the evening before when it was deserted but light was really poor. Went the next day and there were hundreds of people there from many coaches. Seemed to be mostly American and Japanese tourists, everyone taking pictures on either a smartphone or Nikon DSLR. Didn't see a single mirrorless. (Didn't see a single Canon DSLR either ! )

Using a prism and mirror to see through the lens doesn't require any energy does it ? What a clever idea !

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 06:23:58 AM »
I can't help think that the f2.8 was slightly over exposing and the f4 is slightly under? There's a huge difference in the blue sky colour between them.

I've noticed that my f4 zoom lenses under expose by about one third when compared with faster lenses. At first I thought that this must be to do with the lower 'T' stop, and indeed the difference in exposure fitted the difference in the 'T' stop of the lenses exactly - until I got the 24-70 f4 IS which has a 'T' stop of f4 yet does exactly the same thing. Can anyone explain why this should be the case ?

That's why I am asking. I don't understand where is the issue? So many are complaining about it, so it does exist, I just can't get it.

It all depends upon how much you are moving the camera after focusing. Generally the dangers of back focus from 'focus and recompose' are way over stated nowadays.

If you want to create the effect for yourself shoot a subject from around three feet away, focus and re compose moving the camera at least six inches ( on the subject ) down/across between focusing and shooting. Then compare this with using an outer point which enables much less movement of the camera plane. You will clearly see the 'focus recompose' is back focused when using f1.2 to f2 or so.

In most situations you are not moving the camera enough to cause a problem, or the depth of field is covering the issue, or both.  I'm surprised at the Hasselblad video showing such a tiny movement as a demonstration of it's intelligent focus system; moving from the eye to nose: indeed different focus distances but not plane, which is what their system is about.

Likewise the example always given of woman/camera at waist height/distance/angles. For this to work the camera must be held at waist height and very close; a full length portrait with 'focus/re compose on the eye, a large camera movement. So if you are ever going to take a full length shot filling the frame with a 50mm lens at f1.2-f2. holding the camera at waist height and 'focus/re compose will be a problem. But the point is that in the vast majority of situations you won't be moving the camera this much. This is why many people think the problem doesn't exist; it does, much of the time to a degree, but it can only be seen given the right circumstances.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 21, 2014, 02:14:54 PM »
Just how would a FF '7D' fit into the current 6D/5D/1D line up ? As has been pointed out it would hardly be a 7D anyway. The crop bodies offer faster, lighter, greater dof - all of this cheaper than the equivalent FF.

Why would it want to be FF ?

( Note: those wanting a 1Dx re-badged as 7DII at 7D prices need not reply  ;). )

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 19, 2014, 05:55:06 PM »
View from 'Church Hill' looking over the Vale of York, England.

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 02:29:07 PM »
One word:  dilbertland

Do dilbertland and dxomarkland border each other ? I wonder if they have a common currency. They clearly speak the same language.

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded.  That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd.  If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A
Well said :)

Duh ! Now everyone's at it. When canon finally do bring out the 50 1.2L II they had better call it something else or no one will notice !

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 01:13:59 PM »

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.

For once you've got something right ! Bravo !

(assuming you are referring to shooting subjects that do not move..............

in good light.........

before 2005......)

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: June 17, 2014, 02:14:18 PM »
The 40 has been back in action again. Decided I don't like the lack of distance scale and the fact the hood ( large in my case) screws onto the moving barrel, but at the price who can complain ?

Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: June 16, 2014, 05:29:55 PM »
Hardraw Force in the Yorkshire Dales, England,

5DII + 28/f1.8

and Aysgarth Upper Falls

5DII + 85/f1.8

I'm really starting to think that Canon may just drop the XD line and concentrate on more video related cameras.

It will be interesting to see what happens in August. Will the 7D2 be announced? My guess? Maybe not...


No way. Canon has manoeuvred it's lines to leave a gap for the 7DII - even if it's just a smarter, faster 70D with 'top end' ergonomics.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 zoom noise - does yours sound like this?
« on: June 16, 2014, 03:12:35 PM »
I have 17-40, and it sounds different. Almost silent with hardly noticeable plastic movement inside, same as 35L.

Since when does a 35L zoom ?  ;D

Honestly there's nothing to worry about.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 114