March 28, 2017, 06:28:28 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Lenses / Selling 70-200 F4 IS and 400 5.6 for 100-400 F4.5-5.6 II???
« Last post by AdamBotond on Today at 06:26:45 AM »
Im primary a wildlife shooter and as being such I have been satisfied with my Canon EF 400 5.6 L lens for that purpose, while also appreciating my 70-200 F4 IS for more general purpose. Having IS is certainly appealing, even if I use tripod more often than not. I would also spare some space and weight by that switch. As far as I'm concerned, 100-400 zoom is quite up to 400 5.6 in both optical quality and af performance.
So would you make that switch, is it reasonable?
What is the point of comparing between different lenses? You were supposed to test the same lens at f1.0 vs f1.4

24-105 f4 never gets more than t5 - it is partly because aperture is not open at f4 and partly because its low quality glass reflects part of the light.
2,800mp CMOS
45 point all cross point
Dual Pixel AF CMOS
Wi-Fi & NFC
Touch LCD
100% view finder
support HDR Movie & Time Lapse Movie
Lenses / Re: Help me pick a MFT lens
« Last post by NorbR on Today at 04:57:05 AM »
IQ-wise, there likely won't be any significant difference imho. has tested both, they come out pretty similar.

Why are you considering this particular version of the Olympus zoom, which is not the most recent? I'm guessing you don't want the motorized zoom (EZ version), which I can understand. But the EZ one is smaller and better built, and again won't be very different from an IQ point of view.

Personally I would then go for the Panasonic version, similar IQ, mechanical zoom and wider angle in a smaller package.

I also assume that your body of choice has IBIS (i.e. Olympus body, or one of the recent Panasonic)? Otherwise the choice of the Panasonic becomes even clearer.
1/500 at f/6.3 at iso 100 on a bright sunny day fits nicely with the sunny 16 rule. I take photos as low as 1/250s when it is dark (at much higher isos), but that relies on the birds being absolutely still - I try to keep above 1/800s. Try DxO software and PRIME noise reduction - it works very well at removing grainy noise at iso 600 on APS-C.
Lenses / Re: No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]
« Last post by jd7 on Today at 02:51:57 AM »

The Sigma gets a lot of praise, but I have a big issue with the 50ART.

I have the 50L, the Tamron 45 f1.8, and got the Sigma 50 ART as partial payment from a lens I sold a month ago..

My Sigma 50 ART is now for sale.

The Sigma is the sharper lens, and has less chromatic aberration. My copy focuses pretty good on my 1DXII as well. The weight isn't really bothering me either. So why not keep the Sigma?

It makes my pictures lifeless and flat. I took pictures of some friends the other night, with the 50L and the Sigma, all in the same situation and same lighting, same aperture (f2.5) and same shutter speed.

One thing I noted was that the ISO was raised by 2/3 of a stop compared to the Canon, so light transmission seems worse.

After reviewing and sorting out the pictures, I had two pictures from the Sigma left, and approximately 15 from the 50L. Focus accuracy was not the issue. Almost all the Sigma-pictures made my friends faces look flat, and the pictures looked like a sticker of them was glued on to a blurry background. The pictures from the 50L had much more depth and life in them, and looked much more pleasing. Unless you are addicted to sharpness, I believe you will be more satisfied with the 50L or Tamron 45 f1.8.

For those of you who find this interesting, take a look on these pictures from Flickr and see for yourself.  I suggest you look at all the pictures before clicking on info to see witch lens is used. (Note that the Sigma pictures dont seem to say witch lens is used, but they are all from a Sigma 50 ART group on Flickr) It is most easily seen in headshots.

I might sell either the Canon or Tamron in the end, but So far I really like both of them. The depth issue I mention is definitely not an issue with the Tamron.

Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.  Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which  :) )

I have never owned a 50L but I have seen plenty of photos from it I've really liked, so don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bag the 50L or say the 50 Art is better.  And I have seen a few shots taken with the 35 Art and 50 Art which have given me an impression of the subject being a sticker on a blurry background.  However, I regard that as the exception rather than the rule, and as I say, looking at the photos in the links on my screen here, I just don't feel like I'm seeing a flatness to the 50 Art images in comparison to the 50L images.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.  I'll be interested to see what other people's opinions are!

Edit: do you by any chance use Lightroom and have lens profile corrections turned on? I do feel like having that turned on makes images look much "flatter" in a way I often don't like.
EOS-M / Re: EOS M5: A damend good camera!
« Last post by digigal on Today at 01:52:35 AM »
I don't know about how well the Metabones adapter works with the Oly model and lens you want to use and what apertures but there seems to be a lot of limitations as to what Canon lenses and models of Oly cameras it will work with and what types of focusing it will allow.  It's not "plug and play" like the Canon adapter is with the Canon lenses and M5.  However, the M5 is somewhat "focus compromised" compared to some of the other top of the line mirrorless, but for some applications, it's great.  I'll be taking one with me in a couple of weeks  to Namibia as my second camera which I'll us for landscapes, wide angle, walk around stuff, and my 7DM2 and 100-400 will be for wildlife, birds.  I like the M5 because the menus are familiar and you can pick it up and generally figure it out.  I have an Oly (OMD EM5) that I bought and sent for IR conversion and I can tell you that their menus were devised by someone who has never used a camera and has no idea what the functions do and seem to be stored in a random way down menu trails--good luck  ;)  The manual is no help and it takes reading blogs and reviews to find out how to work the damn thing!  It's a great little camera otherwise, but I'd rather stab myself in the eye than try to do anything fast using that clunky menu. Takes great IR pictures though and has lots of neat little lenses. I don't shoot video with any of my cameras so I can't comment there.
Good luck,
Software & Accessories / Re: Focus stacks with Affinity
« Last post by Zeidora on Today at 12:46:49 AM »
Quite impressive for handheld. Re halos, that is the area where different apps and algorithms distinguish themselves. AP has a single mode, while ZereneStacker and HeliconFocus have multiple modes with various parameters that can be adjusted. If you are getting more into this, I would strongly recommend to check both packages out. Both can be downloaded as trial software.
With respect to complexity, the sunflower is still on the easier side, as you do not have overlapping elements in very different focal planes. This is another area where software packages differ.
Sure, but wasn't the argument that a crop camera is better in some circumstances than FF because you get more pixels on target? Maybe someone else was saying that. The difference may be greater at higher ISOs, but it's there at base ISO too, surely? The whole thing is rather muddy, anyhow.

But I'm sure the 80D is an excellent camera. I considered it too, when it came out, as it had such a high pixel density (along with the 750/760D). I went the other route, and got the 5Ds, which allows the best of both worlds, but is obviously more expensive and has lower fps than the 80D. As for ISO 100, once again all I can say is: lucky you! I have shot almost no bird photos at base ISO, and even ISO 400 is low by my standards, but I live in a not-very-sunny place, and often shoot at f/10. Everyone's different :)

I was trying to say that if you have a focal range constraint -- and I was using 600mm as an example, because this is the biggest lens I own -- there are times when you just can't get enough pixels out of a 20-30  megapixel full frame camera.  Because sensor is 1.6x larger, and the pixel density is only a little bit larger, there will be times when you get a gorgeous photo where a bird is just 600 pixels tall, and that's not a usable photo no matter how good those 600 pixels are.

Although I was using eagles as examples, those are pretty easy to photograph using shorter focal lengths and FF cameras because they're such big birds.  There are plenty of birds that are much smaller, and often shy, and I just can't get close enough.

I live in the west coast of Canada, where it's often rainy.  But birding is a hobby, not a job, so I only go photographing birds on clear days.  Mostly, this evolved simply because I like taking hikes in sunshine, not in rain :)  I also don't enjoy trekking in mud.

I too have never shot a bird photo at iso 100. As I invariably use iso 640 or higher, on FF, APS-C and 5DSr, all of my photos must be unacceptable to Talys. Using the sunny 16 rule for exposure, a fully illuminated bird on a bright sunny day at f/16 at iso 100 would require an exposure of 1/100s, or 1/400s at f/8. A top bird photographer like Ari Hazeghi uses exposures of 1/2500s or faster at f/8, which requires an iso of usually more than 800 (see eg and goes up to 3200 or so on FF in poorer light. His work must be unacceptable too.

I think ISO 600 photos on an 80D looks grainy, whereas ISO 600 photos from a 5D4 looks pretty good.  I have never had the pleasure of using a 5DS, 5DSR, or 1D so I can't say with those.   If you don't/can't shoot at low ISOs and you want pictures that are free of digital noise, I'd definitely recommend a full frame camera.   If a bird is too far away to get a good picture because of resolution and focal range, c'est la vie -- be patient and pray it comes closer, sneak up if you can, or go and buy a ridiculously expensive longer lens or low aperture lens that you can throw a teleconverter on.

An exposure of 1/2500 at f/6.3 ISO 100 does happen.  It occurs on a clear day, when the sun is behind you, and you're shooting a bird in flight.  It's also the best way to capture the bird's plumage.

A perched bird, or one that's nesting does not require 1/2500.  For those shots, I can usually take them at 1/500 f/6.3 ISO 100, or at worst, 1/250.  Just use a tripod on big lens; handheld is fine on 70-200L or 70-300 if you have IS and are willing to shoot a few extras and cull ones that aren't quite in focus.

I understand a lot of people don't like using tripods; if that's the case, and you want to use a heavy lens, then, yeah, you need to raise the ISO so that you can raise the shutter speed.  But hey, life is full of compromises, right?  I'm just suggesting the one where you use a crop sensor, a tripod, low ISO, and long telephoto range as one solution to capture nice bird pictures at far distances; I've never said it's the only way to do it.

By the way, I initially responded because someone posted that people should just give up on APS-C -- that it and EFS are essentially a waste of time.  I just fundamentally disagree.  As someone who has used both, I've chosen to stay with APS-C for my birding, a conscious choice after wanting to buy a FF camera.  On the flip side, I think APS-C and EFS lenses are a great way to get people into photography and ILCs as a hobby, while the investment required to make a decent go of FF is daunting to most.
Lenses / Re: I tested out the theory behind DxOMark's F-Stop blues article
« Last post by AlanF on Today at 12:43:20 AM »
The real iso sensitivity often differs from the nominal, as measured by DxO. The MkIII is reported to be slightly higher iso than the MkIV.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10