May 01, 2016, 07:18:38 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10
31
Bought this the last time this deal was available.  Got it on time, beautiful lens.
32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Got my 1DX Mark II
« Last post by Chisox2335 on Today at 04:30:29 PM »
Ordered mine today from Adorama. Delivery TBD. Got a free battery with the cfast card and reader too
33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dpreview of the 80D
« Last post by neuroanatomist on Today at 04:16:30 PM »
I completely get the complaints about DXO, which uses pseudo-science to extrapolate broad interpretations from tiny data points and then oversprays their ratings with one-size-fits-all generalizations.

But, that's not the case with DPR or the Digital Picture.

Sony a7R II, DPR Overall Score 90%
Nikon D7200, DPR Overall Score 84%
Canon 5DIII, DPR Overall Score 82%

'Cuz, you know, accurate and unbiased DPR doesn't use a one-size-fits-all generalization.   ::)

TDP, on the other hand, doesn't rate or score, and doesn't review Nikon (for which they provide only standardized ISO12233 and Imatest data for their lenses). 
34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dpreview of the 80D
« Last post by 3kramd5 on Today at 04:15:34 PM »
What I would like to know more about, however, is the relative benefits/drawbacks. Is it now better, for example, to shoot a subject at ISO 400 and underexpose by four stops, than to shot at ISO 6400 and expose properly.

The whole concept of "invariance" (a term they use to describe sensors which have a relatively constant read noise) is that it makes no difference; it's neither better nor worse. Underexposing in camera and lifting in post may facilitate better highlight detail (since you can lift selectively in lost versus only globally in camera) at potentially the expense of shadow detail.
35
Gents: Thanks for your input! Best Setter Guy
36
EOS Bodies / Re: The first 1DXIIs are out
« Last post by Act444 on Today at 03:59:07 PM »
Can anyone who is upgrading from either a 5D3 or 7D2 comment on any improvement in AF tracking/accuracy? Is it significant or minor?


Also high ISO performance compared to the 5D3?
37
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM ART Reportage
« Last post by 9VIII on Today at 03:45:16 PM »
I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate.  The collar is really close to the mount.  It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

What you're saying here is that you're not sure if the lens is capable of taking a plate without getting in the way of the camera body. That's silly, first because it would take all of 30 seconds to grab a plate and see if the holes line up when mounted to a camera body, so you never should have even thought of saying it in the first place, and second because you're implying that Sigma went through the process of creating a lens, which they know will receive more attention than almost anything else they make, without ever mounting it to a tripod using a quick release system.

If your initial assertion is correct, and you had taken 30 seconds to look at a lensplate and see if the holes line up, and it turned out that they didn't, then I would have absolutely nothing left to say but "well Sigma really screwed up there".
But instead of bothering to perform a preschool level task that would leave no room for debate, you go and make one of the most absurd statements a person could possibly make about prouct design.
Your sentence may as well have read "man this camera lens is weird, I wonder if it's going to be able to mount to a camera?"


Maybe you're right, Maybe it is a horrible design. Who knows? The point is that it's silly to debate something that could be answered so easily.
You're spreading speculation and doubt where there should be information.
38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dpreview of the 80D
« Last post by unfocused on Today at 03:18:41 PM »
So if a review praises the camera dozens of times and criticizes it a few times then it is biased against it? I don't think so......

I have found that DPR does the best reviews of any of the review sites. Could they be better? Of course they could.....  there is always room for improvement as perfection is something to be strived for, yet never obtained.... 

I thought it was a very well done review. My only complaint with it is the fascination that the camera industry has with ISO 100 and would have liked to see more tests done at high ISO like 3200 or 6400 so the readers get an idea of the relative merits of cameras when you start to push things a bit.....

But overall, it was well done, well organized, and easy to read.

A voice of reason in a largely unreasonable thread.

I really don't get the obsession that otherwise rational people on this forum have developed with DPR. These are reviews. Very thorough reviews actually. And, it's the reviewers right (no it's their) obligation to give their opinion. Just because you disagree with their opinion, that doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right.

I completely get the complaints about DXO, which uses pseudo-science to extrapolate broad interpretations from tiny data points and then oversprays their ratings with one-size-fits-all generalizations.

But, that's not the case with DPR or the Digital Picture. How many of us have tested multiple copies of Canon and Nikon cameras side by side and attempted to write fair, but honest, reviews highlighting the good and criticizing the bad?

And, as I've said before, I want to know what these reviewers don't like about Canon cameras. That's what makes a review useful.

Don, I completely agree with your point about the fascination with low ISO. Dynamic range at base ISO is mildly interesting, but largely irrelevant for many (probably most) photographers.

On the other hand, I am intrigued by this new concept promoted by DPR of ISO independent sensors. It does seem very useful to me to be able to set your exposure based on the necessary shutter speed and f-stop and then raise that underexposed image in post. What I would like to know more about, however, is the relative benefits/drawbacks. Is it now better, for example, to shoot a subject at ISO 400 and underexpose by four stops, than to shot at ISO 6400 and expose properly.

Those are the comparisons I hope to begin seeing on sites like DPR. 
39
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specification List [CR1]
« Last post by Don Haines on Today at 02:51:53 PM »
Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting.  If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

+1.  One shot HDR for the win! 

Kidding.  That s--- hurts my eyes.

I actually deliberately resort to that nonsensical 'blast shadows' / 'obliterate highlights' move, but only on my cell phone, believe it or not.   Shooting our two black dogs with poor interior lighting is like a dynamic range nut punch, but needs must in that case.

- A
That's why I shoot pictures of black squirrels in the snow.... It doesn't matter what camera I use, none have sufficient DR so I can forget about it and enjoy photography.....
40
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D2 C-Log
« Last post by mistaspeedy on Today at 02:48:46 PM »
I disagree. I think there is zero chance of Canon giving 4K to the 7D mark II via a firmware update. I doubt the hardware is up to the task.

Reading through the EOSHD blog, it seems that all of Canon's (DSLR) 1080p video quality is terrible compared to the 6 year old Panasonic GH2 from 2010.

Hopefully this will improve in the future.
The 80D is no different quality-wise from any other Canon for 1080p video.

For now we can only look at the 1DX mark II video performance and hope the 5D mark IV will have the same or better video capabilities... and only then can we expect future APS-C models to get a bump up in video quality once the big and expensive models have it.
Maybe 2017 will be the year... 2016 wont be.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10