Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: canon ?  (Read 48824 times)

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #120 on: December 28, 2014, 12:55:59 pm »

You could e.g. study this http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

See attached DxO measurements on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and see that compared to the Tamron which is a well regarded 70-200 lens

See also http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/5

While it is nice to know that the D810 still outperforms even with the smaller, cheaper ($1399) AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR  than the 5DmkIII with the $2199 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, I think the link and attached screen shot is what you were intending to post.

DxOMark comparison Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VRII

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: canon ?
« Reply #121 on: December 28, 2014, 01:02:59 pm »

... even with the smaller, cheaper ...

Which is to be expected. Not because it is "smaller and cheaper" but because it is a slower lens (f/4), i.e., easier to optically correct.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2014, 01:11:21 pm »

Bernard, what is that pink spot? An early cherry-blossom? Trees blushing in the presence of mighty Nikon? ;)

Slobodan, I was waiting for how long it would take for anybody to notice. I thought it was staring in my eyes when I saw the shot  ;D

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3950
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: canon ?
« Reply #123 on: December 28, 2014, 01:12:04 pm »

It might not have been of interest to you, but the 5Dii created a whole new genre of hybrid still/video cameras and started an entire sub-industry from it's introduction. The impact of the 5Dii in the video production industry can't be over exaggerated.

The first EOS 5D was also a landmark camera for its time - the first affordable (*) full-frame dSLR.

(*) It wasn't cheap at ~ $3000.

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #124 on: December 28, 2014, 01:12:33 pm »

Very well said. :)

Hi Nick,

Canon have continuously improved their lenses, also because of digital sensors. Those are many of the type II lenses. Even a number of lenses from the analog days do perform very well on digital systems. The interesting thing is that Canon also continued to improve lenses that were already very good on digital systems, as if they were preparing for even more demanding things to come in the digital arena.

An issue with Canon is that their sensor production equipment (wafer steppers etc., which they use(d) to produce their own high-end CMOS devices) has not kept up pace with other manufacturers' production equipment with regards to resolution. Competitors can produce smaller feature sizes, which helps with producing more densely packed designs. So currently, it seems, Canon would have to contract outside manufacturers of such equipment or purchase finished products from competitors (I believe they already purchase Sony sensors for their compact camera range for a while).

Another issue, for stills photographers, is that Canon decided some years ago to focus more on the motion imaging side of the market. That segment also needs outstanding 'digital' lens designs, but less resolution. Maybe their senior management has by now come to realize that the economical situation, combined with demographic developments, means that they are missing opportunities to have younger people join the Canon users population, which will negatively impact their lens sales potential in the longer run.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #125 on: December 28, 2014, 01:21:57 pm »

Well, I have to thank Canon. Since I have practically stopped investing in Canon gear for the last 3 years, I had finally (in digital times) the means to start exploring other gear.

Now I own a Sony A6000 converted to IR and a RX100M3. I love them both. Especially the RX.

Thanks Canon!
Eduardo
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #126 on: December 28, 2014, 01:42:58 pm »

I love the D810 as it does give me extra dynamic range when it really counts. But now this is about Canon and most situations can be shot with a Canon 5D mkIII as I have in my bag. Here are some examples that are single RAW files processed entirely in Lightroom 5:

http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-dq78srh/A


http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-WC4pMTw/A


http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-v853vtZ/A


And here is one with the D810 that the Canon could never do in a single RAW file

http://hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com/p63207269/h3251600E#h3251600e
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 01:46:33 pm by Hans Kruse »
Logged

thierrylegros396

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: canon ?
« Reply #127 on: December 28, 2014, 01:51:49 pm »

Slobodan, I was waiting for how long it would take for anybody to notice. I thought it was staring in my eyes when I saw the shot  ;D

+1  ;)

Thierry
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #128 on: December 28, 2014, 01:56:55 pm »

I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..
And here is one with the D810 that the Canon could never do in a single RAW file
I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #129 on: December 28, 2014, 02:06:06 pm »

I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.

The last one from the Canon with too much DR  ;D However I do not agree with you that it looks totally wrong. If you had been with me sitting where I took the shot you would have realized that there was quite a lot of light on the foreground and looking at the area around the tree was not black as it was from the default conversion in Lightroom. That actually would look totally wrong.

Yes, this is a matter of taste. I liked it this way when I processed it. I may come back later and make slight less light around the tree. Sometimes I do. But the point was about how much DR the Canon has with no problem.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 02:09:03 pm by Hans Kruse »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #130 on: December 28, 2014, 05:32:56 pm »

I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.

BAHAHAH

It is fine to 'like' a different look from what is presented.  Everyone gets an opinion.  But when you say it looks wrong, what you are really saying is that it looks different than what you are used to seeing in similar photographs.  Slide film held about 6 stops, print film about 10 or so.  DSLRs started down at the 5-6 stop range.  The D810, depending on ISO captures over 14.  So yeah, we can now make images unlike we used to be able to make with other cameras.  Of course, this is all affected by the limitations of the output medium.  Oh, and we still get to silhouette objects for artistic reasons, but with the D810 it is a choice, not always a requirement.

The Human eye is believed to have a DR of about 11-14 stops, and because we can scan and adjust basically it does HDR in your head.  So that last shot is approximating what the human eye would see.

BTW, Hans, very nice.  I have to admit that I looked at all the images and and liked the last one best.  Though the 2nd one is really nice and would just be better with a little more detail in the tree and other shadows. Then I went back and read the post before I figured out the last one was actually from the D810.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 05:38:15 pm by dwswager »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #131 on: December 28, 2014, 05:35:42 pm »

He he he, the pink spot, I am glad some of you noticed! In fact I am shocked nobody raised it earlier. ;)

That's the result of remaining flare that I still need to correct.

It results from a very specific issue with the D810 that occurs when a strong light source is positioned at a certain location above the camera. It is rare but did affect one of the images of this stitch. I managed to correct most of the luminosity issue, but introduced a color shift that I had not noticed when I processed the image after a very long day. Stupid me had somehow forgotten to switch the adjustment layers to luminosity mode...

Btw, nice images Hans. The first one in particular works very well.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 05:49:40 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: canon ?
« Reply #132 on: December 28, 2014, 06:35:07 pm »

It seems quite clear to me that this is the case.

You would be so fun to have under cross-examination.  And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.

- N.
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        ww

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #133 on: December 28, 2014, 06:45:51 pm »

But when you say it looks wrong, what you are really saying is that it looks different than what you are used to seeing in similar photographs.
No, don't extrapolate unnecessarily. It looks wrong to me, unnatural, simple as that. Not compared to any other photograph, but as I expect reality to look like.
Quote
The Human eye is believed to have a DR of about 11-14 stops,
Got a source for that assumption ?
Quote
and because we can scan and adjust basically it does HDR in your head.  So that last shot is approximating what the human eye would see.
That's a gross simplification of how people perceive images. I also think it's fundamentally flawed too.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2014, 08:22:11 pm »

You would be so fun to have under cross-examination.  And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.

- N.

Please, don't let Hans's attitude drive you away Nick. :)

Your contributions are an order of magnitude more valuable to me and your civil tone is always a pleasure to read.

Cheers,
Bernard

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #135 on: December 28, 2014, 09:07:09 pm »

No, don't extrapolate unnecessarily. It looks wrong to me, unnatural, simple as that. Not compared to any other photograph, but as I expect reality to look like.Got a source for that assumption ?That's a gross simplification of how people perceive images. I also think it's fundamentally flawed too.

Here is one link.  And your eye really does change exposure based on where your eye is focusing in the real scene.  And I wasn't talking about perceiving images, but perceiving the real world.

This attached cambridgeincolour.com pictorial is a pretty good graphical representation of what you eye/brain does when looking at high contrast scenes:

As an amateur photographer with over 32 years experience, I get a lot of requests for technique and equipment recommendations.  I've been shooting Nikon since switching from Canon in 1989.  And until the last 3-4 years, most of my recommendations leaned people toward Canon if they had no prior commitment to a particular brand.  For most people, the systems are fairly comparable, but Canon cameras were just better.  I even thought of switching back to Canon 7 years ago.  So I find all the upset somewhat baffling. 
Logged

mark_au

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: canon ?
« Reply #136 on: December 29, 2014, 01:52:24 am »

Please, don't let Hans's attitude drive you away Nick. :)

Your contributions are an order of magnitude more valuable to me and your civil tone is always a pleasure to read.

Cheers,
Bernard


+1

I always find your comments very informative and refreshing to read.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: canon ?
« Reply #137 on: December 29, 2014, 04:55:18 am »

Sometimes you look at somebody's pictures and wonder "how does he do it"?
That's how I feel when I see Hans Kruse's site.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: canon ?
« Reply #138 on: December 29, 2014, 10:22:30 am »

Hi,

Having spent some days on a workshop with Hans I would suggest some other factors:

  • Researching the areas where he is shooting
  • Very early mornings and late evening, when there is that magic light
  • Knowledge and experience
  • A consistent style
  • Good understanding of the the tools of the trade

And yes, some talent is involved, too!
Best regards
Erik

Talent, perhaps?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: canon ?
« Reply #139 on: December 29, 2014, 10:34:03 am »

Hi,

As a bystander I would say that Canon makes some very nice optics. Many of the L lenses were famous. Canon had some weak offerings in the 16-35 area, but that has been cured by the 16-35/4 and the 24-70/2.8LII is well known to be excellent and so are the 17 and 24 T&S lenses.

Where I feel Canon is lacking is the base ISO high resolution area, where they can not match the clean shadows of the Sony sensors used by Nikon and others. They also lack a high resolution full frame body.

What I would say Hans Kruse's examples show is that excellent results are achievable with Canon. I would also say that 20+ MP is good enough for A2 size prints, printing larger I would expect some benefits from higher resolution bodies.

Anyway, post processing technique matters a lot. I would guess that a well executed and processed 20+ MP image from Canon cameras can impress even in large sizes.

Subject and interpretation matters mostly more than technical quality.

BTW, not everyone uses tripod and low ISO. With high ISOs the DR advantage of the Sony sensors is probably mostly gone.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up