Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Duck shots!

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,409
    you're full of sh*t.

    excuse me in advance for saying that but there's no other way to describe the nonsense your posting and circles you're running around in to hide your complete lack of understanding. consider my input into this ridiculous debate over. its a waste of time trying to get any sense out of you at all.
    D800e l V1 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l EP5 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Boy this discussion has certainly fallen to a new low of name calling and bickering.

    Believe it or not, it's actually brought a question to mind. What is really causing a focusing problem? Is it the lens? In this case since it's one lens, I have to blame the lens.

    But then I have to ask, how does the suspect lens, which the AF system seems to think is in focus, is actually mis-focused? I would think this should be consistent: Something tells the AF system that a certain phase or contrast is in focus, and if the AF system doesn't have this phase or contrast(the same "yes it's in focus one), then it should continue to seek this same set of parameters until it is pleased. Yet somehow it is pleased with one set of parameters for a number of lenses, and another set of parameters for just one other lens.

    Long winded, but I am saying I think I agree with Peek that the AF system determines FF or BF. But; I also agree with Rooz that in this case it's a lens problem. Which brings me to the above questions.

    Maybe the lens falls within the phase or contrast that the AF system is looking for and therefore it stops there, maybe that particular lens is just plain incapable of achieving the focus we demand, and that's where it stops, it's the best it can do. A way to check that would be to let the AF do its job, then turning off the AF and manually focus the lens. The new higher resolution sensor is probably bringing out some of the shortcomings in that particular lens too.

    Peek, Rooz is actually a Nikon user, check out his sig. Rooz also rarely resorts to name calling and system bashing. He's blunt, maybe a little(OK sometimes a lot)rude sometimes, but he generally speaks the truth, and may not have hands on experience in every area, but his opinion is based on good research.

    I've struggled with midrange glass, and found my eyes OPENED when I bought my first pro lens. We all look at the photos in National Geographic, OP, Life, etc. etc. and we are amazed by the work. We want to take photos like that. Buying a DSLR will allow us to do that, right?

    Yes, and no, our SLR body has to be coupled with top quality lenses. If you were to research the equipment used to obtain those wonderful photographs, you'd find pro lenses were used in the vast majority of those photographs. Sony Zeiss, Canon L, Nikkor Pro lenses, and many others for rangefinders, medium format, etc. cost what they do for a reason. The price tag seems crazy outrageous, but the reality is that these are the lenses that make the photographs we all love. The reality is that our fancy body is less than half of the equation, the lens costs will far surpass the bodies costs, and the lens will have far more effect on the final product than the body ever will. The body is about convenience, the lens is about the photo.
    Last edited by TenD; 03-21-2009 at 08:16 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,409
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    Peek, Rooz is actually a Nikon user, check out his sig. Rooz also rarely resorts to name calling and system bashing. He's blunt, maybe a little(OK sometimes a lot)rude sometimes, but he generally speaks the truth, and may not have hands on experience in every area, but his opinion is based on good research.
    i've used a heck of alot of nikon glass and lately i;ve used a heck of alot of canon glass aswell. i've never used a minolta 28-135, never even seen one actually, barely any reseach either. but what i do have is common sense. all i needed to do was understand its age, its mechanics and its price point.

    i dont NEED to specifically know and understand that particualr lens to be able to make a call on it. minolta, nikon, pentax, canon...all the brands have the same type of zoom lens' from the same era for around the same money. they are cheap, budget lens' that perform in a cheap budget way. just like i dont NEED to have ued every single 300/2.8 lens made by every OEM to know that these lens' will have very high qualty optics. just like i dont need to have driven a ferrari 328 or a hyundai excel to know where they fit in the scheme of things when it comes to a driving experience. all it takes is some common sense.

    there is just no way a $300, 20year old, 5x, f4 zoom lens is going to be a strong performer unless you measure its performance in context of its price. its as simple as that.

    and yes, i am direct and can be rude on occasion. but i'm not bloody stupid.
    D800e l V1 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l EP5 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i've used a heck of alot of nikon glass and lately i;ve used a heck of alot of canon glass aswell. i've never used a minolta 28-135, never even seen one actually, barely any reseach either. but what i do have is common sense. all i needed to do was understand its age, its mechanics and its price point.

    i dont NEED to specifically know and understand that particualr lens to be able to make a call on it. minolta, nikon, pentax, canon...all the brands have the same type of zoom lens' from the same era for around the same money. they are cheap, budget lens' that perform in a cheap budget way. just like i dont NEED to have ued every single 300/2.8 lens made by every OEM to know that these lens' will have very high qualty optics. just like i dont need to have driven a ferrari 328 or a hyundai excel to know where they fit in the scheme of things when it comes to a driving experience. all it takes is some common sense.

    there is just no way a $300, 20year old, 5x, f4 zoom lens is going to be a strong performer unless you measure its performance in context of its price. its as simple as that.

    and yes, i am direct and can be rude on occasion. but i'm not bloody stupid.
    You didn't answer my question
    I agree you can form some opinion based on the pedigree of the glass, I do the same. There are exceptions, though, but even these exceptions fall short of pro level glass. I disagree that age makes any difference. The older FD L lenses from Canon are still excellent pieces of glass, and my favorite, arguably my sharpest lens is the old Canon 80-200 f/2.8L Magic Drainpipe. I also had a hard time deciding between the 28-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. I went with the latter, but the newer 24-70 f/2.8L wasn't even in the running, because the older 28-70 was regarded as sharper glass.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,409
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    You didn't answer my question
    thats cos i havent the faintest idea what the answer is !! lol

    I agree you can form some opinion based on the pedigree of the glass, I do the same. There are exceptions, though, but even these exceptions fall short of pro level glass.
    yes, there may be exceptions. very, very few though. and yes they do fall well short of great glass.

    I disagree that age makes any difference. The older FD L lenses from Canon are still excellent pieces of glass, and my favorite, arguably my sharpest lens is the old Canon 80-200 f/2.8L Magic Drainpipe. I also had a hard time deciding between the 28-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. I went with the latter, but the newer 24-70 f/2.8L wasn't even in the running, because the older 28-70 was regarded as sharper glass.
    the examples you;re citing are L glass, (pro grade). they were always meant for the pro market and so will always be great glass, relatively speaking. a nikkor 85/1.4 is pretty old but its exceptional in performance. its also not $300, nor is it a 5x zoom. name me an exceptional lens that is a 5x zoom you cna buy for $300. i'll buy it in a heartbeat.
    D800e l V1 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l EP5 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    name me an exceptional lens that is a 5x zoom you cna buy for $300. i'll buy it in a heartbeat.
    Yeah, I pretty much always count on spending $1K or more for a zoom lens. I think that's why my Drainpipe is one of my favorites, I got it before the whole digital thing took off and didn't pay nearly what they go for now.

    When I was still shooting film, I was struggling with mid priced glass. I used mid priced glass on my AE-1 and continued when I bought my first EOS. I tried Tamron, Sigma, and finally found a decent lens in a Canon 28-105 f/3.5-5.6 II. This was my mainstay lens.

    I was reading Bob Atkins website and he had a couple of articles about older L series lenses that were largely ignored having been replaced by newer models. Newer models that weren't really any better IQ wise than their predecessors but maybe added a few mm's on one end or the other.

    I settled on finding an 80-200 f/2.8. I found quite a few on KEH(a couple of years ago they were nearly impossible to find)and finally purchased my first L lens. I took one roll of film through the lens and quickly brought it to Walgreens for 1 hour processing. When I looked at the prints from that roll, I knew my glass purchasing habits had changed forever. Creamy bokeh, sharp/contrasty/3-D/standing out from the background subject, build quality, better autofocus, etc. etc.

    I have purchased only a couple mid priced lens since, and I quickly sold each one and replaced one of them with another pro lens. The other was an all in one Tamron and it was borderline horrible and completely disappointing, I haven't found a replacement, it may end up being a Canon SX-1.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    ...... If you were to research the equipment used to obtain those wonderful photographs, you'd find pro lenses were used in the vast majority of those photographs. Sony Zeiss, Canon L, Nikkor Pro lenses, and many others for rangefinders, medium format, etc. cost what they do for a reason. The price tag seems crazy outrageous, but the reality is these are the lenses that make the photographs we all love.
    TenD, I don't doubt it, never did. I'd love to equip myself with that quality of glass, but who can afford it (justify it).
    That was never the argument. I simply took exception to Roozs' trashing of Elisha's perfectly reasonable amateur setup.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    TenD, I don't doubt it, never did. I'd love to equip myself with that quality of glass, but who can afford it (justify it).
    That was never the argument. I simply took exception to Roozs' trashing of Elisha's perfectly reasonable amateur setup.
    My comments about glass weren't directed at anyone, but were basically a statement based on my experience.

    I know that I was shocked when I found that a good lens could cost over $1000, and then even more so when I found that my $300-500 lenses weren't as capable as I though they might be. I thought that when I spent the big bucks on a body, the body was what was taking the photos. Then I realized that the body is nothing more than a fancy light box, and the lens is really where the focus is(no pun intended). You can argue that a newer body will have a bit more advanced sensor in it, but I'll take any older body with great glass over a new body with mediocre glass.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Right, no argument with that last comment.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    so i took my lenses to the shop and tested with their demo a700.
    BF still remains on my 50mm and 35-70mm but not on 28-135 and 70-210.
    and images were soft on the demo model as well.

    i figure the images are soft cause of the CMOS NR processing which can't be turned off unlike the processor NR.
    the a300 was CCD and NR was only applied on the processor level.

    anyway it may be totally wrong here.
    another thing i figure is that maybe the center point focus on the a700 is much smaller than the center point focus on the a300.
    i could be wrong again.

    i may take it to another shop and test with another body just to see.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •