PIX 2015
IvanM

IvanM

Lives in South Africa Centurion, South Africa
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Sep 15, 2004
About me:

Professional photographer with a love of documentary and landscape photography

Comments

Total: 196, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: Have it on my hands for the following 1,5 weeks or so.
AF is REALLY decent, quite unexpectedly it's on par with other upper-level ILCs, Fuji X-E2 at least. if not better... Will have some speedy wildlife to put AF through paces. Ultrasonic motor remains ultrasonic when conventional EF lenses are used via original adapter. Mind to switch lens IS switch off, though, because when it's on, gyroscopes are engaged all the time the camera is on.
And, well... EOS M4 (yes, I'm already thinking of it) MUST have built-in EVF (instead of built-in flash, for instance), because with two-decade long SLR habits it's very hard to handle such miniscule contraption attached even to 70-200/2.8L IS, not to mention anything more substantial (400/4DO IS in my case).

Ignat, the EVF really is a must.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 13:55 UTC
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim: Given that the utility of the M's compactness is negated by all but the smallest lenses it can mount, you might as well have a Rebel or full frame body. If compactness is a priority, an SL1, G3X or G1X/G1X II might make much more sense overall. I don't get the entire M series at all. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Jim

Jim what other Canon camera can I get that's got an EVF and can fit all my other Canon lenses - and flashes?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 13:53 UTC
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Aside from the price and lack of viewfinder, it seems like a nice enough camera.

Well a M 3 with 22mmf2 is pretty compact and delivers very high quality images up to 1600iso at least. In my side of the world the M3 plus kit zoom is much cheaper than almost all other compacts (sony pulled out of the country) so that leaves only fuji, nikon, panasonic, pentax etc LX100 is very cool but 'only' 12mp and twice the price of an M3 here. Worst feature of the M3 is probably still its relative slow AF, especially when compared to the rest...but the EF adapter is a very compelling reason to get the M3 as a 2nd body to a Canon dslr, for instance because you can use all your other lenses even if its more bulky.

But Starting from scratch the M3 is probably not the best option out there if price is left out of the equation..but really its only major drawback is its AF speed and large AF selector points..and that all depends on your shooting style....The 85mm f1.8 for instance fits very nicely on the M3 and delivers superb image quality and fast AF or MF at a very good price

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 13:41 UTC
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

gLOWx: If you cumulate all IDGAF votes in the last DPR poll about M3, you get 80%
USA or not, it is a failure. I'm European, i love mirrorless concept (even if i love OVF pentaprism too).
And frankly, Canon or Nikon are my last interest in mirrorless world.
Give me a Sony, Fuji, Pana or Oly. May be even a Samsung.
They don't pretend to take mirrorless seriously : they do it.

Speculatrix, I am one of those that wont 'buy a dslr if it hasnt got the Canon name on it.....so if you have negative thoughts about me (to say the least) with all due respect, why should I care?

I have many reasons why I only buy Canon of course, but still why worry how and why I spend my money? just like I dont care why and how you spend your money, its yous afteral and has got nothing to do with me...no offence intended at all, just a simple observation....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

A 80mm lens on a medium format has the same depth of field as a 80mm lens (at same aperture) on 35mm camera. Thats why 8x10 film had a unique wide angle look using something like a 240mm lens but very narrow depth of field capabilities when 'only' stopped down to f5.6/8 or so...that is something that is very difficult to achieve with 3/4 mirrorless for instance....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: I'm sure it's a nice camera but to me it is a stretch to call it medium format. Even 6x4.5 barely seemed to qualify.

Actually I think there is a scanning back made in the USA, I forget the name now, that is almost 4x5 inches....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

W4YNE 1: I just find it hard to coceive that you are holding a "camera" in your hands worth the price of a small car. Like designer clothes you are paying for something to be different, it won't guarentee you success or better pictures?

so if one can handhold a Leica s and get pinsharp images well then the guys complaining about shutter & mirror shock etc etc on the 35mm megapixel cameras obviously need to brush up on their technique...

But are these med format cameras really at their best handheld or should they live on a tripod?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 14:03 UTC

IMO this is definitely a beautifully designed camera...got to give it to Leica, they buck the trend and when it works it works well!

Fortunately for us lesser mortals there is Canon 5ds/r, Nikon 810 and Sony A7r2 which all will come close to (if not exceed) the image quality the 007 can deliver..

but Its almost not really about image quality anymore, but rather how it fits into ones workflow, budget and the look one is after....there is something for everyone now.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 13:58 UTC as 56th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Lightcapture: The thing of beauty! I mean, you can get four a7rii bodies with this! There, now I've said it! ;)

So how does the image quality compare to the new MM?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 13:48 UTC
On Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II article (592 comments in total)
In reply to:

IvanM: Well I wish Sony well with this camera, its seems to be the bomb! The sales figures will tell if its necessary for Canikon to follow or bring out something to compete with...

Unfortunately Sony withdrew completely in my country with only playstation and cellphones remaining...so from a professional pov it is a non starter. Sony used to be the leader around here but now LG and Samsung leads in consumer electronics. Canon (and Nikon far behind) obviously dominates but there seems to be a strong following for Fuji and to lesser extend Olympus and limited Panasonic offerings....so as good as this Sony is we just dont have the option of trying or even buying...

its not that we cant get it via ebay etc but then by the time it gets through customs etc and with no local warranty it is just not worth it..especially if there are other brands available with backup, parts and service...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 13:09 UTC
On Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II article (592 comments in total)

Well I wish Sony well with this camera, its seems to be the bomb! The sales figures will tell if its necessary for Canikon to follow or bring out something to compete with...

Unfortunately Sony withdrew completely in my country with only playstation and cellphones remaining...so from a professional pov it is a non starter. Sony used to be the leader around here but now LG and Samsung leads in consumer electronics. Canon (and Nikon far behind) obviously dominates but there seems to be a strong following for Fuji and to lesser extend Olympus and limited Panasonic offerings....so as good as this Sony is we just dont have the option of trying or even buying...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 08:31 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Renato60: I have used the 5dsr for a couple of weeks and the combination between the sensor and the latest Canon lenses is simply breathtaking, not only in terms of resolution. Images are almost three-dimensional, resembling the effect of an old Kodachrome. I suggest not focusing only on specific aspects (i.e. DR, noise, ...), all things that can be easily adapted in Photoshop, but on the final result.

Apparently the same photo of the tulips has been shot with the 5DS and with the 7S. I also made the same consideration.

not sure why one wont get the 'benefit of the extra pixels' in high contrast situations...it just means the image will look less HDR like than compared with a sony sensor image...but the benefit of the extra pixels, which is extra resolution, will still be there....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:27 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.

I am beginning to see distinct differences from the various opinions expressed above...If I may state it very very simple....Some are consumed by their cameras and all technical aspects of it and Others are consumed by their 'vision'.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.

Of course, the coolest thing about all this choice is just that, we can all now get exactly what we want , with almost no compromises ! Anyway I am sitting in the airport lounge, on my way to Italy! So I am going to put his whole DR thing behind me for the mo and concentrate on all things Italian...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.

Rishi, you show an example in your flower shot of how terrible the DR is...we don't know what the raw file looks like or how you exposed, based on this and dxo graphs etc you illustrate how poor the canon compares to the rest...the reason why I say go look at other photographers work is to give a bit of balance and that many competent photographers get by famously with these canon sensors.....of course there are others that use Nikon and Sony too, but that's the whole point, we use what we like and that gets us what we want. It's about personal preferences and for many here to say I would be better served by B rather than A is presumptious to say the least and then We are not allowed to defend our choices....any competent photographer knows that Sony sensors have wider DR and cleaner shadows, the question then is why do they still keep on using them? The are many many answers to that, and not needing or having found a workaround the extra DR capabilities is just one of them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: Interesting! I'm glad I have the Nikon D800 and did not spend a ton of money upgrading to the Canon 50 MP models. (The D800 was not in the comparison test and may not be as impressive as the D810, but still...)

BUT what I really want to say is: WOW, Rishi Sanyal, that tulip photo above is spectacular.

until you zoom in and then it looks horrible......

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.

Mmmmmm, I like that line. ' I'l crush any shadow that gets in the way of that goal' ....must remember that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: All this tsuris illustrates a key failing in understanding of test results...
Are you guys unaware of the fact that some camera makers work very hard to game the reviewing system. They tailor their cameras so that they look good when tested by sites like DXO; the tradeoff is that they may not work as well in the field. Other camera makers bias their systems so they work well in the field at the expense of lesser performance in lab tests.

It seems that Canon has engineered this camera with real-world performance in mind and is bravely willing to take its chances with the internet.... Bravo to them!

ZDMan, DPR is just one of many sites that review cameras....I take what I read here with a hefty pinch of salt, like I do elsewhere...short reviews by actual pro photographers are more valid from my pov because they use these tools everyday and have to repeat top quality results day after day, rain wind or shine, with critical clients hanging over their shoulders... ..but having said that I still read the reviews to form a general idea, and compare it to what other have said and appreciate the effort put into it but just remember the reviewers here and elsewhere are professional reviewers first and amateur photographers(mostly) second, ......but read the short review of Marin Bailey on the 5DsR...for me it was quite insightful at how a wildlife pro looks at things as opposed to most amateurs here...we live in different worlds it would seem sometimes....but all is good here and one shouldn't take anything said here, or anywhere on the web, including mine, too seriously!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

kryten61: Alternatively , I wonder if Sebastiao Salgado realises his award winning work is shot on a sensor that is not quite state of the art. Maybe if he know he would rush back to all those recent locations and take much better images. :-)
I wonder if he cares?

Canon need to improve from a Pixel peeping point of view, or do they? Of course improvement is welcomed but needs perspective.
I know many working photographers who have no idea what is being discussed in here, who are oblivious to any of this PP.
It doesn't seem to be quite as big an issue to them and or they are more than happy with their gear, lenses , performance etc offered by their systems. And I suppose more importantly so are their Clients.

I wonder if clients will start demanding a Nikon or Sony shooter because of their much better images?????…I think not. :-)

No, we should use the technology we want to use, and that gives us the results we desire and that fits in best with our own personal workflow, budget, likes and dislikes, lens choice etc etc...so the choice now is as easy as pie, if a wide DR look is paramount then one can choose to use Sony sensor equipped cameras, and if a wide DR look is not what one is after, or its not important to the photographer then one can choose something else, if the Sony sensor equipped brands are not to ones liking ...but if the best DR is all that matters in judging image quality well then shouldn't we use only the best, why stop at the Sony 35mm sensors, why then not use Phase 1, Hasselblad or Pentax? Or for that matter Imacon scanned 8x10 inch negs? and btw AA also used 35mm cameras....

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.

Davinator, go and have a look at Barry Goyette's website....maybe we are all talking at cross purposes here....

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 08:49 UTC
Total: 196, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »