PIX 2015
deep7

deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 568, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Thanks. That is interesting. You managed to recover useful detail in the sky and in the rocks in the middle but those leaves have still clipped abruptly. Looks like fewer chromatic aberrations too.

A camera like this comes very close to being genuinely useful to me (viewfinder issues aside). When one inch sensors mature a little more, they may prove the ideal compromise. Meanwhile, m4/3 is doing sterling service.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Thanks. That is interesting. You managed to recover useful detail in the sky and in the rocks in the middle but those leaves have still clipped abruptly. Looks like fewer chromatic aberrations too.

A camera like this comes very close to being genuinely useful to me (viewfinder issues aside). When one inch sensors mature a little more, they may prove the ideal compromise. Meanwhile, m4/3 is doing sterling service.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

It's not showing up here - the previous picture is a seascape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On bb_ISO125_f5.6_IMG_0089 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

It's not showing up here - the previous picture is a seascape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

It's not showing up here - the previous picture is a seascape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

It's not showing up here - the previous picture is a seascape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

It's not showing up here - the previous picture is a seascape.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

joelakeland: Looking at Raw, ISO 800, which is how I would capture(not JPEG) and the ceiling for my preferences in terms of ISO with a 1" sensor, the Canon ranks just behind the FZ1000 and a bit further behind the now old Sony RX10 in terms of noise. I haven't studied the lens sharpness or whether there is any in-camera sharping taking place to the image files, but they look relatively close.

I don't know that in real life usage and for Internet postings only, the aforementioned opinion makes a real difference as to my ultimate satisfaction with Canon's output.

The real question for me as an M43 user; should I buy this, along with the EVF, or, buy a telephoto zoom lens that reaches to 300mm(600 equivalent), costing a fair amount less?

IchiroCameraGuy: you seriously can't actually own Olympus gear. The 75-300 works very well indeed with the in I.B.I.S. system in Olympus bodies. Not that it's that flash at 300mm but it can do well a little shy of full zoom.

johnsmith404: Take a look at the sample with the part Ferris wheel and the top of a tower. The bit in focus is pretty decent and that's at full zoom. It's better than you'd reasonably expect from such an ambitious lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Really sharp but the edges show very high levels of CA, the kind that can't be fixed. Usable at f/2 without problems but still, why24-35 ? It's not like it's optically perfect, it's a little flawed and heavy enough, they should have gone for 20-35 or 24-40.

There's even CA in the hair in some shots. I didn't check but it didn't look like it would be hard to deal with, though. If, as you infer, you'd even see that stuff at normal viewing size! The building shots have quite harsh coloured edges though, which you would see.

Good that you didn't process that stuff out but it would be interesting for people interested in the lens to know how hard it is to deal with.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 06:00 UTC
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Some of the ISO 1000 shots look cleaner than some of the ISO 400 shots in the "real world" gallery.

Perhaps different processing based on subject matter?

Either way the lens looks great and these samples make the 5Ds look a little better too. Still not market leading but at least decent in it's own right. I don't think noise is necessarily a bad thing all the time, I often shoot at higher ISO settings than necessary to make gritty black and white conversions but it's nice to be able to choose. These samples at least show that you can approach ISO 1600 and still maintain a relatively clean looking image depending on processing.

The same issue with all Canon's though is that any attempt to lift shadows is disastrous, the ISO 100 shot of the couple with the sunset behind is a prime example. A Sony sensor would do a much better job here even if you downsampled the 5D image. The Canon files are very brittle and begin to break up easily.

Did you people not read the first comment? Completely off topic. I am chilled. It's mid winter.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:55 UTC
On bb_ISO125_f5.6_IMG_0089 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Duh, that's what I said! There was a chance that Canon would get more out of it than Sony but it's still got bad highlights and is very noisy if pushed - which is what you would expect. I wonder if Canon's own, lower pixel count, sensor will ever find its way into a more mainstream camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Duh, that's what I said! There was a chance that Canon would get more out of it than Sony but it's still got bad highlights and is very noisy if pushed - which is what you would expect. I wonder if Canon's own, lower pixel count, sensor will ever find its way into a more mainstream camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Duh, that's what I said! There was a chance that Canon would get more out of it than Sony but it's still got bad highlights and is very noisy if pushed - which is what you would expect. I wonder if Canon's own, lower pixel count, sensor will ever find its way into a more mainstream camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Duh, that's what I said! There was a chance that Canon would get more out of it than Sony but it's still got bad highlights and is very noisy if pushed - which is what you would expect. I wonder if Canon's own, lower pixel count, sensor will ever find its way into a more mainstream camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Duh, that's what I said! There was a chance that Canon would get more out of it than Sony but it's still got bad highlights and is very noisy if pushed - which is what you would expect. I wonder if Canon's own, lower pixel count, sensor will ever find its way into a more mainstream camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

That's fine but I wouldn't want it in a paid shoot! Then again, every lens needs learning and its shortfalls have to be accommodated. It's good of you to include some shots with lens flare so people can see what it does.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

That's fine but I wouldn't want it in a paid shoot! Then again, every lens needs learning and its shortfalls have to be accommodated. It's good of you to include some shots with lens flare so people can see what it does.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

That's fine but I wouldn't want it in a paid shoot! Then again, every lens needs learning and its shortfalls have to be accommodated. It's good of you to include some shots with lens flare so people can see what it does.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

That's fine but I wouldn't want it in a paid shoot! Then again, every lens needs learning and its shortfalls have to be accommodated. It's good of you to include some shots with lens flare so people can see what it does.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
On RS_Sigma24-35_1C3A7860-24mm-F2 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

That's fine but I wouldn't want it in a paid shoot! Then again, every lens needs learning and its shortfalls have to be accommodated. It's good of you to include some shots with lens flare so people can see what it does.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
Total: 568, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »