Lan

Lives in United Kingdom South East, United Kingdom
Works as a IT
Joined on Jul 12, 2001
About me:

Hobbies:
Photography
Computers
Reading SF/Fantasy
Travel

Comments

Total: 517, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Got focal range? Canon 24-105mm F4L II sample gallery (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: The law of diminishing returns seems to always present itself.
It is not easy to improve upon a best selling classic, but the price doesn't break the bank, for an L lens in this optical range.

I had skipped the EF 24-105mm, f/4, despite a lot of advice and temptation, and had opted for the EF 16-35mm, f/2.8 L, the EF 70-200mm, f/4 L, and the EF 28-135mm, f/3.5-5.6 for the in-between.
I have no regrets, or complaints about any of these lenses.
The 28-135 is not an L lens, but I love its images, and it's the one that I keep on the FF camera most of the time, as a general purpose lens.
The other two have their own use and purpose, obviously.

Thank you for this update.
Nice images, just too many snow pictures, although I understand that at this time of year that is what we expect to find outdoors.

As an upgrader from the 28-135 I'd say the mk1 24-105 was an improvement in all respects. I can see (admittedly at 100%) fairly easily which shots came from the 24-105 and which from the 28-135 on my 5D2.

Now might be a good time to make the plunge, the mk1 should be getting even cheaper now that the mk2 is out!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:23 UTC
On article Got focal range? Canon 24-105mm F4L II sample gallery (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: Just saying, both Roger Cicala@Lens Rentals saying, the Mk. II Version is basically "meh"...especially for the asking price. Users of Mk. I 24-104/F4L USM doesn't need to replace it. And the 24-105 STM also comes close in IQ, too.

Photozone
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/995-canon24105f4ismk2
Quote: "So what's the final conclusion ? Honestly, we would recommend to skip this lens. We just didn't find any substantial improvement over the already not-so-great predecessor. Instead we would suggest to check out the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 USM L IS or the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 HSM ART. "

Lens Rentals
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/
Quote: "Would I upgrade my old 24-105 f/4 IS? Nope."

The Digital Picture (i've posted this before)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

My mk2 is marginally better than my mk1 was in almost every respect; you can even get sunstars out of it, which was pretty much impossible with the mk1...

Is it a night and day improvement? No. Is it an improvement? Yes.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
On article Got focal range? Canon 24-105mm F4L II sample gallery (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: Nice and diverse gallery, thanks for the effort.
It's great that you included full body portraits too, Dale.

I have the original 24-105L, it's a decent walkaround lens but I rarely use it because of the distortion at 24mm, which is barely any better with the version II, the chromatic aberrations, which seem even worse on the version II, the "busy" bokeh, which looks similar in the version II, and the 8-point stars, which still look "fat" and poorly defined with the version II (10-point stars is hardly any better in my opinion).

At this point, I do think the Sigma 24-105 f4 OS is a better option but I won't be surprised if the 24-105L II will soon be Canon's best seller, just like the 24-105L was until now. Many people will buy their 5D IV and 6D II and never upgrade the kit lens, unfortunately.

Boeing: The sunstars are much better on the mk2. It was borderline impossible to trigger them on the mk1, but I have seen them even at f9.5 on the mk2 (on a 5D2). My mk2 is also a marginally better lens all round; but the leap isn't as great as I'd hoped it would be. In all fairness the mk1 was already pretty good, so they had less distance they could take this one IMO.

I was put off the Sigma by frequent reports of AF issues with it. It's also a tradeoff in performance terms, one's sharper at the long end, the other's sharper at the short!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

LJ - Eljot: The young lady in the picture is most probalby not showing a peace sign but just two fingers for the number 2. In the japanese language the word for 2 is "ni". When you say "ni" you smile. It is just the similar thing to "cheese" in english. So I was told once.

@solarider: That sketch makes me smile, so I guess they knew some Japanese ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:01 UTC

Interesting that the PC and Mac bug lists are completely different; I'd have assumed the same core code was running, but I guess not!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 19:59 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies

That looks like a very interesting lens - I can't wait to see some reviews!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:10 UTC as 13th comment

In other news, water is found to be wet...

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:04 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: When someone asks: "what second lens should i buy?"
The answer will always be - 50f1.8

Funnily enough the 50mm f/1.8 is an answer I'd almost never give!

Why not get something that actually broadens your creative range, rather than duplicating something you already have, but it in a less convenient package? Yes, you can get shallower DOF out of it compared to a kit zoom, but the 1.8 usually has the ugliest bokeh of any of the 50mm lenses, and the image quality is usually very poor wide open too. As an added bonus they can be really fiddly to focus; and you usually lose the kit lens advantage of IS/VR by choosing the 50mm f/1.8 too.

If you find you prefer shooting flowers and insects, get a macro next.

If you find it's birds/portraits/wildlife that floats your boat - go telephoto.

If you love landscapes and cityscapes go ultrawide.

If you're happy with the focal length of your kit lens, but unhappy about the image quality, upgrade that lens.

Or if you want something to sit in a bag gathering dust; buy a 50mm f/1.8 ;) About the only advantage it has is it's cheap.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: May be very basic and rough - as with any new tool. I can see lot of uses down the line.

You could say, "find all albums that have photos of Sarah and Mark!"
"Oh, filter again for the puppy as well!!"

Next thing? Touchscreen will be outdated and cameras will start including voice controls. They will also include information from your voice commands into the RAW files so that PhotoShop can recognize and process them... those are things you think of when taking the photo and give an advance note (voice command) on how you think PhotoShop should process it. You can forget it later... "Crop the tree" or "Cover up the electical wire."

Possibilities are endless but we cannot imaging them all right now. Some of them will come from totally unexpected directions.

Sometimes technology/feature has to be developed. Then people will find hundreds of uses for it.

To be honest I don't see that this is even worthy of a news article. It's voice recognition in an application; two things we already have and can be implemented using available off the shelf technology today. Oh, I've just answered my own question. It's the shiny thing they're feeding us to make the CC subscription cost seem worthwhile, whilst costing them next to nothing to implement. Nevermind ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: May be very basic and rough - as with any new tool. I can see lot of uses down the line.

You could say, "find all albums that have photos of Sarah and Mark!"
"Oh, filter again for the puppy as well!!"

Next thing? Touchscreen will be outdated and cameras will start including voice controls. They will also include information from your voice commands into the RAW files so that PhotoShop can recognize and process them... those are things you think of when taking the photo and give an advance note (voice command) on how you think PhotoShop should process it. You can forget it later... "Crop the tree" or "Cover up the electical wire."

Possibilities are endless but we cannot imaging them all right now. Some of them will come from totally unexpected directions.

Sometimes technology/feature has to be developed. Then people will find hundreds of uses for it.

Voice recognition has been available for decades; and yet we're still using keyboards, mice, tablets and touchscreens.

The problem is, voice control is slow, and imprecise. I can type ten times faster than I can talk, and keyboard shortcuts mean that you can do things in ten keystrokes that would take an hour of talking to the computer... We haven't lacked the technology to do this, what we're lacking is a good reason to do it.

The small screens available on the average smartphone currently mean there may be some small amount of utility to it in that scenario, but as soon as we move beyond smartphones (which I give another five years tops) we'll be pointing and laughing at Adobe for wasting time on this when they could have been developing genuinely useful new features; or improving existing ones.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 02:04 UTC

Shark, well and truly jumped.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 22:40 UTC as 72nd comment

Actually I want something like this!

I'm not a photojournalist, but whenever I'm stuck in traffic I think it would be really useful if I could send up a drone to see what the problem is. Might just stick with the existing car and get a Mavic though ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:08 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

Agreed on all points!

Working for DPReview is tricky, no matter what they do, they can't please all of us. In some ways I'm surprised they try ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

The shot taken at 150mm does appear to be in focus, but only for the gulls at the very bottom of the frame, the rest is outside the DOF.

Lens samples are traditionally posted without correction to show how the lens performs, rather than how the camera's JPEG engine performs.

I agree that a few more samples at the long end wouldn't go amiss though.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 17:43 UTC

If it had 4K video it would be perfect.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 17:57 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

NAwlins Contrarian: Is there any point in putting 20 MP on a 1/2.3-inch sensor and then sitting it behind a lens with a maximum aperture of f/6.6, or even f/3.7? I suspect that diffraction and other lens performance issues render it pointless. Does Nikon know something relevant to this issue that I don't know? Or is it simply that Nikon's marketing department overrules its engineering department?

It's a beancounter special; made to be as cheap as possible.

Anyone who buys one of these is guaranteed to be disappointed with the image quality. It'll be worse than smartphone due to the slow lens and tiny sensor.

Nikon's sending the wrong message - it shouldn't be saying to the customers "buy our cameras, the pictures will be worse than your smartphone". That's what I think these cameras say though :(

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 17:49 UTC

Oooh, an underwater camera with a smaller sensor - that's just what everyone's been asking for. Oh wait ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 17:43 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: This may replace my 17-40L for landscape work. Will be awesome for wide indoor shots too. This and the 40/2.8 STM are a nice combo

sportyaccordy: Sorry for pointing it out then :( The 16-35 f/4L IS really is significantly better in terms of edge/corner sharpness, it produces nice sunstars too!

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 20:42 UTC

I suggest the first thing you need after buying a camera is a better job; you'll need it to pay for all the items you're going to buy in the future ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 19:22 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: This may replace my 17-40L for landscape work. Will be awesome for wide indoor shots too. This and the 40/2.8 STM are a nice combo

sportyaccordy: Are we talking about the same lens? The EXIF on your shots says 17-40mm F4 G SSM OSS? I'm talking about the Canon 17-40 f4/L. Or has your adapter adapted the EXIF too?

P.S. The edges/corners of yours aren't great either:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/29962635642/in/dateposted/

P.P.S. Bear in mind that the Samyang 20mm f1.8 is manual focus...

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
Total: 517, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »