ziggy53again

Joined on Jun 2, 2016

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R5 review (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

ziggy53again: Regarding overheating in the Canon R5:

First, were these tests performed on a production or pre-production body? That's an important consideration.

OK, so the video (and it would appear the tests and therefore the review) were done on a hot day, 27 degrees C, so in the 80s F, and we can see that you shot in the shade sometimes, apparently to get out of the direct sunlight. Jordan's reaction to the hot bridge is amusing, but those conditions can be hard on any camera.

If you were shooting in those conditions you would probably take some precautions, right? My Sony a6000 isn't really happy in similar environmentals and the first thing I do is partially fold out the LCD display, because air can't get to the back of the camera otherwise, and not ventilating the camera back will exacerbate internal heating. So I highly recommend you use the same strategy in the heat for the Canon R5. Did DPReview take this simple precaution? I didn't see that happening for the review video.

The Canon R5 also has a mode just for overheating remediation: The "Overheat Control" function, which you turn "On".
Let me repeat, in high heat situations, turn "On" the "Overheat Control" function.

Canon has issued their own recommendations for high-heat situations:
1) Set Overheat Control function to “ON” (default). When the overheat control function is enabled, the movie size and frame rate are automatically changed while the camera is in standby mode to suppress the rise of the internal temperature.
2) Between recordings, it is recommended to turn off the camera.
3) Position the camera out of direct sunlight.
4) Use an external fan to dissipate heat
... As reported right here on DPReview, by Gannon Burgett, July 14, 2020.

I do recommend additionally to fold out the LCD display in high heat situations.

Failure of the operator to do these simple things is simply operator error.

Again, I own Sony, Nikon and Canon camera systems, and I like and use each of them.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 14:22 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R5 review (923 comments in total)

Regarding overheating in the Canon R5:

First, were these tests performed on a production or pre-production body? That's an important consideration.

OK, so the video (and it would appear the tests and therefore the review) were done on a hot day, 27 degrees C, so in the 80s F, and we can see that you shot in the shade sometimes, apparently to get out of the direct sunlight. Jordan's reaction to the hot bridge is amusing, but those conditions can be hard on any camera.

If you were shooting in those conditions you would probably take some precautions, right? My Sony a6000 isn't really happy in similar environmentals and the first thing I do is partially fold out the LCD display, because air can't get to the back of the camera otherwise, and not ventilating the camera back will exacerbate internal heating. So I highly recommend you use the same strategy in the heat for the Canon R5. Did DPReview take this simple precaution? I didn't see that happening for the review video.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 14:20 UTC as 52nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: These arguments are useless. If you're a pro that shoots a variety of subjects, you're better off owning both a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. Both have their advantages in different scenarios. No need to pick sides, just optimize your kit that utilizes the strengths of each format.

Absolutely! I own Canon and Nikon dSLRs and Sony mirrorless systems because I recognize their individual strengths.

I am a little surprised that the author didn't mention using a 90 degree viewfinder attachment for high and low shots with the Canon 90D. Works wonderfully on those situations.

... and doesn't the 90D have a "quiet" mode to reduce mirror-slap noise?

... and large-aperture and long-zoom ratio zoom lenses are heavy on any system.

But the primary reason I still shoot Canon dSLR for important work is for their amazing AF speed and accuracy, when the AF is set up properly. (Hint, you have to choose single-point AF setup and learn how to follow the subject properly. Get off the defaults.)

With a focus-assist attachment on a Canon dSLR I can shoot with confidance in extremely low light and even in no ambient light situations, with a flash, of course.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2019 at 10:04 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (382 comments in total)

I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. Used with a FF body the DOF can be unforgiving, but if you nail focus the results can be magnificent. Often need f2.2 to f2.8 to gain sufficient DOF for human subjects.

Used on a crop body the results are still splendid but you gain on DOF, making it a great combination for wedding/event and ambient/available light.

In the right hands this lens really does have "magic pixie dust", as a friend once described.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 09:54 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

whatafather: The halo bokeh is very unique and interesting

I have Minolta 250mm, tamron 350mm and the Nikon 800mm reflex lens

Their common problem is the picture appear a bit hazy looking, not sure this is refered as the so called "flare" by kenko

If this problem does improve in this new lens, I am interested but I prefer ~200-300mm focal length reflex lens more

Lens flare is a problem with mirror lenses, so using a proper lens hood as well as avoiding lighting situations which cause lens flare are both required strategies. (Google "lens flare" to understand the causes.)

If you don't have a proper lens hood, you can fashion a pretty effective hood using black "Foamies" sheets. Google "printable lens hood" for a template.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 11:33 UTC
In reply to:

whatafather: The halo bokeh is very unique and interesting

I have Minolta 250mm, tamron 350mm and the Nikon 800mm reflex lens

Their common problem is the picture appear a bit hazy looking, not sure this is refered as the so called "flare" by kenko

If this problem does improve in this new lens, I am interested but I prefer ~200-300mm focal length reflex lens more

All reflex/catadioptric/mirror lenses have reduced global contrast. It's a product of how the lens is made. This is a tangible benefit over conventional refractive lens design in very contrasty light.

Just use a global Contrast increase in post-production to produce a more natural looking image, or use Levels to properly reposition both black and white points for the image. In Photoshop, blended duplicate layers using "Multiply" can also be helpful.

"Donut Bokeh" is another attribute of having the reflex design. It's helpful, if you don't want the effect, to try to choose simpler backgrounds for simple subjects, like a featureless sky, or an extremely distant background of reduced contrast. Otherwise, in Photoshop (or similar software) use layers and learn to isolate the subject matter in the upper layer. Eliminate the background in that upper layer while reducing contrast "and" add some Gaussian Blur to the background layer. The result if often very pleasing.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

ziggy53again: Yes, the Nikon D3, D3s, D3x and D700 changed the way that the world saw Nikon, along with the D300, D300s and D90 crop sensor bodies. The new sensors were CMOS, as apposed to the CCD imagers used in previous bodies, and the image quality improvements were dramatic and real.

I seem to recall that Adobe struggled for a bit to extract all that the new sensors could provide in RAW files (NEF and NRW), but when Adobe ultimately got it right the true capabilities of these bodies came into their own.

Now that Nikon is starting to produce their own imagers, and getting away from Sony designed imagers, there is a minor drop in dynamic range, but Nikon will no doubt persevere and triumph. (The temporary drop in DR won't affect most Nikon customers, but it's definitely a topic for discussion.)

My apologies to DPReview. I misunderstood a report I read about the Kumamoto plant in Japan and thought that Nikon had owned and operated that plant.

The Kumamoto fabrication plant is wholly Sony owned and operated. Some of the Nikon imagers are indeed manufactured at that facility (but I couldn't find a reliable source for exactly which Nikon cameras' sensors are made there), along with other imagers intended for other manufacturers. It is reported that Nikon may have some influence on particular properties of imagers intended for Nikon use, but details regarding the level of influence are sketchy at best.

Again, my apologies for that misinformation.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 01:37 UTC

Yes, the Nikon D3, D3s, D3x and D700 changed the way that the world saw Nikon, along with the D300, D300s and D90 crop sensor bodies. The new sensors were CMOS, as apposed to the CCD imagers used in previous bodies, and the image quality improvements were dramatic and real.

I seem to recall that Adobe struggled for a bit to extract all that the new sensors could provide in RAW files (NEF and NRW), but when Adobe ultimately got it right the true capabilities of these bodies came into their own.

Now that Nikon is starting to produce their own imagers, and getting away from Sony designed imagers, there is a minor drop in dynamic range, but Nikon will no doubt persevere and triumph. (The temporary drop in DR won't affect most Nikon customers, but it's definitely a topic for discussion.)

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 22:27 UTC as 97th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ziggy53again: Regarding the review comment about the Canon 5D Mark IV, "Although its dynamic range still isn't best-in-class", I would point out that, according to DXOMark, by ISO 200, the Canon 5D Mark IV dynamic range (DR) is the same as the Nikon D810. By ISO 400 the Canon 5D Mark IV leads the Nikon D810, and continues to lead in DR through all higher-sensitivity ISOs.

The Canon 5D Mark IV leads in high-ISO dynamic range, and in SNR 18% for that matter, where it counts. It would be appreciated if DPReview would accurately represent the facts. (Exposure Latitude and ISO Invariance are interesting, but not representative of Dynamic Range by itself.)

In short, the Canon dynamic range ranks with the best sensors out there for High-ISOs (along with the Sony a7R II).

This is not a slam against the Nikon D810, which is an extremely well designed camera, nor is it a slam against Nikon in general. I own lots of Nikon SLR and dSLR bodies, and truly enjoy and appreciate them as fine cameras.

Thanks "cbphoto123".

For others, follow the link that cbphoto123 provides, click the "Measurements" tab to see the charts. Finally, click the Dynamic Range and be enlightened.

Now reread what I wrote above to see that I speak the truth. The Canon 5D Mark IV from ISO 200 and above has equivalent or better DR compared with the Nikon D810. Most folks are better served by the 5D Mark IV dynamic range.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 21:43 UTC

Regarding the review comment about the Canon 5D Mark IV, "Although its dynamic range still isn't best-in-class", I would point out that, according to DXOMark, by ISO 200, the Canon 5D Mark IV dynamic range (DR) is the same as the Nikon D810. By ISO 400 the Canon 5D Mark IV leads the Nikon D810, and continues to lead in DR through all higher-sensitivity ISOs.

The Canon 5D Mark IV leads in high-ISO dynamic range, and in SNR 18% for that matter, where it counts. It would be appreciated if DPReview would accurately represent the facts. (Exposure Latitude and ISO Invariance are interesting, but not representative of Dynamic Range by itself.)

In short, the Canon dynamic range ranks with the best sensors out there for High-ISOs (along with the Sony a7R II).

This is not a slam against the Nikon D810, which is an extremely well designed camera, nor is it a slam against Nikon in general. I own lots of Nikon SLR and dSLR bodies, and truly enjoy and appreciate them as fine cameras.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 09:08 UTC as 55th comment | 3 replies

I still have 2 - copies of the venerable Canon 1D Mark II. I continue to use them for daytime youth soccer (my grand-daughter and a friend's child). With modern RAW conversion you can expect consistently excellent images too. (Currently using Capture One Pro.)

For high-ISO stuff, a Canon 5D Mark III fills the bill. Add on MagicLantern for the 5DIII and it's extremely capable for both still photography and video!

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 16:11 UTC as 76th comment
In reply to:

ziggy53again: For me, the choice for a single lens (only if you forced it), would be the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM.

On a FF body it makes a nice vista landscape lens, architectural lens, as well as a decent PJ lens. Fairly light and smaller than many lenses, it's not too obvious and somewhat stealthy. Also good for shots to establish a scene, like for weddings.

On a crop sensor it becomes more of a standard zoom, and can work nicely for general photography, to give a little more distance in a PJ capacity, and also works as a full-length, group and environmental portrait lens.

On a dedicated IR body, it presents very little hot-spot, one of few high-quality zoom lenses with that attribute.

It's also the most affordable Canon "L" zoom on the market, and still built with very high quality and durability.

Can't think of any more ubiquitous and still capable lens from any manufacturer, which may explain why I see this lens fairly often listed in prize-winning images, both national and international.

The Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM, versions I and II are poor at IR work, they all cost more, and weigh more. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is reported to work fairly well with IR, but costs more, and the range is less.

I've had the 17-40mm, f4L USM for years now, and it was one of my earliest "L" purchases (right after a "standard" "L" zoom), and I haven't felt it lacking for my needs.

I have lots of lenses from which to use, including Nikon "F" mount and Pentax "M42" mount, all of which can be used with my Canon system with an appropriate adapter. None of them are as useful and versatile as the 17-40mm, f4L USM.

Starting over, I might consider the 16-35mm f/4L IS USM for the IS alone. If you don't have either, I think that both can be recommended.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 20:28 UTC

For me, the choice for a single lens (only if you forced it), would be the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM.

On a FF body it makes a nice vista landscape lens, architectural lens, as well as a decent PJ lens. Fairly light and smaller than many lenses, it's not too obvious and somewhat stealthy. Also good for shots to establish a scene, like for weddings.

On a crop sensor it becomes more of a standard zoom, and can work nicely for general photography, to give a little more distance in a PJ capacity, and also works as a full-length, group and environmental portrait lens.

On a dedicated IR body, it presents very little hot-spot, one of few high-quality zoom lenses with that attribute.

It's also the most affordable Canon "L" zoom on the market, and still built with very high quality and durability.

Can't think of any more ubiquitous and still capable lens from any manufacturer, which may explain why I see this lens fairly often listed in prize-winning images, both national and international.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 16:58 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (402 comments in total)

My first film camera was a Kodak Bakelite Brownie 127 format (all black).

First serious film camera was a Honeywell Pentax H1a with a 50mm (f1.7 or f2) lens, all manual, 135 format.

First professional film camera was a Hassleblad 500C, A12 back, with a 120mm, f5.6 S-Planar (both used), which tapped out my savings at the time.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DX3900 ZOOM.

My first serious digital camera was a Canon XT/350D, and I adapted manual focus lenses at first, eventually getting a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC as the first standard/normal zoom. Then I got several 70-200mm, f2.8 zooms for some projects at the time.

First professional digital camera was a Canon 1D Mark II with a Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM (both used), which, along with a previous Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM did nicely for weddings/events plus my son's HS football games.

Currently using Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 7D system, Nikon D7200/D7100 system, Sony a6000 mirrorless system. All very nice.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 14:40 UTC as 228th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (250 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: didnt the d80 have a ccd and the d90 a cmos, or am i rememvering incorrectly

Yes, according to Nikon USA the Nikon D80 was indeed a CCD imager type:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/dslr-cameras/d80.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

The Nikon D300 and D90 were the first Nikon APS-C/crop 1.5x CMOS bodies.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 12:30 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (202 comments in total)

From the article, " Just check out the leading images for our reviews on the Finepix S5 Pro and Kodak DCS 14n."

While you're at it, check out the review on the Kodak DCS460, https://www.dpreview.com/products/kodak/slrs/kodak_dcs460

That bad boy was from 1995, had a 6MPix CCD, ISO 80 and ... that was it, and you shot to PCMCIA hard drives. ... And it cost $16,000 in 1995 US Dollars. Of course, you also needed a gangbuster expensive computer and a whole separate enclosure full of SCSI hard drives for serious work, so the whole shebang was around $25,000 - 1995 US Dollars. (Nearly $40,000 in 2016 US Dollars.)

My employer was happy to spend the money because we could show a 2 year payback (vs film costs for the same period).

And yes, it used Nikon "F-mount" lenses. And yes, we had a Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D as one of those lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 19:44 UTC as 56th comment

When I have a full pack of gear and I'm in a public place I put my foot through one of the bag's straps. If the bag gets snatched I'll know it and at least make a ruckus.

The memory cards are kept separate from the bag and on my person, so the most thieves get is the equipment, not all the images. Equipment can be replaced, but the images are the true livelihood.

Recording your serial numbers is an imperative in filing an insurance claim and police report. At very least, take a picture of the equipment and then a close-up of the serial number. C'mon, you needed another excuse to use that macro lens you rarely use and this is a good cause.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2016 at 18:31 UTC as 76th comment
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17