October 22, 2014, 08:01:24 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 92
1
If we did, prices would rise. 

Good.  I would rather pay more to have a product that works for at least 2 years then pay less and have the company liable for something vaguely "manufacturer defects" or what ever weasle words the lawyers come up with.

Then buy a 3rd party warranty.

2
  The law states that the product must function for two years in it's intended purpose with normal usage.

Wish we had a law like that here in the US.

If we did, prices would rise.  You don't get something for nothing.  As it is, we get a "discount" because the same equipment is designed and shipped to both markets.  It would make more sense to engineer the product to the stricter standards and then sell it globally.  Just because a part is designed for a MTBF of x hours or clicks doesn't mean that failures ony happen after MTBF.

3
I am leaning toward that choice, with a refurbished 6D at $1500.

as for 24-70, maybe that needs another thread, but from a quick research i get that the 24-70 f4 IS is second only to the 24-70 f2.8 II in sharpness, also IS is helpful as my hands are not steady, and at $1k its at half the price, yes f2.8 is very tempting, but that's pushing the wallet too much :D

If you have your heart set on the 24-70 f/4 IS, you could considering getting a white box grey market lens for 800.  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=11702

You can also get a brand new 6D for 1440 from an authorized dealer using CPW's streetprice:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/04039/Canon-EOS-6D-price.html

4
6D first.  You will still have the 600D, so you won't losing any focal length flexibility, and F4 lenses work much better on FF.  Unless the birding shots outnumber your night events/portraits/wedding shots, getting the 6D first makes a lot more sense.

5
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 17, 2014, 07:32:37 AM »
70-200L f/2.8 IS II.  The 70-200 is close to being my most used lens, and I have the 100L and 135L.  The primes have specific advantages but the 70-200 will get used more and in more situations than the primes will.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:42:43 PM »
That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it?  People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access.  I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

Well, I don't pay extra for my iPad. It's included in my data plan. No reason why a camera couldn't be as well.
But really my main point is quite simple- there are a lot of things camera makers could do to help their professional customers gain an edge in today's highly competitive and interconnected world.

I'm not saying it's for everybody but I don't get why some folks feel threatened by it. Well maybe I do...keeping up with fast changing customer demands means you have to work harder and those who cling to the old ways risk becoming obsolete.

Depends where you are.  But right now when data plans are in the single to tens of GB and now you want to load raw files to the cloud for processing/social consumption... 22 to 40 MP files are going to eat into that capacity quickly and we're just not there yet where the infrastructure can support that at a reasonable cost.  Stuff packaged for iPad/cell phone consumption are low res to save space.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:20:07 PM »
So what is it exactly that you want, what needs to be added to a camera to compete with Hello Kitty?  A cellular 4G radio?  Should it also make phone calls, perhaps to call our editors and beg forgiveness for the few minutes delay?  Instant cloud upload?  A Facebook, Twitter, Instagram app, a contacts list complete with social media addresses of all customers?

That's a pretty good start. I've crossed out the phone, because I'm not sure that's necessary, but I would entertain it. But, certainly a usable wifi interface and the ability to do some quick edits in-camera at a minimum.

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it?  People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access.  I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 07:29:30 PM »
+1.  One person doing one review or giving experiences from using something over a short period of time is not going to satisfy all the "review points" for all the critics of this forum. 

The problem is that he had the camera for like a week? more? and did an hour long video on the camera but didn't say anything of substance.  Its actually kind of amazing how little he was able to convey in such a long period of time.   I guess the soothing, melodious voice of marketing and vague reassurances that everything is totally great guys just trust me is all people really need. Be sure to get your pre-orders in!

He's used to using a 1DX and has a 70D.  He says it's little brother to the 1DX but is an older brother than he thought it would be.  ACR and DPP don't support it yet, so what is the point of comparing RAWs?  Noise looks better than 70D but it doesn't match FF.  It has a deep buffer.  What else are you expecting?  And you've found some other source that played with a preproduction model and got all the info you wanted?  I don't think so...

which led to my second sentence which you didn't quote "But instead of treating it as some information/experience from someone who has used multiple lenses/cameras in advance of it becoming generally available, it's being discounted as worthless."

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:55:55 PM »
It depends on what lenses you'll be able to afford to use or have for each camera.  I use the 5DIII for everything (sports, portraits, landscapes, etc.) because it is the only camera I have.  Sometimes, I wish it had a higher frame rate for shooting my kids soccer games, but that is about it (a deeper buffer would help too).  And yes, I love the additional DOF control of FF.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:37:43 PM »
You all seem to be making the same mistake.... You are confusing an in-depth review with advertising...... This is advertising.... Of course it is fluff and no critical information.....

Some very critical info I gathered from the review:
-Great buffer
-AF almost as fast as the 1DX
-AF points very near the edge of the sensor
-Amazing ISO performance for a crop sensor
-Scott Kelby doesn't care as much about DR as everyone else on this fourm!

+1.  One person doing one review or giving experiences from using something over a short period of time is not going to satisfy all the "review points" for all the critics of this forum.  None of us have access to it, so this is what we have.  But instead of treating it as some information/experience from someone who has used multiple lenses/cameras in advance of it becoming generally available, it's being discounted as worthless.  I didn't have any interest in a 7DII, but I miss frames because of the slower framerate and smaller buffer of the 5DIII.  Now I'll consider it once it's out a while and I get to have a chance to play with one.

11
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:14:02 AM »
12-24mm was a typo.. fixed that.

2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.

11mm is crayz wide yes.
But as you can see in the comments here most would prefer faster glass and a less wide lens. Some even say that most people don´t get wider than 16mm. So imo the 3mm are less important than f2.8. The usefulness for the majority is smaller.

For me 14mm f2.8 would be great at the wide end... when the image quality is right.

Right now im using a EF 14mm f2.8 for night/stars.

In that case, most people will find supplementing a 16-35 with a Samyang 14 to be a much more affordable option, no matter what Canon produces in the range.  No matter what Canon produces (14-24 f/2.8 or this 11-24 f/4), it will be expensive than the Samyang option.  The 24-70 II started around 2300 and now can be had for less than 1800.  This lens won't remain near 3K for long (less than a year), but I doubt it'd fall below 2K if it's IQ is comparable to the 16-34 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II.  I find a 16-35 to be more useful than a 14-24.  It accepts filters easily.  If I want wider, then I use the 14 prime, which isn't really that large...

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:25:00 AM »
if you want to shoot sports and wildlife and can't afford the 1DX, this is the camera that you should consider

To reach that conclusion, it probably doesn't require a review by a renowned photog :-p

Right... and Canon is just going to let no-name people evaluate their preproduction units...

13
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:21:15 AM »
Who asked for a f4 lens?
People asked for a 12-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.

Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 12-24mm.

Maybe you don´t see the difference.. i see it.

Right... because the 12-24 is lens for APS-C cameras.  Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 for full frame is 2K.  Canon is going to charge a premium for those first adopters, and 11mm is a lot wider than 14.  Sigma has a 12-24 zoom, but it's performance is poor in the corners.  What other choice do you have for 11-13mm on FF?

14
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:37:38 PM »
I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4.  At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?
Yes, we get it.  This one literally goes to 11.  That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Nope, it isn't going to be for everyone, but what other comparable choices are there?

15
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:59:54 PM »
I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4.  At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 92