September 16, 2014, 01:29:02 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 - LOALTD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Video Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:51:27 PM »
Hilarious puff piece.

Next time I go alpine climbing I should bring one of these so I don't get lost. *eye roll*

2
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:04:47 AM »
Wait, where's the print button?!

How am I supposed to make prints for clients?!

3

Plus, how can you say "no" to this?

Epic! Is that Mt. Hood?

It is!  I went up and took some photos of Mt Hood from Portland.  A few hours later I went and climbed Mt Hood and took some photos looking back at Portland!

4

I'm sure the cooler weather is a huge plus too. As a Houstonian, you're already used to the rain :)


It is. I actually lived almost 7 years in Eugene, OR. So I am very used to the Northwest weather.
Houston, on the other hand, is exactly similar to the city I was born and raised and lived in for 25 years. I still haven't gotten used to the heat and the humidity. The very thought of going outside pains me... :'(

Plus, how can you say "no" to this?

5
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: September 08, 2014, 09:28:15 PM »
Ice climbing self-portrait (off the Trans Canadian Hwy, near Revelstoke...we had to wait for 7 hours for a fatal accident to clear so decided to make the most of it!):

6
Portland, Oregon, USA.  I'll put our Pacific Northwest scenery up against any challengers

That's funny. I am going to decide whether to stay in Houston or to move to Portland, OR in the next couple of months and the scenery is actually one of the biggest factors in favor of the city of roses.

Funny you should say that!

Portland is one of my favorite cities I've ever been to (lived there for 5 years, up until a couple months ago...will likely move back some day) and Houston...is probably my least favorite city...ever.  Terrible place.  :-X

I live in Anchorage, AK now  ;D

7
Lenses / Re: Is there a need for a 50mm?
« on: September 08, 2014, 02:26:08 PM »
I love my Canon 50/1.4, but, as others have noted...the AF motor is fragile and breaks all the freaking time.  And, it's pretty poor at f/1.4...but sometimes you just need the light gathering ability of f/1.4, so you deal with it.

I have sent it into Canon to have the AF fixed 3 times now, no exaggeration.  I could almost buy another one with the repair costs.  And I've never dropped it either!

I'm seriously considering the new Sigma 50/1.4 but I'm waiting to see how Canon updates its 50mm line.  I'm much more into hand-held video now, and I'd really love IS on a 50mm since I really love the focal length.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 08, 2014, 02:01:20 PM »
I'll stick to my Canon 85/1.2, thank you very much!

I'm sure this lens will be better than it in every way imaginable...

EXCEPT AF.

And, personally, 85 and longer are focal lengths I really need AF for.

I'd love to see a 24/1.4 with zero coma.  That's my only complaint about the Canon 24/1.4 II.

9
JUST moved to Anchorage, Alaska and loving it so far!

Before that Portland, Oregon.

10
I love the Canon 24 f/1.4 II, it's a fantastic piece of glass in every way possible...

except one...

It has very bad coma making it a problematic lens for star-shooting.

If the Sigma is as good (I'll even settle for almost as good) but has much better-controlled coma, I'm in!

14-24 OS looks interesting too...I agree with the others though, the 16-35 f/4 IS is going to be very hard to beat.  I've rented one and I'm on the verge of buying one.  I feel like it's the Canon wide-angle we've been waiting for for a very long time.  I suppose if anyone could top it, it would be Sigma.

11
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: August 08, 2014, 02:48:13 PM »
From our camp on Mt Baker a couple months ago, I'm not that happy with the composition but it was very early in the morning and we wanted to start climbing so I didn't have much time!

Taken with the excellent Samyang 14mm f/2.8, best star lens for Canon cameras IMHO. (haven't tried the 16-35 f/4.0 IS for stars yet, still too bright up here in Alaska!)

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 08, 2014, 02:40:09 PM »
Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?

Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime?  And we're talking about a zoom?  At f/2.8?

Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?

I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.

I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide.  I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.

I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.

13
Lenses / What has become of the long-rumored Canon 50mm IS?
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:08:15 PM »
I am extremely tempted to just pull the trigger on the new Sigma, but, I'm finding myself doing more and more hand-held video where external stabilization is just not practical. (see, here: http://vimeo.com/m/92210589)

I have the 28mm f/2.8 IS and it's probably my favorite lens right now.

I like the 50mm focal length even better, I was hoping the release of the Sigma would prompt Canon to at least announce something but...all I hear are crickets!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:41:55 PM »
i'm sick and tired of reading how IS would make a lens so much heavier and biggerand compromise image quality  ... bla bla bla ... just a bunch of completely unfounded urban myths.

e.g. look at EF 70-200/4 L without IS 76x172mm, 705g and EF 70-200/4 L IS with IS 76x172mm, 760 g ... so a paltry 55 grams more .. for a lens with pretty big glass elements to be stabilized. And image quality is better on 70-200/4 with IS too. Price difference is excessive though, and purely marketing driven.

EF 24-70/2.8 L II should have been IS from the start ... especially at the price differential over the previous version.

This, this, 1000 times, THIS!

Size/weight is really not an excuse.  They just want to milk money out of as many variations as possible.

I'd love a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS for run-and-gun video!

15
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 08, 2014, 12:02:47 AM »
Who says you can't do landscape with a 70-200? (Mt Rainier)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9