October 25, 2014, 08:21:19 AM

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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 973
6541
Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:01:28 PM »
No offense offence intended.  It appears my attempt at humour may have fallen apartment flat. 

6542
Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:46:51 AM »
Maybe there is room for a "Humour" section threads like that could be moved to.   

...and a section for threads where people put a 'u' in words like humor and color.  Oh, wait...we already have one:P

6543
Lenses / Re: Insurance on camera equipment
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:44:58 AM »
Call your insurance company.

My comprehensive homeowner policy covers personal possessions including all the camera gear. Even if you rent, you should still protect yourself with home insurance.

+1, assuming your gear is for personal use only.  If you make money from your photography, be up front about that - your homeowner's/renter's policy probably won't cover business use, you'd need a separate policy that would include liability coverage.

I have a separate personal articles policy for my camera gear, from my home/auto insurer (State Farm).

6544
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D 3 sales
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:42:05 AM »
I see very little whining on the forums against the 5d3;

Very little overall.  Just a small but very persistent minority who post the same comments over and over, in every thread they can.

6545
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Refurb 400mm f/5.6L $910
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:40:12 AM »
Yes, and I was asking him seeking more information as I was trying to determine if he wanted the lens again, even with the other two. It appears from your comment that he does not want to purchase. If this is the case then thank you for the clarification. I mean no disrespect I was only trying to learn more. I understand this lens is good, but not so much better than the other two.

Understood - that was clear.  I can tell you that personally, I don't have any real interest in the 400/5.6.  It does offer slightly better IQ than the 100-400mm, but the real-world difference is minor, it lacks IS (which is helpful for perched birds in shade), and the form factor isn't convenient. 

What I'd really like is a new version of the 100-400!

6546
So some questions:
 - What would you recommend in general in above situation?
 - Will the 6D represent a large upgrade from 450D regarding focusing?  How large?
 - Could a new sensor (long awaited) in a new crop (e.g. 70D) be the 'for me perfect compromise'?
 - Wait for announcements - or move now?

Partly, it comes down to what you mean by 'have the budget for quite a move'.

The 6D will represent a modest update in terms of focusing compared to the 450D.  For static subjects in low light, it will be better.  For moving subjects, not really.

The low light performance of a current FF sensor, in terms of low noise at high ISO, will be a very substantial improvement.  A new APS-C camera will be better than your 450D, but still not come close to FF.

You'd need to factor in a replacement for the 10-22mm lens, if you go FF.  But that and the 15-85mm lens can be sold for a reasonable amount.  The 24-105L on FF will easily beat out the 15-85mm on APS-C.  The 17-40L is an economical ultrawide option if you mainly shoot stopped down to f/8 or so.

The 6D is a very nice camera, but honestly, I think if you can swing the 5DIII, it's a better choice.

6547
Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:09:13 AM »
family / children:  better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting.  I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly.  My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard.  For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal.  TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters?  No problem.
I was thinking as you but OP had said:

 "images are usually taken after I'm back from work so its mostly in low light situations"

That's the main reason I bought the 35L.  But now, with the high ISO performance of the 1D X, I find that an f/2.8 lens is working for indoor ambient shooting.

6548
so how long would you shoot in the rain with your 1dx neuro lets say heavy rain i have used my 1dx in heavy rain with no problems yet though but only for say 10-15 minutes.

I've been out in wind-driven rain (and sand) for a few hours, shooting birds at the beach with the 1D X and 600 II as a hurricane was approaching.

6549
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Refurb 400mm f/5.6L $910
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:48:45 AM »
Okay, so is it safe to assume that since your still wanting to get the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Super Telephoto lens that it has some advantages to the other two lenses correct?  Not trying to be funny in asking this question. Just trying to learn more.

I don't see where Mt. Spokane suggested he personally wanted the 400/5.6L.  My take was that he was posting the listing on the refurb site as a public service, in case others are interested.

6550
Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:46:43 AM »
family / children:  better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting.  I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly.  My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard.  For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal.  TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters?  No problem. 

6551
But my question is does fresh water cause corrosion that quickly it was under water for at least 10 seconds

'Fresh' water isn't.  There are all sorts of minerals, fine particulates and chemicals in 'fresh' water.  Yes, it will cause corrosion.  Plus, the water that got inside didn't disappear when you pulled it out of the river - it stayed in there until it evaporated.

FWIW, there's a subatantial difference between being splashed (or rained on) and being submerged, as far as water resistance goes.

6552
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:58:10 AM »
Nikon is approaching the problem of maximising profit by providing products that give maximum benefit to the photographer that cares about the quality of their photograph in the belief that this is the #1 priority for camera purchases.

See, I just knew there was a reason for the oil spatters on the D600 sensor.  Nikon cares about the quality of the photographs. 

Tell me...does that strategy apply to their lenses, too?  If so, why is a Sigma lens an oh-so-significant 2% better?  I suppose because Nikon tried but failed.

6553
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »
A 2% difference.

Well, if that's not grasping at straws, what is?   ::)


You're assuming that all Canon turn-a-rounds were speedy...

True.  But Roger Cicala's repair data indicate an average (in the USA) of 6 days for Canon vs. 26 days for Nikon.  Or, since you seem to like percentages, 433% longer for a Nikon repair in the US, on average.


Or in other words, Canon seems to be ignoring the photographer and going for the consumer (which kind of agrees with your statement above.)

Oh, I see.  Consumers don't care about IQ, but Photographers do, so they should all be using Nikon.  Wait, did I say that?  Somehow, I don't think so...

If you think Nikon has better sensor DR because they aren't 'ignoring the photographer', you're being terribly naive.   Canon and Nikon are publically traded companies.  Neither of them 'care about photographers' except insofar as photographers are consumers that buy their products.  Canon and Nikon care about profit.  In some countries (the US being one), it goes beyond caring - publically held compaines are legally obligated to maximize profit.  Canon just seems to be doing a better job at that, based on corporate reports.


It's not that it is poor but rather that there has been no improvement and it isn't as if there are no problems that need fixing.

No, there are problems that you want fixed (and so do I, admittedly).  Important distinction.  But they can clearly outsell Nikon despite those 'problems' so the only voice that matters - the market - has decided there no need to fix anything.

6554
Lenses / Re: $1000 budget, need lens recommendation for Canon t1i
« on: April 11, 2013, 09:18:01 AM »
but I think you can skimp on the tripod.

The Manfrotto 294 with midi ballhead IS skimping on the tripod.   ;)  But at least it's going to be useful - a super-cheap tripod + pan-tilt head likely won't be used at all.

6555
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:54:36 AM »
No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.

There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.

The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

And with Nikon, that might be <wait 4 weeks> "Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again."<wait 4 weeks> "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again."<wait 4 weeks> la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.

In a sense?  No need for a qualifier there.  As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors.  Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves.  Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly.  The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor). 

Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization.  The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor.  It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap.  If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms. 

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 973