December 21, 2014, 11:52:49 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 54
361
While hogging shelf space (as mentioned above) is probably the driving motive, as long as they are adding new features and capabilities, I say good on them.  For example, the new-ish SX50 HS looks quite interesting.  I'm tempted to pick one up myself.

362
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 29, 2013, 04:07:01 AM »
My first Canon (AE-1 program) was a gift from my dad.  He was a Pentax shooter, and like most dads, probably wanted better for his children  :)  In hindsight, it seems like a ill conceived idea as it would have made more sense for everyone to be using the same mount.  But at the time, brand snobbery was very big.  My dad always thought his competition entries were at a disadvantage when he listed a Pentax camera with Sigma lens.

That was a long time ago, and I've since owned a number of different systems.  Throughout most of the 90's, I predominantly used a Mamiya RB67 kit.  Recently, I've started playing with an Olympus m43 camera.  I've also owned Yashicas and Minoltas.  I'm constantly wondering if I should switch to Nikon, Sony or [insert brand of the month here].  But no matter how far or how wide I roam, I still call Canon home.  Canon and Nikon are really the only two companies with the complete package.  Once you've bought into one system, there is rarely a compelling reason to switch sides.

363
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Recommendations for a friend
« on: January 28, 2013, 11:35:18 PM »
For what its worth, I've got both the 50 f/1.8 and 40 f/2.8.  Although sharpness is similar, the 40mm is a much nicer and quieter lens to use.  It would be my pick if I had to choose between them.  (Although...the 50mm is a little longer and a nice portrait length on a crop camera).

With the cameras, I'd probably just buy the new t3i given the smallish price difference.
 

364
Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?
« on: January 28, 2013, 01:11:29 AM »
IS - one of the topics where it seems like no one has any idea what they're talking about.

I can't even remember the last time I turned IS off.  Yet, I've read numerous times that you should turn it off when not needed.  For example...

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

Maybe Canon's system is better.  Maybe some of my shots would be better without it.  Who knows?

If there are benefits with keeping it off in some cases, maybe there is an argument for a camera setting that allows you to disable IS automatically under certain conditions (eg above a certain shutter speed).

365
I had the nickname hillbilly.  (I assume that was because my surname started with Hill...but you never know.  Maybe it was because of my love of flannelette and my VH V8 SLE). Over time, it morphed in hillsilly.

366
EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:35:57 AM »
For subjects at close distance, the primes can produce nice background blur.  The lack of very large aperture lenses is just in keeping with m43 philosophy of small and light.  For a similar reason, there are no large aperture longer lenses.  But overall, it is a good compromise system.  It just needs a few more tweaks of the AF speed and a reasonably priced, high quality 300mm f/2.8.

367
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Up to what ISO are you willing to set?
« on: January 23, 2013, 01:51:58 AM »
No limit as such and I've been known to go all the way to the dizzying heights of 3200 (my 1Ds Mkii's limit).  But 90%+ of the time, I'm at ISO 100 and I rarely go above 400 or 800.  Interestingly, though, I've started playing around with night time timelapse photography and have been pleasantly surprised how well ISO 1600 works for this.

368
If you buy Canon, you are really buying their quality control systems and peace of mind.  It doesn't mean that all of their batteries will be perfect, but you would expect the failure rate to be low.

If you buy third party, they might be as good or better. Or they might not be.  Their soldering, wiring and cells may not be as good and it is more of a risk.  Given that you are plugging them into chargers for hours at a time (and usually in your home), are you happy to take that risk?  Only you can answer.

Here in Australia, an NP-E3 is over $300.  But I can get really good third party batteries that seem to perform as well (in fact, they seem better) for about $40.  Canon charges too much of a price premium and I've gone 100% third party.  Somebody above mentioned that this is a scare tactic.  Given such price differences, I tend to agree.

369
Sports / Re: Q: Would car show shots be appropriate in here?
« on: January 21, 2013, 10:09:18 AM »
Yes.

370
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d
« on: January 20, 2013, 01:53:46 AM »
....Anyone with that self professed knowledge and latest high tech gear at his disposal, should indeed have better results.  His work suffers from lack of any creativity whatsoever, and that alone, for me, destroys his credibility.  That's it.

I can appreciate that.  For more advanced professionals like yourself and most others on this site, what KR discusses is irrelevant.  Your career is driven by your own creative intentions and desires.  Superficial discussions about whether a 6D or 5Diii or 1Dx is better is pointless when you are trying to break new ground by producing photographs that are new, innovative and relevant.  Your need for information on gear and how to put a photo together is based solely on the inspiration that you have and the need to make it a reality. If anything, you'd be looking at advanced lighting and post production techniques - not KR.

OMG, I've written two posts on KR topic.  We need to spice things up with some new 7D2, 400mm f/5.6 IS, FF mirrorless, and high MP 3D rumours.

371
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d
« on: January 19, 2013, 11:04:11 PM »
A very strange thread.  KR says something negative about Canon, we hate him.  He says something positive, we hate him even more.

Personally, I check his site occassionally.  I like it and find it entertaining.  Do I treat it as gospel?  Of course not.  But the reason that he does so well  is that he seems to be an average guy that likes taking photos and talking about camera equipment.  What's there not to like!  His desire is to help people take better photos, which is a message that resonates with a lot of people.  He's also a reasonable writer who can generate a lot of original content.  He has a lot of the ingredients for success working for him.

And...I'm yet to be convinced that any of the general concepts that he advocates are plain wrong.  But as with all general rules, they won't apply in all cases for all people.

372
Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:36:52 AM »
135mm f/2.  It is responsible for a very high percentage of my recent favourites.

373
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 13, 2013, 09:50:33 PM »
I would have thought a bigger camera (like a Hasselblad) would be easier to use.  But I'm sure NASA know what they're doing.  Felix Baumgartner uses Canon if that makes people feel better.

374
You are right about restrictions. For example, if you are in Australia, there is a 200mm max lens size for international and twenty20 matches.  Another reason for going with the the extender option.

375
Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:54:36 PM »
Thinking outside the square, there are non-Canon options.  The Panasonic FZ200  has a 25-600mm f/2.8 lens.  Costs $599 and weighs 537 grams.  It shoots 12 frames per second.  Apparently IQ is ok in good light.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 54