November 25, 2014, 10:36:00 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 53
391
Canon General / Re: Is it worth it...for me?
« on: December 02, 2012, 04:32:04 AM »
You'll generally find that if you are shooting wide open and using the centre focus point and recomposing, then you will have more back focusing issues.  At f/1.2 there is only a very thin plane of sharpness.  Moving the camera moves this plane and causes backfocusing problems.  As you stop down and use smaller apertures, the area of sharpness increases and focusing problems become less noticeable.

I'm not really suggesting lenses before bodies.  It comes down to priorities, which issues you are trying to address, which capabilities you are trying to gain etc etc. There's rarely a right answer.  Usually its all trial and error.  I can guarantee that, like everyone, you will make some decisions or buy some gear that you'll later regret.  Its all part of the fun.

Also, I think EchoLocation above meant camera bodies lose value faster than lenses.  If you buy an "L" lens, it won't drop too much in value over the short to medium term.  If you buy the wrong one, you can sell it second hand and shouldn't be out of pocket by too much.  However, camera bodies will decrease in value faster.  A lot of my lenses have very steady prices.  Why have money sitting in the bank not earning any interest, when you could have that money invested in lenses that you can use?  Most people wouldn't be any worse off.  (Disclaimer: Please don't take my investment advice.  In fact, don't even take my advice not to take my advice.]

I don't know if most people AF with the centre point only.  I do occassionally as I know the centre point works well and I have my cameras set up so that at the press of a button I'm back at the centre point.  But that's a personal choice and I find it works well for me when shooting sports and other fast moving subjects.  I then crop later if needed.  But I try to use the AF closest to what I want to focus on when I can.  The thing that annoys me is that while my cameras have 45 AF points, they're all crammed into the centre of the frame.  I'm just waiting for Canon to release a camera with a very wide array of AF points and I'll be jumping on it.

392
Canon General / Re: Is it worth it...for me?
« on: December 02, 2012, 02:53:08 AM »
Buying new camera gear is rarely a logical decision.  For instance, any real gain from using a 5D3 over a t3i is incremental and not readily apparent to a lot of non-photography people.  If you go looking for the impovements in shadows, background blur, higher ISOs etc, you will see them.  But while you wax lyrically about these improvements and how they make your photos better, your family and friends will stand there with glazed eyes and just say "yes...they are nice photos".  But it is nice using top quality gear and the 5D3 will excel in low light and indoors.

Both the 50 and 85 are great lenses.  Which one to go for might be easier to decide once you've worked out if you are sticking with the t3i.  A quick glance through some of you photos suggests some are taken with a 17-55?  That's a nice lens.  And it looks like you use it a lot at 55mm.  Do you regularly wish for a longer focal length?  If not and you like the 50mm focal range, then the 50mm with the t3i and 85 with the 5D3 would seem the way to go.  Just note that while these lenses will be great in low light and for portraits, neither is widely regarded as a sports lens.  But that's ok - another excuse to go shopping....

393
Software & Accessories / Re: Mini Tripod?
« on: December 02, 2012, 12:55:27 AM »
I have the SLR Zoom.  When I purchased it, I thought it would have a big impact on my practices.  But I was using some heavy gear at the time (primarily a Mamiya RB67) and the little tripod couldn't handle it.  I ended up shelving it.  Mine didn't come with a ball-head (nor did it occur to me to use one until today).  Instead, I just screw it straight into the bottom of the camera and adjust the tripod accordingly to get the angle I want.  For most camera/lens combos this works fine. 

Thinking about it, it is probably because I keep moving the tripod into awkward angles (and not using a tripod head) that I was left with a lower effective weight limit.  Keep this in mind if you're using bigger / longer lenses.

394
Lenses / Re: EF 40mm STM Pancake Problem Acknowledged
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:23:34 AM »
Has happened to me once with an Eos 3.  After a few anxious minutes and detaching and reattaching it a couple of times, it started working again.  Since then its been fine.  It happened while I was travelling and the camera and lens were tightly packed in a bag.  I wouldn't have thought it was too tightly packed though....

I'm curious how the firmware upgrade works with a film camera.

395
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 29, 2012, 07:03:56 AM »
Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably.  Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

That's why I think that any lower priced FF camera will be a surprise entry from a low market share camera company.  The big three (Canon, Sony and Nikon) already have FF entries.  They're don't want to disturb their margins by introducing a low cost FF camera.  They also won't want to cannibalise their higher end models.  With the peer pressure on photographers to go full frame, they know that people will happily pay a high price if they feel it will lead to photograhy perfection. 

But for Mamiya, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh, Casio etc who are all looking at increasing market shares (and in some cases just want to stay in business), getting into the FF market must look very tempting.  And it will be hard for them to compete with the big three.  The answer I keep coming back to is to introduce the camera at a low price and make your money on the lenses and on future higher specc'd camera model releases.

Without wanting to be too repetitive, the company I keep coming back to is Pentax.  Their K-01 is retailing for $350.  What the??  Surely they can just put a FF sensor in their and sell it in the low $1k range?  It will have a K mount and would interest a lot of people.  My alternative is Samsung, who are very ambitious right now and want to be seen as the world's leading tech company.  Surely their camera division are under pressure to gain more profits and market share.

396
Lenses / Re: 650-1300 T-mount lens
« on: November 28, 2012, 11:56:09 PM »
Sounds like you've got most things thought out.  If I was a Nike rep, I'd say "Just do it".

397
Lenses / Re: 650-1300 T-mount lens
« on: November 28, 2012, 10:31:03 PM »
Hi Don, no personal experience either unfortunately and I'm hardly competent.  But this year I've been playing around with a lot of longer cheapish lens combinations.  You'd obviously know that the lenses aren't weatherproof.  I don't know how badly water entering the lens will affect your sensor.  I can't imagine this will be good for it.  Also, I'd assume you'd be putting lenses caps on during daylight hours, but I'd also suspect that these lenses will be more susceptible to glues failing, lens coating separation issues, more dust and dirt entering the lens, fungal attacks etc which might be an issue if high image quality is critical.  But I doubt other options will stand up long-term in the conditions you've described, anyway.  Although a better quality weather sealed lens should stay in better condition longer.  My other reservation is that this sounds very astronomy-like.  I'd check that F/16 in your shooting conditions gives a shutter speed of less than 5 secs if that's an essential requirement.  In this case, you'd be so much better off wth the $10,000 primes....

As for image quality, provided you've got a good mounting, a stationary subject/smooth tracking and the 650-1300 is at least "OK", my guess would be that a good 400mm lens would be significantly better than the 650mm end.  But the 1300mm end will probably be better than a cropped 400mm lens.  If not, and if it is important, you should be able to work with the image in post production to get a similar/ better outcome but at a much cheaper price.  Overall, for what you've just described and if you know the limitations, I'd say go for it. 

398
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: November 27, 2012, 03:43:39 AM »
I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a $1000-$1500 FF mirorrless camera within the next two years.  I see the 6D and 600D as game changers.  Suddenly, we have reasonably specc'd FF cameras being released with $2k price tags. 

For typical camera users, I see the current bread and butter models as follows:

M4/3 - Olympus EPL5 - $599
APS-C - Sony Nex 5R - $648
APS-C - Canon T4i - $799
FF - Canon 6D - $2,000
FF - Nikon D600 - $2,000

I know my logic can be countered in a number of ways, but if I was a camera company exec, I'd be thinking that there's a big hole between $800 and $2000.  What would get the camera community excited?  A cheap FF camera. I'd then work backwards, basing everything upon a final sale price of $1250 - $1500.  Ultimately, I end up with a very simple mirrorless camera with an EVF and a FF sensor.  I end up with a Nex 5, but with a FF sensor and a $600-$800 premium.  (And going by most of the comments above, an $800 price increase isn't unreaslistic to cover the price of a full frame sensor).

Over its lifespan, this camera will decrease in value.  Come end of life, you will see run out specials below $1,000.  Maybe in 4 years time.

The big question is, will it be a Canon?  Sadly, I think not.  As a betting person, I'm liking the odds on Pentax who have a lot of legacy FF lenses and users to satisfy.

399
EOS Bodies / Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
« on: November 23, 2012, 06:55:06 AM »
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

400
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Australia: coming lower prices for Canon equipment?
« on: November 19, 2012, 10:33:04 PM »
According to The Courier-Mail, you can register here for details - http://www.clickfrenzy.com.au/

DJs occasionally have good specials, but their range is very basic / low end and may not interest most people here.  But there are a couple of hundred larger retailers involved, so will be interesting to watch.  Its good to see local retailers embracing the web rather than complaining about slipping sales and advocating for regulations to hamper imports.  Although I notice Harvey Norman is conspicuously absent from the list of participating retailers.

401
Landscape / Re: Solar Eclipse Next Week - Any Suggestions?
« on: November 16, 2012, 10:46:42 PM »
My best effort.  As I thought lens flare, incorrect exposure choices and imperfect equipment led to some disappointing results.  Oh well...at least I'm a little better informed.  When the next one is here in 17 years times, I'll be on top of these things. 

402
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Photos of film's demise
« on: November 15, 2012, 07:53:00 PM »
Give Ektar a try.  It comes in 4x5.  Its very good at capturing detail.  If you're scanning it on the V750, then colour problems from your photo lab aren't an issue.  It has a greater exposure range (dynamic range?) than slide film and can give you a lot more post processing possibilities.

403
Landscape / Re: Solar Eclipse Next Week - Any Suggestions?
« on: November 14, 2012, 01:37:20 AM »
Nice - very moody.

My work plans changed and I found myself still in Brisbane.  I missed the "total" solar eclipse and had a crescent shaped sun, too.  Still, I found it very interesting.

I took a few photos, and will take a closer look at them as soon as I get home tonight.  For lack of anything better, I stacked an IR filter, a 3 stop ND filter and a polarizer on the end of a Canon 100-300, which I mounted onto an Olympus EPL-1.  I went with the Olympus so that I could compose through the EVF without worrying about eye damage.  But I probably should have trialled it first.  While viewing through the EVF was fine and worked well, the combination of filters and lower quality lens led to a lot of lens flare which I think ruined most of the shots.

404
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:30:03 PM »
I'm hedging my bets.  I print my favourite photos at 5x7 or 8x12.  I upload photos to an online site.  I keep backups on multiple hard drives.  I also have photos stored on the hard drives of a couple of computers.  With film, I keep negatives in archival plastic sleeves. 

But what really worries me is that, at the rate I'm shooting, I'll have hundreds of thousands (maybe a million+?) images by the time I finish.  Is anyone ever going to look at that many photos or care for such a collection?

405
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:19:00 PM »
Wow - They're good.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 53