Messages

406

Australia / Re: Finally, cheap cameras in Australian shops

« on: December 14, 2011, 03:53:26 AM »

I've also bought a number of items from CamerasDirect.  I've never had any problems and think they are great.  They're located in a comercial section of Labrador, which is a suburb on the Gold Coast.  Their office isn't flash. but very business-like (one of the reasons they can keep costs down).  The service is always fast and professional and they carry a lot of stock in their warehouse.  Its not just an online shop.  They're open to the public and you can always go there  to pick the item up.

Being in Brisbane, I find them very handy.  Just a quick trip down the freeway.

However it is grey market and for a lot of this year, there prices crept up a bit and they weren't that much cheaper than shops selling "Australian" stock.  But they've sharpened up their pricing recently and are running a 5% disount right now.  I ordered a new lens from them on Monday and hopefully will find time to pick it up tomorrow!

407

United States / Re: $100,000 - How would you spend it?

« on: December 12, 2011, 01:10:05 AM »

If I could only spend it on photography related things or not get it, I'd consider early retirment and back myself with a commercial / architectual photography venture, with:

$10k on courses
$10k on cameras (1Ds Mk iii and 5D)
$15k on lenses (14, 24, 85, 135, 16-35, 70-200, 17 & 24mm tilt shifts)
$10k on lighting equipment, tripods
$15k rent on very small office / studio (I find it difficult to work at home)
$10k on office fitout, signage
$10k on computer equipment, monitor and software
$5k on printer and toner and paper
$10k Advertising
$5k wages for pretty part-time assistant until I go broke six months later.

408

Canon General / Re: 2012 Prediction - Canon drop from #1 to ...

« on: December 11, 2011, 01:35:01 AM »

Sony in No. 1 in the next year is probably a bit out there.  But to give Dilbert some support, if you were to add up the sales of the DSLRs sporting Sony sensors (ie from Nikon, Pentax and Sony) they would probably come close to matching Canon's dominant sales figures.  Plus the upcoming Nikon D800 is rumoured to have a Sony sensor, too. 

While I've got no intention of leaving Canon (in fact, I just bought another camera a fortnight ago), I think Sony would be my alternative.  Oddly, this is because of the one thing Dilbert talks down - their lens range.  Their Carl Zeiss 24mm, 85mm and 135mm are meant to be as good as it gets (well almost....obviously not as good as the Canon equivalents). And an A900 upgrade is going to be a very interesting camera. 

But every time I look at Sony, it's the small things that turn me off, such as the proprietary hotshoe and memory cards.  Plus, I don't know anyone else using one and local shops don't seem to be keen to stock lenses or accessories.

Sony is already number two in many markets (eg the UK) and they might have what it takes to get to number 1.  But I think it will take a long time before they gain enough widespread market acceptance.

409

United States / Re: How Many MP's On A FF Equals a 35mm Canon AE1 Film Camera?

« on: December 05, 2011, 10:23:48 PM »

I'd agree with the above comment 100%.  I was late moving to digital thinking that film was better than some of the lower resolution cameras.  I was rather surprised to find that an 8mp camera was consistently better than my scanning efforts (admittedly, I'm just using a Canon 9950F).  Plus you save a lot of time.  There's no quality benefit in 35mm film.

Of course, medium format and large format are a different story.  And B & W has a fun craft aspect.

Normally, a scanning resolution would be a lot higher (eg 2400dpi).  But your software might be asking this in a round about way based on your intended print size.  All I can say is give it a try.  If you end up with a file that is at least several MB in size, you are probably on the right track.  When I scan at 2400dpi, I end up with a TIFF image just over 20mb.  This is more than enough reolution to produce a good 8x10 print (or bigger).

410

United States / Re: How Many MP's On A FF Equals a 35mm Canon AE1 Film Camera?

« on: December 05, 2011, 04:30:36 PM »

I think there are two answers.

My 8mp 30D produces images that contain as much detail as my best scanned 35mm files. (Although, a better scanner might extract better results.)

But my scanned files contain nowhere near as much detail as projected transparencies.  I've often heard that fine grain film has similar resolution to a mid 20mp camera.  I'd agee with that.

411

Australia / Re: Finally, cheap cameras in Australian shops

« on: December 04, 2011, 07:20:02 PM »

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and thought it was great - especially for the smaller, lower cost items.  Just note that the prices don't include GST.  Therefore items over $1,000 will be subjust to customs duty and GST, which will add another 15% to the price.

If you factor in these costs, the prices aren't that different to some of my local brick and mortar shops in Brisbane selling Australian stock.  Eg Photocontinental has the 5Dii at $2,580.

412

EOS Bodies / Re: An approach towards Medium Format (MF).

« on: December 03, 2011, 04:05:06 AM »

If the idea of medium format is to keep photographers happy with a high MP camera, I'm hoping that they go with a rangefinder style body (such as a mamiya 6 / 7 and Fuji 670) for greater portablility.  But with autofocus and maybe an EVF.  If the price was....ummm....reasonable.... I'd buy one.

(I've got a Mamiya RB67 and a Mamiya 6.  Trust me, a large MF camera is the last thing you want to cart around on long walks.  Whereas a Mamiya 6 weighs less than most DSLRs and is a joy to use).

By starting afresh, the engineers can work out the optimal sensor / lens placement without being constrained by the current EF framework.  It could be a good opportunity to review a key problem that 35mm has - wide angle lenses. 

413

Lenses / Re: How do you prevent lens fungus if you live in a tropical, humid state?

« on: December 03, 2011, 12:30:42 AM »

I also have silica gel in a cabinet that I store my equipment in.  A few other tips:
 
Don't leave your lenses indefinitely in a camera bag (especially if damp);
Don't leave them in your car all summer;
If you get them wet, wipe excess water off at your earliest opportunity.

Interestingly, sunshine kills fungus.  The best prevention is to go outside and take some photos! 

414

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji X10 or X100?

« on: December 01, 2011, 01:47:45 AM »

I've got an Olympus Pen.  It gets noticeably noisy at ISO 800.  If its on your list of possibilities, it won't give you the high ISO performance you are seeking.  (Except that it does have some reasonably priced fast lenses - eg the 45mm).

Have you looked at the Sony Nex-7? 

415

EOS Bodies / Re: B&W photography: What happened to grain?

« on: November 30, 2011, 10:23:13 PM »

Why not just shoot film and save yourself some of the conversion problems.  Many Canon film bodies barely get any bids on eBay and go for next to nothing.  Film is only a few dollars a roll.  Developing it yourself only costs a couple of dollars per roll and you can get most of the work done in 15 - 20 minutes (plus you can develop multiple rolls at one time - so the time per roll becomes inconsequential).

Sure, the cost is a factor.  But think of it as an additional futureproof archival / storage solution.

You're then left with a negative which you can then easily scan for digital workflow (and has the "look" you are seeking) and which you can also print using traditional methods.

416

Lenses / Re: I wish I'd never sold my.....?

« on: November 30, 2011, 04:31:36 AM »

I sold an AE-1 to help fund some EF lenses.  But this was a gift from my dad and I've always regretted selling it....

417

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR Video. Sony is about to kick Canon's you know what

« on: November 27, 2011, 07:46:43 PM »

I wouldn't write Sony off that easily.  Their crop sensors are cutting edge technology, whereas the 5Dii is three years old.   In some tests, the new crop sensor outperforms the old FF sensor.  Sony are about to release a new FF camera which supposedly builds on their crop sensor technology and will be industry leading (I've heard that Nikon might be using this sensor in their new D800, which will be their 5Diii competitor).  And their Zeiss lenses are often rated as being better than Canon's.  Sony's pricing strategy is also very competitive.  And the A77 shows that they are at least thinking about innovation.

Until recently, I would have agreed with the comment above.  Would any self respecting photographer shoot with a Sony?  Where's the heritage?  Why aren't the pros using them?  But over the last year, the praise given to the Sony sensored D7000 and Pentax K5 has made me re-evaluate them and I think Sony are catching up fast.  If I was Canon, I'd be worried about how the 5Diii stacks up to the A99. 

418

United States / Re: Looking at 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 Non-IS

« on: November 26, 2011, 01:16:39 AM »

Once the sun starts to set, I really struggle with the f4 to get a sharp picture if the subject is moving.  I just can't get a shutter speed fast enough.  But I'm either using film or a 30D and am limited with ISOs.  A better photographer or a newer camera might produce better results. But, in my opinion, its not the answer if you're shooting night time football games.  But in day time - no problem.  Currently, I use a 50mm lens at night, but its too short and I'm thinking about picking up a 135/f2.  Sadly the 200/f2 is a bit expensive....   

For evening sports the 70-200 f2.8 would be better, but even this might struggle in low light to produce a lot of keepers.

419

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 3 for $99.95

« on: November 25, 2011, 07:42:45 PM »

If you can access the Australian Adobe site, they've been selling Lightroom for $124 for the last few weeks and there is no suggestion that this is a limited time offer.  Maybe LR4 is coming out soon?

420

United States / Re: Looking at 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 Non-IS

« on: November 25, 2011, 07:33:47 PM »

I've got the f4 IS and use it primarily for sports, motor racing and other action activities.  In good daylight, even at ISO 100, I'm often shooting at around 1/1000 of a second, which is fast enough for an action stopping photo.  If the speed starts to dip, I just bump the ISO up.  The image stabilization also works great.  If you are shooting a static subject, this helps you to keep a low ISO when handholding.

Of course, the f2.8 will allow a faster shutter speed.  This can be invaluable in low light conditions.  It also has the ability to blur the background a bit more which helps to highlight the subject better.  But it is a lot bigger and weighs more.

I don't there is a clear winner between the two as they both have pros and negatives.   I went with the f4 for its portability (I do a bit of travel) and the IS.  I love its sharpness and the images it produces.  But there are occasions when I long for something a bit faster.