March 04, 2015, 06:08:26 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 55
EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me
« on: September 07, 2012, 02:26:11 AM »
It's the sensor.  Could you buy 25,600 speed film back in 1988 and shoot low-light football at 1/2000s at night?  Of course not.  They didn't do it that way.  DSLR's, namely the 1D X, is truly revolutionary.

Delta 3200 pushed 3 stops.  (You set ISO manually at 6400 and then set exposure compensation at -2).

Don't like grain?  Just shoot medium format or larger.

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me
« on: September 06, 2012, 11:52:01 PM »
.....So what you pay for then is build quality, FPS, and metering etc.

100% right. 

FYI, the last brand new Canon film SLR I bought was an EOS 3000 (as a second body with my 7e).  The 3000 was bottom of the line with virtually no fetaures.  It was around 1999/2000 and cost about $350.  I bought it because it was so cheap - it was on special and was normally $500+.  The top of the line Eos 1 was just over $2000 (and I think it still is).   For the price, you get so much more camera today.

Just like today, 90% of people just bought the cheapest slr.  Even now, I still run into people with 3000's. 

In between the Eos 3000 and 1, you had the 300, 33, 30 and 3 - all differentiated by build quality, weather sealing, FPS, focus points, eye control focus, AI servo speed, encoding of data onto film rolls, electronic recording of shot data, flash synch speed, max shutter speed etc etc.  By the late 1990's, camera had become very sophisticated and (ignoring the change to digital) its not surprising there hasn't be many big improvements to the basic features.

The prior generation used "5"'s instead of "3"'s in the model name.  But like todays, there was never any real consistency with the numbering schemes.  Eg, my first Eos in the early 1990's was 1000FN.

1 series bodies don't fit into good looking bags.  For some reason, bag manufacturers think you'll want to carry every lens you own everywhere you go.  If you find a small, good looking bag for a 1Dx and a couple of lenses, please tell me!

I've got a National Geographic medium shoulder bag, which looks ok and which will hold everything you want plus more, but its still a bit on the big side.  I'm currently eyeing the Lowepro Flipside Sport 15L as it has a cool looking tripod holder and looks reasonably compact for a backpack (I believe the 1Dx won't fit in the 10L).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I stay with Canon or moving to Nikon
« on: September 05, 2012, 05:50:19 AM »
Have you and your mates taken a real world photo of the same object at the same time and compared the Canon shot with the Nikon?  Was one better than the other?  Which one?

At some low ISO's some Nikon bodies have an edge over some Canon ones.  With other settings, Canon has the edge.  The differences are real and noticeable.  But do they matter.  Do they make one photo "better" and does anyone really care?  Only you can answer that one.  Like many people, I can't tell the extraordinarily subtle differences between a Canon photo and a Nikon photo, unless they are side by side and even then I feel the Canon photos are better at least half the time.  Given that Canon has the lenses I want (and which Nikon lacks or wants to charge extremely high prices), I'm happy in the Canon camp.  Your needs may differ.

Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 04, 2012, 04:20:07 AM »
I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much?  IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase.  Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better. 

Lenses / Re: Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens
« on: August 29, 2012, 04:03:14 AM »
I've got a 70-200 f/4 IS and its an excellent lens.  However, since picking up a 135 f/2, I rarely use the 70-200.  The 135 is sharp at f/2.  While the zoom is good at f/4, it is much better at f/5.6.  All things being equal, you can use a much faster shutter speed with the 135, whereas a slower shutter speed on the zoom might lead to some motion blur.  The wider aperture of the 135 also allows you to blur backgrounds more if you want (which is a nice look for some portraits).  Also, its not a big white lens - you feel a little less conspicuous carrying it. They're both around the same price - I'd at least give it some thought.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: World's most expensive lens
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:12:56 AM »
If I had that lens I could stay between the football stadium and soccer field and shoot both games from the same location :) :)

The Canon 1200mm and 1.4x extender might be a better choice for sports - It has autofocus. :)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: World's most expensive lens
« on: August 27, 2012, 10:26:28 PM »
Hubble would have to be near the top of the list, too.  At $2.5b to construct, then all of the maintenane and the big upgrade a couple of years ago, I think it has cost almost $7b.  But it does get some spectacular shots.

Go small F number meaning large apertures. I shoot F16 when i want to make the sun starburst thru the trees which is the opposite of what you want. Also i believe the number of star points is related to how many aperture blades are in the lens as well.
first one is a 5d with 35L second a 5d and 15mm Fisheye.

I've never consciously thought of doing this on purpose.  Something new to think about and experiment with!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: OUT: DSLR // IN: Micro 4/3
« on: August 21, 2012, 03:03:43 AM »
I picked up a micro 4/3 camera a while back (an older EPL-1).  I thought it would be the be-all and end-all.  Sadly, while I like it a lot, I just use it occassionally.  Ultimately, I've found the image quality just isn't quite as good.  Its not bad, just not excellent.  I know the OM-D is better than the EPL-1, but I'd still suggest taking baby steps.  Buy the OM-D before selling the 5Dii just to make sure you are 100% happy.  Plus, there's no reason you can't have two cameras.  Your Canon lenses will work fine on both cameras (obviously without AF, but not a problem with the tilt shift).  The OM-D is one feature packed little camera.  I wish Canon noticed it when designing the EF-M.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?
« on: August 19, 2012, 05:20:49 AM »
My home.  Any takers?  A few clues - Southern Hemisphere, on the coast, good surfing.


Good guess.  I'll give you half marks.  Technically its the Gold Coast.  Brisbane is an hour down the road.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:22:38 AM »
My home.  Any takers?  A few clues - Southern Hemisphere, on the coast, good surfing.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:57:49 AM »
TexPhoto, I might be cheating by looking at your flickr page.  But is it San Juan, Peurto Rico?

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:54:42 AM »
Vietnam?  Ho Chi Minh City?

Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:09:31 AM »
You should just buy a 1200mm when you're down at the shops next and try to complete the set.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 55