July 23, 2014, 06:51:10 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 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 48
586
Maybe Canon has something special in mind with the fixed lens idea?  There's a picture of the Canonet 28 on the front page.  Maybe that's a hint?  Or a clue?  or both?  I hate it when CanonRumors teases us like this!

Perhaps Canon are planning a full frame replica of the Canonet?  While the 28 (pictured) would be ok, I hope they do it properly and go with the QL17 or QL19 GIII.  I wonder if they've still got the Canonet factory mothballed somewhere?  They just have to dust off the cobwebs and work out how to whack in a 1DX sensor and an LCD and could be knocking these babies out in a few months.  They'd sell like hotcakes!

587
EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrading from 5d... 1ds2 or 5d2
« on: December 20, 2011, 11:47:43 PM »
For your main selection criteria (High ISOs), the 5D2 is the better choice.  The 1Ds2 tops out at 3200.  And at 1600 it isn't that great, whereas the 5D2 seems fine at 1600 and you can push it up to 25,600.

I'd consider the 1Ds2 if you are shooting a lot of activity or moving subjects (better and faster autofocus and 5 frames per second) or if you needed a rugged, go anywhere, reliable body.  Plus it has a longer lasting battery and faster flash synch.  Overall, the 1Ds2 is a better built camera than the 5D2, but then the 5D2 has more features (eg video) and is more versatile, better LCD, is llighter, and goes to higher ISOs.  And if you buy a new one, it comes with a warranty.  The 5D2 is the logical choice.
 
But, should your photography be constrained by logical choices?  The 1Ds2 is still a great camera to use.  It only does one thing - it takes great pictures at lowish ISO's.  And it does this extremely well.  If that is what you're after, I'd say grab one.  Then in three months time, you won't be kicking yourself for not waiting for the 5D3.  Instead, you can sit back smugly with the knowledge that your camera is as good as it gets for image taking - at least until the used 1Ds3's become more affordable. 

588
When people talk about EF compatability, I think we're all referring to an adapter between the camera and the lens (Essentially, just like an extension tube) that allows autofocus.  An EF lens wouldn't be the usual lens that people would use, just an extra capability if you wanted it.  Canon really only has to design a few lenses to kick things off.  A wide, medium and a tele prime lens with big apertures, and a normal zoom as the kit lens.

One advantage of redesigning the mount is that they can reconsider the optimal lens / sensor distance and come up with some great wide angles.   

589
As another thought, has anyone not looked at the Leica M9 and thought, "If only Canon could do something similar but with autofocus and at 1/3 the cost". 

I think that's where Fuji is heading next year.  And that will be really interesting.   

590
Maybe I am under-educated in this, but what does the mirror do other than make the image visible in the viewfinder?  And if it does do something other than that, does not having a mirror decrease performance?

Yes.  That's all the mirror does.  But it is a little more complex as SLRs have their autofcus sensors positioned above the mirror.  Mirrorless cameras take a different approach and rely on the LCD screen at the back of the camera (like a point and shoot camera), or have an electronic viewfinder to replicate the SLR viewfinder.  They use a different method for autofocus.  There is a marginal performance loss as it takes a tiny fraction of a second longer for the image to appear in the viewfinder compared to a regular SLR.  This isn't ideal when shooting action scenes.  Traditionally, autofocus has also suffered, but newer mirrorless cameras seem to have solved this.  The Olympus EP3 claims to have faster and more accurate autofocus than all DSLRs.

While there is a small delay with electronic viewfinders, they do have benefits.  You get to see the whole picture, they are nice and bright and you see the image exactly as it will be photographed.  So, like most things, there are positives and negatives.

I'm not totally surprised that Canon hasn't jumped on board.  There are a lot of other players out there and none seem to have been highly successful financially.  Besides, I've got a little Olympus EPL-1 that I love.  If Canon was to release a similar model with EF compatibility, my loyalty would be tested - not a position I really want to be in.

591
Canon General / Re: The Jump To Full Frame
« on: December 18, 2011, 09:48:44 PM »
This was my thinking in deciding on a 1Ds Mk ii, too.  But the 5D Mk ii has some benefits and its not easy to declare a clear winner.   The 5D Mk ii is lighter and newer and has video capabilities.  It performs much better at higher ISOs.  Supposedly, its jpegs are bit sharper straight out of the cameras and its LCD is better.  But if all you want to do is take photos at low-ish ISOs, the 1Ds is as good as it gets and is surprisingly simple to use.  You can't go wrong with either.   

592
Canon General / Re: The Jump To Full Frame
« on: December 18, 2011, 05:04:59 AM »
Was in a similar situation recently and picked up a used 1Ds Mk ii.  It has its pros and cons compared to a 5Dii, but was the right decision for me with a tougher body and faster autofucus and response times.   But obviously it lacks video and I'm finding battery maintenance a little tedious.  I'm liking the move from a 30D. 

593
EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D
« on: December 15, 2011, 12:59:21 AM »
Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera. 

http://500px.com/alwaysbj182

That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.


I'm impressed.

594
EOS Bodies / Re: Should i go for the 1DX or the 5D Mk III?
« on: December 14, 2011, 09:47:14 PM »
As I look out the window and see the rain bucket down, I think of all those photographers out there now capturing photos of someone's wedding.   I hope they're using a camera that isn't going to breakdown or get wrecked if it inadvertently gets too wet.  If you livelihood depends on you being at a particular place at a particular time ready to take photos in a wide range of conditions and weight or cost isn’t an issue, get the meanest, toughest guy on the block.  1DX.

595
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!

596
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.

597
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.

598
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).

599
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.

600
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.

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 48