February 01, 2015, 04:49:46 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 - seamonster

Pages: 1 [2] 3
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:34:29 AM »
So what is the point of greater than 1.0x magnification? Wouldn't that aggravate the perspective characteristics of ultra wides and long telephotos?

Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs 10-18
« on: June 03, 2014, 01:57:04 PM »

They're both EF-S lenses and as we all know, Canon treats the whole EF-S line like second class citizens. I mean, for instance, how many years and iterations has it taken for the 18-55mm to perform acceptably? Not to mention that there used to be USM on it....8 years ago. Sure the optics have gotten better but I suspect that's more to do with the need for more resolving power due to the megapickle wars than them actually caring any significant amount.

And speaking of USM, there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics. And for no other reason than their mount.

I am not posting to belittle or denigrate EF-S owners in any way, just Canon's continued practice of doing the bare minimum for the EF-S mount in general. My first DSLR was a 60D with a 18-135 and 55-250 kit and I shot the hell out of it.

I mean, we still haven't gotten a cheap 35mm 1.8  that those Nik** guys have right?

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:53:11 AM »
Just re-use the 5DIII body shell (and get rid of the pop up flash). Saves on production costs.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2014, 11:46:17 AM »
somebody page the Loch Ness Monster?

Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:04:42 AM »
do we know how variable apertures match up to the zoom range? how soon does it hit 6.3? i would hope it stays at 5.6 up to 400mm at least.

If you've already got CF cards, just get the frecking thing. I can't even buy a 85mm 1.8 for 250 frecking dollars in my area.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Luckiest Shot - Please Share
« on: October 16, 2013, 04:36:24 PM »

Maybe not my luckiest shot but I was on the ferry to the statue of liberty and saw it approaching fast so no time to compose through the viewfinder. I just held the camera at arms length and just eyeballed the center point confirming, panned with its flight path and shot. Oh and before all y'all that are going to be posting crazy stuff with crazy expensive super teles, this was shot with a 40mm pancake on a 60D.

Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 13, 2013, 12:43:02 AM »
The 24-105 is just an "enough" lens for enough situations. It will not excel at any single task nor will it catastrophically fail either. f/4 used to be a bottleneck back in the day when sensors couldn't handle high ISO well. That is obviously no longer the case. There are plenty of reasons why ALOT of people buy it as their first L lens and for those who get it in a kit, there are ultimately fewer reasons to get rid of it than to keep it.

for the millionth time: 50mm now! 50mm now! Say it with me!

EOS Bodies / Re: Fixed Lens APS-C camera - What would you buy?
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:21:28 AM »
It would have to be reaaaally small for me to buy it. Like S100 sized. I could so without a viewfinder as long as live view is 100% (pretty much everything is these days).

Canon General / Re: Cannot find CPS points list
« on: July 22, 2013, 09:44:46 PM »
Yes....now click on "eligible CPS products" and what do you get? That's the list I'm trying to find

Canon General / Cannot find CPS points list
« on: July 22, 2013, 02:14:14 PM »
Keep getting a 404 at


Anyone have the list?

A crop mode and Drop the AA filter, yo. 3 pages in and i'm surprised nobodys mentioned this.

Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 03:26:18 PM »
If you like the 50mm view on the crop, how about the 85mm f1.8?  It is quite sharp wide open and about the same price as the 50mm f1.4.

already said I'd get it.

Lenses / 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 11:54:12 AM »
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?

Pages: 1 [2] 3