February 01, 2015, 08:33:50 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 - bholliman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: January 30, 2015, 03:55:27 PM »
I have to say this lens is great, coming from the 400 5.6, this is a much more dynamic and useful lens. You can check out a few pictures with the new 100-400 here, sadly I don't have too many since its brand new and I am now in the dead of winter in upstate NY :( https://www.flickr.com/photos/puertoricanwildlifephotography/

Have you done any side-by-side IQ testing vs. the 400/5.6?  I'm looking to buy either the 400/5.6 or the 100-400 II.  Obviously the zoom is much more flexible, but expect to shoot mostly at 400mm anyway.  I'm trying to decide if the zoom versatility and IS is worth the extra $1K.

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:42:17 AM »
If ISO only going to 6400 means that results are better at 100, then so be it.

If the design effort has gone into making a top notch stills camera rather than a glorified camcorder, then I applaud it.

Hopefully a whizzo 5D4 will be along before too long to keep the naysayers happy* ;-)

+1  People buying hi-megapixal bodies would primarily be using them for landscape or product photography, where they will normally be shooting on a tripod at the lowest possible ISO.  Higher ISO's make sense on a more general purpose body like the 5D Mk3 successor.

Thanks Sporgon and PBD for sharing your experience and thoughts on this topic.  I agree with your conclusions as they match my experience.

After reading several ETTR articles last year I went through an "ETTR phase" where I was consistently exposing as far to the right as I could without clipping highlights in the camera histogram.  I finally stopped after finding my picture quality was consistently suffering with this method and no amount of PP could bring back the correct colors and saturation to where they should be. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:01:26 PM »
I'm interested to see what Canon announces.  I shoot a lot of landscape, but don't see myself buying a high megapixel camera.  My next camera body will probably be the 5DIV - after its been out long enough for the price to start dropping, so a ways off. 

Curious to see what the M3 will be like.  Hopefully DPAF and faster AF.  I might look at one of those as a 2nd body if the price is reasonable.

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 10:09:57 AM »
I primarily use zooms for landscape but would certainly be happy with primes if i had them.  I've invested most of my photography budget in high quality zooms (16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II), the primes I own (35/2 IS, 100L, 135/2) have all been used occasionally for landscape work, but I often use 16-28mm for landscape and just don't currently have any primes in that range.

Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:03:08 AM »
I also suggest a hard look at a 18-55 IS or STM these are terrific lenses that you can pick up really cheap used.  The fairly new 18-135 STM is a somewhat more expensive option with a nice zoom range.  The STM is a big improvement over the IS version - I owned both.

Canon has really upgraded their 18-xx(x)  EF-S lenses from previous versions.  They are optimized for crop bodies and often outperform much more expensive EF lenses on a crop.  Unless you plan to buy a full format body in the near future, I strongly recommend sticking with EF-S lenses.  If you are interested in UWA, the 10-18 is awesome.

For a fast prime, you might look at the new Youngno 50 1.8 which is cheaper than the Canon nifty 50 and reportedly better optically.

This lens should do well assuming its optically superior to Canons 16-35/2.8 II and I think it will be.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
« on: January 22, 2015, 07:34:18 AM »
I had this lens before and thought it was a little better than the Canon version. Its price, I think, was not helping sales because a lot of white box versions of the Canon 24-105 were available at a lower price, and to the casual consumer, they will pick a "big brand" with lots of ads over a name that perhaps only the more advanced users know. Or maybe they just remember Sigma from the old days, before the Art series, and figured it to be a poor brand.


When Sigma introduced this lens I figured it would need to be optically excellent to differentiate itself from the very good and inexpensive Canon L options (24-70/4 and older 24-105/4).  According to the reviews, it was only slightly better then the 24-105L and similar optically to the 24-70/4L.  Given the low price of the Canon lenses, there was just no reason to buy a brand with a poor reputation historically (prior to the Art series) over a better known and respected brand like Canon. 

This appears to be poor market research by Sigma.  Their 35 and 50 Art lenses filled a niche in the market that Canon has neglected for awhile.  The Canon 35mm and 50mm offerings (other than the excellent 35/2 IS) are showing their age, so the 35 and 50 Art provided photographers with lenses that were significantly better than the Canon L's at a better price point.  With the 24-105 they didn't differentiate either in quality or price.

Even if the Samyang lens is close to the Canon 135/2 optically, I prefer to have autofocus for a lens like this which I'm usually using for shallow DOF shots.

Lenses / Re: My New "L"
« on: January 16, 2015, 06:19:56 PM »
Congratulations on the new addition!

My first "L" was somewhat underwhelming, nothing like yours.  I bought a 100-400L used and it was a poor copy, not very sharp and required AFMA of -19 on the wide end and +11 on the other.  I sold it and purchased a new 70-200 2.8 II followed shortly by a 35L.  I've done some buying and selling of other L's along the way, but the 70-200 has a permanent home in my kit.

Lenses / Re: Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?
« on: January 15, 2015, 02:55:09 AM »
I would buy a new Canon 50 f/1.8 IS in a heartbeat!  I've owned a 50/1.4 and sold it. I've rented a Sigma 50/1.4 Art that was terrific.  I loved the IQ and AF was decent on the copy I rented. I probably will not buy a Sigma Art due to size and weight and concerns I would get a copy with AF problems..  I really want primes that are small and light.

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 02:25:38 PM »
Thanks for the replies.

Regarding Apple vs. Windows PC, I am open to looking at a Mac, just don't have any experience with them.  Would I need to purchase new copies of my software (MS Office, LR5, PSE13)?

I'm less inclined to purchase a desktop, even though I know you can get more computer for the money.  I travel often for business and don't spend much time at home. 

Software & Accessories / Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 08:57:00 AM »
The laptop computer I use for most of my photo editing is nearing the end of its useful life.  It's over 5-years old now and starting to act erratically.  I recently reformatted the hard drive and re installed everything and its working better, but I am planning to replace it this year.

I'm looking for recommendations, my budget is roughly $3K.  I only have experience with Windows PC's, so I will probably be looking in that direction instead of a Mac.

Lenses / Re: Samyang 135mm f/2.0 Announced?
« on: January 12, 2015, 05:52:41 PM »

The image quality looks excellent from this first review.

Does its IQ compare favorably to the Canon 135L?  If not, there is no advantage other than price and some big disadvantages (no AF and build quality).

Lenses / Re: Samyang 135mm f/2.0 Announced?
« on: January 12, 2015, 01:23:45 PM »
Looks like $550 USD at B&H...

Hmm, that'll have to come down to more like $400 to succeed. The 135L is at a street price of $7-800 used, and the refurb is right around $800. Cant see many (non-video) people saving $2-300 and losing one of the best AF lenses Canon has.
Also means the cine version would be like $700ish on release. Which is pricy as well.

I couldn't see paying $550 for an manual focus, non-Zeiss, lens - why not pay a few hundred more for a lens with excellent AF and L build quality - the Canon 135L?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56