December 21, 2014, 04:03:30 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 - Eagle Eye

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
91
Canon General / Re: Where to Buy Online Body and Lenses?
« on: August 20, 2011, 05:34:26 PM »
Adorama, B&H, Amazon, J&R... lots of good reputable retailers out there.  Beware of extremely low prices from seemingly professional websites.  These scams pop up all the time.  Frequently, Googling their "official" address will take you to a giant field near West Palm Beach.  I would stick to the trusted few listed on CanonRumors price watch.  Otherwise, you'll probably end up with a complaint in to the police with no hope of ever getting your money back.

92
Canon General / Re: High shutter count on brand new 60D!
« on: August 20, 2011, 05:30:09 PM »
Typically because IMG_4381 was the last file to be written to the card.  I would not only format, but reset your 60D file naming.  Even a newly formatted card will start at 4383 unless you now reset the camera.

93
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & 24-70 II in 2 Weeks?
« on: August 16, 2011, 07:43:05 PM »

94
Lenses / Re: Hello and What to put in my camera bag to come?
« on: August 16, 2011, 11:51:20 AM »
+1 for the 24-105mm f/4L IS.  I would add a 70-200mm f/4L IS to that.  As for a prime, if you're going to go with just one, I'd do something wider than an 85mm or 135mm.  I have the 135 f/2L and the 85mm f/1.8, but the prime that lives on my camera is the 50mm f/1.2L.  I just find the 50mm to be a nice balance for most scenes, and it's a relatively compact and easy to handle lens.  On several occasions, it's been the only lens I've taken with me on shoots.  These three lenses on a full frame camera would deliver a lot of capability while keeping your bag relatively light and portable.  Add a wide prime and a telephoto prime down the road and you'd be golden.

I use to have f/2.8 zooms but sold them to buy even faster primes.  When I had some bank to spare for zooms again, I went the f/4 route.  If I need something for low light or shallow depth of field, I have a couple super-fast primes within reach. 

95
Software & Accessories / Re: Focus Screens and Calibrators
« on: August 16, 2011, 11:13:01 AM »
Is the Brightscreen worth $200 compared to Canon's $30 screen for Zeiss lenses on a 5D Mark Dos?

96
Lenses / Re: Which is the best "normal" prime for a Crop Camera?
« on: August 15, 2011, 08:34:38 PM »
+1 for the 35mm f/2.  If you're wanting to go a little old school, this is your lens.  The IQ is superior to the 28 f/1.8.  Yes, the autofocus is a little loud, but who cares?  The shutter of a camera is loud too. 

97
Software & Accessories / Focus Screens and Calibrators
« on: August 15, 2011, 07:57:25 PM »
Hey all,

Two questions:

How does the Brightscreen manual focus screen compare with Canon's own, say the EG-S for the 5D Mark II?

What do people have to say about the Spyder Pro or Elite display calibrator?  Anything more highly recommended? 

98
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 08:49:08 PM »
Holy Holga!

99
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on primes
« on: July 13, 2011, 08:06:39 PM »
+ for the 85mm.  I use the 135mm on my 5D for stuff like ballets.  On APS-C it's going to be really close.  If you like portraits where the head fills the frame and then some, go with the 85mm and you can always crop it tighter.

100
Lenses / Re: 14-24L & 24-70L II Talked About Again
« on: July 12, 2011, 07:30:08 PM »
I'd like to see 28-70/2.8L IS instead

I'd like to see IS & non-IS versions of both.  I'd probably go for the non-IS version for the 14-24, but I could see more video orientated people going for the IS version if it existed.  For the 24-70, I'd want the IS version for sure though.

Whats the point of two version, just use of IS on/off will do the job. If cost is the reason, then current version is fine. I don't see point of two version of 24-70 II IS

What's the point of two 70-200/4 & two 70-200/2.8 then?

Adding IS isn't all positives.  It adds significant size, weight, complexity, and the biggest issue for most; cost. Best case scenario, IS will only add $500-600 to the cost.  That's still a fairly significant sum.  I'm sure many people that don't want or need IS would opt for the non-IS version.

Right, so the point was that if someone doesn't want the IS version, they can buy the non-IS version which already exists.  I just don't understand why someone is getting on this forum and asking for a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 non-IS.  JUST GO BUY IT.  IT'S FOR SALE NOW.

101
Lenses / Re: recommend me a telephoto lens
« on: July 10, 2011, 03:59:00 PM »
The tele-extenders work for both lenses.  The 70-200mm f/4L IS focuses very quickly and produces amazing images.  With a 1.4 converter on there, you're still shy of the 100-400's reach, so the question you need to ask yourself is, "Do I need 400mm at f/5.6?"  If the answer is you don't need the range at all, go with the 70-200mm; if the answer is you need the range, but don't care about the maximum aperture, optimal image quality, or autofocus speed, get the 70-200mm and throw a 2x converter on there (f/8 constant, but degraded image quality).  Otherwise, go for the EF 100-400mm.  I've never used it, but I hear it's a decent lens.

102
Just fix the 5D.  The remaining $800 you'll save can be put towards a 5D III down the road. 

103
United States / Re: picking out lens
« on: July 09, 2011, 03:32:45 PM »
With that budget, I'd go for the EF-S 60mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm for wide landscapes, and the 70-200mm f/4 IS for the sports and telephoto landscapes.  I've used that lens for several equestrian events and it is perfect for them.  You could also ditch the EF-S 60mm and buy an extension tube to use with the 70-200mm to give it a closer minimum focusing distance. 

104
Software & Accessories / Re: Graduated Neutral Density
« on: July 07, 2011, 10:45:23 PM »
I definitely understand what you're saying with loss of detail.  I'm wondering if I just haven't used the L3 feature enough, since I've never lost enough detail to really notice, but then again, we're essentially talking about one to three stops of light.  I don't have my filters anymore to do a side by side comparison.  Would someone mind posting a pair of images, one with the grad nd and one with post-processing?

105
Software & Accessories / Graduated Neutral Density
« on: July 07, 2011, 09:21:31 PM »
So I made a claim in a recent post that Lightroom 3's capabilities essentially negate the need for carrying a graduated neutral density filter.  Perhaps a premature assertion.  I'd be curious to hear from the forum on the matter and I'd rather avoid the 'purist' argument (though I do respect it).  I'm interested more in whether landscape photographers and the like have found the graduated neutral density feature on Lightroom as technically effective as I have.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8