November 20, 2014, 04:22:04 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 66
466
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Press event on may 31st
« on: June 01, 2013, 09:55:04 AM »
I think it will be Canon announcing it's first 3D printer.... and it probably comes with the file to print a 70D body and a 1200F5.6 lens....

3D Printer?  Will it come with the gun-making software?

467
Lenses / Re: Very Stuck Filter
« on: May 31, 2013, 09:36:12 AM »
Bornshooter... That was really a helpful reply for Hector? Thanks!!!

"This is why i dont use uv filters if the glass would have broke your lens would have been damaged anyway"

Hector...if you are not super handy and confident with tools...I think your best bet is to send the lens to Canon as some here have suggested.  Unfortunate situation...be then you can rest easy and they can check out the lens too just to make sure that it is operating properly.


468
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 15 vs Canon 14
« on: May 28, 2013, 09:53:46 PM »
Zeiss 15mm vs Canon 14mm is no contest. Zeiss wins.
I am deciding between Zeiss 15mm and Canon TSE 17mm.  That is a tough decision.

469
Can anyone tell me if they know of any 5DMark III's  "Bricking" (which I assume means freezing up and becoming non-responsive? ...if I am wrong about that term...please inform me)??????
I only shoot still and think that the 5DIII is one incredible camera...so I do not have a strong desire to install ML on my camera unless in the final version there are some truly compelling features for still shooters.

470
Question: My main issue with "free" Flickr is (or was?) that only the newest 300 shots or something like that are shown - has this changed or do I still need a paid account to be able to show older shots?

It appears all the photos on the stream are viewable now, I need to check again, but in that case it really makes me happy. I was contemplating paying just so all the photos are viewable, but now (along with my effective ad blocker) I have no reason to pay, and I do like the new look, so I'm happy :)

What is your effective ad blocker???????    :P

471
Software & Accessories / Re: Horror has a face -- new Flickr
« on: May 20, 2013, 11:26:31 PM »
Uh oh...so far I like it.
I like the layout and the banner at the top. It is simple and straightforward.
I also think that my photos look much cleaner on the new site. (but that could totally be my imagination...dunno).
Sometimes we react poorly to change,  especially when we have no warning or control over the situation.
Although, I have a free account at this point and according to what I have read, I am going to get slammed with advertising somehow...but I have not seen that on my page....YET?

472
Your 6D image is back focused and has shallower DOF.

Yes, you are DEFINITELY back-focused.

473
Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:16:53 AM »

"I bought the Sigma 15 but had to return it. It was overexposing (inconsistently), the corners were mushy at any f-stop, darker and discolored, the colors were OK but not quite right. I bought a used Canon 15 which is a much better lens. "m


I agree completely...the old Canon is the best buy...love the shot of Times Square...it's workin!

474
Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 17, 2013, 07:45:54 AM »
i have the canon 15mm fisheye picked it up used on ebay for $650 a couple of weeks ago. i have used the 8-15L my photo buddy has one and i was going to get one my self but, i couldn't part with the price of entry for the L zoom just to expensive for a specialized lens for occasional use so i went for the alternative, wonderful lens, sharp at f/2.8, fun to use and reasonably cheap, recommended ;)

So....can you borrow your bud's Zoom and give us a side-by-side at 15mm f/4 with a 100% crop for comparison???!!!!???!!!!????   :P
Actually ...I don't really need it...I am very happy with my Canon 15mm f/2.8..paid same price as you..bought it new just as the 8-15mm zoom hit the market.  Its a cool lens, and perfect for "my" needs!!!!!

475
Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 17, 2013, 06:16:29 AM »
eml....GREAT images...especially love the one of your son....fantastic composition, focus point...it has it all!!!!
I was not aware of the IQ (sharpness) differences between the old Canon 15mm f/2.8 and the new Canon 8-15mm Zoom @ 15mm, (but you know your stuff so I am not questioning your observation).Since the new zoom is 24 years newer...I guess it should have better IQ! LOL!
What the 8-15mm brings to the table is weather sealing, more versatility (I have no real interest in making circular images on my FF...just not my thing) and better flare & CA control....
I have to say...I rarely use my 15mm, but do enjoy the process...many times I get it out of the bag and check a scene only to put it away as it is not working for me...one has to choose ones images carefully with that lens.  I find the small size and lesser cost are also benefits to me for a lens that is not used that often. ...and I have to say that I find that the images that I do take with the lens to be plenty sharp, even for the age of the design. They are very sharp across the frame. I do need my CA sliders in LR for this lens, too...no doubt...but it cleans up nicely. Cost around $600 on ebay...could be cheaper if you get lucky.
I have noticed that some posts are bringing up the Canon 14mm, and also the Zeiss 15mm (killer lens) and the Canon 17mm TSE (double killer lens)...but, (respectfully) these are all rectilinear lenses and I just don't see how they fit into a "fisheye" discussion...They do not apply for me in this context. If I want a fisheye...I WANT the curvature and distortion. That is the whole point to me when I grab that lens.   :-) (now if our discussion was about running fisheye shots thru software to remove distortion, I could see those comparisons to be useful).
I guess it would be nice to have the new 8-15mm zoom on site...but the cost, weight and size (vs. amount of use) deter me from that purchase...although apparently the IQ is better.  (Have looked for side-by-side image comparisons of the 15mm f/2.8 vs. Canon 8-15mm f/4L on the web @ 15mm...but am coming up empty  :()


476
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:03:03 PM »
Desktops have changed!

477
Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 16, 2013, 08:00:03 AM »
Pick- up a used (maybe new on eBay), Canon 15mm f/2.8).  Small, sharp and well built...I even like the whirring of the older focus motor...it is a cute novelty.  Fisheye shooting is a lot of fun.

478
Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:47:31 PM »
After seeing this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market.  I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....

Please see this:

On November 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Jasmin Robert said:

Hi Roger!

Any new problem with this lens? Any others which has failed in the mean time? How does the one repaired hold up now, are they sharp?

I would like to buy this lens but I’m not sure since reading this report, and now that the Canon 24-70mm F/4 has been announced with the macro mode, I’m even less sure! thanks!

On November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:

Hi Jasmin,

No new trouble and no more copies to have the second element problem. It’s really doing pretty well, and quite a nice lens.

That's great...but the reviewer at The Digital Picture just purchased TWO unacceptable lenses and sent the lens in to Tamron for a repair and had the lens returned unrepaired.?...reinforcing the bad experience that Roger had with lens elements falling out. I have been shooting for well over 40 years....I have never heard of that kind of failure for a Lens in that price range. (There may be other incidence of elements falling out, but I am unaware of any).
Each of us can make our own decisions..I have stated mine and backed it with supporting info as to my choice. Everyone is free to make their individual choice, as well. If we take in all the evidence here and read some of the experiences in the post above, purchasing this lens seems very risky to this photographer.
I have to say I purchased a great copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and am very happy even at the high cost.

479
Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:51:12 PM »
After seeing this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market.  I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....

480
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording
« on: May 13, 2013, 08:20:37 AM »
Ahhhh....The embarrassment.....for Canon....

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 66