October 26, 2014, 05:34:31 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 - RMC33

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29
16

No, because it will stay at home as I don't plan on dragging around a ~$800 dollar lens on holiday that weighs 200-400g more because of a system that I don't need. I have not needed IS to shoot with my current 50 1.4 ever, 24-70 Mk1/2 or any lens that "needs" IS. Like I said, A 50 STM f/2 with IS for the video and "I want IS" crowd would be great and I may even buy that next to a 50 f/1.4 II but IS on everything is just expensive and heavy~

EF 28mm f2.8 weights 185 gm, EF 28mm f2.8 USM IS weights 260 gm. This difference is only 75 gm. I do not know where did you get the 200-400 gm information. If you do not want to bring a $800 lens on a trip then would you bring a $1800 camera body on a trip???


What $1800 dollar camera body? I would bring an SL1 or some such on holiday. There is more glass in the 50 vs the 28. I would hazard a guess at 100-125g increase at tops for a 50 with IS not 200-400 like I stated, which is still too much. A ring type USM would also be welcome, rather then a micro motor.

17

Subscription based licensing is where most software will be headed. It reduces overhead costs (big reason) and allows a company to apply for a "Green" waste reduction credit on their taxes (small amount) by not selling a boxed version and not producing a large amount of waste in terms of packaging.


Overhead costs of a company are none of my concern. If a company can't manage their income & expense's, no amount of money will fix that. Infact, all it will lead to is price gouging in the future.

Now online only download .exe's for install is a good idea, no more packaging.

If you use their product it should be your concern as a consumer buying and using their product. If they cant manage their income and expenses I am not sure how money (which is derived from that) will make any difference. That result is form poor management and accounting which adobe does not have.

They are trying to prevent Piracy (which, in fact they are increasing) with the current model. Either way, $600/yr for software that would cost me and my GF close to $4500 every update cycle is very nice.

18
The 50mm f/1.4 is, by far, my most-used lens.  I’m with you 100%.

I’m a little concerned that it might be slower in order to accommodate IS, but the 35mm f/2.0 IS gives me hop!  4-stop IS on an f/1.4 aperture would be a dream come true for me!

For those saying “why do you need IS on a non-tele with that big of an aperture?!”, well, some of us need to run and gun in low-light where a tripod would be extremely prohibitive. (for me, alpine starts while mountaineering. “Hey rope team, do you mind if I get out my tripod and and get some shots with mirror lockup?  I know that it’s 2am and dark, windy, and cold but ISO 6400 makes baby Jebus cry…”)

Keep the dram alive!

I'm with you there, IS is great for low light landscapes to keep the ISO down and ensure optimium aperture for DOF and also for handheld video where it is impractical to use a tripod- mountaineering is one of those applications!
I am with you too. I cannot see any reason for people to be "against" IS on standard and wide angle lenses. Just imagine when you are a tourist inside  any of the palaces or the great churches. Do you want your wide angle lens to have IS or not ?

No, because it will stay at home as I don't plan on dragging around a ~$800 dollar lens on holiday that weighs 200-400g more because of a system that I don't need. I have not needed IS to shoot with my current 50 1.4 ever, 24-70 Mk1/2 or any lens that "needs" IS. Like I said, A 50 STM f/2 with IS for the video and "I want IS" crowd would be great and I may even buy that next to a 50 f/1.4 II but IS on everything is just expensive and heavy~

19
An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great.

+1000

I don't shoot video, don't need IS on a fast 50mm and certainly don't want want it made larger and more expensive to accommodate it.  Just want that #&@$ 'micro' USM replaced with 'ring' USM.

Give me Ring USM or give me death!

20
I guess every Adobe-related post will now devolve into rants for/against Creative Cloud.

Is it really worth all that hot air?

Subscription based licensing is where most software will be headed. It reduces overhead costs (big reason) and allows a company to apply for a "Green" waste reduction credit on their taxes (small amount) by not selling a boxed version and not producing a large amount of waste in terms of packaging.

I have 0 complaints about CC, and have even been able to increase my work load because it has allowed me to offer new services to my clients at a better rate. I did this with CAD software a year ago, and have not looked back. Personally I would rather pay by the year, then by the month but all in all having access to Acrobat Pro for custom forms, InDesign for a much easier book building experience for both me and the client (Asuka and Baybooks). Latest updates before they hit the streets is nice, as it gives me a chance to tell friends good or bad. Access to all the software my GF uses for her web-design (Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and PS) is a huge Plus and saved us over $2000 in re-buying all the software for her computer.

21
Where is the, Downloading from CC now option? Using it currently and its not bad~

22
Hi all here who knows better than me about the future upgrades!


I wonder if there might be a small  or any chance, that Canon may or will produce an upgrade of the white Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM in near future?


Wishing you all happy shootings!


Greetings from Europe and Sweden!


C

There have been no upgrade rumors.  Its not a fast selling lens, and is not easy to resell, so don't expect Canon to invest in a upgrade in the next 10 years.  There are just too many other lenses to upgrade, and there are "M" lenses, Cinema lenses, etc that are taking a lot of Canons design resources.

Indicators of Canon having little to no stock of the 200 f/2 (numerous sources have stated this) would suggests that there is an upgrade in the pipeline or that it is just a very good selling lens. Got mine for $4100 used and could easily sell it for $5000. Canon will do the 200 f/2 when it does the 800 f/5.6 as those lenses are same generation.

23
An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great. A second model with a STM and IS for video/people who want IS would be great. IS has its place and yes it can be shut off, but I feel the market is large enough for two versions, say a 50 f/2 STM IS and 50 1.4 (updated).

24
Hi all here who knows better than me about the future upgrades!


I wonder if there might be a small  or any chance, that Canon may or will produce an upgrade of the white Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM in near future?


Wishing you all happy shootings!


Greetings from Europe and Sweden!


C

It has at-least 5 years. Would it need an upgrade? Not really. I would like mine to be lighter, but after working with it for the last 6 months (and a Mk1 400 2.8 over the last year and a half) I have to say the ONLY thing I would want is PF mode for certain situations, and IS mode 3.

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 29, 2013, 09:44:10 PM »
PBD, Cool photo. It's about 2:1 Canon.

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:24:10 PM »
Man, Mik derails threads like my 1dx/5d3 produce great images, every time! Hell even my Leica M6 does good work still~

In regards to sports, the last two base ball (minor league) and kayaking events I have shot are all Canon shooters, and a boatload of converts for a better over all system, NOT JUST THE GD SENSOR OR LENS.

 Also, Bdunbar lemme know what your test ideas are to compare the two sensors, I have both bodies, a safe full of glass and a 220 ft long studio/shop I can shoot in~



27
EOS Bodies / Re: Digitalrev speculates on D7100 vs. 7D2
« on: May 29, 2013, 03:00:04 PM »
Pro body style 7D, 12 volt battery (faster lens drive), 50-55 point AF, ISO on par with 5d3/1Dx (1 stop less would be good  on par and Ill buy one the day it comes out), C-FN similar to the 1Dx, weather sealing similar to the 1Dx and dual CF. Start the price at $3500-4000 and it will sell. If you can't afford it or think "Oh thats too expensive" then don't buy it and wait, as we have seen over the last few generations of cameras the price drops quickly.

I know pro sports shooters who still use the 7D and 1DIV over the 1Dx due to the crop factor. Honestly comparing the 7D to the 6D is apples and oranges, one is intended for action while the other is geared more towards wedding photographers and people getting into studio or making the jump from APS-C to FF.

And to answer the question, how do you fit a gallon into a half gallon bucket? Pressurize it.

28
Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 24, 2013, 08:30:58 PM »
What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses.  "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!"  And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot.  Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot!  If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings?  The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site. 

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership.  If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks?  I know I wouldn't.

I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.

That's all I was saying too, and admitted it was just my opinion.  I don't think the 1.4 is better than the 1.2 by any means.  I do not, however, believe that the 1.2 is worth that much in price over the 1.4.  It does not take away from the quality of the 1.2, it's just to me, there isn't nearly enough extra quality to spend that much more money.  And yes, just my opinion.


Yup, just wanted to add a few things to your already solid opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see an updated 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4 that is as good as the 35.

29
Lenses / Re: Replacement foot for 500Mk 1
« on: May 24, 2013, 08:19:11 PM »
RRS or Kirk.  Make sure you have a good, long hex key and pull hard, use an extender (short length of pipe) if needed.

This pretty much, I have the RSS foot on my 400 and 500 MKII's. They make a great handle and I can shoulder both if needed while attached to a monopod.

30
Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 24, 2013, 08:15:23 PM »
What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses.  "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!"  And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot.  Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot!  If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings?  The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site. 

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership.  If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks?  I know I wouldn't.

I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29