April 19, 2014, 07:12:57 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 99
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Ideas for a new Tripod
« on: August 20, 2013, 01:35:34 PM »
I had a Manfrotto 055PROB which I loved except for it's weight... it was too heavy to strap to a back pack and hike around. Now I am

I would like something between 2-3lbs
Can collapse to 6 " from ground for macro (no 12" center columns)
Can support 10lbs (My biggest lens is the 70-200 mk.II)

Some nice to haves would be small folded footprint (prefer 12-15")
Ability to convert into a monopod, but not at the expense of 2 requirements above.

Price range : up to $400

What would you guys get?

Seriously.... why doesn't Canon Hire Alex and his team....  Way back when I was done with a 350d and kit lens, I was not system dependant... I could have gone Nikon or Canon... ML brought me to the Canon camp. How many 5D2 users have stayed with Canon due to ML... it's amazing how ML has helped Canon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70d + 70-200 II vs. 5d III
« on: July 15, 2013, 12:15:23 PM »
I have a 6D, and I'm very pleased with the AF system. I use the center point AF anyway, since at wide open, I need to make sure I nail the focus point. 

As a back up wedding photographer, you really want to make sure that you are focusing on the Bride's eyes.  No amount of fancy AF system can dictate that for you.  You have to do it yourself.  With the center point AF, focus is instant fast.  I just focus, recompose, and shoot.  Simple as pie :).

The 6d certainly does look appealing. Potentially what I'll do is buy that kit B&H is currently selling and simply sell the printer and lens for a net of ~$800, giving me a $1200 6d.

+1                 No brainer.   :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70d + 70-200 II vs. 5d III
« on: July 14, 2013, 06:53:08 PM »
6D + 70-200 mk.ii gets you what you want. AF may be less compared to 5d3, but for what you do it might even be better in low light... it has better high ISO, wifi, about 1800 cheaper... I'd get the 6D.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 10, 2013, 06:29:31 PM »
One recent one...

Lenses / Re: EF 200mm f2 , how much do you use it and for what?
« on: July 07, 2013, 04:31:06 PM »
Do you really need an extra stop?  :P

I am in the same boat... OI have about 6-7k to spend... I also already have the 70-200 mk.ii, but always had a thing for the 200 F2, but am leaning towards the 300 2.8ii

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 03, 2013, 02:44:16 PM »
When do we get to see RAW footage?

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 2.8 ll, Thanks BuyDig.com and Canon Rumors
« on: June 25, 2013, 04:02:36 PM »
Anyone has experiences with Big Value Inc? Selling the 24-70ii for $1957...!

Lenses / Re: 24mm options...
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:46:26 PM »
Unless you make money off Architectural shots, I would consider selling the 24-105 and getting the 24-70ii. It replaces the zoom of the 24-105, is razor sharp at 24mm, better vignetting than the 24F1.4wide open, it might have some distortion but that is fixable in PP.

Also... you will not need to carry 2 lenses around.

But... if you need a specialized lens .... then the TSE and the 1.4 would fit the bill for roughly the same cash.

Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:36:10 PM »
I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

Yep - if you shoot indoor sports or the like, the extra stop and faster AF of the 100/2 make it a better choice.

Yes 2x the shutter speed also... albeit at a loss of sharpness. the 100/2 @F2 is not as sharp as the 100L is at 2.8.

But at 2.8 they are close, but it also defeats the advantage of a larger aperture of the 100 F2.

So if you want razor sharp images wide open, the 100L might be a better choice, if shutterspeed and AF speed are important then the duplication of ranges might be acceptable... although that would suggest you can afford a duplication, in which case, I'd suggest get the 135L and sell the 100F2, the 135L betters the 100F2 in almost every parameter.

 I too had the 86 F1.8 which some say is very similar to the 100F2, but it was no where as sharp as the 100L. Also the minimum Focus distance of the 100F2 was a tad disappointing... for me, so I sold them and kept the 100L.

Look at the video example in this article.... 53 secs, told me everything I needed to know:-)


Lenses / Re: Why no lenses like 35-135mm anymore?
« on: June 18, 2013, 01:14:37 PM »
I would prefer a 20-120 f/4 IS. Makes the 17-40 less necessary to get those wider angles.

Or a 20-60mm f4  that is sharp in the corners & without distortion... I'd pay $1200- 1600 for one like this and up to 2000 for a F2.8 version.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 17, 2013, 08:29:08 PM »
Not best shot... but I like this. It was taken with a Powershot SX50 HS

@215mm that's a 35mm equivalent of 1200mm ! 


The lack of DR is evident... but I am not complaining for the price. again, great value, this much reach and IS, for less than $500.

Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: June 17, 2013, 04:43:15 PM »
Here is a shot I have been working on all day with the 100L

Para todos los Venezolanos 2 by CastilloPhotoDesign, on Flickr

Wonderful...  Always admire your work!

Custom built rig:

Win 7 64bit
i7-960 running at 4.16Ghz  x4/8HT
Samsung 830 256GB SSD
nVidia 460GTX

CS5 runs just fine no issues... LR4 run like a Dog...  I am out of ideas how to speed up LR4 apart from switching off the HT cores.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 99