February 28, 2015, 02:30:23 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 - expatinasia

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69
1
You are right and I am sure they will be very heavily regulated.

Just look at what has happened recently in France. A few months ago drones flew over nuclear power stations, and just a few days ago there were drones flying at night (illegal for any aircraft) over the city of Paris.

There have been plenty of other issues with them all over the world.


2
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 27, 2015, 04:55:20 AM »
Of course none of us have had an 11mm rectilinear to play with so far so we don't know exactly how it will fit in, but I do know, if the IQ is as sound as all recent Canon lenses, then it will get used for my architectural and real estate work immediately, but I don't envision using it for travel where I often shoot in the 24-35 range. For my personal uses I see a good need for both, and I am certainly in no hurry to sell my 16-35 f4 IS.

Yes, I have every confidence that the 11-24 will be an amazing lens.

I definitely won't be getting both, it will be one or the other for me. When you do your real estate work, what would you shoot your interiors with? I am sure the 11-24 for the exteriors and even certain interiors will be terrific, but small rooms can be more difficult as the wider you go the more distortion you get.


3
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:43:04 PM »
It isn't really, it is the classic need to prioritize.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a superb lens, it embarrasses the much vaunted Nikon 14-24 everywhere but at f2.8-f4 and from 14-16mm. I can't believe the 11-24 will have 'better' IQ in the same range as the 16-35 f4 IS and they are the same speed, so, do you use filters? If so will you need them on the 11-24? How much do you feel you will need 11-16? And will you miss 24-35? What compromises are you prepared to put up with to have that 11-16mm focal length? For instance, problematic filter use, comparatively heavy, no IS, much more fragile to work with (no hood or front protective filter on a very exposed and expensive curved element) shorter zoom range and three times the price.

Truthfully the two lenses are completely different which is why, if the 11-24 tests out well, I will own both. It is like the 300mm prime question, you want the f2.8 over the f4 but do you really need it, well do you absolutely need 11-16? If not the 16-35 is a much better lens, if you do, then the 16-35 is irrelevant.

All good points privatebydesign, thanks. I will test them both out next month and see which fits my requirements the most.

Choosing which of the big whites was much easier for me as I use them in very specific environments, and it is very hard to beat the 400 f/2.8 ii for what I do.

With lenses such as the 11-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/4 IS however it is a very different part of my work, and they nearly always get used on a tripod and would be used for both stills and video.

I have a month to decide so will keep looking at samples and then will try them both out and make a final decision. Whichever I choose will be replacing my 17-40 and as I have never used 11-16 lengths I am unsure how well it fits in with my work.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:12:51 PM »
Hi,
    Found some images shoot by this lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29823753@N02/sets/72157648710973594/

    Have a nice day.

Thanks for sharing. Some nice shots of Singapore there.

I am going to have to decide between this and the 16-35 f/4 IS. I don't want both, and it is quite a hard decision.

5
Lenses / Re: Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm
« on: February 20, 2015, 07:14:50 PM »
I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
This comparison is with the old 400 DO, the new version is not up on dp site yet and will look much better in the comparison.

You are right.

I was just highlighting that the new 100-400 may be an option.

6
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:43:20 AM »
Quote
Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?

I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.

It's been made redundant.  I'm planning to list the 17-40mm on ebay, but since the release of the 16-35 f/4 theirs site has been awash with them, here in the UK.  So i'm biding my time in the hope that it will make better money in the future.

Thanks, I thought you might say that. Will definitely be getting a 16-35 f/4 now.

7
Lenses / Re: Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:41:43 AM »
I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

8
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:25:45 AM »
I've got four zoom L lenses the 16-35 f4, 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6.  The 16-35 f4 is the only one that i'm true confidence in, to handle the increased resolution.  It's that good a lens, time will tell.

Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?

I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Replacement in 2016 [CR1]
« on: February 20, 2015, 01:03:35 AM »
Just look at who most widely uses the 1DX and D4 level cameras.  Sports, journalists, and wildlife shooters.  It a ridiculous ratio favoring Canon. People that deeply invested in such a system aren't going to jump to a Nikon in large numbers unless it is so absurdly superior to their current 1Dx rigs and even then it would be difficult.  Just look at the CR post yesterday about the journalism awards.  It's something like 60-70% Canon systems and then everyone else?  That is not a market that easily converts I would imagine not just because of the bodies, but largely because of the glass.  I would suspect any limelight a D5 would enjoy is going to be very, very short lived as Canon will almost immediately begin to leak specs of a 1DX2 just to pee on Nikon's little campfire.

Definitely, and it's not just the glass and bodies. The menu system is very important too. When you are on the sidelines of game, it is important to know your camera as well as you know your wife. You need to know how to get the best out of her, and switching camera manufacturers would mean learning an entirely new menu and  button system.

I know a couple of part time pros that made the switch but they did not have any big whites, all their glass was wide angle or max 70-200.

When I am at a game, I will talk to my friends about their Nikons and their lenses, but I am not going to switch, and I doubt they will either.

10
TDP's reviews are among the best on the internet. They are the ones I look to first when I buy a lens. DP follows TDP.

Anyway, am looking forward to some direct comparisons to this and the 16-35L f/4 IS.

11
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Still Live: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body $1999
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:37:33 AM »
I think these sales really prove that the number of people using expensive gear hasn't fallen off in recent years, which in fact the opposite is true.

What this proves is that people are happy with what they have because the new cameras are either too expensive to justify replacing new gear and/or don't have the added features to make them upgrade.

There are plenty of photographers to support this market and they have plenty of money to spend when they see a reason to spend it. Paying $3500 for upgraded AF is a joke to many people, but $2000 is much more tempting. Many people would rather spend that money of traveling to nice places.

It's probably going to take a revolutionary new sensor to make the camera world turn upside down again with upgrades, which also boosts the used market and gets people into photography at lower price points. Everything else tossed at the wall in the last 5 years has failed to get the market spending money again.

Sorry, but it does not prove anything. All you know (supposedly) is a few thousand bought at an amazing price. That's it.


12
Congratulations on your purchase.

What are you going to be using it for? It has "Sport" in the name but it is not really a lens for sports.

I am sure many here would like to hear your opinions once you have used it a bit.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 06:13:47 AM »
We all know glasses are coming our way. Eventually.

I didn't follow the debate recently, but at least over here (Germany) there was serious opposition to Google's glasses, the same goes for any kind of surveillance that isn't indicated as such or clearly visible. I faintly remember that for some time, mobile phones were forced or at least strongly suggested to make a loud "CLICK!" sound when taking a picture for the same reason.

Good point. That is one thing that always bothered me about those Google glasses, the question about whether you are being recorded or not. That would make me feel uncomfortable.

A pair of glasses without a camera, but with a HUD that can offer instantaneous translation or act as my eyes when I am on a bike, stuff like that, then I am all for it. Still some way off yet, but am looking forward to it!

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 05:01:10 AM »
I think you are being a little bit harsh. Sony has not only created, but also invented, some amazing stuff over the years.

We all know glasses are coming our way. Eventually.

Google made a splash, now others are having a go.

Personally I am really looking forward to someone (reliable) getting it right.

Imagine cycling with a HUD in a corner of your glasses, perhaps even rear view mirrors so you can see what is behind or along side. And that is just one small thing.

I would bet that most of us will have a pair of "smart" glasses of one form or another within the next 10 years.

If it is Panasonic, Sony, or Oakley, I don't care. Though, I would prefer the latter! ;-)

15
Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

In addition Matt Granger posted images showing the Tammy to be equal or better than the 14-24.

Why are people comparing this Tamron to a Nikon lens. This is a Canon forum, and as such not many of us will have Nikon.

Comparisons are only really worth anything if they are against a comparable Canon-compatible lens such as the 16-35 f/4 IS.

And from where I am sitting the Tamron does not do too well at all in the TDP tests against that lens at f/2.8.

Real world is all that counts but unless there was a serious mistake in the TDP assessment then it looks disappointing at f/2.8.

Mind you, I wonder how many would actually be using it at f/2.8, but still.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69