October 30, 2014, 09:29:48 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 - bseitz234

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 20
121
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 07, 2013, 08:04:04 AM »

From time to time i bump into this pearl of wisdom.
Since this is CR and not Instagram's "#look what i ate today!" lets see some examples of how difficult it really is to  exceeded the capabilities of the 7d in question:

  • Do you still get random OOFs when tracking even though you played with the settings and your technique is adequate?
  • Have you ever hit buffer limit?
  • Ever disappointed by WB under artificial lighting?
  • You tried to lift shadows only to find the surprise underneath?
  • You get sky noise even though you're shooting below 400?
  • You dont get useful 1600s+?
  • Did you ever tried autoiso only to find its a slopy implementation?
  • Weak AF under low light?
  • Meter goes bananas in challenging situations?

Have you ever bumped into any of the situations above? Well congrats you  are one of the "two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own" according to SiliconVoiD ::)

Yesss I knew I was something special ::) and despite the random OOF shots, I love the beautifully sharp in-focus shot I got when the AF decided to wake up, and I am learning to rely less on the meter and pick my own exposures, and by nailing exposures don't have to lift shadows. I would wholeheartedly reccomend the 7d to anyone who wants more out of a camera, but doesn't have the money to go FF: hell, they're available on the refurb store for $1019. Anyway, the light's nice this morning, I'm going outside now.

122
Well if you slapped a $2000 70-200 IS II or 24-70 2.8 II on the X7/SL1/100D, I'm sure you'd be a lot closer to those D3200 pics, which I'm sure were taken with the best lenses that Nikon corporate could use to maximize the camera...

123
Not much to comment on- I generally like them, especially keeping in mind who these pictures are really intended for (buyers looking for a house.)

For me, the outdoor colors are too vivid and saturated. I like the indoor ones- but the exterior shots I just find a little overwhelming. Particularly the blues, but they don't feel "cool", like the white balance is off. I think there's just a lot of blue, and the overall saturation makes it feel overwhelming. I'd dial that back a bit. Otherwise, the composition looks interesting, helps to visualize the house, etc.

124
Canon General / Re: Just Why
« on: May 01, 2013, 04:53:13 PM »
Just why do you think it needs one? 

dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.

If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace).  They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.

A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.

Come on, Neuro, you don't want to throw B+W a $750 bone after paying $13k for that 600? ;-)

125
Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: April 30, 2013, 10:16:40 AM »
Is there a reason you think you need a focal length beyond 85mm or 105mm?  I've never been to that part of the world, but imagine that most of the photo opportunities will be on the wide to normal focal lengths.  Remember that the 7D is a crop body and will provide an effective 1.6x zoom on the lenses you decide to take on the trip.   If you are set on taking your Tokina 11-16mm, I'd recommend a 24-105mm f/4L IS zoom.  They can be had at very good prices for a lens that was sold as part of a kit; maybe better priced if you don't mind a slightly used lens.  I think you will find that 105mm on a 7D long enough and if not, you have 18MP to work with and crop.

If you wanted a one lens solution know that there are IQ compromises with any of the super zooms that you mention.  If again, you can live with 85mm on the long end, I would recommend the Canon 15-85mm EFS USM IS lens.  It is wide enough that you might just leave the Tokina at home and travel ultra light.  Maybe throw in a 40mm f/2.8 USM (cheap at $150) for the times you need a wider aperture. 

Good luck with whatever you choose and have a fun time in Israel!

Kind regards,
Jason S.

+1. Great, well-thought post.

126
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon refurb sale...what happened?
« on: April 29, 2013, 04:38:27 PM »
The sale still shows up.  Sometimes, a product is sold out by multiple buyers processing orders at the same time, Canon sells maybe hundreds or thousands of some lenses.  They cancel the orders they can't fill if this happens.
 
This happened to me with the super popular 70-200mm f/2.8L MK II.  The next time it was on sale, I bought it in time.

I called and the rep didn't have any idea what happened.  Then she said it was out of stock so she couldn't put in my order.  She offered to honor the sale once it comes back in stock.  I'm curious, did you get an email from Canon letting you know what happened?  Or did they just cancel your order?  That seems like pretty poor customer service.  At the least I should have gotten an email that says, "Sorry we weren't able to fill your order".  Plus they charged me, which is also strange.  Just frustrating.  I thought I was getting a 600ex this week, I guess not!

This happened to me around Christmas time... bought a refurb 7D and 70-200 2.8 non-is. They cancelled the whole thing, I called, the 70-200 was out of stock and the 7d was no longer on sale, but they wouldn't honor the sale price even though they cancelled the 7d because the 70-200 was out of stock.

Long story short, I got the 7D for refurb sale price (which had expired), and a new 70-200 for less than refurb price. So, might as well call and ask for a manager...

127
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]
« on: April 27, 2013, 12:13:10 PM »
some say we could pre order it in a few weeks...

May 14th is only a few weeks...  ::)

128
Software & Accessories / Re: Screw-on ND filter for 16-35 II
« on: April 25, 2013, 11:32:00 AM »
Related question for those using ND filters, since I've never used one but am starting to get inspired: is it worth getting MRC? On UV and CPL filters, it doesn't seem to affect the price as much- but for some reason, the MRC version of B+W's 10-stop is twice as expensive as the single-coated version... would love to hear thoughts on the matter!

Thanks,
Brian

129
EOS Bodies / Re: The sound of silence
« on: April 24, 2013, 01:46:28 PM »
Speaking of silence, check out this hilarious review from the camera store on the "new" T5i:

Canon Rebel T5i (700d) Hands-On

hahah, that's great. I needed a laugh this afternoon...

130
Technical Support / Re: Urgent Help Requested:Photos for my website
« on: April 23, 2013, 08:56:09 PM »
Here I am, drunk on a tuesday night ... don't tell my boss.

Amen to that. Except it's not that late here...

131
Reviews / Re: Sigma 30mm F/1.4 for Canon Review with the 7D
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:39:54 AM »
Do you have sample images from this lens somewhere that aren't in video form? I'd love to see some 100% crops, particularly in high-CA situations, if you have any...

132
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:38:35 AM »
I tested Canon 35 f1.4 (that I own) and Sigma 35 f1.4 (that I jumped to buy immediately) and Canon lens has a more pleasing bokeh and image. I made the comparison on screen and paper (1000mmx700mm printed images).

Truly, the Sigma looks crisper, but I prefer a general beter looking image.
I made this comparison because I could sell my used Canon 35 f1.4 at the price of a new Sigma 35 f1.4 and I almost made the switch, but then I said to try the Sigma first.

I decided to keep my Canon lens from two reasons:

1. Sigma did not demonstrated yet that can make a working horse (I had a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and was extremely unreliable). I can`t afford to have bad working lenses or on repair for weeks in a row. This will be a disaster for me.

2. The images printed looked beter from Canon. The colours and general image are more appealing.

In the last years  we are all looking at the numbers, but nobody looks at pictures anymore.

I got the idea that the Sigma is cheap, but I do not want cheap, I want the best Image and reliability.

And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.

no , sorry I don't

please show me, I have  both canon 35/1,4 and the sigma 35/1,4

Might be because you did not own a Sigma before.
I owned "the 50mm" from Sigma and it was so unreliable. The "internet" is screaming of the problems that Sigma lenses has.
If Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony charge so much for a high performance lens, how Sigma did it so cheap? Has to be something wrong inside. Something that will crack when the lens will have to hork hard.

The "internet"? Meaning, not actually the Internet, but something posing as it? an intranet that really wants to be the Internet?

133
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L **non IS**
« on: April 19, 2013, 02:20:57 PM »
I mean, I love this lens as much as anyone, but why is this a thread? There's a thread for this lens in the sample gallery....


134
Lenses / Re: 24-105 &/or 24-70
« on: April 19, 2013, 01:36:52 PM »
Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.

Has a lot of distortion at 24, but it gets softer at the long end. Different kinds of flaws.

135
Software & Accessories / Re: Websites
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:44:10 AM »

Anyways, I was fortunate to be forced to learn HTML many moons ago and like babysteps learned CSS and html5 and such and have built my website from scratch...  It's still not perfect but at least if anything needs changed, i can do it myself quickly and upgrade as I go along.

Yeah, I have made a hobby of learning PHP, HTML, CSS, and a little bit of javascript... enables me to piece together a small page pretty quickly. Right now my coding is much prettier than my styling, though, so if you know CSS I'd be happy to throw together some backend scripts to do what you want to do. ;)

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 20