April 20, 2014, 12:06:22 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 23
256
Canon General / Re: New lens: need filter advice
« on: January 10, 2012, 08:10:09 AM »
Only issues with "Stacking" filters is it can cause vignetting. 

I also heard the the B+W CPL MRC can introduce a bit of this as well and have been debating going to the slim for my CPL instead to negate this

257
Lighting / Re: Trouble shooting on the 430 EXII (HELP!)
« on: January 10, 2012, 05:43:53 AM »
Check the batteries.  Most of the time when I have run into trouble with my 430 EX II, not so much my 580 EX II has been the batteries were low or lowish

258
I think it is a little more complicated than that.  Some issues like vignetting that are inherent to a certain lens will respond differently on a crop body than a FF, and in some cases like that, a crop body can improve the performance.

Then again, wide angle lenses on a FF are not that wide on a crop for the same reason. 

For me, i find it easier to get bokeh on a FF because of my focal length choices and distance to subject.

259
Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software
« on: January 08, 2012, 12:44:07 PM »
Very interested in hearing more.  Sounds like most people are going with the Pro.  Is it worth i versus the Plus?  From what I can see, Pro mainly shows reports of what is going on, or am I missing something.

I have done no micro adjusting, so if this will help run through the process in a more automatic manner and help my images be overall sharper, well worth the investment.

260
EOS Bodies / Re: New 5D MK2 Owner
« on: January 07, 2012, 03:42:21 PM »
Shoot... Shoot... Then shoot some more...

261
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon price match the 1DX to the D4?
« on: January 07, 2012, 09:12:40 AM »
And again.. Until we see these Head to Head, one can not really judge.  Specs do not necessarily mean performance, otherwise everyone would be using Sigma 70-200s.

Both cameras seem to have their niches.  Canon delivers it appears bigger pictures. faster burst, and likely better ISO. 

AF looks to be a wait and see.  Canon seems to be 61 versus 51, but we will have to see how the AF points work, especially if Nikon is did this as a last minute Rube Goldberg to make the spec, it may not function as well as people think. 

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon price match the 1DX to the D4?
« on: January 07, 2012, 09:03:58 AM »
Why?

Small | Large


There are just as many specs where the 1Dx is BETTER than the D4.

Higher Resolution
Faster FPS
Native ISO I will lean towards Canon based upon past
More AF points.... It is yet to be seen whether the AF8 points in the Nikon make a difference as well as if that advantage is just limited

Nikon looks like it maybe slightly better on Video.

Hey Kia just came out with a new Optima... Maybe BMW will price match

263
EOS Bodies / Re: Whortwhile to go for 5D Mark II?
« on: January 06, 2012, 09:05:49 PM »
With the launch of the Nikon D4, such improvement like high ISO capabilities and advance video technology. Does the current 5Dmk2 still sufficient in today market? I'm seriously looking into getting one 5dmk2.

When the Lamborghini Reventon was announced, did it make the BMW 7 series irrelevant?

How much does the Nikon D4 cost?  $6000?  You could also look at the 1Dx which in many ways seems to offer more than the D4, but that is $6800?

The 5D MK II is pretty much 1/3rd the cost of either of those. 

Also unlike the D4 or the 1Dx, you can actually SHOOT the 5D MK II today... D4 and 1Dx... not so much.

Is the 5D MKII a little dated?  Perhaps.  Still takes excellent shots, you may have to work a little harder for them, but for the price of a D4, you can get a 5D MKII and a heck of a lot of nice L-Glass too

264
I should also say that I have spent a lot of time looking at the Sigmas, especially the 50-500 as well, and the 120-300.  The 120 to 300 seems like a fine lens, but also a 3K lens.  I think a lot of people would like an off-brand cheaper brand, but the more I look at reviews, sample images, it reminds me a lot of L glass versus plain EF glass.  Granted, I think a lot of the Sigma lenses are more comparable to the better Canon lenses when you are looking at their better lenses, but if it is sharpness you want, Canon seems to have the edge... Though were I to look at the 120-300 from Sigma versus the 100-400 from Canon, especially since it is a 2.8, but reviews I read indicate AF on the Sigma might struggle. 

265
I have never held and shot the Sigma, have the F4 Non-IS and just bought the 2.8 IS II.

When I was researching, I saw a lot of side by sides, not only of the F4 to 2.8 to 2.8 IS II, saw some Sigma 2.8 vs Canon 2.8 thrown in as well. 

Summary as I saw it:

-- Sigma is build cheap. Feel is not as good, but how much does that matter.
-- Sigma is soft, especially when looking at crops.

EDIT - I was thinking the Version II was a newer version, but the OS is newer I believe. You also could track down a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS Version 1 for close to the same amount of money on the used market.  I have been seeing a range of $1200 if you are patient to around $1400 or so on average)

266
When it comes down to it, even though I have had my 5D MK II for a month, have not shot one second of video.

Now my T2i is quite different.  I have had that for about 14 months and have maybe 25 minutes total video...

267
.... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
..

I thought for the same subject distance, the Crop has more OOF blur, but for the same framing the FF has more OOF blur... this is because on the FF, you need to get closer to the subject, thus the ratio of you to the subject vs the subject and the background is larger, where as with the crop, you need to be further back form the subject for the same framing; and when you move back, the ratio of you vs the subject and the subject vs the background becomesless... and that ratio defines the amount of OOF blur.... , the larger the ratio, the more OOF blur is what I understood.

That has been my experience with FF vs Crop.  In some of my tight spaces I could not even consider the 70-200 F4 on my T2i, but it is much more useable on the 5D MKII.  OOF Blur to my simple understanding is a function of Aperture, Distance to Subject and Focal Length.  So with a FF, you can change the DTS which allows for more playing around in tighter confines. 

This is also why I think with a FF if you are doing close up portraits with a lens wide open and have something F2.8 or below, you can even start get OOF on the face a lot more than you can on a APS-C sensor.

268
Weight has never really been that much of an issue for me, so and extra couple of pounds should not be a big difference.

I do have the 70-200 F4 Non-IS at the moment, and while it is a sharp and fast lens, I did find a couple times where I had to go to my 85 1.8 for light.  I am also really interested to see how the 2.8 performs AF wise with less light.  I have had times where my F4 Non-IS hunts, and everything I have read the 2.8 IS II does extremely well in this regard. 

Given my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, I just started to notice that I wanted a little more speed with range over the 70-200 F4, and with my 24-105 F4 L as my main lens, I think the 2.8 IS II was a great comprise as well as a lens that I probably will never have to upgrade. 

Was debating swapping the 24-105 for a 24-70, but despite the extra stop in aperture, I find the 24-105 slightly sharper which I like. 

I think the last lens I need at the moment is a wide.  I have been debating the 17-40 F4L which is decent, but again, F4, and pretty much is almost an swap of my EF-S 10-22  price wise., though I think cherry picking a used 16-35 2.8 I will be the way I go. 

So current bag 

{GAP} Wide Angle (16-35 or 17-40}
24 - 105 F4 L IS
50 1.4
70 - 200 F2.8 IS II
85 1.8

Might look into a TC 2X to extend the 70-200 as a compromise over the 100-400, though if a version comes out next year, that might be nice, but right now, I want at least a F4 which is why the current offering is out. 

Then again, I would not mind finding a FD 400, 500 or 600 at a decent price

269
I have been hunting the I version.  Delayed on one which went for $1300 and have seen a lot go for $1500+  There of course are cherry picked ones with recent date of manufacture as well.    I have an Amazon Gift Certificate for $275, so brings the price of a II down to around $1800 currently, so at $1300 versus $1800 I can almost lean frugally to the I version and save the $500, but once it starts pushing $1500,  the $300 difference for NEW and Version II becomes negligible. 

I really wanted to stay closer to around $1300, but as it pushes closer to $1500 - $1600, hard not to go for it and go version II

********************
* UPDATE     UPDATE      *
********************

So the one I was watching on Flea-Bay pushed over $1400 as expected... Probably would have needed to go $1450, if not more...

So went Amazon route for $1800 with my Gift Cert.  A little more than I wanted to pay, but still should be a stellar lens


270
You know... as is typical for me... The moment I start entering in the credit card information, I start re-thinking things...

Was doing some fashion shooting last week, and whether in natural light or with strobes, my 70-200 F4 Non-IS was starting to bug me a little.  Takes great shots, but I found myself wanting to blow out the back more in some cases, and since moving to the FF 5D MKII I am actually surprised how much I have been shooting the with the 70-200 indoors.

so now, what is a complete change, is I am leaning to the 2.8 IS either MK I or MK II.  Missed a few gems on the MK I at or below $1300, and though I know the II is sharper and faster, $700 is $700. 

So it comes down to a couple of days... I will likely see if I can track down a MK I 2.8 in the next day or so for under $1300, otherwise, suck it up and drop the $2K on the MK II. 

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 23