November 22, 2014, 08:24:26 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 - Richard8971

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26
226
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 22, 2012, 04:17:09 PM »
Ah... another APS-C 18MP sensor from Canon. Is it just me or did Canon get a ship-load of these at some bargan center and now they have to find some way to unload them all??? :)

j/k

D

227
EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 21, 2012, 12:45:29 PM »
joke?

No it's not a joke. You are actually looking at the beginnings of the future of DSLR's.

Why do I say that? Simple. The only reason for the mirror is to bounce the image into the viewfinder so that the photographer can see exactly what they are taking a photo of. (Focus, DOF, etc...)

Now enter the world of mirrorless cameras. The back LCD acts as the viewfinder and for now they are large and cumbersome. Given advances in technology and the speed at which it is advancing, soon we will see LCD screens small enough AND high enough of resolution and brightness to act in place of our current DSLR viewfinders. Or it may be some sort of digital-optical viewfinder... who knows? But this is the start of it.

There will be added benefits too, higher FPS (no mirror to "slow" the camera down), camera bodies that do not have a shutter mechanism to wear out and reduced costs.

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.

D

228
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 21, 2012, 01:30:06 AM »
The best advice I ever received from a Camera friend is to "use the equipment you have and learn how to use it well."

Buy the best equipment you can afford that best suits your needs and be happy with your decision.

It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.

The IS is well worth having as well as the focal range for the savings over an "L" lens.

This discussion is like an 18 year old buying an 8 passanger van because he hopes someday to get married and have a family. Down the road you can always upgrade your glass if needed. I have "L" lenses now but I still use my 70-300. It's a great lens and you won't be disappointed with it.

D

229
Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 20, 2012, 12:38:17 AM »
Keep the 70-200:  better IQ and versatility.  You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.

I had thought about doing that. Will autofocus still work?

D

230
Lenses / Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:08:38 PM »
I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.

Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?

D

231
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 19, 2012, 10:05:58 PM »
Wow, thank you everyone who took the time to give me your thoughts. I don't have high end filters so I think for most shoots I will leave them off. Granted I won't throw them away either, I'll keep them around just in case.

Thanks again everyone!

D

232
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:48:35 PM »
The only reason I use filters is to protect my lens from other things that can break it. 

In the summer I shoot with high quality UV filters on and I don't notice a negative impact at all.  There's more glass in an IS stabilized lens afterall with no degradation of IQ.

I get great results from all of my lenses that I have UV filters on. Like I said, it isn't because I want protection from UV so to speak, but mainly to protect the glass.

I was just curious what you guys thought.

D

233
Lenses / Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:26:00 PM »
I have always used UV filters on all of my lenses. For me, it is cheap insurance against accidental damage to the lens glass. However, this past weekend shooting with a friend is making me reconsider this...

I met a gentleman who was told to me had been shooting for decades. He had some pretty impressive equipment (Canon) with him to boot! He looked at my gear and asked if I always shot with UV filters and I said yes. He then said, "Why? Why would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then shoot through a UV filter that can distort the image?" Needless to say, I had nothing to say. He then said that keeping the damage off of your outer lens glass was the hood's job and to not worry about it.

I looked at my friend and he said he agreeded with him and that he never used filters. He told me that you truly can get a better quality image without using UV filters...

Guys? Opinions?

D

234
EOS Bodies / Re: 2023: a look into Canon's flagship body
« on: July 16, 2012, 10:00:54 PM »
I would have to say that I think it would be pretty cool if Canon invented (regardless of MP) a multi layer translucent cmos that could take a photo in which there was an DOF with no limits. In other words the entire image would be in focus, no background blur. Think of it as instant highly expandable micro adjustment in a way. You would then process the image in Photoshop to produce what-ever DOF you wanted and where-ever you wanted. (I.E. f2.8, 8.0, 13.0...whatever) Auto focus would be extremely acurate and IS would be able to adjust much faster to camera shake.

I would also like to see an interface where the camera would change settings based on your thoughts. (I believe that this techology is already being developed and should have applications 10 years from now)

Just my 2 cents.

D

235
EOS Bodies / Re: New Upgraders (to FF) - what is your experience
« on: July 16, 2012, 09:53:14 PM »
I own both the 7D and 5D2 as well as the T1i. Honestly, I find myself grabbing my 7D more often than the 5D2. I love the quality of the images the 5D2 produces but there are times I want a fast APS-C camera. For a "grab and shoot" (without risk of losing my expensive cameras) I reach for my T1i w/ EF-s 60mm macro. Still takes amazing images and is easy to set-up. It's also compact, light and very easy to store.

Like has been said, I don't think FF is an "upgrade". There are advantages to APS-C and there are advantages to FF. I love being able to choose from both depending on that day's particular shooting needs.

D

236
I'd be happy to switch sides if Nikon decides to pay for my gear from here on out.

Yeah, maybe, um no. :)

D

237
WOW! I cannot believe the 10 pages of drama.

(I sleep quite well, thank you).

Stay asleep. :) (J/K)

The issues I have with Nikon (see my post before this one) can only be addressed if Nikon makes a serious marketing/body progamming change. Will it happen? Who knows...

D

238
Never. By saying that, I mean that I will never, ever, buy, shoot with or even be seen with a Nikon product.

Does that mean I think they make an inferior product? No. I just don't happen to agree with the way they make/program their cameras!

I happen to know of a woman who used Nikon exclusively. She was using the D3100 and bought an external flash and it WOULD NOT "HIGH SPEED" sync with her camera!!!

See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36083355

Go figure, to enable "high speed sync" (over 1/250s, or abouts, with certain NIKONS!) you HAVE to HAVE a higher-end Nikon!!! (or certain semi-pro bodies) Not to mention that enabling the feature in Nikon is a complected menu  process that changes from camera to camera. She ended up having to buy the D7000 to use "high speed" sync with her new flash. (DOH!) Needless to say, she was plenty pissed.
 
ALL of my external flashes (yes I own more than one, some old, some new) work with EVERY SINGLE Canon body I own and it is with a push of a single button that I enable "sigh speed sync" with the flash and it works with my lowly XT to my 5D2!!! :) (1/4000 ~ 1/8000)

You can keep your Nikons... really. Keep em!

D

239
The 5D Mark III by itself is a much, much more powerful tool than the 5D Mark II and 7D combined.  If you know how to use it (which most critics do NOT) you would know this.  If you are complaining about a black AF point, you really have problems to begin with in your photography anyways, so the differences between these cameras would be a non-issue.

Ah, another person who doesn't understand the meaning of 'sarcasm'. Sorry, was just poking some light-hearted humor at the "problem" at hand. (sigh) I guess that I don't know how to use my equipment so I should just keep my posts to myself.

Or better yet... maybe some 5D3 owners out there, some of them happen to be "REAL photographiers", who are having a REAL issue with this. Or maybe this is kind of like those who compalined of a "soft focus" issue with the 7D. Plenty of people scoffed at the "problem" and said it wasn't real and that it was a user issue and not a hardware issue. Google it and see how many people had the same "problem".  My own 7D had the same issue until I sent it in for an adjustment (under warranty), and now it works fine. Or maybe I just happened to "learn" how to take a photo in the week they had my Camera. (sigh again)

How about spreading some of your "wisdom" and help those who are having this issue instead of telling them that their skills "suck"? (my words)

Hmmmm.  ::)

D

240
Ah, another reason to buy the 5D2 and the 7D! But honestly, I hope Canon is able to provide a good fix for this problem. I can't imagine that in the prototypes out there that at least one person didn't go, "um, this 'black dot' thing isn't going to work..."

D

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26