July 31, 2014, 01:15:26 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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28
My name is Kyle, I (currently) live in St Louis, MO.  Easy 'nough.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear
« on: January 25, 2013, 12:11:44 PM »
^ Ironically, the nifty fifty is also in the picture for contrast.  Nice touch.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: What is the best place to sell your equipment?
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:16:59 PM »
I have used eBay and Craigslist exclusively (60/40, respectively). I've bought stuff from KEH, but never sold anything to them because the prices I've been quoted on their site have been WAY below market value. I'm always stalking CL and eBay for excellent deals an broken equipment (I fix broken lenses, bodies, etc in my spare time).  Most of my equipment has been repaired or purchased by money I make by repairing and selling.

it'll be interesting to see who produces the first FF mirrorless with interchangeable lenses

Leica M9 - 2009
Leica M9P - 2011
Lecia M-Monochrom, M Typ 240, M Typ 220 - 2012

FF mirrorless with autofocus or affordable FF mirrorless is a different story, waiting to be written.

A year and a half ago I posted the idea of a wide-converter for FF lenses to APS-C image circle.


EF 0.625x converter for APS-C cameras (keep the original angle of view of EF lenses on crop sensors and gain 1-1.33 stops of light)

I was pretty close, except for the fact the the flange distance needed to be reduced to make that a possibility (hense the need for Sony NEX or Fuji X series).

... I think an EF 70-200 2.8 IS ll should be a great way to pump some more money into the economy through B&H.
It's our civic duty.  Yeah ... that's the angle I'll take in my request for discretionary spending.

Does part of the down payment on a new vehicle count as 'fun'?   :P  I suppose not, but then, I fund all my gear purchases from 'on the side' consulting work - the day job income (and taxes refunded from that) go toward the important stuff - house, cars, kids' college and retirement funds, etc.

What the hell type of moonlighting does a neuroscientist do???  LOL

I was thinking the exact same thing.

I'm not sure the financial department will OK an AFE for camera gear.  Travel and kitchen reno will certainly come first.

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »
Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken.  Somebody mark that on the CR calendar.  ;)

If Canon were to release a new 400 f/5.6L with all the latest features (v. 4 IS, weathersealing, modern build quality and materials, better MFD, etc) what do you think the cost would be?  I think it would have to remain below the price of a 70-200 IS II, but I could definitely see it coming close to $1800 or so given Canon's recent price structure.

Canon General / Re: Why buy from a bricks and mortar store?
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:19:28 PM »
Sorry, but it's not a loophole.  In pretty much every state that charges Sales Tax, there's an equivalent Use Tax that applies to goods purchased out of state for use in the state where you reside.  The buyer is responsible for paying that tax to their state government.  A loophole is a technicality or ambiguity that allows you to avoid the spirit of a law while obeying the letter of that law.  Not paying Use Tax on internet purchases is flat out tax evasion.  Much like driving 10 mph over the posted speed limit, it's unlikely you'll ever be caught/penalized...but it's still against the law.

I totally agree with you neuro, but where is the line drawn for what must be declared on taxes?  Purchased on eBay (new or used)?  Craigslist?  Garage sale?  What is the letter of the law?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 13, 2013, 12:18:26 PM »
Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).

No, thanks! I can't make the edit myself though, so I'll just sound more like a tool.  :-X

One of my long time curiosities with the lens was will I upgrade from my 1.4? After 2 weeks with the 1.2 the answer is no - but I did *like* using it more than I do my 1.4, and maybe that counts for something?

Sorry, I'm an engineer, that's kind of how we roll.  I didn't mean it as an insult or anything.  I did enjoy reading your review on the lens, and I think everyone's experience with it is valid, and personal to some level.  Keep the reviews coming, and I will continue to read and enjoy what is written.  Thanks again for sharing.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 12, 2013, 04:23:00 PM »
Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided). 

I do agree with the assessment that if Canon made a 1.4 with the build quality and wide-open image quality of the new 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS primes, the sales of the 1.2L would be greatly affected.  I like my 1.8 v. I, but I'm always on the lookout for a deal on a used or broken 1.4 because of the wider aperture, better (not excellent, though) build quality, and USM (though not Ring-USM).  Personally, I wouldn't consider the 1.2 for myself because of price alone, but the advantages over the 1.4 (build, weather sealing and Ring-USM) are obvious.  The image quality and focus accuracy are debatable.

Lenses / Re: 300 f2.8 Ser 1 vs. Ser 2?
« on: January 07, 2013, 06:28:27 PM »
Just for clarification, are you talking about the non-IS Ver. I?  If so, that price seems on the low side of reasonable.  If that is the case, I would be cautious, though.  The focusing is electronic for the early telephotos, and the parts for them are all long discontinued.  If it is a version I non-IS it was made between 1987 and 1999 (when the IS version I was annouced), and its electronics are not likely to last much longer, and when they go out, that's it - no more focusing (autofocus or manual).

If it is an IS version 1, I would also be cautious as to its condition as well as its legitimate ownership (read: it might be stolen).

Lenses / Re: Oops, did it again !
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:41:06 PM »
Well, it's not exactly the same, but I had decided I wouldn't buy another lens for quite some time, but saw a a 70-200 f2.8 L for $360 and just bought it, who would pass? ;D
Where exactly did you find that deal?  I'd cal that a "once in a lifetime" find.

Lenses / Re: Oops, did it again !
« on: January 04, 2013, 02:40:58 PM »
I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.

I usually buy in the shop my lenses. But, I got a good deal online, so first time order online. A bit of a gamble not being able to check the lens as you can do that when buying in the shop.

So today my 16-35 f/2.8 MK II arrived  :D

I also got a B+W slim filter for it. Weird experience with this slim filter (is a first too) The lenscap cannot be attached to protect the filter  ???
That's a first too. With my other regular B+W UV filters on other lenses this is not a problem.
Is this something common with slim filters?

The B+W XS Pro series are slim, plus it supports the lens cap. All my filters are XS Pro and the caps fit quite well for a ultra slim profile, never had any problems with it. You may want to get them for your UWA lens :)
I've been considering getting XS Pro's for all my lenses.  Currently they're all exposed.  The XS Pro was the only was I was considering for my UWA since the slim is not compatible with normal caps.  I might go for a slim CPL, since it will only be on the lens when in use.  Unfortunely, a good 77mm filter (UV or CPL) will be considerably more expensive than what I paid for my 19-35mm.

I haven't really gotten in trouble with my wife for buying camera stuff.  I hunt daily for really good deals and broken equipment to fix (I've fixed dozens of cameras and a bunch of lenses).  My photography hobby pays for itself.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28