April 23, 2014, 04:52:22 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49
This is only interesting if you shoot at higher ISO settings.  :-\
It's a big win for video shooters; you now pay even less of a penalty by shooting at high ISO, which means you need to spend less on lighting, etc.

And if the 5DIII can gain 14 stops of DR for stills shooting, well, it's hard to see it as anything other than the best option for full-frame in most circumstances.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 22, 2014, 10:52:59 AM »
There's no assurance this patent will result in a lens sold on the shelves, but if 10 years of digital photography didn't kill the 135mm f/2.8 w/ softfocus, it must sell well enough to justify it's continue production, and even upgrade.
Actually, the 135mm f/2.8 is discontinued. I don't think Canon officially discontinued it, but, try and find it from a reputable dealer anymore...it's dead. The price of the 135mm f/2 coming down a lot basically killed it.

Of course, I also think a 135mm f/2.8 IS would be dead in the water as well. Who would buy it? It'd have to be priced under the 135L, and less than an 85 and 100 IS lens to even gain traction. More likely its just to protect the design


EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 22, 2014, 10:48:43 AM »
Ok, I'll try this again.
I think this is a FAKE post.
Just look at the block diagrams before you get too excited!

The reason you are getting no traction is because this is always the source of patents for canon lenses. If this is a fake post, so are about 1,000 others on Canon patents.

Furthermore, as these lenses are very similar in focal length, their block diagrams are naturally going to look very similar. The difference between an 85mm and 100mm lens is tiny; thus why their current iterations are very similar in optical quality. Below are the current 85mm and 100mm lenses. Obviously IS shifts things a bit, but notice that their diagrams, at least in the front groups, are basically the exact same.

PS: Red scare text in capitals isnt really going to make anyone read your point

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
« on: January 21, 2014, 08:19:58 PM »
Too bad the tamarin review did not compare this lens
generally speaking, it's regarded slightly below the 50-500 from Sigma. Having read the Tamron review, I'd probably opt for that over this, as $150 savings probably isn't fully worth it. The Sigma will soften after 400mm where the Tamron is sharper til 500mm.

I do know I would like to stay close to business portraits, fashion, products, and maybe some weddings (low-light ability for not being able to use flash is key) areas of photography. I like shooting with natural light but I do have a Canon EX550 (I know I have Sony but it was free so I use it manually with a converter). I also have a set of flashpoint studio strobes.
Based on those, I'd say your best bet is getting into the flash/strobe game more. Business, fashion, and product photography get infinitely harder if you are relying on natural light; I can't even imagine business and product photography without controlling your light.

In fact, with flash and strobes, you could get by with a 60D for quite some time (I shot an entire wedding with one and never felt lacking with flash). And then when your jobs pay you enough, you can get the 6D and have the 60D as a backup. It makes your intitial lens selection tough though; buying the EF-S lens limits you when you get the 60D. Might be wiser to get a Tamron 17-50 non-VC for cheap ($300ish), get a prime or two, and have those options for full-frame. Focal lengths will depend on what you usually shoot, but the 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 are good longer primes. They'd work even better with the 6D.

Another camera you missed would be a 5D classic. Probably get it for about the same price as the 60D, and you'd gain a bit of low-light coverage.

But, it is probably smarter, right now, to keep your Sony gear, rent a lens for the wedding, and just be able to jumpy fully into the 6D. Going APS-C before full-frame when you know you want full-frame will end with you wasting money. And it's not like the A65 is incapable of taking good pictures

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II on Cameraegg
« on: January 13, 2014, 03:18:12 PM »
The thing that throws me on this rumor is that there are apparently still multiple test versions of a camera that is a month away from announcing? That would mean that it either won't actually be available for a few months after the announcement, or, that the rumored announced date is wrong (and it'll be available when they announce).

There's an amount of time it takes for them to churn out lots of cameras and have them in US retailers; and I have to think that <1 months is too short for it to be ready. The original 7D was announced in Sept and shipped by the end of the month.

It's January 6th and you've already given up on dslr/lens announcements for the entire year?  Companies announce at different times.
Besides, CES is a consumer show, not a pro show. Notice that Sigma didn't wait til CES to announce the 18-35 and Tamron didnt wait for it to announce the 150-600. Sigma is instead announcing a fairly standard 50mm lens, and a superzoom that is probably <$500.

Canons lens announcements were largely for pro/L lens updates. Those will come outside of the standard shows

Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 05, 2014, 12:36:39 AM »
I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography.  Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later.

I agree with this as advice; it sounds like you've got a few things you photography regularly, so upgrading those is probably smart. But assuming the 70D is exactly what you'll want in a year, and spending $7k on lenses supporting that might not be the wisest choice.

So, based on what you currently shoot, it seems like the 70-200 f/2.8L II is a good bet. It covers the longer half of the 18-135 range and gets you up to 400mm w/ TC. Sharp, great for portraits. You could also buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and have that combo be as sharp as possible. A Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 would cover the wide end if you really wanted it (as 18mm vs 24mm isn't as big as 10mm vs 18mm in difference).

Reality is that if body size is a concern, maybe the Sony A7 is up your alley. Or if you havent actually picked up a 6D, you should, because the size difference from a 70D is tiny. And making all your choices based off the 70D (and getting APS-C/EF-S lenses) would lock you into choices you can't fix if you go full-frame

Lenses / Re: Samyang 14mm f2.8 - focusing
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:31:03 PM »
what are you shooting most often?

For landscape work, focus confirmation isn't really going to add a lot for you; you're going to want to focus on the object you want sharpest, and possible focus blend shots anyway.

For people or things that move, the AF confirmation will help, but, getting comfortable with hyperfocal will help more. You'll learn to eyeball "oh, that's 1m", etc. Cause really, at f/2.8, unless you are at minimum focus distance, you've got a few feet of focus to work with

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:22:46 PM »
If there is a 24-70 f2.8 II IS version in the making, it will probably cost in excess of 3500$ (my guess). So, there's no price drop here.
Likewise, not long after the 70-200 came out, they did similar rebates (got it down in the $1800 range), and then when Feb/March hit they went away. You had to wait a full year for those to come back. Waiting around for another $100 drop or so is likely gonna backfire. Cheapest prices are almost always Nov-Feb


EOS Bodies / Re: Change from T3i to 70d, or invest in a new lens?
« on: December 24, 2013, 12:08:13 PM »
Before anybody jumps into some sort of comparison you need to share what kind of pictures you take, what are you unable to take and why you are unable to take them with your current gear.
Yep, without this info, every response you've gotten so far won't be very useful. If you are shooting pictures of your kids and family you'd want a very different lens than if you were doing landscape work, or sports shooting.

Likewise, I can't tell if you'd benefit from a camera upgrade without knowing if you shoot action (frame rate and AF would be worth it), or if you shoot a lot of video (70D + STM lenses would be an upgrade).

Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 20, 2013, 05:59:48 PM »
Also, i highly recomend something like the capture camera clip (lots of other similar systems) for hiking with a DSLR. Clip it to your pack strap and your DSLR is always at the ready. If you take a lens that has wildlife reach (18-270), its the difference between getting that bear photo or not

Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 20, 2013, 05:58:19 PM »
Having been to Philmont, there are enough peaks/ridges where ultra-wide would be useful. 15-85 isn't the lightest lens, but it seems to cover the ranges the best.

My one lens I go to a lot is a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro. Gives me a decent range, and if I want wider I can shoot pano and stitch. Mine is an older version that does 1:2.1 macro, which is great for everything but small insects. And the IQ is just a little better than the kit lens.

If you've got the 10-22, then maybe take that and the 40mm. Gives you a good set of options for landscape stuff, and if you want people shots, the 40mm is a good focal length. But I might not be the best judge of low-weight, as I took a 100-400L with me on multi-days in Glacier.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:23:38 PM »
That's a narrow range.  f/2?  Really?  On an UWA?  Why?  I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8.   Just my $.02
It's targeting people who work in really low-light (street/night) where the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is whether the milky way shows up, or whether they get motion blur. Not really sure the point of a zoom, I think an 18mm f/2 would be a nice split. And obviously when you don't need to shoot at f/2, it would sharpen up nicely at f/5.6-8

But a 16-24 f/2.8 lens appeals to a different user base than 16-20 f/2. I can get primes in the f/2.8 range that wide for much cheaper than a 16-24 f/2.8 would cost. I cant get primes/zooms wider than 20mm that go <f/2, and I can't get a good prime/zoom wider than 24mm that goes below f/2.8. There's definitely a market there for it.

This could also technically be targeted at videographers, as it becomes a different focal length with all the video crop factors, and the depth of field is important. But I'm guessing that's not the main market for it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:05:56 PM »
if they were going to announce it, say for instance after the new year, do you think they would tell you right now?
You'd think they would at least say "it will possibly come to the US".

But, the way Canon seems to do their leaks, they care a lot about making people think a product is coming to keep them from buying something else. The fact they just dropped this from nowhere and didnt mention a US presence makes me think it ain't coming to the US unless its a massive hit in Asia

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49