October 21, 2014, 04:31:31 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 6 ... 53
46
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 27, 2014, 04:35:04 PM »
Why anyone does business with that company is beyond me.
Because prior to them pulling the rug out on video editors with Final Cut X, they had the most accessible and simplest workflow. Then, as they seem to be doing with Aperture, they decided those customers dont matter in the immediate.


47
Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 12:11:39 PM »
My requirements probably extend further than I initially wrote, but they are secondary to the size/IQ priority (ie: I'll need something to take underwater and probably need 1080-60p too!). Landscape has always been my niche but I'm expecting much more reportage-style and even video opportunities coming my way too.
You might be able to kill two birds with one stone and consider a move to something like a Panasonic GH4. You get all the video features you'd need while still being able to landscape work, etc. And Panasonic actually has a decent upper end lens system (certainly not L's, but very good), not to mention all the legacy lenses you can use.

I use a GH2 and Canon FD lenses for all my video work, and a 60D with various canon lenses for my photography. If I had to shrink down my collection, I'd go exclusively Panasonic because its more versatile with video. And with all the speedboosters available, you dont even lose that much by going micro four-thirds over full-frame.

Quote
To a certain extent, I'm not so bothered by body recommendations; only if it is intrinsic to recommending a particular lens. As mentioned, my primary lens is a 24 T/S L II, followed by 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 100-400 L, 100 macro. I'd never forgive myself if I dropped these in favour of some that were massively inferior.
That said, you could easily get away with a 6D and shrinking your lenses. 16-35 could be downsized surely, as could the 100-400L. 24 T/S is hard to downsize, but if you were ok losing the T/S part, you'd be easily able to save a lot of weight. Heck, the 24-70 f/4L IS would cover the 24mm and macro in one, lighter lens.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 10:24:49 AM »
I love it when machines are able to absolutely nail the translation.
I'm also a fan of this

I get the visible light
I get the ultraviolet light
I get the infrared light

ALL YOUR LIGHT ARE BELONG TO ME!

49
Lenses / Re: 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:28:01 AM »
Another option. Get the Tokina 11-16...while you lose a little range, having the f/2.8 gives you flexibility in low-light. As an added bonus, it works pretty damn well at 15-16mm on full-frame

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm#fx
I would skip all the aps-c and just go straight for the 5DIII and some L glass.
So nice to spend someone else's money.

That said, there is a MAJOR difference between 16mm and 10-11mm, so, if you're gonna be shooting a lot of landscapes, it's worth getting an ultra-wide to really open up your options. The 10-18 would cost you $300 now, and you can sell it for $200 at least a year from now. Is that $100 loss really worth missing out on hundreds of shots? Same would be true for the other ultra-wides.

I thought I would move from APS-C to full-frame about a year ago. I still havent. Turns out that, aside from night photography, APS-C isn't really holding me back in any of my photography

50
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:38:40 AM »
"holding back" could mean that production has started and they are waiting until they have sufficient stock produced and in place around the world for the release. Don't forget that it also takes time to get electronics certified in various countries and they cant ship until they can put that CSA, UL, or whatever certification on the units.
Not to mention they've been known to have major production delays in the past year or two. It's entirely possible that the 100-400 was supposed to be done at the start of the year, but it got delayed or had issues, thus "holding back".

Seeing the features that are left off Canon cameras that are clearly there (as Magic lantern has unlocked) or that would have been simple to keep (AFMA for example), holding back could also be a marketing decision, as they want the lens and camera launched in combo for sales purposes

51
Lenses / Re: Thinking of replacing a couple of lenses
« on: June 14, 2014, 08:26:36 PM »
The issue that you have with your 28 f/2.8 IS is most likely something that can be solved with AFMA because it focuses accurately with LiveView. 
T3i doesn't have AFMA...though I agree with you, it's something it would solve (and the 7D2 would have AFMA)

That said, if you've already got the 24-105, I don't see the point of having the 28mm. That extra stop won't make as big a difference as having something like a 35mm f/2 or 30mm f/1.4 would.

How about a 7D2, the 10-22, and a Sigma 18-35?

Jim
Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice option. You could turn the 10-22 and 28mm into a 10-18 and 18-35 and come reasonable close to break even.

Part of it depends on what you shoot. Unless you are doing night photography or some action work in mixed light, I don't find the wide, fast lenses that great on crop cameras.

52
Seeing as the old 7D was released at $1699, I'd say the new one has no shot of being in your budget.

That said, depending on when you actually need the camera, the best prices are usually in October/November for cameras. There will be even more rebates and lens combo deals then, if you had the time to wait.

But either way, I'd say you're getting the 70D, just a matter of when

53
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:02:04 PM »
I think you are right but the canon 18-200 desperately needs an update though,
the nikkors vr1 and vr2 leave it for dead
No doubt it needs an update, but, I wonder if they'd kit that with the new 7D2. I know they kitted the 18-200 with the 50D, but was it ever with the 7D?

I cant imagine they'd update the 28-135 to kit with this; that'd be an odd choice. So maybe the 17-85 or 15-85 would get an STM update?

54
Lenses / Re: purchasing 70-200 f4 IS now?
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:57:35 PM »
It's a great lens, I owned one for a while before deciding to move to the 200mm f/2.8 (I was moslty using the long end anyway)

If you want an even cheaper price, you might consider the used market. It's a lens that shows up fairly frequently in near-new condition with really great prices. Often from people doing the same thing as me (deciding between f/4 and f/2.8, or prime v zoom)

55
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:54:09 PM »
What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)
Tokina 11-16, for one. What you lose in range (very little) you make up in aperture and sharpness. Sigma 8-16 is obviously much wider and well regarded. Really, the $4-500 street price wide angle APS-C market is pretty solid. I'm not even sure Canon could update the 10-22 and be competitive.

Quote
The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper
Eh, it appears to be cheaper, but we still haven't actually seen the corner-to-corners performance, etc.  The 10-18 is giving up a stop to the 10-22, and nearly 2 stops to the Tokina; so it's a matter of your shooting conditions whether the IS makes up for that.

The sample images look great for it's target market (consumers with rebels who also have the 18-55/55-250 combos).

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 DO
« on: May 24, 2014, 09:09:21 AM »
Canon dropping the new 100-400 as a DO lens would make for some interesting reactions

57
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 10:42:12 AM »
What's the lag time? There's always the spring migration season next year ;)
Well, the 16-35 and 10-18 were just announced at the start of May, and with zero delays, they release on June 30th. So, 2 months. Might be even longer if they are announcing the 100-400 and 7dII at the same time. With an August announcement, it'd appear late October at the earliest, more likely November. Any price drops would be next spring.

58
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 15, 2014, 11:51:51 PM »
But, the best I can do on the Rebel is the manual-focus 14 mm Bower. And manually focusing on the Rebel isn't really easy for my old eyes through the viewfinder.
There is actually a pretty long list of high quality and affordable UWA's for APS-C, with the Bower being kind of low on te list of them. The Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22 already exist in the $500 range for example
If I was a crop owner, I'd rather have the EF-S 10-22
I actually get this lens in the same way I get the 18-55 and 55-250 existing. Sure, there are better options in the $4-500 range for that focal length, and WAY better options in the $800+ range, but if its something you'll use sparingly, a $200ish lens is a good option. The retail price of the 55-250 is $350, but you can regularly find it used on and on sale at half that price. So, in a year, people will have a <$200 wide angle option on APS-C. Which is kind of cool.

If people need the extra light for stars or street shooting, they'd go Tokina. If they want sharpness and flare control, there's the 10-22. If they want something for rare occurrences, there's this.

59
The EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM would probably have to be a $3-400 lens to not be DOA. Especially at f/4.5-5.6. The IS would be a nice addition for video people, but, at the expense of that aperture loss. How many people would take the Canon when there are now a variety of 10mm and 11mm options at f/2.8...even worse when you consider the 2 stop loss at 16mm vs the Tokina (f/2.8 vs f/5.6), and the 3+ stop loss vs the Sigma at 18mm. That's basically the difference of IS


60
IS is not a good feature when shooting video because if you turn it on it both sucks back power and you can hear the IS on the soundtrack.
Well, you can turn it off if you have to. Or, the more reasonable solution is to capture audio not directly into the camera, since even with ML audio controls are limited.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 53