October 20, 2014, 10:29:57 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53
496
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 12:04:18 PM »
Would this use the NEX lens mount, or would they make a new mount? I'm all about competition in the industry so I think it's great to see more FF cameras on the market(hopefully)!
This might be the camera from this rumor: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-approves-the-launch-the-new-hyrbid-alphanex-mount-camera-sort-of-fullframe-nex-7/

Sounds like it could handle E-mount lenses in crop mode, and would need alpha lenses for full-frame. Which is really actually good for users, cause Sony has some good A-mount lenses, where as I can't imagine any E-mount holding up to full frame. But with a crop mode, they'd be the same as they are on the NEX-7

Sony is doing some really cool engineering stuff; they just haven't translated any of it into a full-line yet. The NEX system is a little short, and they are only now really filling out their Alpha line.

497
Lenses / Re: Wider lens for new FF user - 35L vs. new 28 IS
« on: August 17, 2012, 11:22:20 AM »
It just seems like the 28 IS will work in my specific need (small, wide, low-light for non-moving stuff, still handles polarizers, not too wide for general walkaround use) without any degradation of IQ compared to the closest L lenses.  Seems like a win in my (admittedly bizarre) little world.
Yeah, seems like the IS would be important to you if you want to shoot lower light stuff (shutter speeds in the 1/8th, 1/15th area) without the need to carry around a tripod. If its a lens you'll use when you have a tripod around a bunch, then I'd just get the older 28mm f/1.8 and save a few hundred bucks, as it resolves nearly as well.

498
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 11:01:30 AM »
Sony does have a few good lenses, but only a few.  They are badly overpriced for non IS lenses.
Yep, this is why I don't see them succeeding with this as a money-making venture. For people who don't mind manually focusing, it may have some great possibilities, but their NEX line of lenses is awful; none of them stand up to the 24mm APS-C sensor, so I can only imagine how poorly they'd perform for full-frame. And having to adapt A-mount lenses to it sort of defeats the size thing, so, might as well go with a full-frame DSLR.

499
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 16, 2012, 11:03:56 AM »
A few from Glacier NP




And a recent one from MD

500
Lenses / Re: best wide or ultra wide angle lens for crop sensorh
« on: August 16, 2012, 10:19:38 AM »
I hear the Tokina 11-16 is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 10-22(my 10-22 is damn sharp), it is for sure faster and evidently built better.
Having used both, I'd say the Tokina is built better, and is obviously faster, but I can't really say it's sharper. Plus, it has half the range. If you were doing video work, or were always going to be shooting in low-light, I'd have suggested the Tokina. Otherwise, get the Canon 10-22, as its more versatile, and as mentioned, the flare handling is better. Especially since price wise they are very similar.

Also, the 10-22 can focus slightly closer (9" v 12"), so for that specific purpose its better. You will likely find the distortion of both to be a little frustrating for shooting historic buildings, but, that's the nature of any wide angle lens.

501
PowerShot / Re: PowerShot SX160 IS & PowerShot SX500 IS
« on: August 14, 2012, 07:35:03 PM »
With the masses using iPhones and the like, to whom is Canon marketing these cameras?  Most people only need Facebook resolution, so the de facto standard smart phone is a better choice for the application.
There are still a lot of people who take pictures of their kids/family and print the pictures to put on their wall. Still lots of people who travel or do outdoors stuff where an iPhone is lacking either on the zoom, focus, or detail side of things. I'm not super familiar with the iPhone, but what is its burst rate? Oh and you can't replace the batteries, so, there goes multi-day trip use. Not to mention, an iPhone by itself costs $500+.

The market for P+S's is definitely shrinking; which is why they've become more niche products. You get these super-zoom ones, or the big sensor P+S cameras like the G12/G1X. Kinda hard to find the standard cheap 5x zoom P+S anymore because of camera phones.

502
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What to tell a newbie?
« on: August 14, 2012, 03:48:49 PM »
Sigh... Why does everyone always get so caught up on just the camera bodies. The lenses are a huge consideration when buying into a system, not just the body. Sure, the nikon body might have more resolution or more dynamic range, but what it doesn't have is that awesome canon glass.
Yep, does Nikon have the 100-400L or 400mm f/5.6 as cheap options for if he gets into wildlife photography? Maybe he needs something like a G1X for travel, and a DSLR with a tele lens wildlife. Canon suits him quite nicely there, and better than Nikon's offerings. Whether the D3200 is better or not is irrelevant if his only option is the Nikon 300mm or $5000+ lenses.

If you're a teacher, you should be taking the broad view of things. Sure, I'd tell a landscape photographer to go Nikon, because their future is the D800 and the 14-24. For wildlife, Canon would easily be the winner for me. For someone with a video heavy focus, I might point them to Panasonic. For someone wanting to do a bit of everything, I still think Canon is a great option because they have great variety

503
Software & Accessories / Re: Other photography websites...
« on: August 14, 2012, 09:46:26 AM »
500px.com isn't too bad, not as much variety as flickr though.
Yeah, it's great for seeing other's work, but, not so much for discussion. Still a cool site, but I agree that its not gonna replace that aspect of Flickr

504
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: August 13, 2012, 06:09:39 PM »
I've been wondering about this myself, is it possible to insure my gear if I'm not a homeowner?
I'm not a home-owner either, no problems getting the insurance. As another user mentioned, it might be why my rate was a little higher, but, it could also be that I'm in a big city and my gear is a higher risk of being stolen

505
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: August 13, 2012, 04:49:21 PM »
I have State Farm personal articles policy, $7.60 per year per $1000 coverage (apparently less than half the cost of 'save money in 15 minutes or less with Geico' :o ), no deductible, full replacement, worldwide coverage for loss/damage/theft/etc.
Yep, same here, though my rate was slightly higher. I think it was more like $9-10/$1000 insured, but, still dirt cheap for coverage in general. Especially taking my gear in my kayak, I know if my Pelican case leaks or if I drop it, its covered.

506
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D in October? [CR1]
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:58:32 PM »
It's unlikely Canon will drop video from any of the dslr bodies - it may appear to be a step backwards to many consumers.
It also likely wouldn't drop the price of the camera, especially a true 5dII successor, since it would have a lot fewer buyers. There was a forum poll a while back, 40% of users wouldn't buy a video-less DSLR at all, and 30% would only buy it if it saved them significantly (30%+) off the price. It was a small sample, maybe 100 people, but, if the video features are even half as popular (so 1/3 of users want them), it means a video-less DSLR has to cost Canon a LOT less to make. Or, they have to charge more for it.

So yeah, I can't see video going away pretty much ever...I can just see Canon not doing much to improve it in their non-cine cameras

507
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »
Thanks.  I do notice on landscape shots where I've been f/22, it just doesn't look as sharp as f/11.  Thanks.
Yeah, though, the times where you need to go to f/22 are generally not for reasons of making elements really sharp. For example, I find I only use over f/11 or f/13 if I'm trying to blur water and the scene is kind of bright. Otherwise, it's just as easy to shoot at f/8 with a faster shutter speed and not worry about diffraction. Obviously there exceptions though (night shots, etc)

508
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot Pro1X [CR1]
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:43:23 PM »
Canon has too many High-end compact systems already. I doubt this one will amount to anything.
My thoughts exactly. So they'd have a G1x that retails at $800 w a smaller sensor. The eos-m at $800 with the aps-c sensor, the t4i body at 849, and then this in that price range as well? Gonna confuse the hell out of consumers

509
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation to replace 18-135mm IS
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:51:51 PM »
The 17-55 looks really good, they only thing really holding me back from that right now is the price. It's about $200-400 CAD more than any of the other options...The 15-85 is the cheapest, then the 17-40, 24-105, then the 17-55.
Yeah. The 15-85 is a nice lens, but, I'm not sure you'd see a big improvement over the 18-135. And since you are working in natural light, the f/2,8 over f/4 can be a big advantage.

Have you looked at the focal ranges you use the most with your current lens? There are programs that show you it, and I think you can find it in Lightroom as well if you use that. That may show that you need the wide end (so 15mm or 17mm), or that you use the middle range more, and thus the 24-105 would be fine. Or, you may find you use 2 or 3 focal length ranges a lot, and a few primes (20-28mm, 50mm) would cover you better since you already have the 100mm

510
Lenses / Re: EF 20mm f1.8L VS. EF 14-24 f4L
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:46:32 PM »
We definitely need a fast lens that's wider than 24mm. A 20mm f/1.4 would be even better, though I don't like the idea of that being more than $2,000, which I suspect it would be.
A 20mm f/1.8 would definitely be $2k, since the Sigma is $700 and its an optical joke through f/2.8. Generally you can double the 3rd party price, but, here I think it'd be even higher. Going to f/1.4 would be equally brutal price wise.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53