January 31, 2015, 08:08:00 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 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 56
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Pushed Back to October?
« on: August 29, 2012, 01:51:12 PM »
I would rather say: don't preorder to make Canon rethink their announcement.
Except then they prioritize the production of that lens even less, because half as many people have pre-ordered. Its more that you should not rely on anything until its actually released. I wouldn't sell off any gear to fund a new lens until I could buy that new lens in store, for example.

But, its more effective than complaining, as your rep on the phone is countries away from Canon's office, and it won't work its way up the food chain unless you have a specific technical glitch.

EOS Bodies / Re: 4K, 8K, UHDTV and the big megapixel EOS
« on: August 29, 2012, 01:30:09 PM »
Well, a few things. Most importantly, for many that want larger MP, their end usage is not a computer screen; it's a much larger, higher res print version. Whether its a billboard, a poster, a gallery print, etc. There, the difference between 22mp and 36mp can be a big difference, especially when you are talking dimensions of feet, not inches. Likewise, there are some that want the ability to crop with a great degree of latitude; a 36mp can be cropped in half and still have 22mp resolution (that's not to saw the pixel-level IQ holds up, but, its true in literal resolution).

So, if you're end game is just putting images on your website or facebook and never printing, then yes, 22MP is brilliant because it allows focus on other elements. You can get a faster frame rate, better high ISO handling, smaller files, etc. Heck, in that realm, a 12mp image is even more ideal. In reality, most modern displays can't do much better than 4mp at 100% (like my Mac Cinema Display). Of course, viewing an image at 100% is never as sharp as at 50%, or 25%, and so those large sizes are nice for that reason. Plus, the limitation on image size isn't a display problem, its an image server/bandwidth problem. There's a reason it took most social media sites forever to display images any larger than like 800x600.

Do I think our monitors could take full advantage of a 40mp image over a 22mp? No. But, I do think they have the resolution for us to notice a difference between the larger and smaller files

EOS Bodies / Re: Time from Announcement to Release
« on: August 29, 2012, 10:53:40 AM »
Yeah, with the T4i, the availability was pretty fast, but, with the EOS-M system, they've waited a few months. A new 70D would probably release faster, but, chances are it'll be very similar to the current 7D. And a new 7d mkII is pretty unlikely to be announced. And if they announce a new full-frame, I'd bet they would want it out in time for holiday sales, but, who knows.

They've generally been better with bodies than with lenses

Lenses / Re: Likeliness of a Canon EF 14-24 2.8 anytime soon?
« on: August 29, 2012, 09:50:22 AM »
There was this CR2 rumor a little while ago
Same with the new 100-400L, 35L, and I believe a non-L 50mm replacement (f/1.8 IS?). Most if not all were early in the summer, and its been quiet since then. The pushing back of the 24-70 probably explains why; maybe they'll get announced at Photokina.

Then again, some of these have been rumored for 2+ years...so, who knows

Lenses / Re: Likeliness of a Canon EF 14-24 2.8 anytime soon?
« on: August 29, 2012, 09:44:29 AM »
At the current rate, even if Canon announced it tomorrow, it could be a year before you see it, and even then, with very limited quantities. Given that, I doubt you will be seeing anything in a store for 1-2 years if (and that is a big if) this was a high priority lens in testing now.
Actually, i think that is why we are seeing Canon hold off on announcing any new lenses...it'd be really embarrassing to announce another highly sought after lens and then not deliver for a year. And since they still keep pushing back the 24-70, I'm not expecting any lens announcements (except maybe a new kit lens for a new, cheaper full-frame) until next year

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: More Analysis of the C100
« on: August 29, 2012, 09:05:05 AM »
So, its basically more than double the price of the Black Magic, but without even some of the same features. Yeah; I see this camera getting buried by the competition.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How much is too much?
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:38:17 PM »
PhotoRumors guy is reporting the next Sony a99 will have 102 autofocus points. This got me thinking – are we getting into overkill here?

Is this the next form of megapixel wars? "Your 1DX has a mere 61 autofocus points while we have 102."
Yes, and mostly because of how Sony did it. Only 11 of those AF points are cross-point, so, by that measure, its really on par with the 60D/T4i AF for cross-points. So, chances are the 102 is more just for the number than for practicality. But, if we start getting AF systems even more complex than the 5dIII/1DX, they could genuinely be 100+ pt AF with 90 cross-points and be better.

Roger at Lensrental had a cool break-down of why the new Canon AF is so good with the newest lenses. The lessons from the end seem to indicate that you could go further. But, in reality, it's gonna take decades to revamp all the lenses and all the camera AF systems.


Landscape / Re: 17-40 f4 for lower light vs 16-35 f2.8
« on: August 28, 2012, 09:29:41 AM »
Question: would the IQ be so much different if you took the same photo (something like an early evening sunset) with both lens, say at a setting of f5.6, ISO 100, 20mm length, using a tripod and remote release?
The more you stop down a lens, the more comparable many of them become. The general consensus is that, stopped down, the 16-35 and 17-40 are very similar, and if you'll be using it a lot for f/8 landscapes, its easier to save money with the 17-40.

This is generally true with all lenses where there are multiples (non-L v L primes, etc)...if you have the ability to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 all the time, you won't see a big difference in spending twice as much. But, you often buy the more expensive version because you need something else it does (f/2.8 allows faster shutter speeds than f/4, for example...or the f/1.4 of primes is important for depth of field control)

Can I assume that the shutter speed of the f2.8 would be half that of the f4? and with a tripod would the IQ be so different?
At the same focal length, if your aperture and ISO are the same on both cameras, they will both give you the same shutter speed. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are all inter-connected to set the exposure on your camera; if you lower one, you have to raise another to get the same exposure.

Now, at f/2.8 the 16-35 would have twice as fast a shutter speed as the 17-40 at f/4. That could be the difference between 1/50th s shutter speed and 1/100th, which might be the difference between getting a shot of people that's blurry, or one that is clear. The f/4 lens can't get that same shutter speed without raising ISO, which is something that isn't always ideal to do. Likewise for night photography, the f/2.8 might allow you to take a shot at 10s exposures, where you'd either need to boost ISO or shoot at 20s with the 17-40. The use cases are more specific for why you'd want the 16-35, but, when you need it, its invaluable.

Lenses / Re: 15-85 USM Dust inside
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:56:54 AM »
My first copy of a 24-105 had an air bubble in the outer element.
An air bubble in the front element is a big difference from a little dust, which is something every lens ever has.

More info: http://mansurovs.com/what-to-do-with-dust-inside-lens

Lenses / Re: 15-85 USM Dust inside
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:54:00 AM »
Is it a common thing to have dust in a brand new lens?
Depends how much dust you really have; all lenses are gonna contain some level of dust, and my guess is that because its new, you are expecting it a little closer than someone who has had the lens for a year or two, and thus doesn't really look that closely. There's a good Lensrental article on dust. Basically, unless you have a LOT of it on your rear element, on a wide angle lens, at f/16 or f/22, where you are focusing fairly closely, you won't notice it. The same is true with scratches actually, you can get a pretty deep scratch, and only have it show up if you point at the sun.


Look at what happened to the 580 EXII. New ones are almost impossible to find and the price has gone up well above what it was before the announcement of the 600 EX.
In the new market, yes, in the used market, not so much. That's one of things I think a lot of people are forgetting, there are a TON of 5dII's that were bought in the last year, and those people would probably upgrade to a better AF system if possible. There's also still the refurbished route, which Canon maintains on products they've discontinued like the T1i for example. I can get a refurb 580EX II for $339 +tax right now, and its $399+tax normally. I can't imagine the 5dII refurb disappearing from the Canon store, so, at worst, that price will stay the same

I don't think the price can go any lower. If Canon launches a 2K FF camera, I'd assume they would immediately discontinue the 5DII. The result could then raise the 5DII's price from smaller dealers. Just look what happened to the 24-70L as soon as it was discontinued!
And that is because there is no replacement. Simple supply and demand; a lot of people need the 24-70 in their kit, and its impossible to get a new one from an authorized dealer. If Canon completely killed off the 5dII (0 stock anywhere, no refurbs) and didn't deliver the 6D for a year, then yes, 5dII prices would go higher. But they'd all be used, and it'd be a different story. It'd be a secondary concern to the fact they'd have destroyed their reputation and lost a lot of photographers who bought Nikon instead

Also, note that lenses hold their value much better, often rising in price over time. The same isn't true of camera bodies, where you are lucky to hold 50% of its value 5 years after its released.

Price will go UP
I don't see that. If the new full-frame is announced at $2000, the 5dII price will plummet. If it's announced at $2500, then the 5dII price will stay the same. Remember, the 5dII is now retailing at $2200, so, they'll either discontinue it or have to drop that retail price when they announce a new version.

If no new version is announced at Photokina, then I think you'll see prices go lower a little bit. There will be some holiday sales, etc. Nothing major.

Actually, the 5dII kit (w/ 24-105) has gone as low as $2400 or so; but its more regular to find it in the $2600 range.

But, yes, your math makes sense, it just depends on what you are willing to spend on. The 5dII I believe is now 10% off through Canon Loyalty, which makes it $1580+tax. So, probably $1650-1700 after tax. And its pretty easy to find someone selling the 24-105 new out of their kit for $800 or so. But, that leaves you at $2500 with a 90 day warranty on your camera, and no warranty on your lens.

So, if you think you'll want the 24-105 for the camera, I'd get the kit, as for that extra little money, you'll have a 1yr warranty on everything

Lenses / Re: Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs 24-105 f/4L IS
« on: August 23, 2012, 12:39:05 PM »
I never had good luck with video once I got over ISO 800 on my 5d2 while shooting video; it got noisy in what I thought was unattractive ways. And I preferred to be at ISO 400 or slower.
That's because you don't want to use the standard ISO's for video; you want to work exclusively in multiples of 160. So ISO 160/320/640/800/1600...which doesn't leave you much room after ISO 800. But, ISO 640 will look better than ISO 100. http://www.petapixel.com/2011/05/02/use-iso-numbers-that-are-multiples-of-160-when-shooting-dslr-video/

The 24-105 will be great if a lot of what you shoot is outdoors, but, its going to be unusable indoors on your 60D, and limited on the 5dII. I guess it depends a lot on what you shoot, but generally speaking, you are better off using low-light primes for flexibility with video, and either having a rig or a tripod involved.

The IS is certainly nice to have if you're shooting a lot of run and gun stuff, but, you'll have to decide if it limits you too much.

Lenses / Re: Low Light options
« on: August 23, 2012, 10:02:13 AM »
The flash would still be a better option for wedding situations, where the rooms are dim and you're often taking group shots.  Ideally, you would like to get both a flash and the Sigma 30 to cover your bases.
For the pro hired to take the pictures, yes. For a guest just taking snapshots; flash is a good way to piss off people. I agree that there are situations where a flash will be nice (birthday parties, events, etc); but there's also plenty of times where its not socially acceptable; or worse, where your flash will actually ruin other's photos.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 56