March 01, 2015, 12:05:59 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 ... 57
EOS Bodies / Re: 3D X and 7D Mark II at Photokina?
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:00:45 PM »
Their source is CR!!!!! LOL
Yep, they are using the two CR1 posts from this site (that were also sourced from NL) to say what will "be announced". Very, very silly, considering what CR1 means. Interestingly, they didn't bother to mention the 100-400, new 400mm, new 35mm, new 50mm, new 45mm and 90mm T/S, new 70D, new cheap full-frame, or any of the other items (new 430ex, etc) that have been CR1 in the same time frame. Kind of lazy/bad for credibility to put them in the "what to expect" category

Here is what the Photorumors link goes to:

Has it increased proportional to the cost of my gear, no, but, that's when you put a specific monetary value on it. I've definitely gotten better over time, but I could have also improved with the specific gear I had originally. Though, adding a wide angle lens definitely gets me shots I never could have.

Is the improvement proportional to the cost of my gear?  No, it's far greater.  I can put a price on the gear (and I have to, for insurance coverage).  The memories captured are priceless.
I love this take on it and I completely agree. While I don't have kids, its impossible to put value on how much fun I've had trying to capture a bunch of different shots and the places its taken me. And how much more fun it is than sitting in my living room in a weekend.

edit: Yeah, as i've spent more Ive definitely invested more time as well.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:46:28 AM »
it´s an entry level fullframe. not really a competition to the 5D MK3 other then sensor size and MP.
Well, 39pt AF, 5fps, etc. Granted, the ISO levels and SD cards are a big difference that would keep pro's away.

But, since there are plenty of hobbyists who would rather pay <$2000 for the 5dII over the 5dIII, I'd be a little worried if I was Canon. Because if they release that camera at $1500, and Canon doesn't have a response right away, the price of switching becomes very, very easy to justify when there is a $1500 price difference, and when Canon's entry full frame (5dII currently) is significantly under-spec'd.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24 f/1.4L and 24mmL TS-E ii
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:34:15 AM »
The only use where I would think of 24mm 1.4L II would be astrophotography.
Yep, I had the same thought. AF would be a non-issue for me for landscape and architectural work, as I'd be manual focusing most of the time anyway.

The 24 T/S is going to be better in every regard than the 24L, except in AF and low-light. So, if you'll use the 24L to shoot people or other scenese where you need AF a decent amount of the time, then you'd have to get that. Otherwise, I think the T/S opens up more possibilities.

This review has comparisons of all the lenses in that range (both 24mm T/S, the 24L, 16-35, etc). If you compare them at f/3.5, the TS is noticeably sharper and has much less CA. That's wide open v a lens stopped down 3 stops. The same is generally true at f/4-f/'s just sharper across the frame because of the nature of how it works. And of course, there's the ability to do pano's, etc

Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: August 29, 2012, 03:51:35 PM »
except those zoom lenses that have been said to not work at 4k on this model
Well, these zooms are designed for an APS-C image circle, thus why you have to change to Super 35 mode. If you're in an APS-H mode using a lens designed for an APS-C image circle, you're going to get an ugly vignette. My guess is they were designed for the APS-C image circle to keep them lighter (thus the headline, "lightweight compact zooms" on the CR page)

EF lenses, being designed for a full-frame image circle, would presumably not have this issue

Lenses / Re: 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro
« on: August 29, 2012, 02:16:50 PM »
No lens has "portrait" written on it, but the 100L certainly is usable for this application, and for a wedding is more versatile than the 100/2 because you can close-up shots without changing lenses. The "real" flexible portrait lens for weddings is the 70-200/2.8 if you are willing to carry that around.
True, but, if you're going with a prime, one of the 100mm macro's is a nice combo to have so you don't have to keep changing lenses to get detail shots.

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+, 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'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:

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 57