January 29, 2015, 05:42:47 AM

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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 56
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:20:31 PM »
Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? 
Well, for the D800, a 14 bit uncompressed RAW file is 75mb according to Nikon. And that is off a 36MP sensor. A 45+ MP sensor, you're probably looking at 100+mb for a RAW file, which is about quadruple what the current file size is. That adds up very quickly when you are shooting 100's of images at a time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 04:33:11 PM »
Is this just a defensive rumor started by Canon to stop people from defecting to Nikon and buying the D800?
I doubt that. Anyone who wanted to defect would have already, since they've had several months to consider it. The D800 is real, a Canon variant isn't, for someone who needs the MP, they've moved already. Especially since there was no indication Canon was gonna match the D800 in price.

Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable.  I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.

For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run.  I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....
Yep, these I can see being about right. And I think Nikon actually made a mistake pricing the D800 so low. There are quite a few people that switched because it was affordable to do so, only to realize they didn't need or want 36MP, and now they are changing back. I've seen it a bunch for wedding/pj types, where the hassle of the extra storage and extra processing isn't worth it

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Firmware Available
« on: August 21, 2012, 02:37:20 PM »
Why can't other bodies handle the FW update?
I'm guessing its a function they just recently added to their software, and its not in any camera they released before 2012?

Makes sense really, as it would save them a lot of repair time for something like this if all their bodies could just download the firmware

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:55:31 AM »
I'm in the reusing the 1d name camp....   we have 1DC, 1DX, 1DM - for "Max" to allude at "medium" format quality at FF sized sensor.
The "M" name is already taken, that's their mirrorless cameras (EOS-M). It'd be a nightmare for them to put out a 1DM that isn't mirror less, definitely confuse a lot of people. It would be just as bad as naming it 3D. Since they already have the legacy of the 1Ds, I'd go with that.

"Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native  :P
Amazingly, in quoting that, you managed to remove the word "low" from it, which makes all the difference

1Dx is nice but I'm not quite there yet with income.  I think 5D3 is the direction I'm leaning.  I found this seller on eBay.  It looks like he breaks up the 5D3/24-105 kits and sells separately.  <$3100?  Usually, if it looks too good to be true, it isn't. It looks like he's sold quite a few.


Canon has a specific list of retailers that are "authorized", meaning that you get the warranty for a full year. I know GetItDigital is not one of those, and many of the Ebay sellers are not either. For a $3000 item, not getting a warranty would be unacceptable to me. The list is at the bottom of this page: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/where-to-buy-pro

There are a few that are tricky (ASavings on Ebay is actually Focus Camera, which is authorized, for example), but for the most part if you don't see them on the list, the "warranty" they offer is dependent on them actually backing the product, not Canon.

It also appears that Ebay has authorized resellers pointed out, as they do in this listing in the top right corner: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-BODY-Digital-SLR-Camera-Canon-5260B002-NEW-/170846708911?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item27c741e4af

Technical Support / Re: 60D Dust Help
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:40:11 PM »
Have you tryed one of those little rocket blowers? might end up on the sensor by the time you are done tho, thats always a risk of blowing in the body
I actually tried messing with it a few different ways and was never able to get it to move. Mine is in the upper left corner of the frame though, so, it basically never messes with my composition

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:37:56 PM »
The current 7D is still usable at 3200 ISO, if you use raw and some NR in f.i. LR afterwards imho...
[/quote]Oh, I agree, but, the 1DX gets about the same results at 25600; it basically is a full 4 stops better than the 7D sensor. Which is understandable when you consider one is a 3yr old APS-C sensor and the other is the top of the line full-frame sensor.

My point was that I don't expect Canon to have any worries about whether a 7DII has 1DX features, because its low light ability will never be able to match it.
If Canon were listening to what photographers want, how near is this specification to what 7D users have been asking for in a MkII ?
Well, if it does video at 1080/60fps, it'd be more than most users were expecting. The fps and AF are about what most expect, and the sensor sort of goes either way. I think most wanted an improved 18mp, while others wanted more or APS-H.

If that spec list is true, it'd be a well embraced camera.

I hope the 7D MKII will inherit the 61-AF
- 61-point AF with up to 41 cross-type AF points
- ISO up to 25600 and Less high ISO noise at 6400 (would be great if that would be even 12800)
- dual slots
I do think they will have to reconfigure the whole 61pt AF system, since its a smaller image circle they are dealing with. It may well end up as a 41pt AF system (removing all the outside points), but with all cross-point or mainly cross-point. A stop improvement on the sensor would be nice as well.

Give it the same build quality, a better sensor, faster, better AF, and it sounds like a win. And maybe a nice option when fall 2013 comes around

Technical Support / Re: 60D Dust Help
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:10:18 AM »
If you're seeing actual small specs, it's unlikely to be on the mirror, since the mirror is not a focal plane (much like a speck on the front element, it won't resolve as a discrete point).  Rather, the dust is most likely on the focusing screen (the accessible bottom or the inaccessible top).
I have the same issue, a few specs of something in the top left corner of my view-finder. Since it has no effect on my images, I've decided to leave it as it. Not worth the cost of cleaning/repair to me since it has no effect

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 09:24:28 AM »
So it would have a higher res than the 1Dx and just 2fps less?  That is the part I don't get.  I think the 7D is due for replacement, and these maybe the specs, but if they are, I don't see it getting here till mid next year.  1DX supply is tight still, eh?
We're talking entirely different sensors though. For outdoor sports shooters who get bright sunlight, sure, there might not be a big difference. But then again, the current 7D would probably be fine for them (though the AF upgrade would be nice)

But for anyone working inside or in lower light, the 1DX sensor can shoot comfortably at ISO 12,800 and even 25,600, and the current 7D struggles at ISO 1600. Even assuming they get an extra stop out of the 7D sensor, its still well behind.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2012, 11:17:01 PM »
Well, the one thing that is consistent between all these different spec lists is that it will be 10fps and a focus system that is a variation of the 61pt system from the 5dIII/1DX. Nothing else has been consistent. The sensor is either gonna be full frame, APS-H, 18mp APS-C, or 24MP APS-C w/ phase AF. Or it might not exist at all and the 70D will take its place.

When I see a CR2, or several posts in a row with matching specs (the last 4-5 have had nothing in common) then I'll believe a 7DII might get put in the "announce and don't deliver for a year queue" that Canon has set up

Video & Movie / Re: Time Laspe Program?
« on: August 19, 2012, 11:00:47 PM »
Is there any computer program for Mac that can compile a time lapse together other than cs6? Cs6 seems to take forever and doesn't seem to keep the quality of the photos
Any video editing program, and even Quicktime 7 Pro can do it. I'd suggest looking through some of the forum posts here to see if there is anything in Photoshop you are doing wrong:


Lenses / Re: quess how many lenses, ebay foolishness.
« on: August 19, 2012, 10:31:51 PM »
i swear i see a listing for a 2.8, then a photo of an f4IS, then a 2.8IS v2 box, then...? And i thought I had crummy ebay ads.
Yep, there are 3 photos of the f/4L IS in there; for whatever reason. But, they are all taken on the same tile floor, and he did leave a note clarifying that it is the vII of the new f/2.8 version, so, you'd at least have a claim if he sent you the f/4L

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II
« on: August 19, 2012, 10:17:58 PM »
Does anybody have a more useful update on the delays for this lens and what happened with delay?  I assume from Mr. Grumpy above that it's due next month?
Well, using the search function for the site, I found this. Answers your questions as completely as anyone can


Just looking for an opinion. I want to get my first L lens and I'm tossing between Canon 70 - 200 f/4 IS vs. 70 - 200 F2.8 non IS. I'm looking to use it for sports photography, mainly outdoors but sometime indoors.
Its tricky, because the common sense is that the IS isn't going to do you any good for sports since people are moving so fast, but, there are definitely times where IS is the only way you get static shots.

I love my f/4L IS, and I've never had problem with getting fast enough shutter speeds for action with it outdoors. Indoors it would be lacking, but, I'm not sure the f/2.8 would fully get you there either. You'd probably find the 85 or 135 lenses better there

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 17, 2012, 02:21:45 PM »
It looks like you were pointing the camera downwards from a height. That's a bit like using a tilt and shift, which is why you were able to get more apparent DoF.
I was gonna say something similar; you can see what is out of focus and where the focus plane is when you look closely, but, on first glance you don't notice them and it seems to have endless depth. Saw this with another photo where I guy had used a T/S lens to get the entire scene in focus, but it made it seem flat. When someone add a little photoshop T/S effect to it, the scene came to life

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 56