October 31, 2014, 03:55:58 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 ... 53
526
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to announce medium format dslr?
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:45:13 AM »
I just can't imagine this all coming together in non-EF format. So they'd have production lines running to get all their EF-M stuff out (due in October), not to mention maybe a pro system. They also have to produce all of their current lineup (T3, T2i/T3i/T4i, 60D or replacement, 7D, 5DII or replacement, 5dIII, and the 1DX)...plus a whole new line of cinema cameras that they've yet to deliver (with new lenses for that as well)...plus a few lenses they announced a year ago that aren't out yet, and others that have no stock.

Where would they possibly have room for a whole other camera system, especially one that might abandon the EF mount, or would be a major departure from their normal path? I can see a 40mp EF camera, no doubt...but not a whole new system.

527
Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS
« on: August 05, 2012, 10:25:55 AM »
Any thoughts or reviews on how the new 24mm F/2.8 with IS stacks up against the 24mm F/1.4L.
Completely different lenses for very different purposes. The 24mm f/2.8 would be a great video lens if you needed to be mobile with a rig. It tested pretty well, so the IS version may also be sharper across the frame. But, the 24mm f/1.4 will be way more versatile for pictures, with the light gathering and shallow DOF.
Quote
Seems a tad like the 24-105 F/4 w IS vs. the  24-70 2.8.
The major difference is that this debate is between IS (non-moving subjects) and extra light. If you're someone who travels and shoots landscapes/buildings, then you get the 24-105 cause its longer and the IS is useful. If you shoot pictures of people, you get the 24-70 cause faster shutter speeds always win. But, they are close in price, so it can be a genuine choice.

In the 24mm case, there is pretty much no reason not to get the 24mmL unless you don't have the money, or unless you shoot mostly video. There's not really anything the new 24mm IS will do better

528
Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 04, 2012, 08:30:11 PM »
I think in your particular case the 24-105L is the clear winner.  If you follow the suggestions of the other zoom lenses, you're stuck with APS-C and can't go FF.
Except you can always sell the EF-S lens if you upgrade...and in the mean-time (which if he can't get another L lens for year, probably means at least a year if not longer), you've got a lens that is better suited for the body he has. 17-55 on APS-C covers landscape through the early end of portraits. The 15-85 would cover the full range he'd want, but, I'm not sure its worth the sacrifice of the extra stops of light.

Get a used 17-55, they go for $750-800 on the used market, and if you switch bodies, sell it for about the exact same price. Or, just as likely, find someone with the 24-105 and trade with them.

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is pretty significant, especially for landscape work. And the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 can be significant in indoor lighting. So why pay as much, or more, for something that would limit most of your photography?

529
I'd suggest at least doubling, if not tripling, the duration of each scene.
Depends what he's going for. If he wants this to just be an interest-grabbing piece done in a classier version of something like MTV Cribs, then he's nailed the style. If the video is supposed to give a complete picture of the house and be a stand in for a real tour, then yes, it's too fast.

Considering the clientele for that location and house, I'm gonna guess it's the former, and I think it works. It opens up all the possibilities and would get someone to schedule a viewing. He also has photos if someone wants to see closer details. The pacing is important for keeping interest, and some of those shots being 3x longer would definitely drag. There's a few shots you could leave longer; or that could be done on a more traditional slider instead off the glidecam to be smoother, but generally I think it works. If anything, the clip lengths are a little too similar. Putting a few quick shots followed by a little longer one can add emphasis, and I think that's a technique you could utilize more. Maybe start closer in on the details and cutting out to a wider shot of the room. That would help to give a fuller picture without risking the pacing you have.

I'm not familiar with real estate photography in general, but I think the HDR effect of some of the photos is a little strong. Definitely makes the house seem bright, but, also a little surreal. But it wouldn't surprise me if thats pretty standard for RE photos

530
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Crossroads :)
« on: August 02, 2012, 02:33:10 PM »
That's actually a superb idea.  Thanks.
No problem, it's easy to spend other people's money. I'll accept one of the 5dIII's as my commission  ;)

531
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Crossroads :)
« on: August 02, 2012, 02:27:55 PM »
My current position is to sell a 5D3, the 1D4, and the 1Ds3, and buying a 1DX, giving me a pair of 1DX's and a 5D3.  I could probably budget down the road either a newer 400mm lens or a 500mm lens.  I'm not in a bind or anything, I was just looking for some opinions on what you might do if you were going to primarily shoot sports, but do some weddings here and there.  Thanks!
What about ending up with a two 1DX's and the 1D4? The 1DX's would more than cover you for pretty much everything (indoors, weddings, etc), and the 1DIV would allow your 400mm lens to cover the track portions you need the extra reach for. The re-sale value difference between the 5dIII and 1D4 is what, $1000? Compare that to maybe needing to buy the 500mm or 600mm and that's nothing.

Two 1DX's and a 5dIII just seems odd...I'm not sure you'd ever actually use the 5dIII, because the 1DX does everything it does, only better.

532
What do u guys think? Is this worth the price or just spend a little extra $$$ for the canon version? The Version II is just way out of budget for me. Rather spend that kind of money on the 70-200 L f2.8 IS USM II. JMHO
Well, depends what you shoot the most. The difference between 17mm and 24mm is pretty big, so, I'd say the choice would be between the 17-55 and Tamron 24-70. Then its just a matter of whether you need the wide end (landscape, larger groups, etc) or the longer end (portraits, etc).

No point in spending more for the old Canon version when it lacks IS, and when everyone is saying the Tamron is sharper.

533
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS
« on: August 01, 2012, 05:32:54 PM »
I really like the 135mm f/2.0L, however, I don't use it as much as I used to because it is starting to show its age. The lens isn't much faster focusing than the 85mm f/1.2L II (feels like it has slowed down over a few years) and I think the focusing speed needs to be improved to keep up with the 1DX. 135mm is one my favorite focal lengths for basketball so I'm looking forward to a new model. I don't need the extra 1/3 stop of light or IS but will happily take any improvements I can get my hands on.
Interestingly, this LensRental article published today might just agree with exactly what you wrote

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras

Quote
The two newest Canon cameras have more accurate phase-detection sensors than their previous cameras. The newest lenses have more accurate focus movement (or provide more accurate focus movement feedback, or both) that takes advantage of those sensors. Older cameras don’t have accurate enough AF sensors to take advantage of the new lenses’ capabilities.  Older lenses can’t move their focusing elements with enough accuracy to take advantage of the new cameras’ accurate sensors.
So, a lens might appear to slow down if you've upgraded bodies over time, or, if you've gotten a newer lens  that pairs better with a newer body. The 135L being a 1996 lens would suggest that's likely, and so an upgrade to it might make an already fast lens even faster.

534
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS
« on: August 01, 2012, 03:32:49 PM »
Looks fake to me too.

It looks like a merger of current 100L Macro and 24-70 f/2.8 L USM II.
But, who's to say that it won't end up looking like a merger of the two. It's likely to have the same IS system as the 100L, and if they are moving it to f/1.8 from f/2, it might need a larger front element (thus the 82mm). In fact, any new 135L would probably look really similar to the 100L based on the focal length.

I agree it looks photoshopped, but, the reason its a believable one is because the lens will probably look very similar.
maybe some dudes will fleabay their Mk.1's and we can get them at nice prices...
They are already at nice prices. That said, if Canon releases a new one at $2000+, you won't get the Mk. 1 for very cheap. If anything, it'd increase the prices as everyone who wanted a 135L can't afford the $2k and will settle for the Mk1 at $1000ish...rather than the $800ish they go for now.

I'd say $1700 for the new 135L, but, IS might push it up a little more

535
EOS Bodies / Re: Pull the trigger on a 60D? Pricing...
« on: August 01, 2012, 10:15:37 AM »
Thanks for that info, that is a heck of a deal!  I'm trying to weigh out the pros and cons to buying a refurb.  I understand they can be scuffed up a little, and you could end up with a camera with a shutter count of 5 or 10,000... you just don't know what you're going to get.  Which makes it difficult to make a decision.
Well, I am currently using my refurb 60D that I got nearly a year ago. Mine came in great shape (about 200 shutter count), and that is generally how they come. In that year, where I feel like I've used it a lot, I've added about 9,000 to that shutter count. That includes multiple time lapses and a two-week long photo trip in Glacier. The shutter is rated to 100,000 actuations, so, theoretically, I can use my camera just as heavily for 9 more years and still be good to go.

So, while its nice to get one with 50 instead of 5,000; in reality, you're talking something that has a life that is much, much longer than that. I'd recommend getting an extended warranty or insuring your gear, just in case, and then you don't even need to worry about what kind of shutter count it has

536
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this a good time to buy 1D X?
« on: July 31, 2012, 11:07:53 AM »
The 1Dx is the most advanced camera canon has produced to date. If it doesn't satisfy your needs, I doubt any camera could.
Except if its gonna fail on you for the entire trip, then its a big risk to take when you won't be able to exchange it.

See this thread for examples: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8158.30

Personally, I'd wait until Canon acknowledges the error and fixes it, that way you can avoid getting the error. But it sounds like resetting the camera to factory defaults can be a workaround if it acts up. If you're willing to deal with the potential hassle of resetting, then the benefits (insanely fast AF, awesome low-light, etc) could be worth it

537
EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade from my T3i Need Advice!!
« on: July 30, 2012, 10:33:33 AM »
I sold my T3i because it was lacking in autofocus speed, and build quality (not weatherproof, etc) and @Mt Spokane Photography I would buy a 1D series but i only have $2100 to spend!!
Yeah, then I think you would likely find the rumored Canon full-frame to be a little lacking based on build; the rumors were that it was going to be more plastic than metal in the body, so probably similar to say a 60D build quality. I'd be surprised if it was as weatherproof as the 7D body.

So, you'd get the AF of the 7D, and the benefits of full-frame, but probably not the build. If you liked the video the T3i provided, but not the pictures, than the 7D is probably your answer. If you didn't like the video, then you're probably looking at saving up more and getting a 5dIII

538
Portrait / Re: Heat Wave! 100 Liters of water + model + sunshine....
« on: July 29, 2012, 11:50:15 AM »
looks kind of overexposed to me
I was thinking the same thing, but, my guess is that its just the reflector side being very bright compared to the other side. The concept is great, just seems like you lost some face detail with the reflector light being bright.

Not the easiest conditions to nail exposure though, and the overexposure is only there when you look closer

539
I'd opt for the T4i and the 40mm STM pancake lens and / or  18-135mm STM lens.  This is the first Canon DSLR that will autofocus while doing video, and it is designed to work with the STM lenses which have relatively silent AF motors.
The T3i is not optomized with these lenses.  It won't autofocus while doing video, so spending money on a AF lens for video is a waste, no matter which.
If you're an actor and making movies, you won't be using that AF anyway, as its not any better than pressing the shutter button and letting the camera hunt for focus. Everything is manual focus; they reason to get lenses that AF is if you plan on using the camera for stills as well.

I'll agree with others; get the T3i, get the Samyang lenses, learn to MF and expect a steep learning curve. If you're going to be doing just video work with the camera, start researching legacy lenses (Contax-Zeiss, Nikon AI, etc) as they are much cheaper than the modern Canon equivalents, and they work just fine with adapters for narrative video work.

When you are looking at lenses, you're not looking for what stills people look for. The 50mm f/1.8 has great IQ for its price, but its the worst lens Canon makes for manual focusing, which makes it hard to work with for video. The 40mm has the same limitation (tiny focus ring). That's where the Samyang lenses are so great

540
EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 25, 2012, 09:02:05 AM »
I hope for a new 300 f/4 or 400f/5.6 but i doubt if the 100-400 f/4-5.6 is as good and sharp as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 !
Yeah, I think the new 100-400 is going to be the replacement for both the old 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6, as CR mentioned as much a while back.

Either way, updates to the non-f/2.8 300mm and 400mm lenses would probably put them more in the $2000-2500 retail space, which kind of kills their market anyway. Seems like the just over $1000 L lens marketplace is gonna be disappearing over the next few years

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 53