November 26, 2014, 06:21:08 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 54
571
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:18:56 PM »
I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind.  Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear.  I wish I could get a 70-200mm  :'(
If you're going to school for video, and you plan on using the camera to shoot your stuff, then I'd spend your money on a few primes rather than on a tele zoom. You'll want something to cover the wider range, and probably something in the more traditional portrait range.

I guess a 17-55 zoom would cover your wide needs; something like the Tamron non-VC, or that Sigma lens. As for the portrait side, something like Canon's 85mm f/1.8, or the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 would cover you. The Samyang lenses are a great value for video use, since you'll be manually focusing anyways. Another option is to use some older lenses (Nikon AI, older Contax/Zeiss, etc) with adapters.

The 18-135 (either the older one or the new STM) would cover general needs, but, you'll find it limiting for video use if you want shallow depth of field. I would avoid impulse buying, you already have one good lens that is useful for getting to know the camera (which is the most important part); you can find out once classes are going what you'll need more of in terms of focal length

572
EOS Bodies / Re: How much will the 5d3 cost at the end of 2012?
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:09:53 PM »
I said $3,500, as I think that will remain the list price. But, I do expect Canon to offer a rebate of $150-$200 for the holidays. Maybe double the rebate if you buy a lens. So, street price could be a little lower.
Yeah, I have the same feeling, which is why I put $3300. It will still have the technical retail price of $3499, but, you'll see it on Amazon/B+H/etc at $3300ish during the holiday sales.

Definitely don't see it doing a major drop to anything like $3000

573
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:43:49 AM »
There isn't much room for improvement on the current version of this lens. Although Canon has been coming out with some lenses lately that are close optical perfection. I would be interested in trying this new lens out!
They might add weather sealing to it, which is one thing its missing in relation to the newer L lenses. But yeah, aside from that and some new coatings, I'm not sure they can drastically improve it in any way.

574
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:33:09 AM »
Not sure I understand the point of having the pancake be larger (with adapter) on a mirrorless than it is on a 5D. But then, I'm sure the aim is to sell the lenses with the new mount.
Well, remember that a 5D would still be twice the size of a likely mirrorless camera, so even if the lens sticks out a little more, its still more portable on the mirrorless camera.


575
EOS Bodies / Re: Why so many different camera bodies?
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:23:53 PM »
So in your confusion you do not understand that the only current production models are the 1D X, 5D III, 7D (again differ5ent price points / markets), 60D, T4i / 650D and T3/ 1100D; the rest are onsolete / out of production just like a 1964 Mustang
Well, according to the dealer logs, the T2i, T3i, and 5dII are not out of production/discontinued. While you are correct that there are newer models, Canon keeps some old models in production, and as such you'd have to consider them part of their active line.

The T4i clarifies the Rebel line some...the T2i/T3i being active at the same time definitely confused the hell out of a lot of people. Most of their other products differentiate from each other enough to not cause that same confusion. I think a 70D that returns to its 50D like form could create confusion with the 7D (since they'd likely be pretty similar).


576
EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:12:52 PM »
The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.
Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.
Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.
Even then, the body of those mirrorless cameras are still half the size of a rebel. An NEX with a pancake lens can fit in your jacket pocket; a T4i with the 40mm probably can't, at least not conveniently.

It makes it smaller, which is nice, but the very nature of the EF mount means that Canon's DSLRs aren't gonna match the small size of a mirrorless. But, as you pointed out, ergonomics are the trade-off for having a small camera

577
That was one of the known complaints with Tamron's VC. I think it was the 17-50 lens of theirs where it was the worst; to the point that it would make most of your images soft because the VC would take too long to kick in. My 70-300 had the issue a little bit, but I never expected to instantly snap pictures if my camera had been at my side for a while anyway.

I'd definitely return it and get another copy; it might be less of an issue then

578
The other thing I'd say on those photos is that a flash would help to keep their faces from being in the shadows. More specifically in shot 3, because she's already in the shade, a flash would brighten up her face and make it the focal point of the image. It would also make her stand apart more from the background, giving the image a more 3-dimensional feel. Image 4 is tougher to tell if it would help, but it might.

579
Yes, you need to ask why. What is it that makes one camera perform vastly better than another?
Well, the price for one thing. If the 1DX didn't do anything better than the 5dIII, nobody would buy it for twice the price. So its understandable that Canon would use certain items that are better in the 1DX to differentiate it.
Quote
Why are Sony sensors better while the cameras using them are cheaper?
Because a sensor is one item in a camera, and the best sensor doesnt change a blurry or missed shot. Also, if we're talking video, I'm not sure I'd agree the Sony sensor is better (reviews pretty universally favor the Canon footage). But for photos, I'd agree that the Sony sensor has some potential advantages

Also, its coming from different companies...so maybe Nikon is taking a loss on the D800 to get people to convert to their system (Sony sold the PS3 at a lost for a few years, for example). Maybe the D800 has really a really cheap build. Maybe Canon is fleecing their customers. I'm not sure you can answer that question in any reasonable way since it involves multiple companies, multiple strategies, and thousands of different parts.
Quote
Why does the 7D use the same sensor as the 550D? Because the price is not in the sensor and the 7D doesn't make better pictures once the light gets through to the sensor than the 550D.
And the answer there is easy, as just reading the spec sheet would show you all the differences in the camera. Again, the best sensor in the world doesn't matter if the object is out of focus, or if the camera can't process the shots fast enough to even take the shot.

580
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII Price Drop
« on: June 28, 2012, 02:11:20 PM »
$3369 on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Digital/dp/B007Q1FFI8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1340903937&sr=8-5&keywords=canon+5d+III
Actually, its $3499 from Amazon. The others are just people using the marketplace and are potentially as sketchy as BestPricePhoto. Only when its sold by Amazon, or fulfilled by Amazon, do you have the protection Amazon offers (though fulfilled by might not qualify you for a warranty).

581
EOS Bodies / Re: Is SLR dead?
« on: June 28, 2012, 02:05:54 PM »
Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.
Those are pretty impressive for a camera phone though, the resolution seems great

582
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII Price Drop
« on: June 28, 2012, 12:44:11 PM »
It is important to note, they are not a Canon authorized dealer.
And they are a fairly well known scam/upseller shop. Sure, you'll order the 5dIII, then you'll get the call telling you the battery only lasts 30mins and you need the extended battery with service plan (for only $179.99!)...oh, and their unbranded 16GB CF card for $179.99 too. If you don't upsell, your order gets cancelled as they don't have it in stock anymore. If you do get the camera, the warranty is through another shady company, and it will likely be grey market.

Listing a popular item for 15% off retail when nobody else is doing discounts is exactly how you hook people into a scam.

583
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Review
« on: June 27, 2012, 09:44:42 AM »
And he's saying 1 stop improvement in noise for higher ISO. If that's true for raw and not just JPEG then that's quite significant as that advantage.
Well, just looking at those flower photos, ISO 12800 on the 1DX looks like ISO800/1600 on any of Canon's APS-C cameras (60D, 7D, etc), which is kind of crazy. Like he mentions, its very useable to 12,800, the 25,600 would probably be where I'd set my Max ISO setting, but you could even use the 51,200 and de-noise and probably be fine. It's kind of crazy how well it handles low light.

I agree about the new sensor design, I don't think an slight MP drop is enough to account for that

584
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 03:30:56 PM »
The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately  :(
Well, the 400mm f/5.6 is well regarded, but, obviously doesnt have IS. Maybe the 300 f/4L with a teleconverter? Or you could stick with the original 100-400. All are around the same price and have sufficed for many a wildlife shooter.

I'd be interested in your thoughts accounting for (presumed) the weight increase..
A couple of guesses, based on the rumors and patents. For one, it'd be 19 elements in 14 groups instead of the 17/14 of the previous lens, so extra glass means more weight. The different body style and weather sealing could add weight. And if it truly is 82mm instead of 77mm, then the glass itself is larger, which would be more weight. It doesn't say how much more weight...so, even like 3.25lbs would be considered "heavier", even if its truly not "heavy"

585
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 02:40:08 PM »
By the way, these are past rumors, for comparison sake

Quote
I was told it would be in the $3000 price range, have a rotating zoom, weigh less, be slightly faster on the wide end at f/4 and carry the latest and greatest coatings and IS.
Quote
Ring zoom (not push/pull)
Latest IS System
82mm Filter Size
Weather Sealed
Slightly heavier than the current model
Slightly faster f/4 at 100mm (Current is f/4.5)
Retail around $2800 USD
So, that's 2 mentions of being heavier, 2 mentions of the price in the $3k range, all mention it at f/4, and the rotating zoom seems to also be likely. Then gain, this was rumored at CR2 in 2010 before they scrapped that lens, so, who knows

I'd say set your expectations at $2500 to be the lowest possible price point, and be surprised if its cheaper. Especially if they wasted R&D on a previous design

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 54