March 02, 2015, 02:36:07 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 57
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D in October? [CR1]
« on: August 09, 2012, 08:13:22 PM »
I really don't see how you could make a full frame "starter" camera. Remove AF adjustments? Instead of releasing a new camera, why not just sell the 5D MK II for cheap?

Have to agree, the tooling are already in place, perhaps just update the AF?
Thing is, there is a point of diminishing returns there. Canon set up the 5dII to retail at $2700 originally, and then dropped it to $2499 for a while. Now its basically going for $2000 every place, what price would they have to drop it to to compete with a D600? If that price is $1750 or $1500, you have to imagine there is a point where the margins get so thin that they aren't making money. Plus, there's the theory of "newer is better" in the camera world. A 5-yr old design competing with Nikon's newest is not the way to snag new customers.

Plus, if the change the body to more plastic, it can make it cheaper. Likewise, making use of the 5dIII or 1dX sensor condenses that part of production. Right now, they have to actually produce 5dIIs as none of their current line uses any of its features. A frankenstein of current pieces is probably more cost effective.

Basically, they can't sell the 5dII at $2000 for the next 3 years...but a 6D they probably could, even if its only the minor upgrades mentioned

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D: Buy now or wait?
« on: August 09, 2012, 12:55:25 PM »
What about the people that held out for a year or more waiting for a 5d3 and then couldn't afford it, or decided at that price they'd rather invest it other ways like lenses etc.

There are many downsides to waiting for the unknown.
How are those downsides? Those people still could get a 5dII (and $500 cheaper than they would have a year earlier), or, they had a bunch of money saved for great lenses. And they were able to wait because they didn't need the camera. If it affects your business and income, then the decision is easy.

I'd say wait for a few reasons. The first is that something new could be announced that you'll want (6D, 70D, etc). The second is because the 7D is gonna be around for a while, so, its not like you are gonna miss out on it by waiting. Third, the best deals on cameras come in the holiday season. Last year, Canon was doing body/lens combos that were HUGE savings, so waiting til November for the 7D might save you a few hundred bucks.

If you look at the price chart from last year, the body price dropped $200+ from Sept to Dec:

Sports / Re: Olympic Tennis 2012 at Wimbledon
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:23:01 PM »
What kind of shutter speeds were these? doesnt look to sharp from the motion blur :s
The original post says: 1/125 to 1/640. That said, my guess was more that they were cropped, based on the lens and distance. But it could be motion blur.

Either way, cool to get so close to the court and be able to watch. I would have loved to be at the Olympics

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:17:43 PM »
I wonder if the price of the new lens will increase the value of mine, or if I should consider selling it before it loses too much value
Well, a few things.

1. The new lens doesn't actually exist. Canon's history for the past year would indicate that by the time they announce the lens, you have a 6ish month waiting period for it to actually arrive at your door, and the possibly return it because something is wrong to get fixed. Even if you avoid the latter part, it's 2013 before you can get it. Which leads to 2:

2. You can use the current 35L and take pictures. That has monetary value, especially if you are a pro who makes money from your camera. Even if you are not, the ability to take quality photos at 35mm doesn't go away cause Canon might release a new version.

3. All lens prices are doubling, not just Canon's. The original 35L is retailing at $1479, which means the new one is probably $2k+. If it's like the 24-70 market, it'll only increase the value of your lens. For example, you paid as much used as what someone would have paid for a new 35L on its release:

All those combine to say that, unless you never use your 35L, you should keep it. And if they end up releasing the new 35L at $1500 and it hurts the value of your current lens, well, consider it a blessing that Canon released the lens you want at a reasonable price

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Product Advisory
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:05:58 PM »
So...putting your lens cap on might cause it to not be able to AF without taking the lens off and on?

Yeah, that's something that shouldn't have made it past QC testing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to announce medium format dslr?
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:39:09 AM »
However, we'll have four mount - EFs, EF, M and MF. That's a lot of investment in production lines but if Canon can pull off MF it will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons i.e. Nikon & Sony  :)
Actually, 5 lines as Canon is also making their cine lenses in PL mount...though, it's really a whole production line just to produce those in EF mount anyway.

Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS
« on: August 07, 2012, 04:07:58 PM »
For outdoor and landscape work like I do up in the mtns the 24 IS might just be the perfect ticket of size portability and performance.  Not to mention it's almost half the cost.
In that case, get the older 24mm for Canon at half the price of the new one. The IS isn't going to allow you to blur water and keep the images sharp at the same time, so you're either taking a tripod or shooting fast enough shutter speeds that the original 24mm is fine. Cause the MTF numbers that Lensrental showed basically say the difference between old and new is maybe noticeable on a print at f/2.8, but probably not. And if you're shooting landscapes, you're probably at f/8+ anyway, so no advantage gained.

For that one shot you need to take a 1/15 f/2.8, it's great, otherwise their is a much cheaper option that's just as good.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to announce medium format dslr?
« on: August 06, 2012, 12:43:44 PM »
it´s all nice and true what you say but i know more people with a medium format camera then with a 15000$ video camera  + 43000$ lenses (like the canon CN-E 14.5-60mm).
That's because most of the people working in that realm rent rather than buy. They factor that into their prices. You'd have to know someone with a production suite to know someone who owns the C300 or RED cameras personally. This is especially true because a normal video production involves multiple people and a lot more money; whereas someone in photography can, theoretically, do their work on their own.

I just don't get the excitement for Canon medium format. It probably can't use your existing EF lenses, so, you are already not forced into a specific system. And I can't imagine it not being $10k+, as the Canon niche products have come out as expensive, if not more expensive than their counterparts (the C300 is way overpriced, the 1D-C costs 50% more than Sony's F700, and the C500 is comparable in price with a RED system). So if you're willing to spend $10k+ on a MF system, why not do it already with the options that exist?

And again, the Canon Cine stuff was announced in April; yet doesn't exist right now. You can't pre-order it, and even the pricing wasn't definitive at the time of the announcement. There's not even a release date for them to push back 3 months. So you might see this thing in 2013, but at the same price as what exists today...

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) a whole new line of cinema cameras that they've yet to deliver (with new lenses for that as well) 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.

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.
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

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?

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

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  ;)

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 57