April 18, 2014, 10:02:27 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 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 49
Lenses / Re: A small walkabout lens - lay it on me!
« on: June 04, 2012, 10:00:34 AM »
EDIT: Or the zeiss 18mm! It's not too big, and close to my ideal focal length, thoughts on these two lenses?
Well, the weight there might be getting away from your "light" classification, but, if you're at the 18mm Zeiss, consider the 21mm as well (even heavier though). Every review I've read says its the best lens in that focal length range.

Voigtlander weighs about a 1/3rd of the Zeiss lenses...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]
« on: June 03, 2012, 10:51:35 PM »
Some would argue that the flip out screen is not a gimmick and is actually practical in some applications.
As someone who does video, I'd agree with you. I don't need it, as I could get every shot I now get with my 60D on my 50D, but it makes some things more convenient.

But, I say it as a bad thing on the T3i because they put it on a T2i and changed nothing else for 95% of end users (the other 5% being those that use slave flash on a T3i, and that is probably an overestimation). If it was such a necessary item, why wasn't it on the camera's earlier; they've had the tech for long time. They just suddenly needed something to differentiate it and charge a premium...

The touch-screen might actually be useful since the button arrangement has always been awful on the Ti cameras, they're desire to include very few buttons might work. We'll see.

I'm interested if this has anything to do with mirror-less.
The general consensus is that any Canon mirror-less won't be EF mount...since the point of mirror-less is to be smaller, and the EF mount makes the camera about twice as large as it'd need to be. More likely its just another light, portable lens like the 50mm f/1.8.

Yeah, that's on the card. It's filling the buffer too quickly and thus stopping recording. In fact, you'll probably see a series of boxes filling on the side of the LCD screen while it happens.

My suggestion would be to get the Sandisk Extreme cards, as I've never had a problem with them. Likewise I've had good luck with Wintec and Transcend. SD memory is cheap, the difference between the one you have now and the Sandisk Extreme is probably <$5-10...which is nothing considering your gear is worth more than $1000. Being able to record is always worth the extra few bucks.

Never seen the thing about 32GB cards, but I use all 16GB cards. If I'm shooting all day in a way that would fill a 16GB card, I've got plenty of time to swap them out for another card.

Lenses / Re: Which wide angle lens for 60D
« on: June 03, 2012, 12:48:29 PM »
Depends on how long the interviews are.  With a 16GB card you are pretty much at the same capacity as a miniDVCAM cassette anyway.  A wee break every so often with these kind of interviews is probably welcome anyway.
There's a physical file size limit of 4GB for video, which amounts to about 12 minutes in normal 1080 recording. A break here and there is nice...every 10 minutes though? And what happens if the person goes on a long tangent and you're running low on time?

I agree with you on the ideal for interviews, the DSLR would be great, but it has limitations that camcorders don't have. Can't speak for the FX1, but it's why I'll shoot with both a camcorder and my DSLR for an interview. I can get the shot I want most of the time from the DSLR, but be guaranteed not to lose something important as my camcorder runs all the time

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]
« on: June 03, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »
Is it just me or do others also think a touchscreen on a camera is lame?  Why would you want to muck up your LCD with smudges and fingerprints so it becomes a big messy glare?
Most companies have done a pretty good job of solving this issue; don't see too many people freaking out that they can't see their iPad screen, and yet that is entirely a touch-screen interface.

It seems to me is just a "oooh cool, lets get this one Martha, it has a touch screen" gimmick?   ::)
Sort of like a flip out screen was for the T3i. They basically didn't upgrade anything, but added a gimmick. Welcome to the Rebel line, where the T2i was the last really innovative upgrade. Reviews will tell, but it seems like the T4i is getting a few gimmicks (touch screen, video AF), with the AF being potentially the only real upgrade.

Lenses / Re: Which wide angle lens for 60D
« on: June 03, 2012, 11:53:00 AM »
I would +1 for the Tokina wide, as it's a great UWA for APS-C - do be aware it won't transfer to full frame if you ever go that way in the future.
Actually it will, you can use the Tokina at 16mm with no vignetting.

I agree that there is a gap between the Tokina and the 24-105, but, I'm not sure how particularly useful it would be for his purposes. A wide shot on the Tokina at 16 would cover establishing, and any details would be well within the 24-105 range. Getting a lens that covers 17-55 would be just as limiting, as now he would lose the 55-105 range without buying another lens.

The f/4 is a concern for interviews, but, I assume he'd be using his Sony cam for them anyway. Shooting an interview on a DSLR, with stopping every 10mins, would be a huge pain in the ass anyway.

Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget:  16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).
This is a great set of options too.

Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro
Since landscape and architecture are about 20% of what you do, the 17mm or 24m TS lenses might suit you well. The 24mm T/S is only a little more than the 24L, and for architecture it will make the difference. You lose the auto-focus, which could be a deal breaker, but you gain a lot of control of your focus plane.

Then if you're going with primes, I'd say the 50L and 100 macro L would probably fit your other needs, as they'd give you two focal lengths for portraits, and two different things (50L for shallow DOF, 100L for sharp across the frame). Agree with others about getting the kit lens though, with the ISO abilities of the 5dIII, you may find the 24-105 to be a good lens for following around your family, with one of the primes for more specific moments. And if you decide you don't need a macro lens, I'd get the 135L instead of the 100L, as that would cover your sport needs and portrait needs at the same time.

Lenses / Re: Which wide angle lens for 60D
« on: June 02, 2012, 10:24:28 PM »
Get the Tokina 11-16 if you're doing video. For one, being able to go the lowest light can be useful when you need it (I shot a music video where F/4 wouldn't have gotten me the shots), and the constant aperture is useful as well. If you find yourself zooming in and out a bit to get the right framing, it won't change aperture on you. Also, in terms of future-proofing, the Tokina can be used on full-frame at 16mm, the EF-S 10-22 can't. I have a 60D and I find the Tokina indispensable for wide shots.

Also, some of the elements of the 10-22 are optimized for stills. Obviously the variable aperture, but also flare control. There are times you want that flare across the frame for video, and the Tokina will allow that.

Lenses / Re: Would Canon produce new 28/1.8?
« on: June 01, 2012, 02:06:28 PM »
I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years :o > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS.
Well, they already make many inexpensive fast normal primes that you can use on a crop camera, you can just also use them on full-frame. Which makes them cheaper, since they can sell more of them, The only EF-S prime that would make sense would be something wider than 20mm, otherwise it could also work on EF. And they already make a 10-22 EF-S lens that is highly regarded, so I wouldn't expect that soon.

Also, I don't think making it EF-S would make it much cheaper. The 60mm macro is about the same as Canon's 100mm EF macro lens (the EF 50mm macro is faster and nearly half the price). Their 17-55 EF-S lens isn't much cheaper than its equivalent 24-70 for full frame. The 28-135 is similar pricewise to the 18-135 EF-S. And the 10-22 is actually more expensive than its full frame equivalent (17-40mm, if going by aperture). The cheap EF-S lenses (55-250 for example) are cheap because they sacrifice build quality, some lens elements and USM. Leaving those things out of a prime would likely not make many people happy...but its about the only way to make it cheap

I am now using a Rebel T1i, however I have saved almost 80% for a 24-70 f2.8L II lens. I have a f4 24-105L but sometimes shooting indoor sports is a pain ( recreational sports).
So what would you guys do? buy the f2.8 or buy the full frame and bump the ISO (5D MKII)?
what would give you better pictures?
Well, a 5dII would basically have the same focusing ability as your T1i, so while you'll gain some lower-light abilities, you won't gain anything in focus.

I know zooms are convenient, but, if you're looking for a solution for indoor sports (where the light always sucks), you might need to go the prime route. I know the 135mm F/2L is a popular one on full-frame; I'd imagine the 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 would probably suit your crop camera better...and they'd give you more light than just switching to a 5DII.

Depending on what else you shoot, the switch to full-frame might be worth it...but just for shooting indoor sports, it doesn't seem the right path. And I don't think the 24-70 f/2.8 will get you enough extra light to help much indoors.
the 24-105 still has IS which will still give you benefits to stoping camera shake on your end I think you will gain well over 1 stop in iso over the rebel  more like 2 maybe 3
While true of subjects standing still, it will give him no gain for moving subjects, which I imagine is most of what he'd shoot in indoor sports. IS won't help there, only faster lenses. The ability to shoot hand-held at 1/10th or 1/15th of a second is only good when people are standing perfectly still

Or maybe it's trying to format it. When I put a new 32GB card in my camera for the first time it took a few seconds to format it before it came on. Your camera might detect the card, can't read it so try to format it. And obviously fails.
Yep, that's what I'd go with as a reasonable theory. You're telling it something is there, even though it clearly isn't. There are many, many other places you can put the micro-SD adapter (in your pocket, in your bag, taped to the side of the camera) that won't screw up the operation of your $3500 camera; seems silly to trade a minor convenience for losing the start-up time

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:57:55 PM »
* 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.
Would you pay double the price for it? Id gladly spend a little more for it (think Nikon D800 v D800E), but not a $1500 premium for something I can largely handle with plugins.

Just very different markets really. What the 5dIII serves is very different than the audience the 5dII served

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:49:07 PM »
Not only is it still viable, it may be a better option that the MkIII if he's not interested in video.  The
price difference in the two will buy a great lens (or two) or even a second body.  Canon is seeming
to bend over backwards towards the video imaging crowd lately at the expense of the still shooter,
packing their offerings with (for me at least) unnecessary, unwanted and unused features that have
to drive the price up.
It cracks me up when I see this. The upgrades for video for the 5DIII were basically no moire, a choice of codecs, and a tiny bit more resolution. Everything else is a stills upgrade (since video doesn't use the 61pt AF, dedicated AF processor, the 6fps, etc). A video person probably wouldn't spend double the price for a 5DIII, where as an event shooter/wedding photog would. The 5dIII is basically a dream wedding camera, not a dream video camera.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the 5dII is excellent for its price point, especially if you can get it through Canon Loyalty for $1400+tax. Or through the various Ebay deals that have had it well below $2000. I have no problem shooting kayaking with my 60D (essentially the same as the 5D AF), I just know I won't always nail every shot. But the trade off will be you'll get great landscapes compared to the 7D, and more useable low-light. So unless you're doing more than 50% sports stuff, it's worth it.

I was quoted $1.12 per $100 insured, which comes to just over $80 per year for me. I put everything into a multi-page PDF and emailed it to them prior to meeting with my agent in-office.
Interesting, I must have just gotten a lazier agent who didn't want to put the work in. I think my value for VA was like 1.25 per $100 insured.

This weekend I actually did an inventory and added up the total, depreciated, used value of all my equipment, and came up with $1850.  Quite amazing, considering I have only paid out-of-pocket about $650 for all of it.  Seeing the total value of my kit makes me think insuring it would be a good idea.
Yeah, and I think the minimum value for a policy was $25, so you'd probably end up with about that as a premium. That said, I put in the replacement costs for my equipment, not their actual worth at that moment...since that is really what is important if I lose everything.

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 49