October 02, 2014, 07:35:06 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 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 53
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.

Lenses / Re: Im confused between IS and fstop advantages
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:17:22 PM »
I'd get the 135/2.
Agreed, and mostly because you won't be hand-holding the 135mm lens for video anyway...or if you do, even IS won't keep it from being shaky. You're just past the focal length where hand-held video works well.

AAA as an example is requesting copies of my receipts.   Don't really care to do that, does that seem to be the norm?
i'm going through USAA. i have 5k of coverage. for 60.00 a year. it covers my canon 7d, and lenses.
I'm going through State Farm (personal property insurance), and I think I have about $4k of stuff insured for about $50/yr. So probably pretty close in price to USAA, though I imagine USAA would generally be cheaper. It will vary by state. What's nice is it covers every circumstance...so even if I drop my camera bag off a cliff and its completely my fault, they'll replace it.

The caveat is that you cant be making any money off of your equipment or you'd be required to go the business route. Didn't need copies of my receipts at all...just gave them the camera/lens name and my serial # and the processed it pretty quickly.

I consider m43 to be a compact supplement but not a replacement for even an entry level dslr.
Yeah, that's sort of how I see it as well. I'd be far more likely to buy a M4/3rd camera and a zoom lens than a P+S if I needed something small and portable, because I'd want the control and expandability that interchangeable systems have....but, they aren't such a huge weight and size savings over my 60D that its worth it at the moment.

I will say, some of the NEX stuff is interesting, and Sony has been pushing really hard to improve. I'd put pretty good odds that I'll own the NEX-9 or whatever is is about 2-3 years from now, because my DSLR will be full-frame, and the NEX can be my outdoor adventure camera (to take with me in my kayak or on the trail on longer treks). They'll have a better set of lenses, and they'll likely have solved the AF issues. I could live with an EVF if that was the only major tradeoff.

But even with the situation now, aps-c has many advantages (longer reach, affordable good ultrawides) so that it'll stick around for some time to come simply because smaller sensors will keep being cheaper as larger ones. The Rebels will loose market share to mirrorless, but many people like me won't want to use an evf even if it's a good one
To take that a step further, the people that use APS-C at the upper levels (think 7D) are people like birders, sports guys, and nature photographers. Few if any of them would adapt to a M4/3rd camera because the EVF and AF limit them in all of those situations. Can't shoot sunrise or sunset shots of animals, because your EVF is dark and hard to see. Can't shoot birds or sports effectively because the AF is too slow.

That's not to say 4/3rds cameras won't solve some of their issues, they will, but there are some pretty major hurdles to climb to cover those use cases. And until they solve them, you won't see APS-C go away.

Also why make EF-S specific primes when Canon can make EF ones, which work for a MUCH broader audience, and when those lenses are pretty small anyway (if the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are too big, get a P+S). They only make EF-S lenses to solve a specific APS-C problem, like UWA (10-22), a  high quality lower light zoom (17-55), and light-weight zooms (55-250).

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 53