October 02, 2014, 05:21:56 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 - wickidwombat

Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 301
3766
Lenses / Re: Recommendation: Tele lens for 60D
« on: February 15, 2012, 08:04:35 PM »
70-200mm f/4L IS would be my first choice to be honest.  But all of this really comes down to money.  The 70-200 2.8 IS II, is obviously the best, it's just a question of do you want to pay for it, and then do you want to carry it.  It's big and heavy, but awesome.

the awesomeness makes it feel lighter IMO :D

3767
Lenses / Re: Upgrade Suggestions
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:48:32 PM »
get 1 of these
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Studio-Lighting-5in1-reflector-diffuser-56-22-PSR04-/280615552875?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4155fd876b
and a window with some light shining through
babys have a low tolerance to flash generally and get cranky
you 100mm f2.8 will take stunning shots might just be a bit long on a crop
50 f1.4 is a nice option

3768
Lenses / Re: Recommendation: Tele lens for 60D
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:43:54 PM »
You have already ruled out the portable lenses, a 70-200mm f/2.8 is portable, sort of, but its size and weight are all out of proportion to a 60D. 

I'd suggest you consider a 70-200mm f/4L if you are going to carry the lens / camera around with you, or at least rent one and try it.  It is large!

i find the 70-200 f2.8L ISII plenty portable i have the tripod foot removed which makes it feel alot nicer to shoot with just keep the foot stashed in the bag in case i need it. Good thing is the same foot fits this lens and the 300f4L so i just keep the 1 foot in the bag and have both lenses without the foot.

3769
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:36:15 PM »
And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.

Serious RAW tests I guess we will have to wait for. Everything Ive seen so far is pretesting.
However this thread confirms that D800 at least is clearly better than my 5D2. But this we knew from the beginning since there are tests available for D7000 and D800 has similar pixels. Check out D7000 tests and you will get a pretty good picture of how much better D800 is at high ISO than 5D2 (at least 0.5 stop)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40549327

There are other information to that points in the same direction if you search for it but for final details of performance it's better to wait for serious tests.

Appreciate the link.   :D 

My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image.  If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?

I agree with you, a RAW, one-to-one comparison under identical conditions is whats needed.  Until that happens, we will not know.

As for some of the comments running around here saying smaller pixels have less noise at high ISO's......some one needs to tell that to my PhaseOne 33Mpix back.  I can assure you, it will laugh out loud for hours.

Now, for the record, I have and I am entertaining a move to Nikon as I like a LOT of what I see in the D800.  I shoot two Canon bodies and a D800 with a D4 works very nicely in what I do, along with my PhaseOne that the wife is unaware of.   ::)  (if you guys don't hear from me again, call the cops and point her out as a suspect).

i'm interested to hear how you have kept the phase one under the radar...

is that a medium format in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

3770
Lenses / Re: Recommendation: Tele lens for 60D
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:14:50 PM »
IS mk II or if you want to save money get the non IS 70-200 apparently the IS mk1 is not as good as either of the other 2

3771
Lenses / Re: Yet another "what lens?" question
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:13:30 PM »
I have the 17-55mm, and it's an excellent lens.  But, f/2.8 indoors with ambient home lighting usually means ISO 3200 or even higher.  While ISO 3200 is fine on my 5DII, I prefer not to go that high on my 7D. 

Definitely get a 430EX II if you don't have an external flash - you can bounce that off the ceiling for nice lighting.

As for lenses, I'd consider a fast prime.  The new 24/28 primes aren't fast, I'd absolutely take the 17-55mm over either of those.  The 24mm f/1.4L II would be ideal, but it's expensive.  You might consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but since the 60D lacks AF Microadjustment, I'd recommend buying the Sigma (or any fast prime) from somewhere you can easily return it, and test the AF performance right when you get the lens.
I just got my 85mm 1.4 back from sigma the shop sent it back twice until it came back and they were happy with it. they said all sigma do is plud the lens in and do a software calibration within the lens AF . It is pretty good now i still need to do my own AF microadjust but it definately wont be anywhere near as front focusing as it was before. knowing this that IF you get a copy with focus issues its not a big deal to get it sent in and recalibrated. I highly recommend the 85 f1.4 from sigma.
definately agree if you buy a sigma get it from a good store that will do all the leg work sending it back for adjustment.

3772
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:02:27 PM »
damn 12800 looks pretty useable IMO big drop in IQ next stop up but i'd probably be happy shooting that puppy in the 3200 to 12800 range. topaz denoise would clean that up just fine

3773
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Explaining Canon's "Pro Level AF"
« on: February 15, 2012, 06:50:04 PM »
if you can find the older kenko DG Teleconverters apparently they will AF because there is no AF confirm like the new DGX ones apparently they are optically the same so these older ones will allow you to AF at greater than f8 even on non 1 series bodies you just have to factor it into your exposure metering thats all.

3775
EOS Bodies / Re: Focusing Screen
« on: February 15, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »
cool,

I've found this screen absolutely necessary for using the lensbaby sweet 35
12 circular blade aperture f2.5 to f22 MF only its a really nice lens for interesting shots
, strangley the metering is correct even though there is no AF confirm chip on the lensbaby

3776
Software & Accessories / Re: Portable Memory Card Backup
« on: February 15, 2012, 06:27:47 PM »
I've been looking at this one, only need it in april so i'll hold off till then and see if prices drop or capacity increases. it can view raw files
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/380411683535?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

not sure what happened to the link or if i forgot to post it before

3777
good idea to wait and see what news comes in a couple of weeks, hope you old backup gear can cover you in the meantime. sorry about the loss of your gear i hope you had insurance to pick up the tab on the new gear.

one thing i cant believe Nikon havent addressed is that tiny Dpad controller on the back its really a frustrating setup

3778
EOS Bodies / Re: Focusing Screen
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:29:51 PM »
did you make sure you change the focus screen setting to EG-S in the menu after you installed it?

3779
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:26:34 AM »

i think you missed the point
1) crop the aps-h image to aps-c same way nikon does and since its processing a smaller image boost frame rate accordingly, (the vignetting isnt that bad anyway as i said before i've seen worse out of tamron ef lenses)
2) make it mirrorless problem solved

APS-H mirrorless
22mp
10fps
takes EF and EF-S lens
light weight and compact

- that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons :D

you've been reading my mind again

3780
Lenses / Re: 24-105 f2.8IS
« on: February 15, 2012, 07:22:03 AM »
The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.

Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.

I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.

um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm

Are you going to say that the 5mm difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is also important?

f/2.8
16-35
24-70
70-200

f/4
17-40
24-105
70-200
nope of course not but the 16-35 vs the 17-40 have many more differences other than 1mm wide and 5mm long i dont like the 24-70 i'd rather use the 16-35 on a 1.3 crop and a 70-200 on FF gives me effectively 20mm to 200mm all at f2.8 the gap in the middle use feet zooming.
I dont know i really like the 20mm focal length for some reason much more than 24mm cant explain it other than just personal preference but i like that range of 20-48mm its really nice and both lenses zoom internallly
maybe i could be tempted to the 24-70II  if it lives up to its mtf chart but at the moment 16-35 is one of my favourite lenses

Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 301