January 29, 2015, 07:50:48 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 - tron

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 133
721
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 06, 2013, 12:51:03 PM »
Where is Terje the one post wonder? ... I'm betting that Terje is "he who must not be named" of this forum ;D

If I did take that bet, the only question left would be, "How much do I owe you?"
;D ;D ;D

722
Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: November 06, 2013, 11:17:25 AM »
@mackguyver: No ... you don't 

How about a TS-17mm f/4L ?    ;D  ;D   ;D

723
EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: October 31, 2013, 12:09:19 PM »
35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II

Perhaps it comes true if I say it enough?

35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II 35 L II

 ;D

Add 14-24L and keep typing for a few days. I'm counting on you!
16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III 16-35 2.8 L III

 ;D  ;D  ;D

P.S In addition to the previously mentioned lenses  ;D  ;D  ;D

724
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II with IS
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:31:38 AM »
When the 70-200 f/2.8 L came out the non IS version was sharper than the IS version.  I would suspect this will always be true no matter what focal length.
I am with you on that ... partially!

Canon introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which corrected this!

However, it has done this by almost doubling the cost (compared to the non-IS lens)

By the way the 70-200 2.8 L (which I used to have until it was stolen) was the first zoom I used with fixed lens quality (judging from large B&W prints back in the 90s).

For now, your comment applies to the 300mm f/4 series lenses too.

The f/4 non-IS lens is reported sharper than the IS version. Although I do not have the IS version
I have compared 300mm f/4L non-IS lens with EF1.4XII extender and found it sharper that the 100-400 L lens. This implies a very sharp 300mm f/4L non-IS lens. Now, if Canon introduce a 300mm f/4L IS II things will change again...

725
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 07:23:46 PM »
As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only.  Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II). 

I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.
Better?  If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).
I was talking mostly about functionality. You can crop a little but cannot always go backwards.

Sorry - your statement about image quality suggested otherwise…
I am sorry I answered to the wrong post!

726
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 04:33:58 PM »
As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only.  Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II). 

I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.
Better?  If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).
I was talking mostly about functionality. You can crop a little but cannot always go backwards.

727
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 05:16:36 AM »
I got first the TS-E 24 and then the TS-E 17. If I were to start all over I would start with the 17.

728
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $1699 at B&H Photo
« on: October 16, 2013, 07:42:30 PM »
This is a right price for me.  However, I will just wait for 24-70 f/2.8 IS @ 2.5K. :)

Gonna be a long wait (unless you believe M.ST, which would raise the number of believers to two, you plus himself).
;D

729
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 16, 2013, 08:49:18 AM »
For me English is a fourth language

Wow, I'd have never guessed that ! Your written English is better than mine, and I'm as English as a Red London Bus, or Fox Hunting, depending upon how politically correct I choose to be  ;)

Agreed on your command of the English language, nice job for a fourth language!

I would have guessed you were a Texan, J.R. is a common name in Texas.

I only speak two languages....English and American...but I'm working on a third - Canadian(but not the French part) ::)
When you learn Australian you will speak four languages  ;D

730
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:22:32 PM »
Don't mind the crop. It's the version the wife wanted.

Very cute.

My 85L II & 135L are my fav. lenses for portrait

TY. Agreed regarding the 85II and 135 (add in the 90tse for me). Although I have been fighting off the itch to pick up the 200/2 to find out if all the claims of its greatness are legit.

I haven't touch that lens yet and will try to stay away from it ;D

My itch is 300 f2.8 IS II...will see after Sony A7 + Zeiss 50mm f1.8.

Not that any of the lenses are equivalent to each other, but I'm very interested in comparing raw portrait files from the 85, 135, 200/2, and 300II to see the differences (mainly compression and detail variances). Of course, I would need to get my hands on the latter two first  :D. Or if someone fortunate enough to have them all could do the honors?
Err hmm compression can be checked without crazy open aperture  ::) but I understand your wishes  ;D

731
It's just that you are such a 24-70 f/2.8 L II fan that made me hard to believe that you are going to sell it. 50L I can understand though...

732
WOW....This is the moment I been waiting for ::) ::) ::)

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/

My wish list:
1. A7 or A7R?
2. 55mm f1.8
3. 14,16 or 17mm
4. 85mm

Will sell some of my Canon gear to get the list above ??? :( ::) :) ;D ;D
Judging from the series of emoticons I guess you are joking  ;D

Otherwise I would like to read from you that you sold your f/2.8 L II zooms to fund the mentioned equipment  ;D  ;D  ;D

733
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 01:18:12 PM »
I get irritated when I am told that -

1. f/4 lenses are all you need - f/2.8 or faster is just a waste of money;
2. hobbyists don't need two camera bodies - one is all that you require;
3. you no longer need a tripod - the high ISO performance takes care of everything;
4. you no longer need graduated filters;
5. anyone with too much gear is a collector and not a photographer;
6. you don't need to spend $$$ on good quality filters - any cheap filter will do the same job, equally good;
7. you can shoot a wedding with an iPhone;
8. a camera is all about the sensor;
9. more MP = better photos;
10. anyone shooting in TV/AV mode doesn't understand how to expose correctly;
11. Auto-ISO is for noobs

I got three from the above list earlier today ... grrr!

Anything that I have missed?
f/4 lenses are all you need ... except for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, a 35mm 1.4L an 85mm 1.2L II and a 135mm f/2L and a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

So a 24-70 f/2.8 is indeed not 100% necessary   ;D

Plus I do have a 500mm f/4L IS II. I think I do not need a ... ... f/2.8 version!!!   8)

734
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 01:13:47 PM »
LOL ;D
I'm having hard shooting @ 1/30 and yes, I'm in the late 30.
Is that the 1/age rule ?   ;D

735
Now I have much faster more expensive CF cards and they failed back to back after already being used for weeks. Then yesterday another one fails
Since you refer to 5DMK3 and to newer faster cards at the same time you must admit that you changed 2 parameters at once. So there is no proof like it or not. Proof would be if the old CF cards that worked fine in 5DMkII were damaged in 5DMkIII. And vice versa if the newer faster CF cards had worked with no problem and with the same scenario in 5DMkII and NOT in 5DMkIII.

That being said, have you sent your 5DMkIII to Canon?

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 133