May 24, 2013, 08:42:56 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 107
451
Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: December 29, 2012, 04:51:59 PM »
TommyLee,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on 14L II. I feel like if we can frame our photos correctly, the 14mm could provide 3D look.

I'll have to add this lens or rumor 14-24 on my purchase list for next year.

452
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Santa had to wait for boxing day sales
« on: December 29, 2012, 12:04:48 PM »
Santa had in his bag

1dx & 16-35 2.8 mk2 and gp-e1

been charging up the battery and doing firmware updates to 1.1.1

new toys to play with this weekend

That's awesome.....have fun.

453
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 6D from 450D
« on: December 29, 2012, 11:54:02 AM »
450D to 6D -- You will see huge improvement in higher ISO. Your photos will look much cleaner of course.

6D + 50f1.4 + 135L is good a combo. Your 50mm will be more friendly to shoot with on FF vs crop. For the WA lens, I would go with 17-40 if you plan to shoot smaller apertures (f8-11).

Have fun with your new toy(s) ;)

454
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 29, 2012, 11:42:24 AM »
Dylan, your comments are based on your own, personal, biased, limited, non-scientific experience with one copy on of one lens and one copy of the other.

Now, nobody denies that it is enough for you - or even better, that this is the most important review to you.

That said, all the main in-depth reviews agree on the value of this lens and on its superiority to Canon Mk1. It goes by itself that if someone was happy with the Mk1, he will be only happier with more sharpness and IS at a very good price.

Is it better than Canon Mk2? Optically and mechanically quite likely not, but it has IS, and many people like this feature a lot. Also, it costs a half, and even more people like this feature.

So please stop this pointless crusade and try to understand that better can mean a lot of things, and ultimately it means "it suits my needs better".

Exactly

'Testing' one copy of a lens that hasn't been calibrated with something like FoCal to your camera body in a shop means absolutely nothing in an objective sense.



Also IS is helpful, but IS has not been around forever. People have been shooting without it for a looooong time.

Anyway ye useful, but a deal breaker? For a pro no... You will always shoot in a range that will produce a sharp images. Although I will admit IS does help with creativity, shooting in lower light, but with better high ISO camera performance you can rely less on IS. Also the subject is more of a concern than camera shake, if you are an experienced photographer you know the limits you shoot in, its also down to technique.


People took photos for a long time before autofocus was around (and still do using their zeiss/nikon ai/leica glass on ef cameras). That doesn't mean that AF is useless to professionals.

For certain types of video (particularly run and gun documentary/documentation/wedding reception footage), IS is a massive plus to the point of quite possibly being a deal breaker (and this is where you're likely to be using a standard zoom quite heavily - for fiction where you have controlled conditions and time to set things up then you're likely to be using primes). Or do people making money from video count as amateurs now?

My final comment on this topic:
@ Syder -- I'm 90% sure you haven't own the Tamrom nor Canon ver II yet, therefore, your comments on these lenses are pointless. A quick advice for you, don't give comment on the lenses that you haven't own.

I own Reikan FoCal  Pro version. All my lenses 50L, 16-35 II, 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II are succesfully calibrated(AFMA) with FoCal. And yes....that includes the Tamron - W+1, +2T @ f2.8


Off topic:
Just for the record, I'm not a Canon fan. If I in the market for the 35mm prime, the new Sigma will be my choice.

Let close this chapter and move on...... ;) 

455
Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: December 29, 2012, 01:02:56 AM »
TommyLee,
Your photos make me want to sell my 16-35 II and get the 14L II......most of my landscape shots are at 16mm

456
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II or 5D III or 6D?
« on: December 28, 2012, 11:14:15 PM »

I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.

6D or 5D III
A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
B. Take 6D if you plan to shoot center AF with slightly less precise

Goodlucks
what do you mean, less precise ? that 5dmk3 AF center points is more sensitive than 6D?
it is not if you look at the spec.

I understand 6D has -3EV, but we talking about "precise" single vs dual cross type @ center.

457
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 28, 2012, 08:16:15 PM »
Dylan you always seem like a level headed guy so i hope youre not taking offense to some of the comments above.  I think all folks are saying is that for most people (obviously this does not include you) the results you get from the tamron are more than adequate especially when one considers the price. I'm on the iPad right now but I will happily take a shot with the tamron tonight at f2.8 and post it...will it be as sharp as your 24-70ii? no, so i am not exactly sure what that will prove. all anyone is saying is that if you like the feel of an extra $1000 in your pocket and think IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version. Does iq improve by spending the extra $1000?  Yes, again no one disputes that, however to a lot of folks the improvement over the tamron will not be worth the extra money.

I don't recall I said "IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version"

I do have some pictures that I took with the Tamron from 1st patch at f2.8 inside the church under low light, so I know how this lens performs.

I'm sure alot of us don't mind to have a slower AF lens, that not necessary a bad lens, like Canon 85L.

458
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 28, 2012, 07:27:06 PM »


It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.
Did you run this test yourself...or you just getting the data from review sites?

If I post a photo that I took with Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC from the 1st patch @ f2.8 inside the church with my 5D III, will you share your photos or test results?

Again...my comments are based on hands on both Tamron and Canon ver II.  I haven't seen your photo yet. Maybe it's time for someone to touch the products before giving comments.

You can get the shooting details by right click on the photo, under properties.

459
Portrait / Re: Happy Holidays Photos!
« on: December 28, 2012, 04:23:08 PM »
I could have bought myself a 1D X plus couple L lenses ::)

460
Portrait / Re: Happy Holidays Photos!
« on: December 28, 2012, 04:07:45 PM »
10 days in Hawaii...YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

461
Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: December 28, 2012, 03:51:50 PM »
Chocolate ice cream on Christmas Eve.....Yummy

462
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bought 5D III
« on: December 28, 2012, 01:54:36 PM »
Go out and take alot of picture.....if the camera doesn't act up, you are fine.

463
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 28, 2012, 01:15:26 PM »
Quote
NOW...show me the sharpness of your Tamron under lower light with ISO around 1600.


Actually I was browsing through flickr group for tamron 24-70 and, if you do so, it will give you an idea what that lens is capable of.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron-24-70-f-2-8/


AGAIN...I had tried tamron prior my 24-70 II arrival and I DO KNOW what tamron is not capable of.

Wow....I didn't know that we can search sample photos online. I might try that next time before buying new lenses.

464
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II or 5D III or 6D?
« on: December 28, 2012, 12:59:39 PM »

I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.

6D or 5D III
A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
B. Take 6D if you plan to shoot center AF with slightly less precise

Goodlucks

465
My vote is 6D if you plan to shoot center AF point.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 107