October 22, 2014, 10:34:50 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 - Dantana

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud 2014 - Jumped yet?
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:58:44 PM »
I jumped in about a year ago at a promotional price for the entire suite, and that's about to expire.

So far, so good. I needed a new suite as my previous version (CS1) no longer worked on my hardware/Windows version.

As much as I appreciate the thoughts on open source, and other alternatives, none of that works for me personally. I'm an animator by trade and it's a collaborative process. Everyone needs to be using compatible software, so I need to have the industry standard applications. I understand that's not everyone else's concern.

Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:35:10 PM »
which leads me to the next (obvious) question

Is there any advantage for Still Photographers to use cine lenses?

The one advantage I can think of is that with a cine zoom, you can zoom in tight to manually focus and then back off to your desired framing.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod center column - yes or no
« on: July 17, 2014, 02:08:26 PM »
I rarely use mine, but I have left it on since it's shorter folded up backwards with it on than it would be without. My 3 Legged Thing won't fold backwards around the head without the center column, at least I don't think it will.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:18:07 PM »
I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.

You beat me to it. That lens would be a beast. I think we are more likely to see good 24-70 2.8 in the Art line at a competitive price, possibly with IS. Sigma hasn't chosen to go faster on the 35 or 50 than Canon. They have concentrated on sharpness and build quality.

three legged thing (3LT) brian. A fantastic travel carbon fiber tripod. I used with my 5d3 + 70-200 no issues. Super light, super strong.

Plus one of the legs unscrews and it becomes an extremely light monopod

I have one of their metal models (the Adrian v1) as I couldn't afford the Brian. It's been great so far. I can only imagine the Brian being an improvement.

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 10, 2014, 02:14:03 PM »
This may be throwing another wrench in the works, but on the budget end you can pick up a used copy of the 200 2.8L for a very good price. I nabbed the version 2 for around $500 last year, though I have heard that optically both versions are the same. I don't know about AF performance for version 1.

I can say that my copy is sharp and fast to focus. I've used it with the 2x extender III (outdoors) and I was pretty happy with the results, though I haven't used that combination a ton. I would think it would pair well with the 135. I know that means 2 lenses instead of a zoom, and that you don't get IS, but it might be a thought.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EDC gear
« on: June 10, 2014, 01:16:59 PM »
This question is related to one that I have.

I was thinking of packing my old Rebel with a kit lens in my trunk, so I always had something with me. Do I have to worry too much about heat damage or are these cameras designed to take that kind of abuse?

The only thing I would worry about is the battery. I'd leave it out of the camera. Also, humidity is important.. You don't want foggy lens when you pull it out. I'm sure too much hear isn't good for any camera though.

Didn't think about the battery. Thanks for that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EDC gear
« on: June 05, 2014, 08:57:42 PM »
This question is related to one that I have.

I was thinking of packing my old Rebel with a kit lens in my trunk, so I always had something with me. Do I have to worry too much about heat damage or are these cameras designed to take that kind of abuse?

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:17:21 PM »
I picked up the 200 2.8 L last fall, just before upgrading to the 6D/24-105 combo. I love how small, fast and sharp it is, as well as how quickly it focuses. It's a great lens. I know a 70-200 would be more flexible, but for a price.

It's also acceptably sharp with the 2X Extender III that I picked up just after. It makes for a really pack-able 400 5.6.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Spyder4Elite for $169 from Amazon
« on: May 27, 2014, 01:19:57 PM »
That is a great deal. I just bought the Pro version for the same price at a local Samy's. Oh well.

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 26, 2014, 03:29:47 PM »
Step 1, remove battery grip.

Step 2, buy 40mm pancake (seems to go on sale all the time).

Step 3, consider a 6D, though I would try out the body in store to see how much you actually notice the size difference.

My 6D/40mm combo has become my go to kit when I don't want to carry too much. Image quality is great. Size is almost ridiculous compared to my normal zoom setup.

If I was in your position, I'd buy the 40mm first and use it with your 5D II without the grip, and see what you think. If you want to shave a little size/weight off that, the 6D is there and the price keep dropping.

I wouldn't get rid of your lenses unless you have to.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSRL Camera for travel
« on: May 22, 2014, 08:19:19 PM »
I don't have the bodies you are interested in but do own the 18-200mm lens. Fine lens, but it does have distortion at the 18mm range so I'd be pairing it with the new 10-18mm if I didn't already have a better lens in the 18mm range. I'd consider bringing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for nicer portraits and it doesn't add much weight (or even the pancake 40mm).

I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but as much as I wanted to like that lens when I was shooting crop, I was pretty disappointed. Slow focus, lens creep, not as sharp as I had hoped... Since I've moved up to the 6D, I haven't touched my old crop rig or the 18-200. Actually meaning to sell it for whatever the market will bear.

My last trip was with a 6D 24-105 kit, and my 40mm for when I didn't want to carry around the zoom. The pancake is sharp and makes the setup quite small, and the focal length was great walking around Austin.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 19, 2014, 12:30:00 PM »
Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on:  (点击此处查看大图)  located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.
Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.

Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh :D) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.

I think this just shows how different everyone's needs are. I think I fall in between the both of you. I don't really care about IS at this focal length. F4 is probably fine. The sharpness of the new lens is the selling point for me.

The negatives are that it's basically as big as the 16-35II, which is quite a bit bigger than the 17-40 when you are trying to fit everything in a backpack with your other hiking gear/photog gear/lenses. Also, while the price seems great compared to the 16-35II, it's quite a bit more than the 17-40. The 17-40 on the refurb store goes on special for $570ish quite often.

I think I will still end up buying this lens over the 17-40 if real world tests confirm the charts, but I will have to wait until the price drops/goes on sale/shows up in the Canon refurb store.

I've been stalking the Canon refurb pages waiting for a 17-40 that's both on sale and in stock. Now, I have this to consider.

I love the idea of a sharper lens, and the extra mm at the wide end. The 5mm lost at the long end is all overlap with my 24-105.

To be honest, the IS isn't that important to me. For me, a little smaller and lighter would have been more important than the IS, but maybe when I have one in my kit I'll be raving about the IS.

I'll be waiting a little on real reviews, and then on price (unless my income suddenly spikes). It does look very promising though.

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 11, 2014, 04:14:58 PM »
Thanks for another great and practical review, Dustin.

I have the old 35, which I used often on my old crop body, and picked up the 40 on sale in December. I don't think I'm in the market for another lens in that range, but it was nice to read about the 35IS all the same.

As for the 40 and its usefulness, it was nice to have on vacation two weeks ago when I didn't want to always carry around a zoom but wanted a real camera. It made my 6D tiny.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9