March 02, 2015, 06:26:24 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 5 ... 10
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.

Software & Accessories / Re: Convertible tripod/monopod options
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:56:45 PM »
You may want to look at - they have a few models that offer a detachable leg. If memory serves, they are stocked by B&H.

On your choice of lenses - my experience is that you need a very robust tripod for a 400mm but can get away with a reasonable monopod. (For the physics inclined, a long lens / camera combination has a large moment of inertia. This interacts with the torsional stiffness of the tripod to lower the resonant frequency.... and low frequencies tend to have large amplitudes.) A monopod is much stiffer in torsion, so it doesn't feel the pain.

I have a 3leggedthing Adrian, and I have been happy with it so far, though I don't have any largish lenses. I have't used the monopod feature, but it's nice knowing it's there. They have a lot of options depending on your needs/budget. I got mine on closeout from Adorama (older model).

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod & Head - $500 or less
« on: April 02, 2014, 01:05:28 PM »
I picked up a 3 Legged Thing Adrian version 1 with ball head last year on sale at Adorama for $175. So far, so good for my 6D. I did get the Kirk plate made for my camera, which is nice and snug.

For a metal tripod (Magnesium Alloy) it's fairly light, folds up pretty nicely, has a removable center column, leg that converts to monopod, and has been quite stable. It served me well on a fall trip to Yosemite last year.

For me, the only thing keeping me from buying this lens is the price, not the lack of IS. I'm not saying that it's overpriced. I just don't have that kind of money right now to justify upgrading from my 24-105. and to be honest, if I did have the money, I might spend it on a vacation rather than a glass upgrade at this point.

Again, for me and the way I shoot, IS on a lens that only hits 70mm at its max isn't a necessity. It would be nice to have, but I would have to factor in the added weight and cost if there was a Canon 2.8 IS lens in the mix to choose from. I understand that there are a lot of people who would disagree, and that's fine.

Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:21:27 PM »
Sounds like a nifty little lens. I only wish it was EF and not EF-S, but I guess that's being selfish.

Canon General / Re: Canon LP-E6 Product Advisory
« on: October 17, 2013, 01:56:12 PM »
After reading this, I don't feel quite so insane.

I recently took the plunge on a 6D kit. It arrived at my office, I took it home at lunch and put the battery on to charge and went back to my office. When I got home that night the light was still blinking orange and the battery had no charge when I put it in the camera. I switched outlets with the charger and set it to charge again. It was fine after that.

I had been thinking that I somehow inserted it improperly (which seems almost impossible) or that there was something wrong with the original outlet (even though I use it all the time). Nice to know it was a super-drained battery.

Landscape / Re: Sunset - The Post Mill, Mountnessing, Essex
« on: October 04, 2013, 06:41:09 PM »
I was originally going to say, "Nice shot, but I really wish there was a glimpse of detail on the left side of the frame."

Then I clicked on the image and looked at the big upload on Flickr, like I should have done in the first place.

Beautiful image.


RE: paul13walnut5's altitude comment -- this was from Griffith Park Observatory.  Changing altitude from that vista isn't really an option.  But certainly, I should be considering altitude if the location allows.  Good tip.

- A

I think you could get a bit lower perspective from somewhere around the Dodger Stadium parking lot. Great view of downtown, but I don't think it's quite so high.

I'm curious if footage shot with such different ISO values will cut together well in post. I know this is doc style and not narrative, so you'll get a lot more leeway with the viewer, but I'm still curious.

Maybe you've already thought of this, but since you now have a meter you could go to a few of the places and take some incident foot-candle readings in various spots of each location. If the bars don't want you running around with a camera for a test shoot, it would at least give you an idea of the kind of light you'll be getting. That way you can go through your notes and see what kind of exposures you would be faced with in a given location.

Of course, all bets are off if the bars change their lighting, but at least you'd have some reference to work with.

Lenses / Re: Is There Such Thing As a "Best" Normal Lens for Crop?
« on: September 10, 2013, 12:45:19 PM »
Not going to get into the debate of what is "normal," but I'm very happy with the original 35mm 2 on crop. It's a nice compact lens with good IQ for the money.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10