September 21, 2014, 06:13:03 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 - jasonsim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7DII - Did you preorder?
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:12:06 PM »
Yes, I pre-orders on Sep. 15th at 11:30 with BH.  Hope to get on the list of the first shipment available.  Need this for a trip Nov. 7th - 10th.  If not, might need to delay my trip one week.

Really looking forward to testing this baby out.  I sold my 1Dx last month and replaced it with a 5D III + 7D II combo.

-Jason

2
The 7D II was never intended to be a video centric DSLR.  Why would a videographer need 10 FPS, 65 cross type AF points?  The biggies that need 4K will pony up for the Cinematic 1D series that Canon offers.  The casual YouTuber or Vemeo poster should be able to make due using a 70D.  Not sure what all the fuss is about.

7D II was made for sports and wildlife photography.  That is where it should excel and has no rival. 

As far as Samsung NX-whatever, I admire their efforts and it might be a fine camera.  But look at the sidelines of any NFL game...what do you see?   A bunch of white honking lenses!  Canon EF system out sells all other systems by wide margins.  They must be doing something right.

Kind regards,
Jason

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:10:30 PM »
Just as I posted in earlier threads. Same old sensor from 70D and priced around the same as the last 7D at launch (that was 1699.00).  Sucks that we waited so long in anticipation for this?  Nikon has had 24MP Dx sensors for years! 

There might still be hope if the thing can focus like a 1Dx.

Lets see.

-Jason

4
Lenses / Re: 35mm f/1.4 L to 16-35mm f/4 L
« on: September 06, 2014, 01:50:02 PM »
The 35mm f/1.4L is a different beast.  It gets you the very narrow depth of field while keeping most of your subject in focus.  The 16-35mm f/4L cannot make the same shallow depth of field. 

You must decide if that is important you.  If it is not, then the 16-35 f/4L IS is a great lens!  It is sharp even in the corners.  If you need wider than 35mm then, you need this or something else.  The 14mm f/2.8L II is good, but might be too wide for all your needs.  It cannot be used with a screw on filter either.  If money is a factor, maybe consider a nice 17-40mm f/4L and keep your 35mm f/1.4L. 

Ultimately, the choice is yours to make and what will better serve your needs.

Kind regards,
Jason S.

5
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:25:23 PM »
Is this at all related to a stronger dollar?  Just wondering. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-few-brief-comments-on-the-technical-condition-of-the-dollar-2014-8

6
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:22:54 PM »
It makes lots of sense that they come out with a new 400mm DO, since the first one that still sells MSRP for $6500 cannot be kept in stock anywhere; it flies off the shelves!

At the price they wanted for the 400 DO, another $500 got you a new 500mm f/4L IS USM.  It made no sense then, and little now.  The 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM with 1.4x III and 2x III will best it for less money. 

Canon really needed a 400mm f/5.6L IS USM! 

How dumb!

7
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:45:30 PM »
I bet it will be the same sensor as seen in the 70D.  This would make sense, if Canon wanted to keep the price reasonable ( < $2k ).   I would not be surprised if they price it at the same level of the previous 7D ( ~$1699). 

As far as much better high ISO performance, why would they do that?  It would sabotage the sales of the flagship 1Dx.  Lets get real...a crop sensor will never perform like a full frame.  This should be the go-to camera for fair weather wildlife and sports photographers.

Just my two cents.

8
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 02:49:01 PM »
Hi Dylan,

Here is the 600mm II + 2x III + 1Dx quality.  I think it is very very good:





maybe this will help a bit
Lisa Holloway 500px profile

almost all of her portrait work are done using 200 f/2 wide open, enjoy!
Thanks for the link.  My GAS just shifted to another state.

Told you long back you have a vacant spot in your shelf with 200/2 written on it ;)
I'm afraid to touch one  :o ;)

@ sagittariansrock - Thank you for the encouragement  :)

@ mackguyver - I know your feeling. I'm testing out my 400 + 1.4x and 2x TC right now. Hope it works as I planned, so I can cross the 600mm off my wanted list. If that is the case, there should be enough room for 200mm f2. Until then, I'm ain't-gonna touch that BEAST ;D

My rental 600mm should arrived next week. I want to see how 840mm and 1200mm IQ looks with 1dx.

9
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:50:25 PM »
300 f/2.8L IS II is awesome.  Sharpest lens in Canon's line-up and killer bokeh.


 
With 1.4x III added:



With 2x III added:



The results with the extenders is simply amazing.  Any extender on the 200mm f/2L IS and it falls to pieces.

10
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 01:12:07 AM »
I would say...save your $5000.  I was there and ended up keeping the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  For capturing fast moving sports, there is no substitute for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. 

For portraits, I would suggest an 85mm f/1.2L II and / or 135mm f/2L.  I had both and kept the 135mm for head shots.  Kept the 50mm f/1.2L and sold off the 85mm f/1.2L II.  But I do think that the 85mm II is the king of bokeh.  It was just that I did not use it enough and always ended up taking my 24-70 f/2.8L II + 50 f/1.2L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around in my bag. 

Sure the bokeh is nice with the 200mm f/2L, but I'd wager that my 300mm f/2.8L II or 600mm f/4L II's bokeh is even nicer!  Those are just not so practical for portraiture.  So stick with something you are most likely to use and keep in your bag. 

You might also look into a 200mm f/1.8L; I liked it even more than the 200mm f/2L; but it is also gone for same reason of lack of use:


11
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 04, 2014, 12:00:17 PM »
I really like the 100L for it's IQ, modern design and it is pretty light weight.  Maybe for APSC I would suggest the EF-S 60 mm as a more affordable option.  Here is a sample:


12
It seems weight is importance factor for you.  The f/4 IS is no doubt much lighter.

Do you use a strap system like a BlackRapid or something like that.  Using something like a strap system or a Spyder holster system might make the f/2.8L IS II manageable for 4 - 6 hour sessions.   

One major reason to have the 2.8 is to stop action, especially indoors.  You don't have a need for that it seems. 

How big is your studio?  If it is pretty large, you might be able to make use of the 70-300mm L IS, which at 300mm will blow out your backgrounds nicely!  So, if you don't need f/2.8 to stop action and you want a lighter lens, perhaps the 70-300mm L IS is a good middle ground.  It can also be used as a travel lens with your 24-105mm IS. 

Depends also on your style...do you want parts of their face out of focus? Then the 2.8 is needed. 

In a studio, you can move around no?  What do you need that your 24-105mm f/4L IS cannot give you now?  I am thinkin 105mm in a studio setting as long enough.  If it is shallow depth of field you are after, you might be better served by a 50mm prime: Canon 50mm f/1.2L or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.  Just my two cents.

Kind regards,
Jason S.
Indoor sports on monopod... great... I don't care about that :D

I shoot mostly hand held and portrait orientation, meaning I have to hold camera body and the lens for 3-6 hours a day in this position.

13
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM For Sale
« on: July 01, 2014, 11:45:55 PM »
Certainly not a good investment. Is this thing even serviceable still? 

I'm quite content using the 600mm II + 2x III.  Sure it is f/8, but I bet the image quality is better than the bare 1200mm. Lets not forget that these 1200s were FD mounts that were retro fitted to EF.

If you were looking to invest in Canon lenses instead of your 401k for instance, I'd suggest buying 80k or whatever the selling price worth of new Canon version II big whites. 

Investment wise, would this be a good thing to buy?

I'm certainly not going to buy it, but it does make me wonder.

14
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon Pixma Pro-100 $34 at Adorama
« on: June 27, 2014, 04:23:24 PM »
I got a second one last year $79 after the $300 rebate and free 13x19 paper.  I mainly got it for the ink as I already have a Pro-100 that I am using.  I might get another (3rd) Pro-100 for again, just the ink and paper.  What to do with the two spare machines?

It does print very well and the glossy on the Pro Platinum paper is the best I have ever seen.  I was lucky to pick up a 8 free packs of Pro Platinum 8.5x11 size when purchasing one pack direct from Canon last year too.  Not sure why they had the fire sale on the paper.  But I have more paper than ink at this point. :-)

Regards,
Jason S.

.
They'll give printers away to sell ink.

Can't remember the last time (or ever) they sold large format printers for super low prices.  I'd say that your argument is invalid.

The fact that they've not done it before with this format printer hardly makes the observation invalid. Printer companies have frequently given printers away counting on future ink sales where margins are huge.

Anyway, I just ordered one through B&H, essentially the same deal. The $300 rebate is not precisely "cash back." You get a $300 valued American Express card to use -- apparently no way to get cash per se.

The B&H guy told me best results have been reported with the Pro Platinum paper.

15
Some other photos from the event:


 

 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15