October 01, 2014, 07:33:16 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 - EchoLocation

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:57:19 PM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........
serenity now!

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:43:22 AM »
It feels like Sony to Canon is like Apple to Microsoft.

Oh...flashy, overpriced and useless versus dependable, reliable and built to get the job done?
1. how is Sony flashy? i don't see how an a7 or a a6000 is flashy(a99 maybe more so)
2. how are the a7's or NEX's overpriced? the NEX series are very affordable and offer great features, at a much cheaper price than the EOS-M(outside of firesale prices.) The a7's are very affordable compared to other full frame options on the market. I bought my a7 at launch with a kit lens for under 2000 bucks(in China.)
3. my a7 isn't useless at all. I don't really understand how such an awesome camera can be dismissed so quickly as useless. My camera is small, easy to use, has lots of dials to change settings, programmable buttons, I love the EVF, and the image quality is superb. None of these aspects seem useless to me.

I do somewhat agree with the Apple Microsoft analogy, and I am actually an Apple hater(the only apple item I own is a 6 year old ipod,) however in this instance, I am greatly enjoying the Apple(Sony) offering while I am waiting optimistically that someday Microsoft(Canon) will copy their new innovations and make something a little more innovative and fresh.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f/4L vs 16-35 F/4L
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:25:27 AM »
I would not buy the 70D. I would buy a used 6D, 7D or just wait.
I had the 17-40 and hated it as mine was super super soft.
If you really want to buy a 70D or will wait a couple years to go FF I would just buy the new cheap 10-18 as it seems like a great option for budget and also for the outdoors/landscapes as it is small and light.
If I was in DSLR world though(i'm now all mirrorless,) I would skip all the aps-c and just go straight for the 5DIII and some L glass.

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:12:59 AM »
6 letters and a number:
FF a la a7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX100 MIII
« on: June 11, 2014, 11:00:44 PM »
i really liked the first RX100. My friend had one and it seemed like a great little camera. The II seemed good but not that special after the first.
Now, the III looks simply awesome. 24mm on the wide end, a 1.8-2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range, with a flash, and an EVF makes this camera basically perfect in my mind.
Bravo Sony!

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 30, 2014, 08:17:23 PM »
The size difference is much greater than those pictures show. While the length is similar when looking from above, the overall room that these cameras take up in a bag is still not the same. My a7 is a much smaller camera/lens combo than the 6D with almost any lens. Sure, the sizes seem similar, but the a7 is smaller and lighter. I also don't believe that the 6D is that great of a replacement to the 5DII....
If I was going to buy a new camera from the 5DII, i'd want either an a7, or a 5DIII, not a 6D.
I had an old Canon 5D Classic, and then bought an a7. I can say without a doubt that the size difference is substantial, and I will never buy another DSLR sized camera again.
The difference in everyday use is night and day.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 29, 2014, 10:50:23 PM »
What's really missing is a kick-ass M3 with truly tracking-capable AF and top notch EVF and 500 shots battery charge. That would very quickly end the Fuji X-games as well as Sony ex-nex alpha stuff. Not to mention dwarf-sensored micro four-thirds. And it would drive a lot of 1 inch nails into the nikon 1 coffin. :-)

Can't be that hard, Canon ... Just do it! ;-)
A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: May 26, 2014, 09:02:14 PM »
I was in a similar place as you last year.
If you're tired of lugging around heavy DSLR gear DO NOT buy a 24-70 2.8... Yes, the lens is awesome.... it's also big, long, and heavy.
I would recommend either an eos-m with 22mm lens if you want something inexpensive and very capable, or if you want full frame and spectacular, I would highly recommend anything by Sony.
I have an a7 and I absolutely love it. You could get the 35mm or 55mm lenses, both of which seem to be beautiful lenses.
Or, you could buy a Sony RX1 which might be one of the best 35mm possibilities out there. If you wait till Photokina, there will be tons of used RX1's and you can probably buy one for a steal.
The RX10 and RX100 mark III also look fantastic
If you're tired of the weight of your DSLR, do not buy another DSLR that is just slightly smaller. I sold my DSLR about a year ago for an a7 and I have not even considered buying anything even nearly as large since.
I will never buy a DSLR again, and love every minute of being free from the burden of lugging around such a heavy, bulky camera.

awesome shot, both me and my wife loved it! I really like Outside magazine, congrats on the publication! that is just fantastic!
how did you get it published by them? did you just submit it to the magazine? never really gave any actual thoughts to trying to get my shots published, but i'm very impressed!
Great work!

My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.

You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.

I meant at f/2.8.  And I certainly can see my composition while I compose.  It's in the viewfinder.

Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many did ask for it.

Show me.  I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8.  I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.
December 26th, 2011.... one of my first posts on this forum was me specifically asking for a replacement for the 17-40. One of the main reasons I sold my Canon gear was the 17-40 I used was crazy soft, and the 2.8 didn't get very good reviews.
What about a 17-40L II? I want a wide walk around lens with a bit of zoom for my 5D. I am considering buying the 17-40 I, but they just don't seem to sharp and this is a very old lens. When's the refresh coming?

fun stuff!
i like the lenses, they seem pretty nice and it's pretty amazing to see Canon price something at $299. Also, the 16-35 is fairly reasonable at 1199, especially compared to the Nikon equivalent. When the price drops in a year or so this will be really nice value.
for me though, the 11-22 and eos-m are perfect.

Sony always has lots of crazy specs, I'm sure Canon isn't too worried about it.
Personally, the thing that is most interesting to me about this camera is the kit lens. A 16-50 2.8 sounds a ton better than any of the kit lenses offered with the 7D.

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2014, 10:50:17 PM »
after using DSLR's for years, I can say that they are simply too big for me.
If Canon wants me to buy one of their products in the future, then they should focus on making a FF camera of the a7 ilk.
I use my EOS-M a lot and love it, except that it is rather poor in low light, has no flash and no viewfinder. If Canon wants me to consider buying their products in the future, instead of just reading about them, they will have to solve these issues.
This 5DIV tech sounds cool, but in my case(where size matters quite a bit,) DSLR's are way more camera then I need on a regular basis

It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?
Nope, but then 1) I have no interest in the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 II, and 2) if I were to buy a 50mm lens it would be the 50/1.2L which was released 8 years ago, in 2006.

Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens.  You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.
You sound like a broken record. We all know that Canon is the number one seller blah blah blah....
i'm assuming you consider McDonalds, Subway and Applebee's to be 3 of the best restaurants in America and Iron Man III to be the best movie of 2013?
Profit is one indicator of success, but it is far from being the end all be all of it. While you might be happy with simply owning the system that sells the most, that is far from my main requirement for my camera system.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Available for Preorder
« on: April 11, 2014, 10:39:36 PM »
This lens sounds great, but i'm just a little surprised that nobody thinks the price is high at all.
I don't think it's crazy expensive, but it definitely doesn't strike me as the bargain that many people make it out to be.
What lenses are we comparing this with besides the Canon 1.2? Just a thought i'm having, I know the 50mm 1.4 Canon is old and poorly regarded but literally nobody is comparing these two lenses.
I had the old Sigma 50mm 1.4, and I LOVED it, the bokeh was awesome, and it was really sharp(I did have to return my first copy as it was very softttt.) But that lens was $400 new and worked fantastic for me for a couple years.
Is the new Sigma really twice as good as the old one?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21