Messages

16

Lenses / Re: What's the latest estimate for the release of Canon 24-70mm EF 2.8L II ?

« on: March 08, 2012, 10:41:26 AM »

Any ideas as to what this will do to the price of the existing 24-70?

Unfortunately given the much higher price of the Mk II version of the 24-70, I doubt it will drop much. Maybe around where it was through the Christmas holidays with rebates? My uninformed guess is it won't go any lower than $1200-1300. Some people on here have suggested, based on prior experience, that the used price on the original may even go up. Apparently that's what happened when the 70-200 F2.8 Mk II came out.

17

Canon General / Re: Canon coffee table...

« on: March 07, 2012, 03:43:34 PM »

Wow... After a few glasses of wine those table legs would get extremely tempting...

18

Lenses / Re: Help decide between two Tamron lens

« on: March 07, 2012, 03:41:14 PM »

You mean the Tamron 27-75 vs the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? (you say it right later in your post, but not in the poll)

Definately the 17-50 f/2.8 (as long as it is NOT the VC version!)

The 27-75 lacks the wide angle range for crop cameras (as you will know from shooting with your kit lens). The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, however, is considered to be one of the sharpest zoom lenses for that low a price, with such a big aperture. Generally people are very sceptical of third-party lenses, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is well-known for its budget sharpness. The VC (image stabilisation) version of that lens, the 17-50 f/2.8 VC, does not have that sharpness (strong haloes, soft edges).

I have the 17-50 f/2.8 myself as well for my 60D, and I like it a lot. Alternatively I'd have got the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS, which has slightly longer zoom range and image stabilization and a tad more sharpness... but I would have had to pay more than 2½ times as much.

The 17-50 f/2.8 is relatively light sensitive, and very sharp image-wise. The biggest downside is that its zoom ring turns the opposite way than the canon's (which I get used to rather quickly), and that the autofocus motor is noisy. However, it's decently fast. If those two things don't bother you, this is the best zoom lens you can get for that money, with the right reach for a crop-camera. On a bigger budget, consider the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I agree with this. For the money, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 NON-VC is a great lens. I replaced my Canon 17-85 with this one, as I found the Tamron to be sharper, and the faster aperture is much better suited to my needs. If you find a great deal on the Canon 15-85 F3.5-5.6 (not to be confused with the much older Canon 17-85 F4-5.6) then go for it. If you have the money, both the Canon 15-85 and the Canon 17-55 are better lenses, but at around 2x-3x the cost.

There's a review of the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 here: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

This is the only non-Canon lens that makes the recommended General Purpose Lens list on The-Digital-Picture.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

19

Lenses / Re: 4 lens conundrum - could use some help

« on: March 07, 2012, 12:15:42 PM »

Without having seen any pictures using the unreleased 28mm F2.8 IS, the biggest difference you'll have between that lens and the 28mm F1.8 is the loss of one and a half stops of light. If you're stopped down to a higher aperture than F2.8 you'll likely appreciate the IS when using a slower shutter speed. But if your baby is moving at all in just ambient room lighting (without using your flash) that extra stop and a half of light that a F1.8 lens gives you, allowing a faster shutter speed, might be the difference between a sharp memory and blurry arms and legs. Personally with a wide angle prime like that, I'd rather sacrifice the IS for a much lower aperture; and saving $300 is always nice too.

20

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon 50mm Æ’1.8

« on: March 05, 2012, 02:25:04 PM »

40D, 1/50th F1.8 ISO 400

I like my 50mm F1.8 mostly because I can't afford to replace it yet. For the moment it gets me some pretty decent photos.


20120218-073-67.jpg by Prete Photography, on Flickr

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why all the hate for still camers?

« on: February 29, 2012, 01:24:15 PM »

I like the cut of your jib.

When I started the thread asking why people hate video in DSLRs I was honestly curious if anyone had a verifiable complaint showing how having video capabilities in their still camera reduced the quality of their pictures. Personally I don't shoot video with my 60D. I bought it because it was a good step up from my wife's previous T1i, and allowed her to expand her photography skills. When I buy a 5D, it will be because it is a fantastic camera that takes amazing still images. The video will be a simple perk that I'll rarely if ever use. If I had the option between a DSLR with or without video, and the one without video was significantly cheaper (10% or more) I would definitely go with the a still only camera.

On the other hand, I just don't see that it make a lot of sense from a marketing perspective to bring out two, almost equivilant camera's, one and one without video just to make a few hundred people happy. With the 5D series, I'm sure Canon is looking to have sales in the millions of units each year. By adding a few lines of code and a microphone to an existing unit they've expanded their market enormously, allowing a huge increase in R&D funding to create new and better features in each new model.

I honestly don't think there is enough demand for a still-only DSLR to justify making another line. Reading through the threads here on CR, it appears that there's a half dozen advocates for the still-only DSLR, and hundreds of others who either like video or don't care enough to post about it.

22

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?

« on: February 22, 2012, 10:36:15 AM »

Personally I'm not a fan of the Karma function but I don't really care if someone smites me either. Its too anonymous to really be useful. I think that too often it gets used as a disagree button, rather than when someone is being a troll and posting crap. I'd rather base my opinion of other forum members on the quality of the information they provide. I'm not going to disregard anything that Neuroanatomist says just because someone disagreed with him 400+ times. I've not been participating on the board for terribly long, but I think I can safely say that Neuro is not a troll, and doesn't go around spouting banalities. The same goes for ScalesUSA. I highly doubt that this admin really deserves to have the applaud/smite ratio that they do.

Most people who participate regularly on internet forums are able to fomulate an accurate opinion of which posters are the trolls and which ones have the best information after reading a couple of threads. In the month or so that I've been participating here I've noticed a dozen or so individuals who consistantly post informative, thoughful, and humorous information. Those are the opinions that I value. The trolls are just a hazard of the internet.

By the way I don't know Neuroanatomist or ScalesUSA from Adam. I just pulled two example posters from the most recent page of this thread.

23

Sports / Re: Surfing photos

« on: February 22, 2012, 10:07:40 AM »

More pictures of the surfer girl please!!

 

+1!

Beautiful pictures! Thanks for sharing.

24

Lenses / Re: Yet another "what lens?" question

« on: February 16, 2012, 10:05:50 AM »

There's been some great lenses suggested here, especially if you're looking for a prime lens. If you're wanting a zoom, but still want to keep your 15-85 (an awesome lens) maybe check out the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non-VC (no IS). While it does lack the image stabilization it is a very sharp lens with a fast aperture for an unbeatable price. I bought mine used for $250 locally, and you could probably find a better deal than that depending on your market. A good review of this lens is here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

This lens would be an inexpensive way to try out a fast aperture zoom without having to break the bank. Then if you feel you want something better you can look at the more expensive ones like the Canon 17-55 F2.8.

25

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 03:04:30 PM »

...If they do so, they can also build an pretty unexpensive 5DX, namely a 7D with FF losing video functions.
Don't complain about that, IMO the time will come when people are fed up with SLRs featuring more video than photo and demand pure photo SLRs, so why don't bring out a photo SLR right now?

I seriously doubt that Canon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) will ever make another DSLR without video capabilities. All that is required to add video to a DSLR is a microphone and a few more lines of code in the firmware. Heck, with MagicLantern you can add video to the 50D, albeit without audio. Video capabilities are a cheap way for the manufacturer to add value and appeal to any camera, which then helps it to sell to a larger market, which hopefully pays for the R&D and brings on the rebates and price drops sooner.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else want a cropped sensor?

« on: February 14, 2012, 01:07:15 PM »

For the type of photography I do (sports, kids, and some landscape) I enjoy having a crop camera that gives me a little more reach. I'm not a pro and am not selling prints, so at this point I'm very happy with the image quality of my 40D. At this moment the camera highest on my wish list is the 7D.

My wife on the other hand does a lot of studio/portrait type of shooting and would really benefit from a full-frame camera. Right now we don't have the money to get her there, but hopefully in a year or so we can upgrade her from her 60D into a 5D mkii. I seriously doubt (assuming I don't win the lotto) that we'll be in the market for the 5Diii or x or whatever it will be called.

Our biggest investments to date have been in upgrading our glass. I'd rather have good quality glass in front of an older camera than vice versa.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

« on: February 14, 2012, 12:54:53 PM »

The current frontpage headline reads "aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!  Tons of information coming in about possibly the most anticipated camera of 2012 (sorry Nikon)."

Now I started to wonder. What do you think this "aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!" signifies?

I think it signifies that you're overanalyzing/over-thinking the post

But seriously I think it's the CR guy "screaming" because there is so much info pouring in right now

+1

I agree that its just an overload of emails and information, and it appears that none of it can be confirmed at the moment. I think that would lead to a frustrated/overwhelmed scream.

28

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Aging bodies get noisy?

« on: February 13, 2012, 03:35:32 PM »

I read the title of the thread, and I was going to write something about my creaky knees, rumbling gut, and frequent passing the gas.

But then I realized you're talking about something else

That's the exact same thought process I went through reading this thread title! 

29

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D or wait?

« on: February 11, 2012, 11:46:20 AM »

My biggest suggestion is that you don't upgrade your camera just before an event. Unless you only use the fully automatic mode, you want to give yourself at least a month of regular shooting to get used to the feel and function of your new camera. You really don't want to be fumbling to change settings when that perfect shot comes along. I bought my wife a 60D a few months ago as an upgrade from her T1i, and it took her a couple of weeks before changing settings became natural and smooth.

As for which camera you pick, There's no firm release, or even rumours about the 70D, so we really have no idea what it will be. I'd suggest that if you're not in a hurry just wait and see if there's any great deals on a 60D. If you find one snap it up, and if not maybe the 70D will be announced in the mean time.

30

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6L IS [CR10]

« on: February 09, 2012, 08:40:10 PM »

Sweet! I bet this modification would work for my 50mm 1.8 too!