May 24, 2013, 03:35:44 AM

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 - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 47
241
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:29:21 AM »
A wise man realizes that when he finds himself in a place where he is not welcome or doesn't harmoniously fit in, the better part of valor is to excuse himself and leave or to change his behavior. Just saying....

Bit extreme and unfair I think. I for one, like to look at an issue from various perspectives.

242
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Times running out 5D Mk3 or 1DX
« on: February 02, 2013, 01:39:00 AM »
the cheapest one if there is no obvious advantages of one over the other to you

Yep. 5d3 suits your needs..

243
Lighting / Re: Specular Highlights... Feed Back Please
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:06:32 PM »
Do not really understand what you asking, but I so do not like the bounce boards being visible...

244
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 01, 2013, 10:37:32 AM »
I felt cheated on learning that Canon publishes hypothetical MFT charts and does not actually test a sample lens.

245
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400
« on: February 01, 2013, 08:37:30 AM »
thx Alan

246
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:51:33 AM »
The 300 f/2.8 with TCs is much sharper than the 100-400mm. If you are going on a bird shoot on Safari, then I would definitely prefer the prime.  But, my experience from my one safari is that the zoom would be far more useful for the wild life as the game wardens take you very close to the big game and the 300 would be useless.  (I have both sets of lens and would pack the 100-400, which retracts nicely to a small size too).

Alan good points. I have been to Sabi sands in Kruger before where we could off road and come real close to game. However this time I will be in main Masai Mara reserve and we are not permitted to off road. Game could be far or close depending upon luck but if far we would not be able to drive to them. :)

247
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:33:22 AM »
Thx much TC

248
Lenses / 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:13:48 AM »
Experts.
I have an unplanned trip to Masai Mara coming up with I am very excited about. :)
I sold my 600 ver 1 few months ago and have not been able to replace it (waiting for 200-400).

Now I have 300 2.8 ver 1 and 70-200 II for the trip. I am concerned that I might not have the required reach on my full frame cameras (X and 3).

A friend has 100-400 which I can rent for real cheap.

My questions: Will the 70-200 wit 2x be as effective as the 100-400 in regards mainly to IQ. AF speed is important by I think if there is any difference in this regard it would be minimal.

I intend to shoot at the widest f stop in most situations.

Thank you for your help.

Sanjay

249
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: February 01, 2013, 01:59:16 AM »
I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

Well said!

250
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:47:43 AM »
Wondering why Canon, Nikon would NOT measure actual lenses?

251
6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...
« on: January 31, 2013, 11:50:22 PM »
Wait, isn't that plane beyond infinity focus? I'm guessing you could get that in focus with a manual lens without looking through the viewfinder too!

+1

252
If I were you I would shoot JPEG.
Best wishes for your trip.
Where exactly are you going? I travel to Africa often. Inbox me if you need any info on Namibia, SA or Botswana.

253
Sir if money is of concern, I really recommend you return both and get 6d.

254
Canon General / Re: Canon 1D X on the Street
« on: January 29, 2013, 09:07:06 AM »
People who are afraid of taking their camera to new places are the ones that are less travelled or those who have had an unfortunate incident.


255
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: January 29, 2013, 07:03:12 AM »
My heart sinks. Canon may price their next 800 to match this...

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 47