January 30, 2015, 02:05:54 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 - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 121
466
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 11:17:33 PM »
Thank you all for your insightful comments.

467
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 26, 2014, 05:31:39 AM »
Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?


468
Lenses / Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: May 24, 2014, 12:17:23 PM »
If you are the type of guy who always shoots in good light, or always uses a tripod, you do not need to upgrade.

469
If I recall, the main selling point of the 7D when it was released was it's superior redesigned AF system and FPS over the XXD. Here was a solution to those in the prosumer segment that couldn't afford a 1D series to afford a better AF system and were complaining about the old 9 point AF system. It was definitely a more action/sports/wildlife kinda camera. Right now, I would say Canon's AF offerings are on-par - so really is a 7d mark II even needed?

My question is what "big" photography related improvements could they do to an already fine piece of equipment

I don't want to sound cynical, but I hope the 7DII isn't just a 70D with the 'top end' ergonomics, just as the xxD line had up until the 60 and 70D combined a rebel interface with the larger body.

A little faster, gain a proper rear wheel + joystick, maybe lose the pop up flash.....

I identify with your fears.

470
Super super

471
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:05:05 AM »
$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm

Wishes!!

472
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.2L II Gets a Mention by Canon
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:03:25 AM »
CR you must have direct contact with Mr. Bloom. Why don't you please ask him?

473
...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...

Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.

Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it.  But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom

I agree with you.

474
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: May 18, 2014, 01:58:59 AM »
Edward and the rest: AMAZING

475

Just like the big brother 24-70 II, the new 16-35 f4 IS MTF charts look awesome.

My 16-35 II & 50L are on ebay.

I'll hold off until I see some actual reviews of the 16-35 F4 but I suspect I'll be joining you in putting my 16-35 II on ebay as well...  (Especially since I take alot of video with that lens too)

Wondering what exactly you need to hear in the reviews? Don't we already know:
1. It has the same build quality as other similar lenses
2. The IS will work fine
3. The corner sharpness is improved.
4. Handling will be same as other similar lenses
5. USM will work perfect.

What exactly do you need a review on? Curious! :)

476
Hope you find your gear. Sometimes it is not stolen, just misplaced. I suspect it was not insured. Did you buy it using a credit card? Sometimes card purchases are insured by the card. Amex had/has this feature I believe.

477
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:45:18 PM »
Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1.   12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L 
2.   16-35 f/4L IS  (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3.   16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS.  But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love).   The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

Same same

478
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:42:53 PM »
For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.

16-35 IS promises to be great for the most serious of the serious landscape work. At f8 I urge you to show me any difference between the Canon and any other lens.

479
Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.

Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT :( Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...

The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

Absolutely

480
It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.

I think same.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 121