August 01, 2014, 07:35:24 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 - raptor3x

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Rokinon Rebates on Select Lenses
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:08:35 PM »
Everything I saw for the Rokinon 24mm TS was it really wasn't that great optically, about or worse than the Canon 24mm TS-E v1. We all had big hopes after the optical IQ of some of their other lenses, such as the 24mm & 85mm. Sadly, their 24mm TS didn't live up to that. It's a fair deal if it was priced cheaper, but after seeing sample images I'd personally save up for the Canon 24mm TSE v2. That is one awesome lens!

I thought that the 24 1.4 was supposed to be pretty bad as well.  The 35 is the really good one.

32
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« on: September 12, 2013, 05:43:04 PM »
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:

  Canon 70-300mm IS USM  Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR 
Focusing Design    Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM      Internal focus, FTM 
Focusing Motor  Micro USM, noisy, slow  Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast 
Stabilization  3 stops  4 stops 
Year  2005  2006 
MSRP  $650 US  $590 US 
Street Price  $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H  $420 US eBay / $587 B&H 

One could say that Canon did upgrade it by releasing the 70-300mm L, but that is in a whole different price bracket, and shouldn't be compared.  It would be like comparing the Canon vs. Nikon 28-300mm lenses; they are clearly in different classes.  How has Canon not updated this lens in the past 7 years?

I must say, I miss the fast, quiet and accurate focusing my old 100-300mm USM and 70-210mm USM lenses had; and they were small and light, too.  If either of those lenses had IS I would not have considered 'upgrading' to the 70-300mm.  I wish Canon would up date this lens to be on par with Nikon and stay in the same price bracket.

I also find it funny that Canon announced this lens alongside the crowd-pleaser 24-105mm L. 

By the way, I have used both, as I own the Canon and my dad owned the Nikon (on a D600).  The Nikon wins hands-down in overall feel, responsiveness, build quality, etc.

And then there's the Tamron 70-300 VC which stomps on both the Canon and  Nikon options.

33
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 21, 2013, 07:32:18 PM »
Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.


I wouldn't go quite that far:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.



Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250.  On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D Sample photos ISO 100-25600
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:51:50 PM »
Do the 7D shots have some noise reduction applied?  There's way less color noise in that shot than I remember at ISO 6400.

35
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2013, 03:11:36 PM »
'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
Except they already make that. Just tape your 24-70mm L II into the 24mm position and you're set. You don't want it to go to f/1.4 apparently, so it doesnt, it does f/2.8 sharp corner to corner. Sure, it'd be great if it was $500 cheaper, but thats the price of sharpness

Even better, set the lens to 24mm, engage the lock, and then epoxy the switch in place.  24mm prime in 5 minutes.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 17, 2013, 04:27:04 PM »
Why would you post your receipt here? Are you trying to brag about having two 5D Mk III's? I don't get it.

I would imagine for the same reason you have your entire inventory listed in your signature: To feel like more of a man.

Erm... wait, no that's not it... he's probably just excited and wanted to let other people know what he owns, much like your signature. Congrats Dylan, I hope to pick up a second 5D3 someday soon (Actually my wife does, she's stuck with the 7D when we shoot weddings together =)

Burn.

37
EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:17:14 PM »
I'm a bit skeptical that the traditional 1/focal length rule applies to these mirrorless cameras with no viewfinder.  I know that when I try to use live view on any of my DSLRs handheld I lose a 'stop' or two of stability due to the loss of the third contact point at the viewfinder.

38
Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:36:48 AM »
You are ignoring the other ways heat dissipates.

Okay, sure, convective heat transfer could definitely overpower solar radiative heat transfer but you'd need a fairly strong wind to get to the point where a white and black object will have essentially the same equilibrium temperature.  And I doubt conduction has any significant effect in this situation.

Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia).

Actually it's quite the opposite, as the object's temperature rises the frequency distribution of the blackbody radiation shifts toward higher frequencies.  This shift toward higher frequencies is what causes the increase of heat transfer out of the body via blackbody radiation.  If it were the opposite, and the frequency distribution moved to lower frequencies as the temperature increased you might have bodies near absolute zero giving off high energy radiation.  It's true that emmissivity will change as a function of temperature and for most materials the emmissivity will tend to increase with increasing temperature, but you're not going to see a white and black object achieve the same emmissivity just by exposing them to 0.1 kW/m^2.

It is a fact that brighter surfaces reach lower eq. temp., not just because the day is too short for them to reach it.

I'm a bit confused here, maybe I'm misreading your statements and if so, I apologize, but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

39
Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« on: May 22, 2013, 07:39:32 PM »
The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster.  Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight.  So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.


Not true at all.  The equilibrium temperature will vary with the 1/4th power of the emmissivity.

40
And normal shooting sounds like a canon (no pun intended).  This is very disappointing, any suggestions other than earplugs?

I haven't noticed any difference.

41
I'm seeing $779 + ~$16 in eBay bucks.  That's a better price than I've ever seen on the used market.  The only price I've seen lower was during a Canon 20% off refurb sale.

42
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8
« on: April 14, 2013, 12:32:42 PM »
Could the AFMA be off on the 400?

43
I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8.  The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.

My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).

Buy a used 7D off of FM or PotN, should run you about $750-850; then sell it when the next round of cameras come out.  Will probably end up costing you ~$100-150 for several months of use.  Way way way better than renting.  Also, don't get rid of the 17-55, that lens is fantastic and if it weren't for the fact that I needed a weather sealed normal zoom I would have had a hard time giving it up on the move to FF.

45
I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6