Messages

31

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

« on: February 20, 2012, 06:27:14 PM »

One of the goals of karma is probably to identify those who consistently give good advice etc.  If the forum software allows for it, we could potentially still accomplish that by removing the negative option.  People could give kudos to those who are helpful, and those who are not as helpful will just be noise. 

I agree with many of the posters in this thread that people often give a negative when they don't like the content of the response itself "ex: I think Nikon's D3 was better than the 1D IV."  Opinions are being confused with personal behavior and eliminating the negative tally would probably serve both purposes.  It isn't perfect, but it might help us find the best balance.

32

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 11, 2012, 02:43:20 PM »

I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...

The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)

Not sure if that's the best way to decide on buying a lens.  I'm crazy, but I usually look at image quality.  And, the Mark I was NOT sharp at any focal length for the vast majority of lens copies.  Maybe you had a good one, but it wasn't the case for most other users. 

Bottom line, this is a very significant improvement, given the charts and the user's first impression here.  Canon is going to make you pay for that improvement. 

Not liking the price doesn't mean that we have to not like the lens, especially because "it doesn't have IS".  The IQ and focus speed appear to be leaps and bounds better. Just wait a few months for the retail price to come down or for used copies to hit eBay.     

33

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]

« on: February 09, 2012, 07:28:31 PM »

Bring it.  If only to stop the constant "I'm switching to Nikon" and "Canon hates its customers" threads.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: Would we be asking too much?

« on: February 08, 2012, 11:08:08 PM »

Canon (and every other company) isn't trying to piss you off.  They will release it when they are ready. 

Sometimes Canon goes first; sometimes Nikon goes first. 

35

Lenses / Re: Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II

« on: February 08, 2012, 11:44:05 AM »

How about: i plan to buy it when the price comes down a bit, and IS isn't really necessary for this type of lens.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?

« on: February 07, 2012, 06:27:24 PM »

Canon doesn't respond -- it releases what has been in the pipeline for 2+ years.  You can't retool a whole set of features a la carte. 

With the unnamed super high-end video and unannounced still backs, it wouldn't make sense for the 5D to go much past 25MP -- especially if that draws attention to the MP difference with the 1DX.  They are both full-frame, so Canon can't be two-faced in the approach to MP.

Methinks an 18-24MP body with slightly improved AF, but nothing like the D800. 

37

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: February 07, 2012, 06:17:24 PM »

I think the people that keep talking about not needing IS is based on the idea that it wouldn't actually kick in for most uses.  It's really helpful for long primes/zooms, but you naturally gather a lot of light at the wide end and it wouldn't be engaged below 1/100 or so.

Someone else said it better in a previous post, but there are so many it's hard to keep up!   

38

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:45:01 AM »

Ah, so we get to thank the idiots on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve for f**king up the price by devaluing the US dollar.

And the thousands of Americans who were dumb enough to purchase a zero interest mortgage that they couldn't afford. If you're adult enough to buy a house, you should be able to look at the monthly payments and figure out that you can't afford them.

Plus the governments and investors of most every other country that were over exuberant and leveraged their countries' debt ratios far more than was prudent.  It was a localized risk that no one thought could have global repercussions.  Not trying to start anything political, but the blame for the global recession has many many actors (just ask Greece!)

39

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 - Sample Photos

« on: February 07, 2012, 01:26:11 AM »

I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good.  Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled. 

There does seem to be a drop off in quality after ISO 1000.  That's not good...

Prepare ye hard drives for massive files too -- these 36MP RAW images aren't going to be small!

40

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 is finally here

« on: February 07, 2012, 12:09:17 AM »

I'm a little surprised that there is as much dissent in the Nikon camp.  I guess they can always dial down the resolution on the camera, but overall it looks really solid.  If I didn't already have so much glass that wasn't available in Nikon form, I'd seriously consider this camera.

41

Third Party Manufacturers / D800E

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:39:05 PM »

The D800E (without antialiasing) version is the really interesting release!   

42

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot D20

« on: February 06, 2012, 09:10:11 PM »

What was odd about the D10? It seems like a standard P&S in a water-sealed case?

What's with that nipple on the upper left?
http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/products_data/products/canon_d10/shots/canon_d10.jpg?v=1323

And that bulge on the left side?
http://1.s.img-dpreview.com/products_data/products/canon_d10/shots/top.jpg?v=1323

The nipple was a removable screw-in part that you could securely tie to your SCUBA gear, and that bulge let the lens move back and forth without having to have a change in physical space with the pressure (usually expanding and contracting air.) 

And yes, it was a little odd looking 

43

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot D20

« on: February 06, 2012, 08:50:46 PM »

The D10 was great!!  It was a true waterproof diving P&S, whereas most advertise 3.3 meters as the max depth before the pressure fills the camera with water.  It wasn't a $1000 rig for deep diving, but for fun shallow dives, it was one of very few cameras that went below 10ft. 

This new D20 isn't the most attractive specimen, but it should do the trick!

Any specs on this guy -- resolution? Video resolution? FPS? Aperture?

The D10 specs were:

12.1MP
2.5LCD
Digic 4
3x Zoom
ISO 3200
Image Stabilizer
33ft depth 4 feet shock
Awesome clip to attach to your SCUBA gear

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Is canon cps gold or platinum worth the money?

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:45:25 PM »

I had Gold for a while and Canon was VERY attentive when I needed a repair on my 1Ds III.  The shipping and repair was expedited and they called several times to follow up and make sure that everything was okay .

If it's for your business, it's definitely worth having.  If it's a leisure activity, maybe not if you're in a country where you have to pay for CPS.

45

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot Announcements February 7, 2012 [CR2]

« on: February 05, 2012, 03:05:50 PM »

Agreed -- the D10 was an amazing camera and was truly waterproof to serious depths.  Most other "waterproof" cameras are such to 10ft, but that is useless for recreational diving. 

Bring on the D20 with 1080p video!  The D10 had something like 640x480...not great, but a steal at its price point.