October 20, 2014, 05:12:19 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 158 159 [160] 161 162 ... 321
2386
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF
« on: February 05, 2013, 04:14:22 AM »
Also, it must have hurt Canon's feelings for everyone to say the D7000 was better than the 60D - especially given that it was cheaper.  I doubt they want a repeat of that.

:-) I doubt Canon's feeling can be hurt, only their profits. They knew exactly what they were doing with the 60d - obviously people rather "upgrade" (to the better 7d) than switch to Nikon. And they just did repeat it, with the 6d/5d3/600d combination...

2387
Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:40:30 AM »
Here's some sample shots.

Btw: These are very strong flares - it's great if you like them, but if that happens whenever having lights in the scene would be a big problem for me since I often shoot nighttime tripod. I don't know about the 16-35L, but I can say that this wouldn't happen with the 17-40L.

2388
Lenses / Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:29:40 AM »
the 77mm 17-40L can even be fitted with 82mm filters with a stop-up adapter since the Canon lens caps I own are designed to take 1 step larger filters (67->77 & 77->82).
Really?

I can really say it for the 17-40L (I currently use it with a 82mm clear filter) and the 70-300L (even takes 82mm on top of a 67 mm filter). But when using a step-up you cannot remove the hood anymore and, screw on the filter from the front...

2389
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4... DOH!!!
« on: February 04, 2013, 02:34:51 AM »
Ugh, I just bought Lightroom 4 and to my horror, it is not comptatible with XP!!!

I had the same unexpected experience when trying to install a trial on a friend's older system, and apparently there is really no unofficial way around this limitation :-\

Now, my question is, which is better? Windows 7 or 8? Any thoughts?

They are basically the same except for the theme look and MS' touchscreen tile interface, but you can just ignore that and install a start menu replacement. But when in doubt go for the proven, more debugged system which is Win7, even though it now of course has a shorter "mainstream" support duration.

2390
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 04, 2013, 02:23:14 AM »
General comment: If this rumor is true, it seems to me there won't be a 24-70IS at all?! Not that it would matter to me, a €3000+ price tag is not in my budget region for a standard zoom anymore.

What do facts have to do with anything, people don't want facts interfering with their opinions.

Most people of course are open to interfering facts - but in my experience it is often discovered that these facts, after due inspection, either aren't really proven/applicable or even magically validate the seemingly contradicting opinion as the exception to the rule :-p

The 24-70mm II uses I beleive (don't quote me on the precise number) a 68mm front element with an 82mm filter size. The 24-70mm f/2.8 IS used a 77.29mm front element!

So in simple layman's terms a Canon 24-70/2.8IS needs larger glass elements to be sharper than the 82mm Tamron 24-70vc, or does the Canon IS have another construction that is larger than Tamron VC?

I have to admit I don't quite understand it yet because I imagined the IS being build *around* the lens, but now it seems like the IS needs some glass "headroom", at least in the front element, to work because the angle of the lens changes slightly when IS is at work?

2391
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 07:45:36 PM »
On 2nd curtain, yeah too bad, but seriously how often do you use that?

Far too seldom as I recently discovered, I'll change that in the future.

How often with remote flashes?

Never, Canon doesn't support it :-o ... but for posed action photography this is a drawback.

if I really wanted it for remote I'd use a long cord

Well,  your assistant could bring an ettl cable drum for one flash, but the idea is to use multiple flashes...

2392
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: February 03, 2013, 07:20:20 PM »
For dynamic range, and highest possible IQ
as it was at iso 100 the sky can blow out really easily
I could have used Iso 400 and a faster shutter

Indeed, I recently noticed that dr @iso100 is not much different from iso400, or iso800 for that matter. Not because Canon has great high iso dr, but low iso dr is so crappy vs. Nikon: http://www.sensorgen.info/

also funnily enough back on topic, when going through the images of this shoot I didnt take a single shot wide open. I was using the 85 f1.4 on the 5Dmk3 and the 16-35 on the 5Dmk2 (my favourite combo) most shots i was at between f5.6 to f8

Exactly, I noticed that, too (and it's in line with the book I mentioned in the op) - but I didn't write it because I'd fear to be flamed to a crisp :-p

2393
Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 04:56:04 PM »
Most western countries, with the exception of the USA, have enacted hate crime legislation, legislation which also covers "hate speach". Here in Canada, it also applies to internet activity and those running a website can be liable for what others post on it. Obviously, other countries differ to various degrees.... and this is an international forum and things get nebulous...

Indeed, and while I I guess US law would apply to CR I can only comment on Germany: Over here it's pretty easy to get sued for "Volksverhetzung" when posting nationalsocialist propaganda and emblembs, but other than that most recent trials ended up supporting the freedom of speech, again idiotic as the content may have been.

Completely separate from this fact is that most forum admins rather delete when in doubt than pay a ~€1000 fee just for freelance lawyers threatening to sue them, even if the trial most likely would end in the forum owner's favor. But there is a law in the making limiting these lawyer's fees, so there's hope that the balance will be restored.

2394
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 04:46:24 PM »
Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning?  Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.   :P

Yeah, it's Canon Rumors and not Canon Facts for a reason :-)

2395
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:16:50 PM »
1. add second curtain sync to radio wireless [and optical wireless too]
2. add zoom head control over radio wireless
3. finally introduce cost-effective RT-receivers that allow full integration of 580EX II and 430EX II into a radio wireless setup
4. quickly introduce 440EX-RT, reasonably priced! 
5. introduce an improved ST-E3 RT Mk. II with laser-diode AF assist
6. build RT-master commander into all pro and semi-pro cameras [7D II, 5D IV, 1D-whatever, the one after 1D-x]

Btw - that is really conclusive, fell free to post it to the official Canon forum & post the link here ... but since Canon probably already thought of all the above it won't have any immediate effect.

2396
Lighting / Re: An open letter to Canon regarding the Canon RT system
« on: February 03, 2013, 12:00:01 PM »
I honestly don't understand why Canon did that when the ST2 had it. Either way Ill be buying a 3rd 600 soon.

There's your answer.

2397
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:56:25 AM »
I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.
I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well

This of course has been discussed n times - and even wedding photogs who shoot posed candids would profit from the IS, though it's not strictly necessary for events because of subject movement and IS lock in time.

So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?
I'm not a Canon engineer, but I was thinking the same thing. Tamron did it with an 82mm filter. Why can't Canon?

Probably Canon marketing thought impressive glass size to be necessary to make the €3500 price tag appear more justified :-p

2398
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:37:44 AM »
Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!

Oh no, don't give Canon any ideas, they'll reissue the 50/1.8 with this design and add a zero at the end of the price :-p

2399
Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:36:00 AM »
I kind of believe in free speech.

Me too, but since CR & other channels are run by private individuals or enterprises with a business interest you are free to speak up to your pets and family in the comfort of your own home or write a sign and stand next to the freeway :->

Having said that, I never saw anything removed on CR that I'd consider to be censorship or over the top, and narrowing down the theme to photography does make sense. My only potential issue is the exclusion of politics, since it's very fuzzy what is political and what not, but I think the mods have good common sense here and mostly remove dumb party politics or comments on international warfare (declared or undeclared).

2400
Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:59:34 AM »
ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning - make it appear more impressive by adding false elements to the front, dummy buttons to the back for a more difficult pro-look, a *double* red ring as a chick magnet ... just like car tuning with spoilers, lower chassis and broader tires (that actually slow you down) :->

Pages: 1 ... 158 159 [160] 161 162 ... 321