February 27, 2015, 08:39:05 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 - birdman

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
Lenses / Re: What's your favorite Canon lens and why?
« on: March 03, 2012, 04:44:28 PM »
35L here. Then it would be 135/2.0....though I don't own it. Razor sharp. arguably their best piece of glass

Lenses / Re: Lens? 70-300IS vs 100 2.0 and 200 2.8?
« on: March 03, 2012, 04:42:48 PM »
I started a thread about that same lens entitled "70-300L anyone"

Based on all I saw from sample pics posted, and what I read, it looks marvelous. I want it, too.

I say buy it used for no more than $1,200 and it should be all you need. Bokeh looks great. Contrast is great. Range is great. Weight and size is great. Speed is just average.

The 100/2 and 200/2.8 are both good in their own right. Very different applications though. No IS, especially on the 200, really tethers you to a monopod or tripod. Yes, either is certainly a hair or two sharper than the 70-300L.

I think exotic lens elements, and newer lens coatings will make the 70-300 have better colors and contrast. Just my 2 cents. If you want another cheap alternative, get the also lightweight 70-200/4 IS and the 85/1.8. You could always add an extender later to give you better coverage. You have options--especially with Canon

I am OP. This is my argument: We, as consumers, are collectively indifferent. some want this, and some want that.

The 1dX addresses High ISO performance issues. We also have the existing 1D4 (16 MP) that is impressive in high ISO. And it is a wonderful camera from all I have seen, read, and heard.

Okay, so since the 5dII came out nearly 4 years ago, Canon has added 1MP, better ISO performance, similar video features, same metering, 2 frames per second, and "pro" AF. All of this for $500 more-- 4 years later.

I know I am leaving out some specs--what dual card slots that many sub-FF cameras already have? I just don't see why anyone would pay $1,500 MORE for these upgrades. And yes, the 5dII can be found for $2,000 flat.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price
« on: March 02, 2012, 01:40:17 PM »
I am extremely happy with its $3,500 price point. Now I can get top dollar for my used 5d2 and either get this or the "other" DSLR in this "general" price range.

I am disappointed with MP count, no USB 3.0, no AF on video, and a few other quips. I think they could have done a little better for $3,500, but who am I to judge this?

I am a landscape/street photographer and cannot see a reason to upgrade, really. I will wait on reviews and see how much I still love my 5d2. It's been phenomenal.

Its funny how high are standards have gotten, relatively speaking. I am not immune to it, that's for sure.

I really want this lens! I have 28-135IS, 50/1.8, 35L, 17-40L, and 70-300 IS. I could sell 70-300 IS and use money I had put back for new body for 70-300L.

The new body would be nice, too, but I think the lens will better serve me. the only thing that gets me is that the 5dII I currently own will steadily lose value over next few months. That's just technology though, i guess.......

Oh, and I do a lot of street photos and landscapes. Give me your opinion, please! My 5dII is immaculate, with low shutter count. I don't think new 5d3 will improve too much in IQ

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III vs Nikon D800!!!
« on: March 01, 2012, 12:54:32 PM »
I hate to say it, but the Nikon looks better considering price/performance. It doesn't matter to a professional anyway, as the 5d3 will be a cheap body for someone who can shoot sports.

I am an amateur, and as such love landscapes/street photography. Would like to get into doing model shoots, as well. I may keep my 5dII and eventually upgrade my d7k to the D800/D800e. The 5dii is an excellent dslr even though it's a little long in the tooth. I have never looked at a picture, other than WA taken with a 17-40L, and thought "this is not sharp enough for me!!" The 35L is a stunner coupled with this body.

I don't think the new 5d3 will be a significant upgrade in IQ for broad daylight shots. I  just don't really believe it. If I needed 6FPS, 61pt AF, and other improvements I would buy it ASAP. As such, I think I will stick to my gun (5dii). It continues to serve me well. And besides shadow noise (which I can handle), it does what I need it for. 
The one spec I will hate to admit that the D800 has is USB 3.0 support. Just built a brand new custom PC and it has a couple of USB 3.0 inputs. Coupled with my Seagate 2 TB 6gb/s HDD, the D800 would be a killer camera. Maybe in time I will have one. Until then, I will support Canon.

I hate to ask, as it has probably been beaten to death all over the world, but I need to know. My 5dII does fairly well, and based on my needs seldom pushes for TOO much of an increase. However, if they are using a sensor very close in MP size, it seems they are just following the approach by Nikon in the D3s revision.

I would expect images at 25,600 to rival 6400 on current 5d. Two stops is asking a lot, but I really think after 4 years of technology development this would be possible--even at 22MP.

If there is merely a clear one-stop advantage, I don't see a worthwhile reason to upgrade if AF is unimportant. Maybe low ISO/Shadow noise improvements could warrant a reason. As they always say, the proof is in the pudding. The more I look at the D800, which on paper appears to be wonderful at its price, the more I believe it will be noisier than a bunch of bad kids on Saturday morning. And that is a major reason NOT to jump ship!! At least for me, it is.

EOS Bodies / Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?
« on: February 22, 2012, 07:17:22 PM »
I, for one, wish the 5d III had higher MP. I feel like the IQ will essentially be the same as the current 5dII that I own. ISO performance will be certainly better, and AF will kick serious but. However, it is a little curious to me that the MP as essentially the same. What I am saying, simply, is that the 1d3 and the 5dIII may be close to the SAME CAMERA!! Think about AF, frames per second, and MP. Then it becomes more curious.

Maybe I will keep my 5dII, which I am content with, and invest in new glass to be released soon. This may be my best bet. I just hate to keep a depreciating asset when I could afford to sell  and upgrade for about $1,000--the price I would get for my D7000 that I never shoot. AF is not important to me because I do 90% landscapes. But I will withhold judgement until the "Official" release. We could be in for a huge surprise.

EOS Bodies / What makes a System (Canon,Nikon,Leica,etc.) most important?
« on: February 22, 2012, 07:09:53 PM »
I will try to post a few intellectual topics. Excuse me if I insult some of you (and your superior intelligence), as I got badly flamed for talking about the new D800.  >:(

Anyway, I have the 5dII and D7k. I graduated up from the Canon 40d to the 5dII a few years back. God I loved that 40d. For me, I was familiar with the controls, feel, and AF/metering of the 40d so the transition was easy.

I got the D7000 thinking I would use it as a smaller, faster body--plus I could start using Nikon lenses on my 5d. Well, that hasn't happened yet, and I rarely shoot with the D7000. I will not take time to learn all the bells and whistles on the Nikon. It is a solid DSLR with excellent video, excellent AF, and excellent IQ. I will sell soon though. Its hard to go back to sub-FF after spending so much time with bigger, brighter viewfinder.

I like each system, though, for different reasons. I think Canon has better telephoto (and more choices) options, such as many F/4.0 choices. I think Canon produces better natural colors (leaves, grass, skin tones). I think Canon has intelligent engineers that make shooting very simple. The list goes on and on. Nikon seems to produce better wide-angle lenses. I like that Nikon has started updating all of their primes, and they are all seemingly fantastic. I like Nikon's AF abilities in their higher-end cameras. I think Nikon has better noise levels, which simply comes down to software and the processing engine.

We'll see how this next gen plays out. I was sold on the new D800, but I really want to stay with Canon as my primary option. They have a TON of news lenses due to come out, and I know they will create a great wide angle. If money was no object, I would choose the 1Dx. I think the low-light performance will be nothing short of astonishing. The IQ will be equally as impressive. Happy shooting....and shopping!!!

Lenses / Re: 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 20, 2012, 09:08:40 AM »
I am OP. Thank you so much everyone. It looks like I will rent first, compare with my other lens that cover this FL, and probably buy.

I am amazed by the IQ on some of the shots posted here. It appears I have found a potential long-term solution.

Lenses / Re: 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 17, 2012, 11:26:16 AM »
Wow on that review. The first page has a SCARY young girl trying to smile. HAHA  ;D  ;D  ;D

Anyway, sorry for not staying on topic. It just freaked me out. For a great laugh do open up the review in your browser.

Lenses / 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:50:56 AM »
This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price.

The 70-200/4.0 IS has always been one that I wanted, but with the 70-300L my opinion has since changed. Of course, I have never shot with it, but all the reviews are very positive. My question is, how does the IQ compare to all of the 70-200's? Is the price worth the upgrade vs. 70-300 IS? How does it feel and balance in hand? Thanks

Lenses / Re: 36+ Mp EOS dSLR (rumored): How do existing EF lenses cope?
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:30:09 AM »
Such a technical and debatable Q &  A. Interesting, though.

I don't think we have reached that limit yet...if it really can be reached. Wouldn't you still get sharper images if, all being equal, the resolving power of the sensor kept improving? In other words, even by using older lenses, if the sensor was "better" it would still improve IQ indefinitely. I think. Shoot, I don't know.  ::)

Lenses / Re: 24-70 too short for full frame?
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:23:45 AM »
I had the 24-70 (original version) and while impressed by the colors, felt it was not as sharp as it should have been. I hear the 28-70L was arguably a better lens.

As far as being too short, I don't think so. 70mm, even on FF, is a nice walk-around focal length. I have the 28-135, and rarely use it over 100mm. If you want ultimate combo, 24-70 & 70-200. Of course, not everyone can spend that kind of dough.

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:19:36 AM »
I would either go with: Sigma 85/1.4 or Canon 85/1.8--which is a WONDERFUL lens!! Razor freaking sharp and light on the budget and hand.

Then, I would get the 70-200/4.0 IS. You would have portrait needs met and telephoto lens to boot. The Sigma is supposed to be excellent, and they hold their value quite well. The 85/1.2  is amazing, but a little overpriced in my opinion. Of course, the Nikon 85/1.4G is around the same price also. I guess the amount people pay always dictates price of goods. Economics 101

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9