September 23, 2014, 04:54:21 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 - ScottyP

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
It doesn't exist yet, but if someone really could get the camera to do its own AFMA using DPAF (or whatever) that would be truly great.

 I also think they would be smart to put it in every body (or every one that has DPAF ) not just the higher end ones.  That would just go to the basic functionality of the camera and the basic image quality, and it would be concealing their own minor manufacturing inconsistency to make every Canon body work perfectly with every lens.  Cheaper than trying to accomplish the same thing with massive quality control improvement efforts.  And it wouldn't upset the separation of price points between models.  The simple one would focus simply but accurately.

I fiddle with the crop quite a bit, but the amount of care differs according to how special or not special the image is. 

I usually frame a little loosely so that I can have leeway to improve composition goofs with a fairly significant crop.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:41:26 PM »
Some guy no one knows makes an account calling himself "Psychic1" and posts a statement with absolutely no backstory on how he comes to know this.  They seem inordinately excited by very thin rumors there on FM. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:38:21 PM »
Does Adobe work up a Lightroom raw converter for Samsung bodies?  If not, that would be a pain.  If so, do they take a while to get around to doing it when new bodies come out? 

Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:14:12 AM »
How did they let "That Nikon Guy" play with the merchandise?  He should be on a no-try list somewhere at Canon.  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade Path Dilemma
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:24:52 AM »
You don't list interests in shooting live subjects in low light or indoors.  That somewhat reduces your need for full frame. 
As long as you are shooting landscapes, etc., which do not move, you could get by in dim light by using long exposures, provided you get a good tripod and head. Do you have one? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:48:09 AM »
No mention of max shutter. Assume it is 1/8000?

No mention of flash sync speed.  Assume it is 1/250th?  Any possibility it could be a bit higher?  1/320th?

Well, I don't know nearly as much as Privatebydesign does about everything, but I do think Roger of Lens Rentals may be an educated lens buyer almost on the same level as Privates. 

Privatebydesign:  how many lenses have you purchased?  Just round it over to the nearest hundred lenses to keep it simple.


And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site.  And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear".  Oh.  No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

Lenses / Roger Cicala: Canon v. Nikon lenses on optical bench (no camera)
« on: September 06, 2014, 09:30:40 PM »

Roger at Lens Rentals is comparing 24-70's and 70-200's from Canon and Nikon.  Interesting because it removes the huge variable of the different camera bodies you usually have. 

Good autofocus would not hurt image quality or performance.  Good autofocus would widen the appeal of the lens to include the many customers who are reluctant to buy a MF-only lens.   Autofocus is not terribly expensive, as most lenses manage to feature it and still make a profit (at a much, much lower retail price!).  It leads one to think Zeiss has taken a good honest look at what they are capable of doing exceptionally well (optics) and what they are not (autofocus) and made a decision to not do it they are unable to do it as superbly as they do the optics.   

EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 02, 2014, 05:56:11 PM »
As for pricing, there is no reason they have to increase.  Look at flat panel TV's. every year or two for the last 20 years the TV's have gotten better and better at the same time that they were also holding the same price or even sometimes getting cheaper.  Same thing with computers, laptops, Dvd/Blueray players, phones and other electronic things.

Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:06:15 PM »
Obviously a response to market conditions.  While there are several relevant ones here, including overly-aggressive pricing strategy in the last few years, camera/tablet cameras, mirrorless systems, a still-sluggish economic recovery, market saturation, etc., I can think of no stronger operative market force than competition. 

And because Canon is partly insulated from Nikon/Sony competition by the investment its existing customers have sunk in Canon equipment (which acts as a barrier to switching systems), I think this speaks volumes about the effect of 3rd party lens makers in particular, being direct competition on lenses.  Chief among them being Sigma, with their generally well-respected Art line.

I think this is great for the consumer, as it should drive innovation as well as put some brake on pricing.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:50:24 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 
Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used.  6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation.  It's how big companies make money.  Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens.

If they want to offer a less-expensive kit lens with a FF camera, they should simply offer a kit that includes a 50mm f/1.4. That could be done in a white box for just a couple hundreds bucks over body-only price and might be very popular.

Lenses / Re: Would you buy the 35L now, or wait?
« on: August 25, 2014, 06:18:07 PM »
If I wanted one I'd get it now.

If a MkII comes out then it will be much more than you can get the MkI for so you have a different set of factors contributing to your purchasing decision.

Would you buy a MkII now for $2,200? Because even if they were available they wouldn't be selling for less than list, and wouldn't be for some time after release. Look after your MkI, keep the box and bag, receipt, warranty and paperwork and even if you want to upgrade in the future you won't lose that much.

Besides, lenses are for taking photos and imagine the images you will miss in the mean time.

If I wasn't in a rush I'd see what the rebates brought, but if you are not in a rush do you need it...............

Normally I'd agree but I wouldn't be shocked if the new 35mm 1.4 isn't sold at that big a premium due to the Sigma.

I think Canon have demonstrated on pretty much every occasion that they don't care about Sigma. Sigma are not pushing them to do anything, if they were we would have seen a 50 f1.4 replacement a long time ago.

I believe the bigger picture is Canon think the relevance of fast primes has waned and they don't carry the "system" clout they used to. Killer specialty lenses like the 24 TS-E and 17TS-E, and zooms with the IQ of the 70-200 IS f2.8 MkII and 24-70 f2.8 MkII are not only expensive but they are good sellers with much broader appeal. I well understand the fast prime "look" that can't be replicated with f2.8 zooms, but it seems to me Canon don't really care too much and have moved on faster than some of us, lets be honest the most compelling reason for fast wide primes was not dof control (though I am not denying it's importance sometimes) but it was to compensate for awful film iso speeds and that has very much been put to rest with even current camera iso capabilities, I suspect Canon consider medium speed primes with IS that are small have much more appeal and earning potential, the new lenses are often video orientated and that is what Canon thinks is more important to them.

I don't really feel like I need IS on a 35mm lens for what I shoot.  I'd rather have the wider aperture for the 35mm focal length.  Handholding at 1/30th works ok with a wide-ish lens like a 35mm, and that is plenty slow for me.  I don't have much need for 4 stops of IS to allow me to shoot sluggish 1/2 second exposures handheld because most of my subjects are alive and moving way too much for that, even if trying to hold still.   When I do occasionally shoot still life I am fine using a tripod or resting the camera on something. 

What I do like about a brighter 35mm is that instead of having to jack up the ISO to the point where I notice noise or lack of detail in crops, I have room to open it up and gain a stop of shutter speed at equivalent ISO compared to what an f/2 lens could do.  And even wide open, the DOF on a 35 usually stays wide enough to work with, and does not get so shallow that you are stuck with that look where practically nothing in the image other than a couple of eyelashes, seven pores and one pupil is in focus. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37