January 25, 2015, 11:32:07 PM

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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 41
Lenses / Re: Rationalise my kit!
« on: October 28, 2012, 08:16:36 PM »
You do have quite a bit of redundancy in lens length there, so perhaps a garage sale is a good idea. 

And do we understand correctly you wish to buy a Nikon lens to bracket onto a Canon body, despite the MF and other drawbacks, and you are firmly set on doing so?

How much wider/shorter would  you want to go than a (Nikon) 14-24 on a FF camera?  Not a fisheye, right? 

Maybe the smaller fabs and higher MP will hit a wall or at least fall out of fashion due to diminishing returns on cost, or IQ issues.

How do we kick off a consumer fad for "Highest acceptable ISO rating!!!"  Maybe "New & improved ISO performance"!!!  Have them emblazon that on the camera boxes and the cameras themselves, instead of "XX MP".

Lenses / Re: Guesses on lenses for Photoplus
« on: October 24, 2012, 04:06:52 PM »
More mirrorless lenses.   >:(

Easy, Caroline. Why the vulgarity? 

The thread in here on "Canon on top again" got a little flamey, but the OP's premise was that there is such a rumor.  (That Canon will be the top-ranked pro sensor when the Dx0 Mark rating comes out).  That was largely ignored in the responses, though. 

Anyway, I never saw that rumor.  Was that a CR rumor?

Sports / Re: Girls Soccer Game
« on: October 20, 2012, 01:19:18 AM »
You nailed the focus.  Good job. 
You were just on the wrong side of the field.  You should have the sun at your back,  and in the faces of your subjects, not the other way round.  Here the subjects are back-lit, which is about as bad as you can make it for you.

Lenses / Re: DXO - lens reviews - 300mm f/2.8 IS II - that bad ???
« on: October 15, 2012, 09:06:55 AM »
Yeah, well they ALSO say that the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II is worse than the Mk I !!! 

They are entirely alone in that view, as far as I can see from all the other sources I have ever seen.

Site Information / Re: Missing Persons -- Brian??
« on: October 13, 2012, 01:25:21 PM »
Perhaps he went over to the dark side and picked up a D800.   ;)

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon EOS 7D Magic Lantern Alpha Available
« on: October 13, 2012, 08:58:41 AM »
Canon should either make these features themselves or else they should show up in a limo with a big briefcase full of cash and buy out the Magic Lantern folks.  That would all be a nice innovation they could have over Nikon even if they didn't come up with it themselves.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:55:11 PM »
Do you even shoot FF? APS-C in NOT the lousy equivalent to FF. Go ahead and try super tele on FF. You'll see just how lousy it really is to shoot FF compared to a good old 7D!

Yep...my 1D X with a 600mm f/4L IS II.  Just plain lousy.  Crappy.  I should just chuck the 1D X in the bin.

Comparing the 7D to the 1D X with a supertele, the 1D X has a significantly higher AF hit rate than the 7D, and the 1D X images cropped to APS-C framing are at least as good as the 7D uncropped, albeit with fewer MP.

Honestly, I'm wondering if I will keep the 7D (the answer is probably yes, at least for now...a backup body is nice to have, but if a 7DII comes I'll consider it, unless I've replaced it with a refurb 1DIV in the meantime).

Yes, you have a $7,000.00 camera body and just one of your lenses costs $13,000.00.  I am certain this combo works well and gets the job done.  For that price it had better be at least somewhat better than a setup costing 1/12th of that price.  And even at 1/12th the price, most people (not on camera forums) still find crop DSLR rigs to be too spendy when their camera phone is so good nowadays. 

Unless Canon (or anyone else) can find a million new hyper-uber-hobbyists to each spend $40,000-$50,000 or so on kit, they can't stop dealing with crop bodies and those who buy them. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 70-200 OS
« on: October 07, 2012, 02:57:19 PM »
Looks like if I can get hold of a good copy of Sigma 70-200 OS, it will pretty wonderful. But have to cross the hurdle called Sigma QC....

It might be just a marketing response to what Sigma itself must realize is a perception that they lack QC, BUT they did recently make a big deal about addressing that.  They re-released this lens in an "updated" form less than 2 years after releasing the last version.  And to much accompanying hoop-la about a new system of QC.

I wish Sigma could get its crap together and be what they could be.  Sigma could really be the one 3rd party/2nd tier outfit that advances to the 1st tier Canon/Nikon/(Sony?) level.  (I'd include Pentax and Oly on 1st tier if they had more DSLR market share)  Sigma makes their own cameras, not just lenses.  It is a large company.  They should/could be much better thought-of than a company like Tamron, Tokina, etc., but for now they remain lumped in together with 3rd party outfits on that level.  If they really can get a handle on QC, and then convince everyone that they have done so, then they could be a catalyst that pushes Canon and Nikon to innovate faster while keeping a check on prices too.

Astonishing technical achievement.  That lens costs $7,000.00 though.  Same as the M9 camera body.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2012, 06:25:35 PM »
I'll bet its video was crap though.

I can't picture it being the 1D size/pricepoint.  Seems like in the past the 1D bodies were not the megapixel leaders, as they focused more on IQ and durability and ergonomics, etc..

A fixed 200mm lens seems like it would have all the awkwardness of a much longer prime, but without sufficient reach to make it worthwhile.  I'd go with the zoom.  Especially on a crop frame.  You'd constantly have that feeling like trying to carry a 12' long board through a department store. 

You know the feeling, right?  Maybe that is a poor metaphor.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 41