December 21, 2014, 02:15:02 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Cheap Camera Ideas...worth it?
« on: August 23, 2012, 10:02:53 PM »
I'm sorry, but I don't think that most photographers understand what it means to backpack with gear. A tripod? for a beginner? an external flash?
her XT already has a flash. I have backpacked for the past 10 months in Asia, and it's a pain in the as$ carrying extra stuff around, and strapping a giant tripod on my bag or carrying an external flash for a beginner is like telling my mom to put nitrous in her prius.
way overkill. I understand that lighting is essential, and tripods help a ton, but please.... for a beginner, or someone not that interested at the moment, more accessories to make life more confusing, and her bag heavier is a bad idea.
i agree that the 50mm would be good, but on a crop, its too tight.
i'd upgrade to the 18-55 IS II if possible, and call it a day. or get an S100 or something like that. otherwise, just tell her to enjoy what she has and use it

Backpack?  Where in the OP's question does the word "backpack" appear?  It is nice that you have been to the hemisphere referenced in the OP, but not all elements of your experience apply to this trip to India. 

I do not think a speedlite is terribly more complicated (or large, or heavy) than the built-in flash, but it does allow for bounce light indoors, and more power.  I am not sure how excited one can or should become at the prospect of replacing an 18-55 I with an 18-55 II as you suggest, or if that would even be worth the price.  And getting this person interested in photography was one of the OP's stated aspirations. 
I only listed "tripod" and "50 1.8" because you could buy either one with the money left over on @$200.00 after buying the flash.  Even if she does not need a tripod on the trip, upon her return a tripod is a very basic cheap thing for a photographer to have.  The 50mm would be GREAT on the trip; feather light, teeny-tiny portable, and fantastic in low light compared to the kit zoom. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Cheap Camera Ideas...worth it?
« on: August 23, 2012, 09:04:04 PM »
Get a flash.  The most glaring flaw of the 18-55 she has will be poor performance in low light.  You could get a decent 3rd party flash and go a long way towards remedying that deficiency.  Bower, metz, Sigma, Vivitar. 

She might even have enough for a flash AND something else, like a tripod or a 50mm f/1.8.  The flash plus the nifty fifty would address low light in 2 ways, and (to an extent) also address image quality.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony NEX goes Full Frame!!!!
« on: August 17, 2012, 05:58:18 PM »
Canon should have done it.... Sony does it.

I just learned via (many) trusted sources that the third revolution from Sony is about to happen. After the SLT and NEX introductions (first two revolutions) Sony is about to change the photographic and video industry with the third revolution… a new Full Frame NEX system!

now sony has to start making lenses...  ;D

Dear God!  The seventh seal is about to be opened!

IS is simply a must. The difference in terms of the keeper rate is considerable.

Or look at it this way.  He wants it for sports mainly.

Well, in bright lighting sports, the f/2.8 would let you use a faster shutter, and gaining one stop of aperature (f/2.8 vs. f/4) lets you advance one stop in shutter speed (double speed), making up for one stop of image stabilization.  Does the f/4 IS really give you much more than 1 stop of IS?  And if it is really bright, then forget about IS completely.  At a very fast shutter speed (like bright daylight fast sports), Image Stabilization doesn't really do any good.  So in some situations at medium speed, the two may cancel each other out, and in others at high speed the IS is useless.

And in low lighting, like in a basketball gym, the f/4 may not be usable at all (unless you have an uber-expensive camera that is great at uber-uber-high ISO), whereas the f/2.8 is twice as bright as f/4.  And since you would want to use a monopod for that anyway, the monopod will be your image stabilization.

PowerShot / Re: PowerShot SX160 IS & PowerShot SX500 IS
« on: August 14, 2012, 12:15:41 PM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"\"></g:plusone></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"\"></a></div>
<p><strong>Two New PowerShot Cameras<br />

</strong>Below are a couple of images of upcoming PowerShot superzooms. We have the 16x zoom PowerShot SX160 IS and the 30x zoom PowerShot SX500 IS. Both cameras  will be arriving soon.</p>
<div id=\"attachment_10952\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"width: 510px\"><a href=\"\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-10952 \" title=\"nabmlaaeb\" src=\"\" alt=\"\" width=\"500\" height=\"500\" /></a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Canon SX160 IS in Red</p></div>
<div id=\"attachment_10949\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"width: 510px\"><a href=\"\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-10949 \" title=\"nabmkaaeb\" src=\"\" alt=\"\" width=\"500\" height=\"500\" /></a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Canon SX160 IS</p></div>
<p> </p>
<div id=\"attachment_10950\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"width: 510px\"><a href=\"\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-10950 \" title=\"nabmnaaeb\" src=\"\" alt=\"\" width=\"500\" height=\"500\" /></a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Canon SX500 IS</p></div>

 :o So.... how exactly do I visit that website (*%&#^%$@*.net)?  Can't even type that in.   

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM vs IS II
« on: August 13, 2012, 09:21:09 PM »
Were you looking at the image on a big monitor and blowing it up/cropping it, or were you just chimping on the camera screen?

Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: August 10, 2012, 02:53:16 AM »
I have mixed emotions about reviving this thread, but can't resist a bit of "I told you so."

Nikon's first quarter results and projections for the year are out. (See Nikon Rumors). Net profit fell by a jaw-dropping 48%!

Now that those numbers are out, it's a little easier to compare performance of Canon and Nikon. The numbers confirm what I said previously – this particular article was written by a single columnist with an ax to grind against Canon's management.

Demand a change in top leadership at Canon when profits are down 2.4%, while a major competitor's profits are down 48%?

Fact is, Canon is well-managed and doing very well during tough economic times.
And they avoided selling the 5DIII cheap whereas the D800 must not be earning then much money
Desperate means from Nikon of course to sell it at that low price. Will be interesting to see the development of their profits once D800 sales will have larger impact. Also, this will have impact on their overall pricing strategies as they will be held back in trying to get better prices for other models they will launch from now on.

Losing less than one's competitor is an odd sort of "victory" isn't it?  But, yes,  hoooray.

Lenses / Re: Center Pinch Lens Caps
« on: August 07, 2012, 03:04:06 PM »
I got Nikon ones for my Canon lenses  ;D they are passable and usable.

That could trick theives looking for good camera equipment into leaving your lenses untouched.  8)

Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
« on: August 05, 2012, 12:17:34 AM »
If you are staying with APS-C for the foreseeable future keep in mind that the 24-105 becomes a 38-168mm zoom when you multiply by X1.6. The 24-105 is a great lens, but you'll appreciate its qualities more on a FF body.

If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.


Yes to the 17-55 used.  If you buy it used, you are basically using it for free until you sell it later for the same price (assuming you don't damage it).  17mm is pretty wide, and the range is useful, and the IQ is great.  Wonderful lens.

Also, even if you go full-frame, you might keep a crop body too, just for the free 1.6x telephoto boost it gives you for sports or birds, or whatever. 

If/when you go full-frame, buying back the lost 1.6x telephoto length with (good) long glass is insanely expensive. 
If for example you have a 70-200 f/2.8, your crop body is giving you 320mm's AND it still at f/2.8.  No teleconverter will do that.  You lose 1 stop with the 1.4x TC (f/4) and you lose 2 stops (and significant IQ) with the 2x TC.
To get the latest 300mm lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera will cost you over $7,000.00, just to get back to (almost) the length you had before at f/2.8.  Ouch.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bryan Carnathan's 1D X Review Is Finished
« on: August 02, 2012, 04:18:49 PM »
and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical.

He's not always so nice, just depends on which reviews you look at:
Sigma 20mm f/1.8
"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open.
In conclusion, I recommend not buying the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens. Sorry Sigma, this one is a dud."

It's not just sigma:
EF 80-200
"The Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very small, very light and very cheap telephoto zoom lens.
There is no sticker shock when checking the price on this lens. But, as often is the case, you get what you pay for.
With the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens, you also get very cheap build quality.
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing.
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost."

Sure, with the L lenses and 1-series bodies he's not going to be too negative, but even in the 1DX review he says things like:
"...but first, I want to point out a potential downside for 1D Mark IV body owners looking to upgrade to the 1D X... This is of course disappointing to many extender users... The largest group of photographers affected by this change are, probably, bird photographers (such as Arthur Morris) - who have been dealt a double blow with the 1D X. Bird photography typically needs the most reach possible - through both lens focal length and sensor density. Increasing focal length via extenders has now been limited (for autofocus to function) and the 1D X has a less-dense sensor than either of the previous 1-Series models...
 This is, perhaps, the end of that era. I have to admit that I'm surprised by this design decision. "

He sounds almost British here, being polite as possible about a change for the worse when you can really tell he's annoyed by the no f/8 and knows a lot of others are too.

You just have to read between the lines a bit when reading his reviews, to tell which lenses/bodies he loves and which ones not so much...

I like his reviews, and his site, and his lens comparison tool is fantastic (and unique I think!) so don't get me wrong here.  I am a fan.  So don't take the following as criticism of his character or the value of his reviews, or the effort he puts in.

But saying he trashed a Sigma lens and sniffed at a few hapless non-L Canon lenses is missing the point.  My one niggle with Bryan's reviews is that sometimes it feels like he's never met a red-ring lens he didn't love (unless it has just been replaced with a new more expensive red-ringed mk2 lens), and he never gives the same kind of unqualified praise to any 3rd-party lenses. 

I don't call it a "bias" because that word has negative connotations, and he does it with great intentions.  I just think it is a point-of-view he brings to it.

Lenses / Re: Your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...
« on: July 31, 2012, 07:52:23 PM »
Love mine.  It grabs focus so quickly it is a little startling at first, even though it is also nearly silent.  I never really notice the weight.  I agree with Neuro that on a crop frame it is long indoors UNLESS you are talking about a large public space or an indoor gym, in which case it is maybe the best lens in the world.

Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:30:08 AM »

I have posted before, that if you are unhappy with Canon's offerings, you should not whinge about them, rather, do not buy them.

Vote with you wallet! It's by far the most effective management and strategy tool in the market.
well, this is not that easy if you invested in glass already.

Yes, you are right (no, it is not that easy). 
I get livid when I see people saying "if you disagree with anything Canon is doing, do not talk about it.  Instead you should dump all your (EXPENSIVE) camera gear at a loss and go buy it all over with Nikon.  Bull.
1.)  Do you really expect to go to a website about a product and read NO NEGATIVE VIEWS???  If you want that, go join a cult. 
2.)  Who the heck are you anyway to tell people they need to shut up?
3.)  The whole point of a website about a particular brand is to discuss both its good points and also the points which could use improvement.
4.)  Buying from the company (to the tune of THOUSANDS of dollars) gives one the right to comment freely.

Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons
« on: July 27, 2012, 12:39:28 AM »
In my utterly meaningless capacity of O.P., I hereby declare (without any relevance) that this thread has been hijacked.
My point was about the "bleak" and perhaps not "scathing" portrait painted by the article.
Canon is not CURRENTLY competing by price:  in prices they still exceed even Nikon. 
They are not leading in "meaningless" benchmarks like Megapixels.
Their mirrorless product is what it is.
Canon may have some advantage in high-ISO with lower noise.  (GOOD!)
Canon has a lot of other products besides DSLR's which are REALLY doing poorly, and to which by comparison cameras are an area of healthy business.  Those areas (copiers, etc., ) are doing even worse than their competitors.
UNLESS, of course, they can suddenly transform the playing field with a game-changing new product(camera or otherwise), or if they can regain the jump on NIKON on DSLR tech.

The point of the article seemed to be the lack of recent innovation, the loss of market share and the lack of hope for the future.

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:38:11 PM »
Double the weight matters a lot in 747's or locomotives.  In lenses, they are relevant but not nearly so much so. 
What matters is your use.  If you ever want to shoot someone's kids playing indoor basketball/volleyball/etc., the f/4 will be a hinderance. 
If you shoot in big halls/wedding reception places indoors, you may find f/4 a problem. 
If you hate artificial lighting, f/4 could be a hassle.

If none of these things apply, then it will be rare that you will need to shoot basic indoor shots at @200mm w/o added lighting.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 39