July 25, 2014, 02:37:58 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35
376
Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:44:54 AM »
As someone who bought one noted, it does not dovetail with other f/2.8 focal lengths, so one should ask how it fits into their overall scheme of things before buying it and then asking what lenses do I buy to go with it.  That focal lenght definitely does not mesh with Canon f/2.8 lenses, I'm not sure it does with Sigma either, and  Sigma does not really have top quality lenses that form a 3 or 4 f/2.8  lens system.

Not exactly dovetailing, but that unique range is the genius of the lens, according to some lens critics (TDP, Lens Rentals, et al).  I am not telling you anything you don't already know in saying most people don't have ALL mm's covered by lenses.
This one is very interesting.  I was very curious about it a while back, but we have very little in the way of high-end "try it out" camera stores where I am.  If I'd had an opportunity to try one out first, (and seriously liked it) I might not have bought my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, even though I'd have a hole between 55mm and 120mm.  Not having actually tried it, I guess I have to sit down and shut up.

377
Lenses / Re: Canon 42mm f/2.8 TS-E, anyone heard of this?
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:26:24 AM »
I have heard Bigfoot shoots a Canon 43 lens.  Even rarer... ;)

378
Canon General / Re: Starting lens upgrade.
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:20:57 AM »
Good you are hanging on to the 7d for the 1.6 length advantage (as well as the camera's other good qualities).  I only have one EF-S lens (17-55 same as yours), but even with the crop body I find my 70-200 mk2 is short for some things, and very short for birds.  Not even birds on treetops, mind you, but even birds on birdfeeders in my back yard.  I have never shot with a FF body, but I wonder at how suddenly myopic one feels when making the change "cold-turkey" without keeping the 1.6X body.

379
Well, at least I didn't invest in Kodak.

380
I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?




That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp  ;D :P. Nice to see a sunny day in GB!


Ah, but there's a sheep down there that is kind of grainy and pixelated.  Look right there, approximately 2.6 miles out, at about 2 o'clock. ;)

381
Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:15:57 PM »
Apparently the lens can distort hair, making it look absurdly bushy.

Seriously, though, good question.  If it is a good lens it certainly would be a useful range.

382
Lenses / Re: Advice/suggestions extenders
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:14:13 PM »
Canon makes several 1.6x extenders for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ.  They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.

383
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:55:39 AM »
Nikon's numbering actually reflects how much money (in MM yen) they intend to pay Ashton Kucher to play with each particular camera body on TV.

384
Instead of getting pissed off when we see a new Nikon that is better and/or cheaper than comparable Canon gear, we should be happy.  It means that Canon will have to respond (albeit not as instantaneously as you might wish) by lowering prices or improving cameras or both. 

Without Nikon around, Canon would not be as good as it is now, and vice-versa.  I also hope Sony cameras continue to improve and threaten/challenge Canon.  Also Panasonic and all the other "also-rans".  Competition gives better products at lower prices.  The worst thing in the world, frankly, would be to see Nikon or Sony crater and bow out of the DSLR market.  A monopoly Canon would be a very bad thing for quality and value and inovation.

385
Marketshare would tend to disagree with your idea of 4/3 killing Canon and Nikon any time soon.  Plus, I love all the lens reviews that harsh on a FF lens (Canon or 3p) for "vignetting" only to say that "of course, this is no corncern when mounted on a crop body".




386
Canon General / Canon stock (CAJ) repeatedly hitting 52-week lows
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:10:49 AM »
I was going to buy a few thousand bucks worth of Canon stock in my retirement portfolio, just to make it interesting to follow Canon's status.  Maybe "let them buy me a new Canon" or whatever.  Unfortunately, Canon stock (CAJ) is continually triggering news alerts in my browser for having hit a "new 52-week low".  I know that cameras are only a part of their business, but they seem to be in a bit of trouble.  Plus, their PE ratio is still high compared to others in their industry, even after the recent drops.
 
Anyone have insight as to how much of this losing is due to the camera end of Canon vs. copiers, printers, etc.?  I do know that Nikon has been losing money for years, and of course Sony has too, though they are so big that cameras are only a tiny part of Sony.

387
That is definitely a do-it-yourself opportunity.  The reflector just needs to be anything white with a semi-gloss finish.  For like $10.00 US you can get white pre-painted bead board or such at a Home Depot of Lowe's, or whatever home improvement store is near you.  And the sun shade/filter thing could easily be made out of any gauze-like translucent white fabric.  Rigging the stand is a little more tricky, but surely you can manage the whole thing for a LOT less than $1,000.00.  They sell portable sun shades for picnics and stuff for about $60.00.  Just swap out the cloth cover that comes with it for one you made out of cheap white fabric and you have it!

388
Lenses / Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:29:44 AM »
I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field...
If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did.  But I am an idiot.  I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.

389
Animal Kingdom / Mr Cardinal feeds Mrs Cardinal in my yard
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:16:07 AM »
Comments and suggestions welcome; love photography and trying to always improve.

FINALLY got Mr and Mrs Cardinal together.  Learned to use MANUAL focus, which was good because it was early morning low light...Had to use fast shutter because they fidget a lot, and that plus shade and morning light required a f/2.8 aperature. 

Any and all critiques welcome!  I was just so excited to catch the two together after a MONTH of trying!

390
And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature?

This has been beaten to death. It's because removing those features doesn't present any marginal savings to them, and the camera is already priced optimally from their perspective, so no reason to lower the price.

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

I would guess the price issue is a complicated balance between cost, price and volume. If Canon sell twice as many bodies then there is a good chance they will sell twice as much of the other things such as lens. So in Walmart terms they might be better to sell bodies at near cost price in order to capture the market and sell the other bits and pieces

Looking at the pricing of bodies in isolation is perhaps not the right view to take?

Kind of funny, but kind of true too.  Look at printers.  Most printer makers (presumably Canon too) sell printers cheap, at little or no profit.  They make their money on the ink cartridges over time.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35