March 05, 2015, 07:00:58 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 - kubelik

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 54
EOS Bodies / Re: Photokina 2010 Report
« on: September 21, 2010, 03:22:17 PM »
Man, that new 400/2.8L USM Mark II is awesome. Just saw the pic on DPR, the guy was holding it in one hand and it looked so small, like it was an f/4 prime! Hats off to Canon for the 25% reduction in weight.  8)

noticed that too ... that's awesome.  it's going to be a wallet-buster, and unfortunately it will probably be worth the price (which makes it even harder to say no to)

Lenses / Re: 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS
« on: September 21, 2010, 07:27:17 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that the autofocus works up to f/8 for their 1D bodies.

you're right.

EOS Bodies / Re: Photokina 2010 Report
« on: September 21, 2010, 07:25:53 AM »
the fact that the X100 is going to be priced closer to $1K makes a lot more sense ... which is promising, because then Fuji will sells lots of these, and canon will have further impetus to get in on the action in this market segment.

I'm rather impressed by the amount of glass on the SX30 IS ... but a little disappointed that it's using a 1/2.3" rather than 1/1.6" sensor.  I know thats how it gets the zoom range, but still ...

EOS Bodies / Re: Fujifilm FinePix X100
« on: September 20, 2010, 11:30:29 AM »
this looked really exciting ... until I saw "fixed lens".  not interchangable, not even variable length.  absolute deal-breaker

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 60D v. Nikon D7000
« on: September 20, 2010, 09:28:13 AM »
I'm actually going to take a different tack than others commonly do and suggest that, when you're just starting off, buy cheap lenses as well as a cheap camera body.

if you shell out for expensive Canon lenses, you'll probably end up with 2 lenses in your pocket by the time you're done purchasing.  you may well find out very quickly that these 2 lenses don't cover the range you would actually enjoy shooting at.

if you shell out for third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina), you can get probably 3 or 4 lenses in your arsenal, through which you can explore lots of different types of photography and figure out where your real interest lies.

I'm not saying the traditional "lens-first" approach doesn't make sense, I'm just saying theres other ways of approaching gear acquisition.  if you plan on staying APS-C forever, buying nice EF-S glass makes sense, but who knows?  if you go full frame, you'll wish you'd just shelled out for a sigma 10-20 over the canon 10-22 since you'll be replacing it with a 16-35 or 17-40 anyway.

Canon General / Re: News & Notes
« on: September 19, 2010, 05:31:05 PM »
the G12 looks a lot more attractive in reality than it does from the product photos.  totally irrelevant but it was a pleasant surprise to me

Lenses / Re: To buy or not to buy?
« on: September 17, 2010, 10:43:30 PM »
neuro, I'm not going to disagree on that point; certainly every individual's disposable income is variable.  ultimately, you can't go wrong with either lens.

I'm just trying to answer manx's original question of, would he notice the difference in IQ between the two lenses, and my point is basically, unless you are VERY demanding (which plenty of amateurs and hobbyists are), there's insufficient different.

as with all gear-centric "should I buy" questions, it always helps to have more background.  is he a shooter with a full lens complement who's simply deciding which 50 it would be fun to own?  is he just starting and looking for his first walkaround prime and hoping to acquire more lenses?  all these would be a significant factor.

and I'm also saying that as a note for anyone else who posts in the future with gear questions -- everyone loves gear questions and will certainly help out, but the quality of the community's help greatly improves with more information on who you are and what you are looking for in your potential gear

Lenses / Re: To buy or not to buy?
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:31:25 PM »
from what I've seen, there's not enough of a difference in the color, contrast, or bokeh for someone who doesn't earn hard money at 50mm to buy the f/1.2 L version

Lenses / Re: EF 28-135 f/4L IS? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:29:41 PM »
I can't help but wonder if the engineering behind this is more of a result of comparing the 24-105 to Nikon's 24-120 than an analysis of what people want. The kind of thing that someone would make up...

I think we're all thinking that it's made up.  beyond that, even if I were to make up a fantasy lens, it wouldn't be this one.

Lenses / Re: EF 28-135 f/4L IS? [CR1]
« on: September 17, 2010, 04:50:27 PM »
I declare shenanigans.   ::)

but we love shenanigans!  don't we?  no, maybe not. 

I'm also going to go with a no on this one.  too close to being an ugly sister to the 24-105 f/4 L IS ... those extra 4 mm on the wide end matter a heck of a lot more than the 30 mm on the long end, whether its for walkaround photography or nature photography (which to my knowledge are the primary purpose of this type of lens).

Lenses / Re: 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS
« on: September 17, 2010, 01:41:43 PM »
I don't see myself paying 4000 euros or more for a 300/2.8 or other super-zoom unless I win the lottery but I would be prepared to pay well into the 2000's (Euro) for a new 100-400 4.5-5.6, with twist zoom, updated coatings and IS...Come on Canon, my money is waiting for you!


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 60D v. Nikon D7000
« on: September 17, 2010, 11:29:58 AM »
I'm with Jan, I think Nikon's smaller bodies are actually pretty well proportioned and fairly attractive.  the larger bodies look pretty ugly, however, in comparison with Canon's smoother design vocabulary.  sony's bodies are ugly as anything but their lenses are cool in a modernist sort of fashion

in the end, the aesthetics are really irrelevant in terms of what the camera can do. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV Saga
« on: September 16, 2010, 08:04:15 PM »
I'd like to see something priced above $3K ... and worth the price.

I think most people would pay for a FF that came in at that price and earned its sticker with beefy AF, high IQ, and great build.  definitely do-able for Canon, question is simply, are they going to?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces EOS 60D
« on: September 16, 2010, 11:57:00 AM »
I came across this thread and it was too amusing not to read...

I don't know why anything needs to be assumed; canon gives you the pixel counts for the screens:

1040K is 720x480
920K is 640x480

you do some math and Rocky's first-time-around numbers are correct,

1040K is 4.15 square inches,
920K is 4.32 square inches

the T2i's overall screen area size may be smaller but it's a more efficient use of space, since you're not wasting area when viewing a 3:2 image on a 4:3 screen

and trust me, the t2i's screen is VASTLY improved over the older 920K screen.  I shoot with a 5D Mark II and my wife shoots with a t2i ... she can be shooting with her Sigma 18-200 kit lens and the image will look better on her screen than my image shot with a 24-70 L.  up until we get home and put it on the same monitor, that is.  then the 5D2 and L glass difference becomes apparent.  I want to know what kind of magic sauce is in that 1040K screen besides just pixel count.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV Saga
« on: September 16, 2010, 11:36:07 AM »
everyone's going to have a different take on it.

stone, I can see where you're coming from and I agree that there's no reason not to look at the Nikon system once you upgrade to FF.

it isn't reasonable to assume everyone will make that decision, as different people have different priorities.  for someone shooting architecture and landscapes, Nikon's AF system means little to me as I only actually ever use the one center AF point.  the FPS also doesn't matter, since I've long outgrown trying to shoot HDR brackets handheld (and for that matter, autobracketing isn't important either).  however, the 140g difference in weight and 9 MP difference in image size do matter to me.

I'm not sure where the $4000 price tag came from; you can wildly speculate about price all you want but until it comes from Canon it's quite meaningless.  I can't imagine a 5D Mark III would suddenly veer upwards with a 30% or 50% increase in MSRP over the 5D Mark II.  it could certainly be in the $3000-3500 range, which I think would be acceptable if they shoved the 7D's AF system into it and made some other updates

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 54