July 31, 2014, 01:40:41 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
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

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 60D v. Nikon D7000
« on: September 16, 2010, 07:19:54 AM »
As a long time Canon user, at least, on paper, the D7000 is very impressive.

However, both D60 and D7000 are paper cameras right now, once they are tested and the operational quirks come out, we'll see.

Canon is obviously intending to beat the D7000 on price.  Most cameras are sold thru big box stores, Best Buy, walmart, Ritz, etc.  Price is the deciding factor to those who buy, so Canon may be successful.  Chances are, the articulating LCD will appeal to many newbie users while the finer points will go unnoticed.

The 50d was between the D90 and the D300 and did not get much traction even though it was a excellent camera.

I'm not sure the 50D "did not get much traction" in reality; from the number of people I know that own 50Ds, it seems to have penetrated the market just fine.  I don't know that you can judge the overall market reaction from the comments you see on CR or dpreview, which are usually more rabid than the general populace

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EVIL (EIS)
« on: September 15, 2010, 01:17:32 PM »
it seems silly for canon to suddenly go to a fourth sensor size when a couple of things have been demonstrated already:

1. Leica showed you can cram a FF sensor into a mirror-less body without getting crazy vignetting
2. Sony showed you can cram an APS-C sensor into a mirror-less body and actually get something smaller than a 4/3s system

why would Canon go out of their way to make their R+D process more difficult by stooping to a 4/3 sensor, when they have a great APS-C sensor to stick in the thing?  if they did go with 4/3s, they would have little competitive advantage over the 4/3 manufacturers, and would be behind the curve when it comes to competing with Sony.  Canon's made clear a few times that they regard Sony as a serious threat and are as interested in matching up well against Sony as they are interested in matching up against Nikon, maybe even more so.

I don't doubt Canon is pursuing an EVIL-cam and I'm stoked for something I can use as a back-up body, but I call major BS on this spec list.

in terms of what I'd like to see?

15-18 MP APS-C sensor
slightly larger and more robust form factor than Sony NEX series
adapters that allow AF with EF and EF-S glass (at the minimum with EF-S glass)
the sweet new screen from the t2i (which is mind-blowing, I thought my screen on the 5D2 looked good but it looks crude and smeared compared to the t2i's)
anywhere from 3-6 fps
pop-up flash, and hotshoe mount as well

would this thing have to be phase-detect or can we still shove a traditional AF system into it?  9 cross points would be sweet

Lenses / Re: To buy or not to buy?
« on: September 15, 2010, 01:05:06 PM »
haven't shot with the 50 f/1.2 but I've had the 50 f/1.4 for a while now and shot plenty with it ... there may be some difference between it and the L version but personally the big question to me is, is there $1500 worth of difference between then?  and to me that's a big no.  the 50 f/1.2 only marginally lets in more light, is way heavier, doesn't focus closer, doesn't focus faster ... just to get slightly sweeter bokeh and a tiny bump in sharpness below f/2.8.

I also find that shooting at f/1.4 is mildly lurid anyway and usually end up shooting low-light portraits at f/2, otherwise you end up with so little of a face in focus that it actually looks kind of weird

Lenses / Re: Is the EF-S 35mm f/1.8 coming?
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:59:15 PM »
if canon drops a budget 35mm prime ... it better be EF and not EF-S.  it seems silly to deny full-framers some cheap primes, no?  they would certainly sell lots of them

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:58:11 PM »
neuro, thanks for the link -- I'm surprised the difference is that huge.  another alternative I'd like to highlight is sigma's 100-300mm f/4. 

it doesn't have IS, and it has probably the worst lens hood I've ever worked with, but other than those two issues, it's a great lens (even disregarding the sweet price) for anyone interested in shooting in the 300mm range

Lenses / Re: 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:52:53 PM »
While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.

Unfortunately, I agree. A new 100-400 zoom, even if it is $500 more than  the current model would probably undercut sales of the 70-300mm and unless a third party produces a quality competitor (are you listening Tokina!) Canon is under no pressure to upgrade the lens.  The reviews I've read of the Sigma 400mm zoom are not too promising and the "Bigma" apparently has some serious autofocus issues.

I'm not sold on the idea that a 70-300 is anything at all like a 100-400... they're about as similar as the 70-300 is with canon's 70-200 lineup, maybe less so.  70-300 is a generalist telephoto range, 100-400 really screams dedicated sports/wildlife lens; the 100mm makes a huge difference.

canon could also choose not to directly update their 100-400 and go with a variation:
200-400mm fixed or variable aperture lens (I would love that)
100-400mm fixed aperture lens (I'd swing for that one as well)

all of these would have some value-add which would further help canon justify increasing the price tag on the lens

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